Power plant and transmission line siting in Florida a planner's handbook

[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]

POWER PLANT AND TRANSMISSION LINE SITING IN FLORIDA:

A PLANNER'S HANDBOOK

Prepared by

The Florida Department of Community Affairs

Division of Local Resource Management

Bureau of Land and Water Management

2751 Executive Center Cir E.
Tallahassee, FL 32301

tel. 904/488-9210

COASTAL ZONE
D R A F T 2A
INFORMATION CENTER

June 5, 1984

Funded by Grant 82-CE-CW-13-00-15-003
Office of Coastal Zone Management

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
U. S. Dept. of Commerce

A Project Funded By The Coastal Energy Impact Program:

United States Depart of Commerce
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Office of Coastal Zone Management
Through the
Florida Department of Community Affairs
Division of Local Resource Management
Office of Federal Coastal Programs

Florida Department of Community Affairs
TJ164 P69 1984
t5
164
P69
1984

POWER PLANT AND TRANSMISSION LINE SITING IN FLORIDA:

A PLANNER'S HANDBOOK

Prepared by

The Florida Department of Community Affairs

Division of Local Resource Management

Bureau of Land and Water Management

2751 Executive Center Cir E.
Tallahassee, FL 32301

tel. 904/488-9210

D R A F T 2A

June 5, 1984

Funded by Grant 82-CE-CW-13-00-15-003
Office of Coastal Zone Management
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
U. S. Dept. of Commerce

A Project Funded By The Coastal Energy Impact Program:

United States Department of Commerce
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Office of Coastal Zone Management
through the

Forida Department of 'Community Affairs
Division of Local Resource management
Office of Federal Coastal Programs

US Department of Commerce
NOAA Coastal Services Center Library
2234 South Hobson Avenue
Charleston, SC 29405-2413

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page

PART I
INTRODUCTION

CHAPTER 1: SYSTEMS PLANNING

A. Coal in Florida's Future
1. Coal Use Projections ........................... I-1
2. The Location of Coal-Fired Power Plants ....... . 1-6
3. Annotated Bibliography ........................ :1-19

B. Coal-Fired Power Plants:
Size, Type, Cost and Fuel Supply
1. Sizes of Units ................................. 1-21
2. Types of Units ................................. 1-22
3. The Cost of New Coal-Fired Power Plants ........ 1-27
4. Fuel Supply .................................... 1-30
5. Annotated Bibliography ......................... 1-34

C. Impacts of Increased Coal Use in Florida
1. Economic Impact ............................... 1-36
2. Impact on Reliability ......................... 1-43
3. Annotated Bibliography ........................ 1-47

C-1

Siting Handbook Table of Contents Draft 2

PART II
POWER PLANT SITING

CHAPTER 2: POWER PLANT SITING IN FLORIDA

A. Florida Power Plant Siting
1. The Power Plant Siting Act ..................... 11 -1
2. Amendments to the PPSA ......................... 11 -2
3. Provisions of the PPSA ......................... 11 -3
Bibliography ..................................... 11 -7

B. The Power Plant Siting Process
1. Preapplication Discussions ..................... 11-14
2. PSC Determination of Need Proce.edings .......... 11-14
3. DER Review for Sufficiency and Completeness .... 11-15
4. Certification Review and Studies ............... 11-16
5. The Land Use Hearing ........................... 11-17
6. The Certification Hearing ......4 ................ 11-18
7. Recommended Order of DOAH ...................... 11-19
8. The Order of the Governor and Cabinet .......... 11-19
9. Post-Certification Review ........ * ............. 11-20

C. Agency Responsibilities
1. The Dept. of Environmental Regulation .......... 11-21
2. The Department of Community Affairs ............ 11-22
3. Department of Natural Resources ............... *11-22
4. Water Management Districts ...................... 11-23
5. Game and Freshwater Fish Commission ............ 11-23
6. Other State Agencies ........................... 11-24
7. Local Governments ................. * ............ 11-25
8. Regional Planning Councils ..................... 11-25
9. Federal Agencies ............................... 11-25

D. Other Siting Legislation
1. The Ten-Year Site Plan Act ..................... 11-28
2. Other Applicable State Legislation ............. 11-30
3. Siting Procedures in Other States .............. 11-32

C-2

Siting Handbook Table of Contents Draft 2

CHAPTER 3

A. Power Plant Siting: Florida Case Studies
1. Power Plant Site Selection Studies ............ 111 -1
2. Power Plant Site Selection Criteria ........... 111 -8
3. Power Plant Siting Methodologies .............. 111-16
4. Comments on Siting Methodology in Florida ..... 111-25
5. Annotated Bibliography ........................ 111-26

CHAPTER 4: POWER PLANT COOLING

A. Power Plant Cooling In Florida
1. Introduction .................................. IV- 1
2. Power Plant Cooling in Florida ................ IV- 4
3. Bibliography ... * ... ................... IV- 8

B. Types of Cooling Systems
l.' Once-Through Cooling .......................... IV- 9
2. Cooling Ponds ................................. IV-11
3. Natural Draft Cooling Towers ............... o..IV-13
4. Mechanical Draft Towers .................... o..IV-13
5. Dry Cooling ................................. oIV-14
6. Comparison of Cooling Systems, ........... o.... IV-14
7. Bibliography ................. o ........... o.... IV-16

C. Environmental Impacts of Cooling Systems
1. Impact of Thermal Discharges .......... o_ .... IV-20
2. Cooling Tower Blowdown ............. o ...o ..... oIV-26
3. Impingement and Entrainment... ........... o.... IV-28
4. Additives: Chlorine and Anti-Corrosives... .... IV-30
5. Salt Drift .................................... IV-32
6. Bibliography ......... o ......................... IV-33

C-3

Siting Handbook Table of Contents Draft 2

CHAPTER 5: AIR POLLUTION

A. Air Pollution from Powe r Plants
1. Air Pollutants from Coal Combustion ............ V- 2
2. Florida Air Quality Regulation ................. V- 4
3. New Source Performance Standards ................. V- 5
4. Air Quality Modeling ............................ V-11
5. Bibliography .................. ................... V-14

B. Sulfur Dioxide
1. Sources and Amounts of S02 in Florida .......... V-16
2. Health Effects of SO:j .......................... V-20
3. Sulfur Oxides Control Technologies ............. V-22
4. Acid Precipitation ................... .......... V-28
5. Bibliography .................................... V-34

C. Nitrogen-Oxides
1. Nitrogen Oxide Production in Florida ........... V-37
2. Health Effects of NOx ........................... V-39
3. Control of Nitrogen Oxides .................. * ..V-40
4. Bibliography ................................... V-42

D. Particulates
1. Sources and Amounts of Particulates ............ V-43
2. Health Effects of Particulates .................. V-44
3. Particulate Control Technology .................. V-47
4. Bibliography ....................... ............. V-52

E. Other Emissions
1. Mercury Gas .................................... V-53
2. Carbon Dioxide and the "Greenhouse Effect".....V-53
3. Bibliography ........................ * .......... V-56

C-4

Siting Handbook Table of Contents Draft 2

CHAPTER 6: SOLID WASTES AND COAL STORAGE

A. Production,and Storage of Solid Wastes
1. High Volume Wastes at Coal-Fired Power Plants ... VI- 2
2. Amounts of Solid Wastes ...................... *..VI- 3
3. Storage of Solid Wastes .......................... VI- 5
4. Florida Water Quality Standards ................. VI- 9
5. Bibliography .................................... VI-13

B. Water Pollution from Stored Solids
1. Water Pollution from Stored Wastes .............. VI-14
2. Water Pollution from Coal Storage ............... VI-19
3. The Chemistry of Leachate Contamination ......... VI-21
4. Impacts on Plant and Animal Life ................ VI-23
5. Techniques to Reduce Water Pollution... .......... VI-26
6. Bibliography .......... %................. ........ VI-29

CHAPTER 7: OTHER IMPACTS OF POWER PLANTS

A. Socio-Economic Impacts
1. Projected Socio-Economic Impact .............. VII- 2
2. Analysis of Socio-economic Impacts ............ VII- 8
3. Annotated Bibliography ........................ VII-16

B. Noise Impacts
1. Noise Measurement and Regulations ............. VII-19
2. Power Plant Noise Levels ...................... VII-21

C. Transportation.Impacts
1. Future Levels of Coal Deliveries ............. VII-28
2. Impacts from Coal Transportation by Rail ..... VII-33
3. Impacts of a Coal Slurry Pipeline ............ VII-36
4. Impacts of Coal Delivery by Barge ............ VII-39
5. Traffic Impact of Power Plants. .............. VII-41
6. Bibliography ...... ........................... VII-44

C-5

Siting Handbook Table of Contents Draft 2

CHAPTER 8: ALTERNATIVES TO NEW COAL-FIRED POWER PLANTS

A. Conservation and Renewable Energy Resources
I.The Florida Energy Efficiency and
Conservation Act ........................... VIII -2
2. Opportunities for Intensified Conservat.ion...VIII -7
3. Utility Position ............................. VIII-14
4. Annotated Bibliogra.phy ....................... VIII-16

B. Generating Alternatives
1. Alternatives in Recent PPSAs ................. VIII-19
2. Comparison of Generating Alternatives ......... VIII-22
3. Bibliography ................................. VIII-27

PART III

TRANSMISSION LINE-SITING IN FLORIDA

CHAPTER 9: TRANSMISSION LINE SITING IN FLORIDA

A. The Transmission Line Siting Act
1. Legislative History .......................... IX- I
2. Provisions of the TLSA ........................ IX- 3
3. Other Applicable Acts ......................... IX- 7
4. Annotated Bibliography ....................... IX- 9

B. The Transmission Line Siting Procedure
1. Pre-Application Discussions ................... IX-14
2. PSC Determination of Need Proceedings ......... IX-14
3. Initial DER Review ............................. IX-15
4. Certification Studies ......................... IX-17
5. The Certification Hearing ..................... IX-19
6. The Recommended Order ......................... IX-20
7. Order of the Governor and Cabinet .............. IX-21
8. Post-Certification Review ..................... IX-21

C-6

Siting Handbook Table of Contents Draft 2

C. Agency Responsibilities
1. The Dept. of Environmental Regulation ......... IX-22
2. The Dept. of Community Affairs ................ IX-23
3. The Dept.-of Natural Resources ................ IX-23
4. Water Management Districts .................. *.IX-24
5. The Game and Fish Commission .................. IX-24
6. Other.State Agencies .......................... IX-26
7. Local Governments ............................. IX-27
8. Regional Planning Councils .................... IX-28
9. Federal Agencies .............................. IX-28

CHAPTER 10: IMPACTS OF TRANSMISSION LINES

A. Transmission Lines in Florida
1. Description and Engineering Characteristics .... X- 1
2. High-Voltage Transmission Lines in Florida ..... X- 5

B. Operational Impacts
1. Electric Transmission Line Fields ............. X- 9
2. Biological Effects ............................. X-13
3. Other Effects of Transmission Line ............. X-18
4. Bibliography .................................... X-20

C. Construction and Land Use Impacts
1. Construction Impacts ........................... X-22
2. Impacts From Increased Access .................. X-24
3. Impacts on Land Use and Vegetation ............. X-24
4. Impact on Land Values .......................... X-25
5. Bibliography ................................... X-27

C-7

siting Handbook Table of Contents Draft 2

ATTACHMENTS

Att. I: The Power Plant Siting Act ................. A- 1

Att. II: The Ten-Year Site Plan Act ................. A- 9

Att. III: The Transmission Line Siting Act ........... A-11

Att. IV: Ch. 17-17, Florida Administrative Code ..... A-21

Att. V: Public Service Commsn. Siting Regulations..A-37

Att. VI: Glossary ................................... A-39

Att. VII: Equivalencies and Conversions .............. A-49

Att. VIII: Acronyms and Abbreviations ................. A-51

Att. IX: Directory of Agencies ...................... A-55

Att.'X: Bibliography ................................. A-59

C-8

Siting Handbook Table of Contents Draft 2

LIST OF FIGURES

CHAPTER 1: SYSTEMS PLANNING

Fig. I-1: Coal'-Fired Electric Generation
Capacity in Florida, 1961-2001 ......................... 1-3

Fig. 1-2: Electric Power from Coal-Fired Power
Plants in Florida ....................................... 1-3

Fig. 1-3: Production of Electric Power by
Fuel in Florida ......................................... 1-5

Fig. 1-4: Projections of Electricity Consump-
tion in Florida Made in 1972, 1977 and 1982 by
the Florida Electric Coordinating Group ................. 1-5

Fig. 1-5: Service Districts of Florida Electric
Utilities ............................................... 1-8

Fig. 1-6: Location of Coal-Fired Power Plants
in Florida, 1983 With 1981 Coal Consumption and
Coal Supply Method ..................................... 1-12

Fig. 1-7: Coal-Fired Power Plants Coming On-
Line in Florida, 1984-1991 ............................. 1-13

Fig. 1-8: Potential Sites for Future Coal-Fired
Power Plants As Indicated in Utility Ten Year
Site Plans ............................................. 1-15

Fig. 1-9 Potential Sites for Conversion to
Coal in Florida ........................................ 1-18

Fig. I-10:@ Seminole Electric Cooperative's
Seminole 1 Coal-Fired Power Plant, Palatka,
Florida ................................................ 1-24

Fig. I-11: Monthly Peak Demand of Eleven
Representative Electric@Utilities in Florida ........... 1-26

C-9

Siting Handbook Table of Contents Draft 2

Fig. 1-12: Loading Order for Winter 1979-1980
FCG Power Demand ....................................... 1-26

Fig. 1-13: The Cost of Coal Burned by Electric
Power Plants in Florida, 1960-1996 ..................... 1-44

Fig. 1- 14: Optimum Reserve Margins for Four
Major Utilities ......................................... 1-44

CHAPTER 2: POWER PLANT SITING IN FLORIDA

Fig. II-1: The Power Plant Certification
Procedure in Florida .................................. 11-13

CHAPTER 3: POWER PLANT SITING METHODOLOGIES

Fig. III-1: Location of Preferred Sites for the
St. Johns River Power Park (1977) .................... 111- 3

Fig. 111-2: Five Potential Sites for OUC's
Stanton 1 Plant (1980) ............................... 111- 4

Fig. 111-3: Search Area of Locations of Eleven
Proposed Sites for a Coal-Fired Power Plant
for Seminole Electric Cooperative (1977) ............ 111- 5

Fig. 111-4: Locations of Eight Proposed Sites
for a Coal-Fired Power Plant for the Florida
Power Corp. (1978) ................................... 111- 6

Fig. 111-5: Eleven Alternative Sites for Power
Generating Units for the Florida Power Corp.
(1980) ............................................... 111- 7

C-10

Siting Handbook Table of Con-tents Draft 2

Fig. 111-6: Nineteen Potential Sites for.a Coal-
Fired Power Plant for Tampa Electric Co .............. 111 -9

Fig. 111-7: Sites Examined by Florida- Power and
Light for a Future Coal-Fired Power Plant ........ .... III-10

CHAPTER 4: POWER PLANT COOLING

Fig. IV-1: Power Plant Coolin.g Technology ............ IV-3

Fig. IV-2: Water Discharge Temperature.at the
Big Bend Power Plant, If All Four Units are at.
100 Percent Load With No Dilution ..................... IV-12

Fig. IV-3: Dry Cooling Technology ................... IV-15

Fig. IV-4: Estimates of Total Community Gross
Primary Production at the Discharge Bay
and Control Bay, Crystal Ri-ver Power Plant, 1972-
1974 .................................................. IV-23

Fig. IV-5: Northern and Southern Discharge
Temperature Temperature Regions in Florida ............ IV-25

Fig. IV-6: Methods to Minimize Entrainment and
Entrapment of Aquatic Species ......................... IV-31

CHAPTER 5: AIR POLLUTION

Fig. V-1: Class I Air Quality Areas in Florida .......... V-7

Fig. V-2: SO12 Emission Rates for New and Exist-
ing Coal-Fired Power Plants in Florida .................. V-9

C-11

Siting Handbook Table of Contents Draft 2

Fig. V-3: Average Annual Concentration of
Total Suspended Particulates in Micrograms per
Cubic Meter, TECO's Big Bend 4-Plan,t ...... ......... o.V-12

Fig. V-4: Plume Behavior During. Constan-tly
Varying Temperature Differentials ........ o .............. V-13

Fig. V-5: Relative Concentration of Tracers
Emitted from a Power Plant Stack.......... ....... o ...... V-13

Fig. V-5A: SOI Emissions from Coal-Fired Power
Plants in Florida, 1976-20000 ... __._ ....... ___V-21

Fig. V-6: Flue Gas.Cleaning Flow Diagram ............ oV-23

Fig. V-7: A Typical Wet Scrubber ..... o........ o..oo..V-25

Fig. V-8: Atmospheric Acidity Levels Found.in
Florida by Two Studies: Brezonik.and ESE .......... o.... V-29

Fig. V-9: Visual Impact of.Tall Stacks in
Florida of a Coal-Fire Power Plant at a. Dis-
tance of One Mile, Two Miles and Three Miles ...... o.... V-51

Figo V-10: Projected Worldwide Production of
Carbon Dioxide With and Without a Ban on Coal
Combustion .... __o ... oo ....... o....... __.ooo ...... V-55

CHAPTER 6: WATER POLLUTION

Fig. VI-1: Layout of Major Station Facilities,
Including Landfill and,Ash Ponds, SECI's Semi-
nolle Units 1 and 2 ........ o....... o .......... o ........ VI-6

Fig. VI-2: Diagram of a Typical Landfill Cel.1
Showing Berms and Drainage Trenches... ...... ___ .... VI-8

Fig. VI-3: Concentration of Chemical Pollu-
tants Released by Units I and 2 into the St.
Johns River ....... o..... oo...oo ................ oo_ ... VI-17

Fig. VI-4: Storm Drainage System at the Coal
Storage Pile , OUC Stanton I., ...... oes-voo-o-o-VI-28

C-12

Siting Handbook Table of Contents Draft 2

CHAPTER 7: OTHER IMPACTS OF POWER PLANTS

Fig. VII-1: Peak Population Influx Pro.jected
for JEA/FPL St. Johns River Power Park ................ VII-5

Fig. VII-2: Actual vs. Projected..Construction
Workforce, Three Power Plant Constructi.on
Projects ............................................. VII-13

Fig. VII-3: Projected vs. Actual Workforce,
SECI's Seminole@Units 1 and 2 ........................ VII-15

Fig. VII-4: Projected Construction,. Noise
Levels by Construction Period at a Dis.tance of
One Mile from the JEA/FPL St. Johns River Power
Park ................................................. VII-23

Fig. VII-5: Coal Consumption by Electric
Power Plants in Florida, 1960-.2001 ..................... VII-30

Fig.. VII-6: The. Flori.da Rail Network.-..@ .............. VII-34

Fig. VII-7: Ports and Waterways of Florida .......... VII-40

CHAPTER 8: ALTERNATIVES TO NEW COAL-FIRED POWER PLANTS

Fig. VIII-1: Projected Savings of FEECA on
Generating Capacity, 1979-1989 ....................... VIII-5

Fig. VIII-2: Projected GWH Savings From Three
Intensified Energy Conservation Programs;
SAI/DOE Program, FCF Program and FCG.Program ........ VIII-15

Fig. VIII-3: Nuclear Power Plants in Florida ........ VIII-23

Fig. VIII-4: Peat Deposits in Florida ............... VIII-24

Fig. VIII-5: The Location of Resource Recovery
Facilities Producing Electric Power in Florida ...... VIII-26

C-13

Siting Handbook Table of Contents Draft 2

CHAPTER 9: TRANSMISSION LINE SITING I'N FLORIDA

Fig. IX-1: Preferred Transmi-ssion Corridor of the
Duval-to-Poinsett Twin 500-kV Transmission Lines
Proposed by Florida.Power.and Light Due South of
Palatka ........ o... o......... ..... IX- 5

Fig. IX-2: Alternative.Transmission Line Corri-
dors Proposed by Volusia County in the Duval-
to-Poinsett Twin 500-kV Transmission Line
Certification Hearings.... ............. o ............. oIX- 6

Fig. IX-3: The Transmission Line Siting.Process
in Florida ...... oo ....... o.............. ... IX-13

Fig. IX-4: Sample Form Requesting the Legal
Status. of a "Party" to a Siting

Fig. IX-5: Water Management Districts. of
Florida....... ... oo- ................................. IX-25

Fig. IX-6: Regional Planning Council Districts
of Florida ......................................... I ..... IX-29

Chapter 10: IMPACTS OF TRANSMISSION LINES

Fig. X-1: High Voltage Transmission Line Towers ....... X- 3

Fig. X-2: 500 kV Power Lines in Florida ................ X- 7

Fig. X-3: Electric Field Profile for 500 kV
Horizontal Configuration with Three Sub-Conduc-
tors .................................................... X-10

Fig. X-4: Observed Current Under an EHV Power
Line and Thresholds of Perceptions ...................... X-11

Fig. X-5: Reactions of. People in Different
Income Neighborhoods to Environmental Noise ............ X-19

C-14

Siting Handbook Table of Contents Draft 2

TABLES

CHAPTER 1: SYSTEMS PLANNING
PAGE
Table I-1: Total Consumption, .1982,for the
Nine-Largest Utilities in Florida ....................... 1-7

Table 1-2: Additions to Florida's Coal-Fired
.Electric Generating Capacity ... o ...... o ................ I-10

Table 1-3: Composite Ranking of 14 Oil-Fired
Power Plants In Florida for Possible Conversion
to Coal...... ............................ o............. 1-17

Table 1-4: Acreage of Major Coal-Fired Power
Plants Certified in Florida 1970-1980 ............... .. 1-23

Table 1-5: Capacity Factors of. Coal-Fired
Power Plants in Florida, 1980 .......................... 1-28

Table 1-6: Projected 1990 Coal-Demands for All
Potential Coal-Fired Power Plants and Capacity
Factors, Assuming No Additional Conversion of
Oil Units .......... o......... .......... ..... 1-29

Table 1-7: The Cost of New Coal-Fired Power
Plants Coming On-Line in Florida 1982-
1987 ...................... o ................... o.....-I-31

CHAPTER 2: POWER PLANT SITING IN FLORIDA

Table II-1: Power Plant.Siting Applications
Received by the Florida Dept. of Environmental
Regulation Under the Power Plant Siting Act,
1973-1983 ............................................. oII-5

Table 11-2.: Statutory Authority of Florida's
Coastal Management Program ................ o........... 11-31

C-15

Siting Handbook Table of Contents Draft 2

CHAPTER 3: POWER PLANT AND TRANSMISSION LINE SITING

Table III-1: Environmental Evaluation Criteria
Used by Orlando Utilities Commission in Rating
Candidate Sites for a Coal-Fired Power Plant ......... 111-12

Table 111-2: Weighting Scale Used by OUC to
Evaluate Five Potential Sites for the Stanton I
Plant Showing Sensitivity Analysis...... .............. 111-13

Table 111-3: Power Plant Siting Criteria Used
by Florida Power and Light ..........I ................. 111-14

Table 111-4: Evaluation Criteria Used by
Seminole Electric Cooperative in the- Si-te
Selection Process for Seminole-Units 1 and 2 .......... 111-15

Table 111-5: Site Selection Criteria Used in
the Siting of the JEA/FPL St. Johns River Power
Park .................................................... 111-17

Table 111-6: Checklist for Planners Reviewing
Power Plant Siting Methodologies ...................... 111-20

Table 111-7: Factors -and Weights Used in
Rating Power Plant Siting Criteria by.the Oak
Ridge National Laboratory ............................ 111-23

Table 111-8: Regional Siting Criteria Scale
Used by the Oak Ridge National Laboratory ............ 111-24

C-16

Siting Handbook Table of Contents Draft 2

CHAPTER 4: POWER PLANT SYSTEMS

Table IV-1: Water U-se by Coal-Fired Power
Plants in Florida, 1980 ................................ IV-5

Table IV-2: Water Use by Coal-Fired Power
Plants in Florida Coming On-Line After 1980 ............ IV-7

Table IV-3: Comparison of Cooling Technologies
for the for the St. Johns River Power Park Units
1 and 2............................. .................. IV-17

Table . IV-4: Maximum Heated Water Discharge
Temperature Wastewater Streams and Recommended
Concentration Limits .................................. IV-25

Table IV-5: Maximum Chemical Concentrations
of Cooling Tower Blowdown and Recommended
Concentration Limits, Seminole Electric Coopera-
tive, Seminole 1 Power Plant at Point of Dis-
charg.e ................................................. IV-27

Table IV-6: Water Quality Variances Granted to
TECO for the Big Bend 4 Plant ......................... IV-28

Table IV-7: Mean 24-Hour Impingement Rates,
Crystal River Units 1, 2 and 3, 1977-78 ............... IV-29

CHAPTER 5: AIR POLLUTION

Table V-1: Federal and Florida Ambient Air
Quality Standards in Effect as of January 1,
1984 ..................................................... V-5

Table V-2: Maximum Allowable Concentrations of
SO-2- Particulate Matter in State of Florida
Prevention of Significant Deterioration Class I
and Class II Areas ....................................... V-7

C-17

Siting Handbook Table of Contents Draft 2

Table V-3: Air Pollution Emission Rates and
Control Devices for Recently Certified Coal-
Fired Power Plants in Florida ............................ V-10

Table V-4: Estimated Emissions of. SO" in
Florida, 1980 .............................. ............. V-17

Table V-5: Ten Highest SO.2@ Emis.sions from
Utility Sources in Florida, 1980 ........................ V-17

Table V-6: Sulfur Dioxide Emissions from Coal-
Fired Power Plants in Florida, 1980 .................... V-19

Table V-7: Coal Consumption and Average.Sulfur
Content, Florida Electric Utilities, 1980 .............. V-19

Table V-8: Comparison of Sulfur Dioxid:e Control
Alternatives for the St. Johns Riv:er Power Park ........ V-26
(7 1 LA-
Table V-9: Costs of 16A Gas DesulfurIzation
Technologies ................. .......................... V-27

Table V-10: Costs of Sulfur. Oxide Emission
Reduction Options to Florida .............................. V-32

Table V-11: Estimated Emissions of NOx in
Florida, 1980 ......................................... V-38

Table V-12: Ten Highest Utility Sources of
NOx in Florida, 1980... .................................... V-38

Table V-13: Methods to Reduce the Production
of NOx in FPC's Crystal River Units 4 and 5 .......... o.V-41

Table V-14: Annual Radiation Dosages from
Radioactive Particulate Emissions from a Model
Coal-Fired Power Plant, ................................. V-46

Table V-15: Comparison of Particulate Control
Alternatives for the St. Johns River Power Park ........ V-50

C-18

Siting Handbook Table of Contents Draft 2

CHAPTER-6: SOLID WASTES

Table VI-1: Projected -Quantities of Solid
Wastes from Three Typical Coal-Fired Power Plants
in Florida .............................................. VI-4

Table VI-2: Size of Landfill Needed at Four
Major Coal-Fired Power Plants in Florida ............... VI-5

Table VI-3: Concentrations of Chemical Consti-
tuents in Flue Gas Desulfurization Sludge of
SECI's Seminole Units I and 2 at the Point of
Discharge (POD) ..................................... o.VI-16

Table,VI-4: Concentrations of Organic Chemicals
in Surface Runoff Water from a Holding Pond at a
Typical 1000 MW Coal-Fired Power Plant, ... o.....VI-18

Table VI-5: Hazardous and Runoff Concentration
Levels for Inorganic Pollutants From Coal Storage
.Areas ..............o............. ........o......... o-VI-20

Table VI-6: Potential for Adverse Effects to
Groundwater and the Terrestrial Food Chain from
Seepage from Unlined Ash and Sludge Waste-
Disposal Sites ......................................... VI-22

Table VI-7: General Manifestations of Trace
Elements in Animals ................................... VI-24

Table VI-8: Concentrations of Trace Elements in
Abiotic and Biotic Compounds of an Ash Basin
Receiving Stream ...................................... VI-25

C-19

Siting Handbook Table of Contents Draft 2

CHAPTER 7: OTHER IMPACTS FROM POWER PLANTS

Table VII-1: Socio-Economic Impacts-Projected
in Three Representative Power Plant Si-te
Certification Applications in Florida ................ VII-3

Table VII-2: Estimated Payroll Income for Con-
struction and Operation fo the St. Johns River
Power Park ................................ ............ VII-6

Table VII-3: Aggregate Projected Population
Change due to Seminole Project, Putnam County,
Florida .............................. e...... ....... VII-9

Table VII-4: Projected Putnam County Property
Taxes, Seminole Units I & 2 ..... o........ o_ ........ VII-10

Table VII-5: Typical A-Weighted Sound Levels
Measured with a Sound-Level Meter ... ........ ooVII-20

Table VII-6: Summary of Maximum Noise Levels
Identified by EPA as Requisite to Protect
Public Health with an Adequate Margin of Safety ...... VII-22

Table VII-7: Projected Operational Noise
Levels at the Nearest Residence, St. Johns
River Power Park. .... o .......... ........ !....... VII-24

Table VII-8: Maximum Sound Levels Predicted
by Operation of Operation of TECO's Big Bend 4
Power Plant ....... oo ............. - .............. O..VII-26

Table VII-9: Projected 1990 Coal Demand for
All Coal-Fired Power Plants in Florida ....... o... o-VII-29

Table VII-10: Transportation Options and
Potential Coal Supply Regions Being Considered
for Six Coal-Fired Power Plants Under
Construc'-tion or Proposed for Certification in
Florida ......... ............. o ......... o....... VII-31

C-20

Siting Handbook Table of Contents Draft 2

Table VII-11: Transportation Options and
Potential-Supply Regio.ns Being Considered for
Conversion. of Oil-Fired Power Plants in
Florida .......................................... I ...... VII-32

Table VII-12: Predicted Annual Grade Cros-
sing Injuries and Death in Event of 25
Million Tons of Coal per Year are Shipped to
Florida by Rail ....................................... VII-37

Table VII-13: Projected Average Daily and
Peak Hour Traffic Volumes in the St. Johns
River Power Park Vicinity, 1980 and 1985 ............. VII-42

CHAPTER 8: ALTERNATIVES TO NEW COAL-FIRED POWER PLANTS

Table VIII-1: Effects of the FEECA PSC Conser-
vation Goals ............................I .............. VIII-3

Table VIII-2: Projected 1990 Savings for
Selected Major Conservation Programs for FPL,
FPC and TECO .......................................... VIII-4

Table VIII-3: Conservation and Alternative
Energy Sources Offering Significant Reductions
in Projected 1990 Loads... ............................ VIII-9

Table VIII-4: Power Plants and Fuel Savings
Possible from Conservation Alternatives .............. VIII-11

'A Table VIII-5: Economic Ranking of Conservation
Alternatives ......................................... VIII-12

Table VIII-6: Projected Cost in Terms of
A Dollars per Barrel of Oil Burned or Displaced
by Alternative Technologies .......................... VIII-21

C-21

Siting Handbook Table of Contents Draft 2

CHAPTER 9: TRANSMISSION LINE SITING IN FLORIDA

Table IX-1: Transmission Lines Certification
Applications Received by the Dept. of Env-iron-
mental Regulation under the Transmission Line
Siting Act, 1981-1983 ...........I........................ IX-1

Table IX-2: The Transmission Line Siting
Process in Florida ....................................... IX-13

CHAPTER 10: IMPACTS OF TRANSMISSION LINES

Table X-1: Comparison.of Body Current and
Related Current Densities in Ter ms of Equiv-
alent Electric Fields ................................... X-5

C-22

PART I

INTRODUCTION

Siting Handbook Overview Draft 2

POWER PLANT AND TRANSMISSION LINE SITING:
AN OVERVIEW FOR PLANNERS

Planner*s deal with questions such as housing developments, the
location of roads, and.economic development every day of the
week--but a power plant or tran.smission line siting question
may be'considered only once in an entire professional career.
Therefore, the Department of Community Affairs has prepared
this handbook to help professional planners in Florida review
site certification applications for po .wer plants and transmis-
sion lines.

This handbook has been designed principally for local and
regional planners. However, other persons who become involved
in power plant and transmission line siting issues--such as
local officials, consultants, utility planners and members of
environmental and public interest groups--may also find this
handbook useful.

This Overview provides planners with a brief checklist of
topics to consider in these reviews and to serve as a summary
of the key sections of the handbook. The handbook consists of
four parts:

Part I: Introduction--Provides a brief overview of the
'F-lorid-a electric utility industry, showing forecasts of
projected growth in power consumption in the state and
projections for coal consumption in 'coming years. (See
Chapter 1.)

Part II: Power Plant.Siting--Reviews the Power Plant Siting
Act and regulations issued to implement it; examines the
environmental impacts of coal.-fired power plants, such as
air and water pollution, and socio-economic and transporta-
tion impacts. (See Chapters 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8.)

Part III: Transmission Line Siting--Summarizes the Transmis-
sion Line Siting Act and environmental impacts of both
constructing and operatin&'transmission lines. (See Chapters
9 and 10.)

Part IV: Attachments--Includes@the Power Plant Siting Act,
the Transmission Line Siting Act, regulations issued by the
Department of Environmental Regulation, a glossary of terms,
a bibliography and other reference material.

S-23

Siting Handbook Overview Draft 2

USING THIS HANDBOOK

Under Florida law, certifying a proposed power plant or
transmission line is divided into two distinct phases:

0 The Determination of Need process of the Public
Service Commission.

o The Power Plant Site Certification process, coordina-
ted by the Department of Environmental Regulation.

Planners may become involved in either or both of these
processes, so both are detailed in the handbook:

a. PSC Determination of Need Process--Planners.and other local
government officials have not frequently-been.involved with
the Determination of Need pr-ocess of. the Public. Service
Commission. However, in a sense this is.the most.important
step in the certification process: Once the PSC ha-s issued an
order certifying the need for the propose-d. project, planners
reviewing the site certification application.are limited to
dealing with issues such as mitigating environmental, socio-
economic and land use impacts. Al,though state law gives the
Siting Board the power to reject a site certification applica-
tion, in practice, if the PSC certifies the need for a new
power plant or transmission line, the, site certification
process determines only where and how the project will be
built.

One reason why planners and other local government officials
have not often been involved in the Need for-Power determina-
tion process is that the PSC action usually-comes so early in
the certification process that the project is not perceived by
them or by the public as a major public policy issue. Only
after considerable attention has been given to the site
certification application by the media does the issue usually
begin to generate public awareness. By the time the proposal
has begun to receive close public scrutiny, the Public Service
Commission may have already issued a Need for Power order.

S-24

Siting Handbook Overview Draft 2

To help planners deal with the PSC Determination of Need
process, the handbook provides two chapters specifically
designed for this purpose:

Chapter 1--provides basicinformation on systems plan-
ning for-utility power. generation, showing projections
of the utility industry and the Public Service Commis-
sion for the need for new coal-fi-red power plants in
the future.

Chapter 8--discusses possible alternatives to new
construction, such as energy conservation, solar power,
the use of wastes for power generation and conversion
existing oil-fired units to coal.

b. Site Certification Review--Power plants can have a signifi-
cant im-pact on air quality, water quality, wildlife and
vegetation. For this reason, Florida.-law provides for the
review of power plant site certifIcation.'applications by state
agencies, water management districts:and participating local
governments. The Department of Environmental Regulation (DER)
coordinates this review, and includes other reviewers no
specifically mentioned in the act, such as regional planning
councils. The Governor and Cabinet, siting as the "Siting
Board," issue the final certification. The handbook is
designed to assist planners in cond-ucting these reviews.

Power plant site certification applications submitted to DER
are complex, technical reports that may be up to six volumes
in length; the issues discuss,ed and the terminology used may
be unfamiliar to a planner who rarely, if ever, deals with
these subjects. Consequently, the handbook defines technical
terms, explains the technologies employed and identifies
issues needed to be addressed in the review process.

S-25

Siting Handbook Overview. Draft 2.

OVERVIEW OF PART I: INTRODUCTION

Chapter 1: Systems-Planning

The Public Service Commission, using projections of the
Florida electric.utility industry, has forecast that by the
turn of the century the amount [email protected] produced from
coal in Florida will be more than six times larger than in
1981. Chapter I summarizes these'projections and presents
basic informationi on the size and location.of present coal-
fired plants, as well as data on potential.sites for future
coal-fired plants.

To help planners better deal with the PSC Need for Power
Determination process, this chapter explains essential terms
such as loss of load probability, capacity factor and peak
demand. Basic information on coal plants', such-as what is
meant by megawatt capacity and megawatt-hours of. output is
given, as is a review of.the projected cost-of new plants.

Using these coal-use projections, Chapter I provides a short
review of the possible impacts this magnitude of coal plant
construction would have on thestate's economy and on the
reliability of the state's electrical system.

OVERVIEW OF PART II:

THE POWER PLANT SITE CERTIFICATION PROCESS
(Chapters 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8)

Chapter 2: Power Plant Siting Regulations

Power plant siting in Florida is governed primarily by the
Power Plant Siting Act (PPSA). Chapter. 2 summarizes the
provisions of this act and the-regulations which have been
issued to implement it. A copy of the act is included as
Attachment I; regulations issued by DER to implement the act
are included as Attachment IV.

S-26

Siting Handbook Overview Draft 2

This chapter explains each of the nine steps in the power
plant certification process:

1. Pre-application discussions
2. The PSC Need for Power determination
3. The review for sufficiency and
completeness by DER
4. The certification review and studies
5. The land-use hearing
6. The certification hearing
7. The Recommended Order of the Division
of Administrative Hearings
8. The Order of the Governor and Cabinet
9.- Post-certification review by DER

Each certification application is reviewed by a number of
state and local government agencies,. .,The responsibilities of
each agency in this process are discussed, along with a brief
review of the responsibilities of.several federal agencies.
Other relevant laws, such as the Ten-Year Site Plant Act and
several federal environmental laws, are.also summarized. A
directory of agencies involv'ed.in this process is included as
Attachment IX.

The chapter explains how to become a "party" to a certifica-
tion case and describes the points in the certification
process where local and regional planning agencies may be
involved in the proceedings.

Chapter 3: Power Plant.Siting Methodology

The first step in power plant certification is selecting the
site of the proposed plant. This chapter reviews the site
selection process reported in several recent power plant site
applications and examines the criteria used by the applicant

S-27

Siting Handbook Overview Draft 2

utility in each of these case studies.

The methodology used in each of the case studies is compared
with the literature on the subject.of power plant siting.
This chapter allows planners to evaluate the utility's method-
ology using criteria established.by several nationwide stud-
ies, criteria such as replica.bil1ty, quantification of data
and involvement of the public.

Chaptei 4: Cooling Systems

Most power plants use massive.amounts of water for cooling.
The discharge of heated cooling water can have significant
environmental impacts on plant and animal life@ sensitive to
increases in temperature. In addition, the-water discharged
from a power plant's cooling system contains- a variety of
pollutants that can adversely affect water quality.

Chapter 4 explains the technology of cooling systems, in-
cluding once-through cooling, cooling towers and cooling
ponds. The types of cooling systems used in coal-fired power
plants in Florida are described, along with the amount of
water required for each type. Florida regulations governing
the temperature of water discharged are summarized.

This chapter also describes environmental impacts resulting
from the use of water by power plants. These include thermal
pollution, salt drift from cooling towers, the discharge of
chlorine, water quality deterioration from cooling tower
"blowdown" and the mortality caused to aquatic organisms by
being drawn into the cooling system of a power plant, a
problem called "impingement and entrainment.11

S-28

Siting Handbook Overview Draft 2

Chapter 5: Air Pollution

Because the issue of air quality deterioration from a proposed
power plant is likely to considerable prominent public atten-
tion, this chapter goes into considerable detail on the nature
of air pollution from coa-l-fired power-plants and on methods
to reduce emissions.

Chapter 5 examines,the sources and amounts of the three major
types of pollutants emitted from coal combustion in Florida:
sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and particulates. The
anticipated health effects of each pollutant are summarized,
as are the effects of acid rain, the'greenhouse effect, and
the effects of radioactive emissions from coal plants. This
chapter summarizes the air quality regulations issued by both
Florida and the U. S. government.

Methods of air pollution control used by coal-fired power
plants in Florida are described,. an.d.basic information on
technologies such as flue gas desul.furization, scrubbers and
electrostatic precipitators is presented. For each of these
technologies, the cost of achieving the degree of air quality
control required currently in Flori.da is shown, as is the
projected cost of achieving more stringent standards than are
currently required.

Chapter 6: Water Pollution.from.Waste and Coal Storage

A coal-fired power plant produces tons of solid wastes every
day, including boiler ash and by-products from flue gas
desulfurization. Rain water seeping through stored wastes and
coal storage areas picks up numerous chemicals that can have a
serious impact on water quality.

Chapter 6 shows the amounts and types of solid wastes produced
by three coal-fired power plants in Florida. Potential impacts
on plant and animal life are reviewed, and key terms such as
leachate, permeability, berms, fly ash and liners are
explained.

S-29

Siting Handbook Overview Draft 2

Methods to reduce water pollution-from stored solids are
discussed; these include building.dikes and storage ponds, as
well as selling or compacting,the wastes:. The. cost of each of
these techniques is also presented. Florida water quality
standards are summarized.

Chapter 7: Other Impacts

In addition to environmental impacts, the construction of
power plants carries with it a number of other impacts:
transportation impacts, noise impacts and socio-economic
impacts.

a..Transportation Impacts--This section projects the amount of
coal that would be expected in Florida if the growth in coal-
fired capacity described in Chapter 1 were to take place. In
addition, the section identifies the p.robable impacts that the
expected great increase in coal delivery would h.avelon major
transportation modes: rail, barge and.coal-'slurry pipeline.

The construction of a power plant generates considerable
load road traffic and may necessitate. a-dd-i.tional traffic
controls or road capacity improvements.. The handbook shows
traffic estimates made by utilities in two site applications
and discusses one study which compared traffic projections in
the application with actual traffic conditions that occurred
at the construction site.

b. Socio-Economic Impacts--A power plant construction project,
which may cost $1-2 billion, can ha-ve a major impact on
employment, housing and wages in a rural community. And the
property taxes generated.by an investor-owned power plant can
generate millions of dollars a year in property taxes.

For this reason, all power plant site applications in Florida
contain the results of computer models "Which seek to project
these impacts. The socio-economic.impacts forecast in three
recent applications are summarized, and the-conclusions of a
major nationwide study that evaluated a-number of these models
is highlighted. The results of one study in Florida that
compared projected socio-economic impacts.with actual impacts
as experienced are also discussed..

S-30

Siting Handbook Overview Draft 2

C. Noise,Impacts--The noise generated by a power plan t can be
heard clearly for more than a mile and could be a serious
disturbance for anyone living too close to the plant. Back-
ground information on noise levels. and noise standards is
present.ed, and the projected noise levels of two Florida power
plants as given in the site certification application are
compared with these noise level standards.

Chapter 8: Alternatives to New Construction

The central question in the PSC Need for Power Determination
process is how the electric energy.needs of the state can be
provided at the least cost and with an acceptable level of
reliability. For this r.eason, Chapter 8 explains how planners
can compare the cost of new coal-fired conseruction with the
projected cost of alternatives such as conservation and
renewable energy measures. This will enable a.consideration of
the extent to which these measures can or cannot economically
of fset the need for new coal-fired capacity.

This chapter reviews current efforts to promote conservation
through FEECA (the Florida Energy Efficiency and Conservation
Act) and shows recent changes in the.PS.C Determination of Need
regulations that reflect the FEECA legislation. In addition,
Chapter 8 summarizes two major studies that have evaluated.the
ability of conservation and renewable resources to offset the
need for new capacity in Florida, and presents the position of
the utility industry on this subject.

In addition to conservation options, Chapter 8 examines the
feasibility of generating alternatives other than new coal-
fired capacity. These options include: cogeneration, nuclear
power, natural gas, conversion of oil-fired units to coal, use
of municipal wastes for power generation, importation of power
from other states and ocean thermal energy conversion.

S-31

Siting Handbook Overview Draft 2

PART III

TRANSMISSION LINE SITING
(Chapters 9 and 10)

Chapter 9: Tran smission Line Siting in Florida

The certification of transmission lines.in Florida is governed
primarily by the Transmission Line Siting Act (TLSA). Chapter
9 summarizes the major provision 's of the TLSA; a copy of the
act is included as Attachment-III. A list of applications
received under the TLSA is provided, and.key terms such as a
transmission line "corridor" are explained.

Each step in the transmission line s iting process is ex-
plained:
1. The PSC Determination of Need process
2. The initial review by DER
3. The Certification Review by state- and1ocal-
government agencies
4. The Certification Hearing
5. The Recommended Order of the Division of
Administrative Hearings;
6. The Order of the Siting Board (the Governor
and Cabinet
7. Post-Certification Review by DER.

The responsibilitie's of each state and local government agency
becoming involved in transmission line siting are summarized.
Other federal and state laws applying to 'transmission line
siting are briefly described. A d1rectory-of agencies in-
volved in transmission line siting is included as Attachment
IX.

S-32

Siting Handbook Overview Draft 2

Chapter 10: Transmission Line Impacts

As utilities have begun to build transmission lines of higher
and higher voltages, concern has arisen about the possibility
of health dangers stemming from electro-magnetic fields
surrounding power lines. Therefore, Chapter 10 examines some
of the research findings on this subject conducted by other
states and the utility industry.

In addition to operational impacts, Chapter 10 briefly reviews
construction and land use.impacts. These include the impact on
water flow resulting from the construction.of access roads,
the impact on wildlife from clearing trees for a new
transmission line and the impact on land values of adjoining
land.

To help planners deal with this subject, the-chapter defines
engineering terms such as kilovolts per meter and extra-high
voltage. A short description of transmission line towers and
a map showing the extent of 500 kilovolt lines in Florida are
also provided.

S-33

Siting Handbook Overview Draft 2

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL REFERENCES

The literature on the subject of power plants and transmission
lines is immense: No one-volume handbook could possibly do
justice to the issues involved. For this reason, the handbook
attempts only to provide a.brief introduction to the key
issues, and to direct the reader to bibliographical references
which should be consulted on specific points. Wherever
possible, interlibrary loan locations and NTIS numbers have
been provided to allow planners t,o obtain technical publica-
tions with relative ease.

Because there are a number of standard references on the
siting of power plants and transmission,lines, this handbook
has been designed to complement these sources with information
specifically dealing with Florida. Since these publications
are so easily available and are so useful, this handbook does
not attempt to duplicate the material contained in those
publications.

When dealing with a power plant or transmission line siting
question, a planner would benefit from firs-t consulting
several of the standard works in this field; some of these are
listed in the bibliography below.

A. BIBLIOGRPAHICAL SOURCES

National Technical Information Service. Power Plant Siting.
(Springfield, VA: NTIS., Feb., 1983). Vdl.-l: 1966-1974; Vol.
2: 1978-1982). NTIS Nr. PB83-805663

U. S. Dept. of Energy. Energy-Abstracts.for Policy Analysis
(Washington, D. C.: Government Printing Oftice).
This is the single best source for information on
energy planning, including power plants and
transmission. lines. The Abstracts.appear monthly,
but there is an annual index.d

S-34

Siting Handbook Overview Draft 2

Electric Power Research Institute. EPRI Guide. (Palo Alto, CA:
EPRI, twice yearly).
EPRI is the research arm-of th-e electric utility
industry. The EPRI Guide provides an index to the
thousands of research studies on electric power plants
and transmission lines which have been conducted by
EPRI.

B. GENERAL REFERENCES

Berkshire County Regional Plann.ing.Commission., Evaluation of
Power Facilities: A Reviewer's Handbook. (Pittsfield, MA:
FSU
B rkshire County RPC, April, 1974). Available ILL:
Call Nr. DOC HD 9685 U5.
This publication provides a good,introduction to the
general subject of power plant and transmission line
siting. Because it was published in 1974, it is now
somewhat out of date, particularly,with regard to
environmental regulations, but it is still recom-
mended.

Ca 1ifornia Energy Commission. Constraints..and Opportunities
for Power Plant Siting. (Sacramento, CA: Calif. Energy Cmmsn,
Nov., 1979.)
An overview of the entire area of power plant siting.
Although the report specifically addresses California
issues, much of the material pertains equally well to
other states, including Florida.

Green, Alex E. S. (ed.) The Impact of Increased Coal Use in
Florida. (Gainesville, FL: Univ. of Florida, 1980). 2 vols.
This study, prepared for the Governor's Energy Office,
is the most ambitious investigation of the impacts of
coal-fired power plants in Florida. However, some of
the information is now out of date, and many of the
topics are of limited value to planners. This study
was never published, and is available only from the
Board of Regents.

A more general publication based on this research,
also edited by Green, is Coal Burning Issues, pub-
lished by the University of Florida Press. This is
book is of value to planners, but it is not specif-
ically related to Florida.

S-35

ting Handbook Overview Draft 2

Rogers, John et al. Environmental Assessment Handbook.
Executive Summary of the Maryland Major Facilities Study.
(Annapolis, MD: Maryland Dept. of Natural Resources, Energy
and Coastal Zone Administrationt December, 1977).. NTIS PB-
296-821
The six-volume Maryland power study, f,unded, in part,
by the federal government, serves as an good model for
other states. The Executive-Summary is a concise guide
to power plant siting issues that could prove quite
helpful to planners; other- volumes of the study
dealing with specific environmental and socio-e,conomic
issues are listed elsewhere. (See also' the 1982
Maryland study listed below.) -

Shannon, Robert. Handbook of Coal-Based Electric Power
Generation: The Technology, Utility A2plication and Economics
of Coal for Generating Electric-,Power. (Park Ridge, NJ:
Noyes Publications, 1982). Available ILL: Univ. of Florida
Call Nr. TK 105/S34 1982.
This is a valuable one-volume compilation of technical
information on coal-fired power plants,. including
cooling, coal use, air pollution abatement measures,
costs and so forth. It is,compiled from a number of
government reports.

Winter, John and Conner, David. Power Plant Siting. (New
York: Van Nostrand, 1978).
Although this study by Winter and Conner focuses on
Ohio, it has considerable application elsewhere.
While some of the sections, especially material
relating to environmental regulations, are now out of
date, it still has considerable merit.as an introduc-
tion to the basic issues of power plant siting.

Maryland Department of Natural Resources. Power Plant Cumu-
lative Environmental Impact Report. (Annapolis, MD: Maryland
Dept. of Natural Resources,: Power Plant Siting Program,
February, 1982).
This is the single most valuable one-volume study of
power plant siting. It is up-to-date, well-researched,
and comprehensive.

S-36

--I

I
I
I
I
I
I CHAPTER.1
I SYSTEMS PLANNING
I
I
I
I
I
I
'I
I
I
I
I

T Siting Handbook Chapter 1, Part A Draft 2

CHAPTER 1

SYSTEMS PLANNING

This chapter is provides provide an introduction to the power
generation projections being made by the state's electric
utilities and to the technical features of electric power
generation from coal. This material will be of particular
interest to planners who want to understand or to take part in
the "Need for Power Determination" proceedings of the statets
Public Service Commission.

Part A of this chapter summarizes these utility projections
and identifies the locations of current and proposed coal-
fired power plants. A brief description of the size, type and
costs of coal-fired power plants in Florida is given in Part
B. Impacts this level of growth would have on capital costs
and the reliability of power are discussed in Part C.

A. COAL IN FLORIDA'S FUTURE

1. Coal Use Projections

The Arab oil embargo of 1973-74 emphasized the nation's
serious vulnerability caused by its reliance on imported
petroleum. The federal governmentts determination to reduce
U.S. dependence on imported oil and the staggering oil price
increases which occurred both in 1974 and again in 1979,
during the Iranian revolution, have led to coal's emergence as
the fuel of choice for new power plants.

Nag Handbook Chapter 1, Part A Draft 2

According to the U. S. Department of Energy (DOE), coal
consumption by electric utilities nationwide almost doubled
from 1965 to 1978, from 245 million tons per year in 1965 to
481 million tons in 1978. DOE projects that by 1995 coal
consumption by electric utilities will have grown to almost
1.2 billion tons per year, 143 percent above the 1978 level.

In keeping with the projected increase in coal use nationwide,
coal is rapidly becoming the dominant fuel for electric power
generation in Florida. As seen in Fig. I-1, by the end of
1983 there were 20 coal-burning power plant boilers in
Florida, accounting for 6,274.5 megawatts (MW) of capacity; by
1991 the number of coal-burning power plants is forecast by
the Florida Electric Coordinating Group (FCG) in its 1983 Ten-
Year Plan to have grown to 33 units. The FCG predicts that by
1991 the total statewide coal capacity of Florida will be
13,140 MW, more than twice the amount on-line in late 1983.

By using projections of the Florida Public Service Commission
(PSC) and the FCG, it can be extrapolated that by the year
2001 there could be approximately 26,500 MW of coal-fired
capacity in this state. This would be more than double the
1991 amount and 322 percent above 1983.*

Reflecting this unprecedented rise in coal-burning capacity,
the FCG forecasts that electricity produced from coal will
increase from 21,874 gigawatt-hours (GWH) in 1981 to 60,966
GWH in 1991 and 137,706 GWH in 2001, a 437 percent increase
1981-2001. (See Fig. 1-2) (A "gigawatt-hour" is a million
kilowatt-hours, or a thousand megawatt-hours.)

As a result of this sharp increase in coal use, the percentage
of electricity produced from coal is projected to rise
dramatically. As seen in Fig. 1-3, coal only constituted 17
percent of all electric power production in Florida in 1974,
but the FCG projects that coal will account for 41 percent of
statewide power production by 1991 and 68 percent by 2001.
Conversely, oil is projected to plummet from 58 percent of
electric production in 1976 to 21 percent in 1991 and 15
percent in 2001.

*Using FCG projections for Peninsular Florida plus the share
of Gulf Power generated in Florida, in 1982 the PSC projected
137,706 GWH from coal by 2001. The figure of 26,500 MW assumes
a capacity factor of 59 percent or 5168.4 GWH per net MW.

1-2

Siting Handbook Chapter 1, Part A Draft 2

Fig. I-1. Coal-Fired Electric Generation Capacity in Florida,
1961-2001. Source: PSC (1983) and FCG (1982 and 1983).'

25- .26,JOO
INCREASE 1991
lK REASE, 1981- 2001 =437/. EGUIVALENT TO
1 rr o i Y. 15 650-MW PLANTS
20-
1OZ4.
Keg
Historical
Certif ied
&1 13,14
Projected 77 166X
10- 3)

NUMBERS IN BOXES INDICATE NUMBERS
OF COAL-FI.RED PLANTS AT END OF YEAR
5 - _F17 INCLUDES ONLY PLANTS LOCATED IN FLORIDA
3,086 4,933 ALL MW FIGURES MAXIMUM (GROSS) CAPACITY

286

1961 1971 1981 Iq im 20M

Fig. 1-2. Electric Power from Coal-Fired Power Plants in
Florida. Source: Florida PSC (1982 and 1983).

125

2100
34 01214
0
9 75 Keg
.966
Histotical
so - ----- Rojected
25 Certified *ASSUMES 16,746MM ADD@D AT 489 OF GROSS
(iEO@ P801 CAPACITY. OR 421DGWH MA.X. MW.

1971 ISM 1991 2001
P 10 F, 3.0 14.30
go 1-3
@@@/*A ES
.'S U
CAPAC",

Siting Handbook Chapter .1, Part A Draft 2

These projections for coal reflect the overall increase in
demand for electric power which the utilities of Florida are
forecasting. According to the forecast of the Public Service
Commission made in December of 1983, Florida's peak summer
demand will rise from 19,649 MW in 1982, to 29,556 MW in the
year 2003, an increase of 50 percent in 21 years.

To meet this forecasted demand, the Florida Electric Coordina-
ting Group (FCG) projects the need for some 18,700 MW,of new
power plant capacity between 1982 and 2001 in "Peninsular
Florida" (i.e., all of Florida except for the Gulf Power Corp
service district in West Florida). As seen in Table X-1, in
1983 the FCG projected that installed power plant capacity in
Peninsular Florida would rise from 28,114 MW in 1983 to
41,914 MW in 2001, a growth of 13,800 MW. This represents an
increase of 49 percent in 20 years. Almost all of. this
tremendous increase is projected to come from construction of
coal-fired capacity.

Although these projections are the standard planning assump-
tions of both the utilities and the statefs Public Service
Commission (PSC), they are open to considerable uncertainty.
As seen in Fig. 1-4, projections of electricity consumption
made in previous years by the FCG have tended to be substan-
tially higher than actual consumption. Projections for 1980
consumption made in 1972, for example, before the Arab oil
embargo and the concomitant leap in oil prices, were 48
percent higher than was the actual case. Similarly, projec-
tions made in 1977 for 1986 are 15 percent higher than
forecasts made five years later for the same target years.
These projections must also be' seen in the lig ht of a general
nationwide trend to greater reliance on domestically mined
coal, and as an outgrowth of the stated policy of the PSC to
reduce oil to less than 25 percent of the state's fuel for
electric power generation. Because oil - supplied over half
of Florida's electric generation during the 19703; the PSC has
taken the position, consistent with federal policy of the
1970s, that this overdependence on oil leaves the state
vulnerable to foreign supply disruptions and precipitous price
increases.

It is because of this enormous increase in coal use projected
for Florida that this handbook deals almost exclusively with
issues surrounding the siting of new coal-fired power plants.

1-4

Siting Handbook Chapter 1, Part A Draft 2

Fig. 1-3. Production of Electric Power by Fuel in
Florida. Source: Florida PSC.
65 A

60-

55-

53
C00J.
Keg
46-
Hist. Roi.
Oil
0 35- Not. -Coal
30- S 29 2
NotGas . .....
25 20 21 Nxlear 6-oo--o
20- 20 17
jb, -- S ...

10 %
5- *INCLUDES ALL FLORIDA UTILITIES

ign 1981 1991 2001
Fig. 1-4. Projections of Electricity Consumption in Florida
Made in 1972, 1977 and 1982 by the Florida Electric Coordina-
ting Group. Source: FCG Ten-Year Plans.

150

140
COST DATA IS COST PER BARREL OF OIL
0 130 AS BURNED BY FLORIDA ELECTRIC UTIL-
0 ITIES
0 Cr
120

110

n 100
0

KEY
90

ACTUAL CONSUMPTION
so
1982 FCG PROJECTION
7 0-0-0 1977 FCG PROJECTION

1972 FCG PROJECTION
60 $04 $12.25. $22.8-S $4&50 $7728
@N t
a

29
2

25
2@0
,6

r
17

V13
*1 11CLUDE1 ALL FLORID

14
$12,2 S, $22i8S
1970 1976 19110 IN5 SW

1-5

Siting Handbook Chapter 1, Part A Draft 2

2. Electric Utilities of Florida

a. Utility Service Districts--In Florida, there are over 30
electric utilities; the nine-largest are listed in Table I-1.
These can be classified as (1) investor-owned utilities
(IOUs); (2) municipal utilities (MUNs); and (3) cooperatives
(COOPs). Seminole Electric Cooperative (SECI) is a consortium
of eleven municipal cooperatives. See the map of service
areas, Fig. 1-5.

b. 'Definition of Terms--In considering the characteristics of
power plants, it is important for plann.ers to bear in mind
that power plants are rated in terms of megawatts (MW). A
watt is a unit of power, or rate of doing work; a megawatt is
one million watts. It is analogous to horsepower: one
horsepower is equal to 746 watts (.746 kilowatts). A typical
new power plant is often about 600 MW.*

A "megawatt-hour" (MWH) is one megawatt supplied for a period
of one hour. This is a unit of energy; if a 600 MW plant were
to operate at 100 percent capacity for one hour, it would
generate 600 megawatt-hours. Assuming 10,000 Btu per kilowatt-
hour (10 million Btu per MWH), the plant would require a heat
input of 6 billion Btu per hour.

However, in ac tual practice a power plant may operate at,only
50 percent capacity, and may be built to operate only with a
maximum "capacity factor" of 70 percent. Therefore, at a 70
percent capacity factor, a 600 MW unit would require 4.2
billion Btu during one hour. Assuming the plant burns coal
rated at 10,500 Btu per pound (21 million Btu per ton), this
would be equal to 200 tons per hour, 1.75 million tons per yr.

The distinction between gross (or maximum) megawatt rating and
summer (or net) MW rating must also be kept in mind. The
f1gross MW" rating is, the capacity of the boiler to do work;
the "peak MW" rating is the actual peak output of the plant.
Because devices such as flue gas desulfurization (FGD) units
and electrostatic precipitators (ESP) require power to oper-
ate, the plant's net output will be less than the gross
rating. In a typical new 600 (gross) MW plant, the summer (or
net) MW output may be about 516 MW, 14 percent less than the
gross MW figure.

*For definitions of terms, see the Glossary, Attachment VI.

1-6

Siting Handbook Chapter 1, Part A Draft 2

Table I-1. Total Consumption, 1982, for th-e Nine-Largest
Electric Utilities in Florida. Source: Florida Public Service
Commission (1983).

Consumption
1982 Pct. of
Utility (MWH x 1000) State

Florida Power IOU 43,790 47.2
and Light (FPL)

Florida Power IOU 15,131 16.3
Corp (FPC)

Tampa Elect. Co. IOU 10,038 10.8
(TECO)

Jacksonville Elect. MUN 5,305 5.7
Author. (JEA)

Seminole Electric COOP 5,171 5.6
Coop, Inc (SECI)

Gulf Power Corp. IOU 5,243 5.7
(GPQ

Orlando Utilities MUN 2,244 2.4
Commission (OUC)

City of Lakeland MUN 1,204 1.3
(LAK)

City of Talla - MUN 1,339 1.4
hassee (TAL)

TOTAL, Nine-Largest 89,465
TOTAL, Entire State 92,720
PERCENT, Nine-Largest 96.5%

IOU Investor-owned utility
MUN Muncipal utility
COOP Cooperative

1-7

Handbook Chap.ter 1, Part A Draft 2

Fig. 1-5: Service Districts of Florida's Investor-Owned
Electric Utilities. Source: Florida PSC.

E
1 IDL LT _j 3

89
A. FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT

CAPE CANAVERAL
2CUTLER
3FT LAUDERDALE. 8 12
FT MWAS a
MANATU F A r
MARTIN 6 3
*%AN 2 10
PALATKA 4 --
PORT EWR13LADES
W.Ift F
swam
12 sy LUCAE
13 %MIT POINT To;-
It FLORIDA POWER CORPORATION Q GULF POWER CORPORATION 2 126

ANCLOrE CRIST -
2AVON PON 2 LANSING SMITH 6
5SARTOW 3 SC-mrz
GA.
CRYSTAL "R E. FLORIDA PUBLIC UTILITIES
4
INTERCESSION 0- Al
1011(GLI's, . L 3.1.9
0AID PMR FREEDY CREEK -
SUINANNIEVE "R
TUANKft 2
C TAMPA ELECTRIC 'COMPANY SMAM GENERAMN
OPERATING 13
BIG SEND 0 UNDER CONSTRUCTION
AfUCLEAR GEMERAMN
3 HOCKERS PORT A OPERAT, NO
a UNDER CONSTRUCTION
1,VrERNAL COMBUSV01V OR
GAS r41)?8hVE
8 OPERATING Ae
13 UNDER CQMSTRUCTION

IOU HEADOUARTERS
@
2 11'

,13

1-8

Siting Handbook Chapter 1, Part A Draft 2

3. Coal in Florida: 1983 - 2000

a. Coal in Florida 1983--Compared to the nation as a whole,
coal consumption in Florida in 1983 was relatively low. As
seen in Fig. 1-6 and Table 1-2' in that year there were 20
coal-fired boilers in Florida ;nd only three large coal-fired
plants: the Crystal River plant of Florida Power Corp. (FPC)
in Citrus County, the Big Bend plant of Tampa Electric Co.
(TECO) in Hillsborough County, and the Crist plant of @ulf
Power Corp. (GPC) in Escambia County. In addition to these
three sites, there were units located in the counties of
Alachua, Putnam, Hillsborough, Bay, Polk, and Jackson.

b. Plants Under Construction--During the decade of the 1980s,
the construction of coal-fired units will make coal use far
more common throughout the state. In 1984 two large units
are scheduled for completion in Hillsborough County (TECO's
Big Bend 4) and Citrus County (FPC's Crystal River 5). In 1985
SECI's second Seminole plant is scheduled for completion, and
in 1986 Stanton 1 of the Orlando Utilities Commission (OUC) is
to be finished. (See Fig. 1-7 and Table 1-2.)

In 1987 the first of two units of the St. Johns River Power
Park, located in Duval County, owned jointly by Jacksonville
Electric Authority (JEA) and Florida Power and Light (FPL) is
to go on-line, and the second is scheduled for 1988. SECI has
announced plans to construct two units in Taylor County near
Perry , bringing them on-line in 1988 and 1989. This plant,
however, has not yet been certified, and it is uncertain if
these plants will be built as originally announced.

c. Possible Future Additions--If the electric utilities of the
state apply for an additional 13,500 MW of new coal-fired
capacity to go on-line in the 1990s, as is currently being
forecasted, this could mean adding the equivalent of up to 21
650-MW units during the 1990s. Not all of this amount would
be new capacity, since some it may come from conversion of
currently operated oil-fired boilers to coal or coal-water
mixture, but a large percentage of this amount would most
assuredly be new construction.

1-9

Table 1-2: Additions to Florida's Coal-Fired Electric Generating Capacity, 1953-2001.

NR. DATE POWER UTILITY CAPACITY COUNTY
PLANT (MW)

I. ADDITIONS PRIOR TO 1962
1&2. 1953 Scholz 1 & 2 GPC 98.00 Jackson
3 1959 Crist 4 GPC 93.75 Escambia
4 1961 Crist 5 GPC 93.75 Escambia

SUBTOTAL as of 12/31/61 285.50

II. ADDITIONS, 1962 1971
5 1965 Gannon 5 TECO 239.40 Hillsborough
6 1965 Smith 1 GPC 149.60 Bay
7 1966 Crystal River 1 FPC 440.50 Citrus
8 1967 Smith 2 GPC 190.40 Bay
9 1967 Gannon 6 TECO 414.00 Hillsborough
10 1969 Crystal River 2 FPC 523.80 Citrus
11 1970 Crist 6. GPC 396.75 Escambia
12 1970 Big Bend 1 TECO 445.50 Hillsborough
ADDITIONS, 1962 - 1971 2,799.95
CUMULATIVE, as of 12/31/71 3,085.45

III. ADDITIONS, 1972 - 1983

13 1973 Big Bend 2 TECO 445.50 Hillsborough
14 1973 Crist 7 GPC 578.00 Escambia
15 1976 Bartow I (now C-O-M) FPC 127.50 Pinellas
16 1976 Big Bend 3 FPC 445.50 Hillsborough
17 1981 Deerhaven 2 GVL 250.75 Alachua
18 1982 McIntosh 3 LAK/OUC 364.00 Polk
19 1982 Crystal River 4 FPC 695.00 Citrus
20 1983-1c64 Seminole 1 SECI 650.00 Putnam

ADDITIONS, 1972 -1983 3,189.05
M MCUWWTI@ IIIII IIIII IIIII IIIIg IIIII 111 11 61 ' ' 4 . @ ' I

Table 1-2 (Cont'd)

MAX (GROSS)
NR. YR PLANT UTILITY MW COUNTY

IV. EXPECTED ADDITIONS, 1984 - 1988

21-25 1983-85 Gannon 1-4 (Conversions) TECO 1270.40 Hillsborough
26 1985 Big Bend 4 TECO 486.00 Hillsborough
27 1984 Crystal River 5 FPC 695.00 Citrus
27-28 1985 Bartow 2-3 (Conversions) FPC 356.90 Pinellas
29 1985 Seminole 2 SECI 650.00 Putnam
30 1987 Stanton 1 OUC 460.00 Orange
31 1987 St. Johns Riv. Pwr Prk JEA/FPL 640.00 Duval
32 1988 St. Johns Riv. Pwr Prk JEA/FPL 640.00 Duval

EXPECTED ADDITIONS, 1984 - 1988 4,92.5.5
CUMULATIVE, Projected for 12/31/88 11,200.0

V. POSSIBLE ADDITIONS, 1988 - 2001
33 1988 * Taylor I SECI 650.00 Taylor
34 1993 * Tallahassee TAL 400.00 Leon
35 1990 * Taylor 2 SECI 650.00 Taylor
36 1992 * McInnes 1 TECO 450.00 Hillsborough
37 1993 * Martin 3 FPL 700.00 Martin
38 1994 * Martin 4 FPL 700.00 Martin
39 1994 * Stanton 2 OUC 425.00. Orange
40 199? * Desoto Site FPL ? Desoto
41 199? * Dade County Site FPL ? Dade
42 199? * McInnes 2 TECO 450.00 Hillsborough
43 199? * Gulf County Site FPC ? Gulf
44 199? * Caryville GPC ? Washington

POSSIBLE ADDITIONS LISTED 4,600.00
TOTAL POSSIBLE ADDITIONS, 1988 - 2001 13,547.50
CUMULATIVE, PROJECTED for 12/31/2001 26,500.00

NUMBER OF 650MW EQUIVALENT PLANTS WHICH MAY BE PROPOSED
FOR CERTIFICATION, 1991-2001: 21 (13,547/650).
*A date followed by asterisk indicates that plant not yet certified.
Includes retirements by Gulf Power Corp.

Siting Handbook Chapter 1, Part A Draft 2

Fig. 1-6: Location of Coal-Fired Power Plants in Florida, 1983
With 1981 Coal Consumption and Coal Supply Method. Source:
PSC, FCG.

Total Consumption 9.76 MUL tons:

NAM&"

OUNIL
TMKUUA COL_
rxrLm LUUIMNA

.ANKLO It
eerhaven 2
am PUTN" 191

MUM"
Sanford
CX@Wal River 1 LAM 44
2080

OMAN=
Gannon 5 &6
13=Q
Bica Bend 1-3
2722 ML
ThOus. Tons Pw Yea(
2007+ SOUP n LUM
0
0 1000-2000 CKAOLOMI
0>1000
Um PRAM @MAC"

M SAOM O"_ HOLM" JOACKWO
no"

vamim
I
Tom
M
OAM
(jist- Coal Supply

Smith 1-2
1063 nail
Scholz 1-2
144

1-12

Siting Handbook Chapter 1, Part A Draft 2

Fig. 1-7: Coal-Fired Power Plants Coming On-Line in Florida,
1984-1991. Source: PSC, FCG.

Lem MADOM HAMEMM St. Johns Riv. Pwr Prk.
C=_ a"= ou JEA/FPL, 1987& 1988
Txnm UUM
CLAY
AINUM ST
=1 F0 JOHNS Seminole 2
0M ALACH" SEC 1, 1985

LEW

VOW"
Crystal River 5
FPC, 1984
tanton I
OUC, 1986
Bartow 2 &3 onv POLX 03MLA
FPC, 198@
Ganninl-4 jconv.)
EGO, 983_@85 FUM

Big Bend 4 - TECO t 1984 Sam MNDNANM !M U=

C"AIN.aM QLAM

MOM
La FMA SUCH

COLA"
0"- HOLUM JAACKWO
SANTA. LOO"
Rom

Mato" OAM
"Y

Usaff"

FRANNAM

4000

1-13

ling Handbook Chapter 1, Part A Draft 2
I

Predicting where this new construction would take place,
however, is difficult, because construction plans for this
time period are highly speculative. Despite.these caveats,
using information provided in the Ten-Year Site Plans of the
largest electric utilities of the state, certain tentative
conclusions can be drawn about possible future locations. (See
Fig. 1-8 and Table 1-2.)

In south Florida , Florida Power@and Light, in its 1983 Ten-
Year Site Plan, mentions the possibility of applying for coal-
fired units at a site in s.outh Dade County just west of the
present Turkey point site and also continues to speak favor-
ably of a site not far from the town of Arcadia in Desoto
County, near the Peace River. FPL has expressed the inten-
tion of constructing two additional coal-fired units at the
Martin site in western Martin County to be completed in 1993
and 1994. If these units are built, they may each have a gross
(maximum) megawatt rating of 700 MW, making them the largest
coal-fired boilers in the state.

In central Florida, Tampa Electric Co. has indicated an
interest in constructing a total of four units at the McInnes
site in southern Hillsborough County directly on Tampa Bay,
for a total of 3200 MW. Although this site is not listed in
TECO's 1984 TYSP, it appeared in the 1983 edition, and the
utili.ty has filed a Notice of Intent for submit a formal
application for the site. The Orlando Utilities Commission
has indicated that it intends to add three additional units to
its Stanton plant, bringing the total capacity of that site to
1275 MW.

Among sites in northwest Florida, Florida Power Corp. has.
mentioned the possibility of construction in Gulf County, and
Gulf Power Corp. has discussed reactivation of a site near
Caryville in Washington County along the Choctawhatchee River.
The Caryville site received certification inthe early 1970s,
but construction was postponed when the utility decided to
purchase portions of plants located in Georg .ia and Mississippi
instead. The City of Tallahassee currently is considering a
potential 400-MW coal-fired unit in Leon County which would
come on-line in 1988. Neither the Gulf County site of FPC nor
the Caryville site of GPC is being listed in the 1984 Ten-Year
Site Plan of either utility.

1-14

Siting Handbook Chapter 1, Part A Draft 2

Fig. 1-8: Potential Sites for Future Coal-Fired Power Plants
in Florida As Indicated in Utility Ten-Year Site Plans.
Source: TYSPs; PPSAs.

OU404

C=.
my um"
CLW St
ADMAN AMA
TallahaSS e--TAL Gal A&ACH" "J"Wo
MARION
Taylor CoUnty.-SECI
LA"
Man Samoa" Stanton2,3,4--OUC
Polk CO. Site-JECO 00COMA sceola Site--FPC
Macinnes Site--TECO PON arcee. Co. Site
TE.CO
De s oto Site -- FP OR st I cm
artin 3,4
FPL
Caryville -- GPC UM "SNOW M&M anhe"

sno"WOM
COUAM

MA S"ffs. UWSA
ram
W&MAMM Ta" GAM MONOW Dade Site
@AT FPL
USSR"
Gulf Co. Site FPC

1-15

ing Handbook Chapter 1, Part A Draft 2

3. Coal Conversion

In addition to construction of. new coal-fired capacity,
considerable attention has been focused on conver-sion of oil-
fired boilers to coal. As seen in Table 1-2, two boilers of
Florida Power Corp.'s Bartow plant in Pinellas County are
being converted to coal (along with one converted to coal-oil
mixture), as are four boilers of TECO's Gannon plant in
Hillsborough County. -

At the request of the Florida PS C, the U. S. Department of
Energy carried out a study of coal conversion suitability
among Florida's oil-burning power plants. Suitability in the
study was based on four criteria: (1) engineering suitability;
(2) economic benefit; (3) environmental suitability; and (4)
site suitability. (See Fig. 1-9 and Table 1-3).

Using these four criteria, the study rates the Martin 1 and 2
units of FPL in Martin County as the highest priority for
conversion. The second-highest priority was assigned to FPL's
Manatee units 1 and 2 in Manatee County; third hi.ghest was
FPC's Anclote units 1 and 2 in Pasco County; and fourth
highest was Sanford units 4 and 5 at the FPL plant in Volusia
County. Other potential coal conversion sites rated by the
Dept. of Energy study are shown in Fig. 1-8 and Table 1-3.

1-16

Siting Handbook Chapter 1, Part A Draft 2

Table 1-3. Composite Ranking of 14 Oil-Fired Power Plants in
Florida for Possible Conversion to Coal. Source: Conversion
of Florida Electric Powerplants from Oil to Coal Burning, U.
S. Dept. of Energy, April, 1983.

POWER OVERALL ENGIN- ENVI- ECON- RANK
PLANT RATING EERING RONMENT OMIC

Anclote (FPC) F P G P 3
Bartow (FPC) F G F F 12
Cape Canaveral (FPL) G G G F 8
Deerhaven (GVL) G G G G 14
Fort Meyers (FPL) F G G P 9
Hopkins (TAL) G F G G 13
Indian River (FPL) F F G F 10
Manatee (FPL) G G G G 2
Martin (FPL) F G G P 1
McIntosh (LAK) F F F F 15
Northside (JEA) F F F G 5
Port Everglades (FPL) F G F F 6
Sanford (FPL) G G G F 4
Turkey Point (FPL) F G F F 7

G = good
F = fair
P = poor

1-17

g Handbook Chapter 1, Part A Draft 2

Fig. 1-9. Potential Sites for Con:version to Coal in Florida.
Source: DOE/SAI (1983). Note that numbers in circles refer to
priority for conversion assigned in DOE study.

0UW-L Northside 1-3
CM- $&XM 11S90
Irv UWAM
.031101111 Deerhaven I
82e
Sonfwd4-5
Hopkins 1&2 1 872T
33449 UNIT IWAIIIIIINIII

LUZ
M-cintosh I- SIBMIMA ,,Indian Rive( 2-3
2300$ 5524)
Anclote I & 2 Cape Canovemi 1-2
11130 8040
Bactow 2 & 3
we
Manatee 1 &2
1n7Q Morunl&2
saM 17260

3&4
Ft. Megws I & 2 How" 2970

Part Eve(glades
0"- MOUM JACXSM 1-4 12540
PCs^
VWMMUTM *AM
rkey Point I&
8040

Source. FCG, DOE

1-18

Siting Handbook Chapter 1, Part A Draft 2

4. Annotated Bibliography

UTILITY POWER PLANT PROJECTIONS

Florida Dept. of Veteran and Community Affairs An Analysis of
the Ten-Year Site Plans of the Electric Utilities of Florida.
(Tallahassee, FL: DVCA, 1981).
Comments on the Ten-Year Site Plans of the state's 10-
largest electric utilities.

Florida Electric Coordinating Group. Ten Year Plan.
(Tampa, FL: Florida Electric Coordinating Group, f9_83).
This is the basic reference on electric utility planning
in Florida. It is required by law to be revised annually,
and provide ten year projections. In recent years, a 20-
year planning horizon has been.included, in accordance
with the Annual Planning Workshop requirement of the
state's Public Service Commission.

Florida Public Service Commission. Statistics of the Florida
Electric Utility Industry: 1982. (Tallahassee, FL: Florida
Public Service Commission, Dec., 1983).
This is a compilation of statistics. The series began
with publications by the State Energy Office (now known as
the Governor's Energy Office); responsibility for Dubli-
shing this report is now given to the Public Service
Commission. This is a "must" in discussing all features
of the electric utility industry, including fuel use,
pricing, future plans, customer growth, etc.

Ten-Year Site Plans
Each year, each of the state's ten-largest electric
utilities submit a ten-year plan which is to include
information on sites considered for future plants. More
information on this requirement is contained in Chapter2,
Part D.

1-19

Siting Handbook Chapter 1, Part A Draft 2

U. S. Dept. of Energy, Energy Information Administration.
Annual Report to Congress. Vol III: Forecasts. (Washington,
D. C.: Dept. of Energy, 1983). NTIS Nr. DOE/EIA-0173/83/3.
This is the standard nationwide forecast of the Energy
Information Administration, an agency of the U. S. Dept.
of Energy which is supposed to be independent and autono-
mous. While it does not.emphasize Flori.da, all Florida
statistics such as coal use, conservation, pricing and
availability must be seen in the context of the "standard"
nationwide figures.

COAL CONVERSION

Shumacher, M. M. Coal-Oil Mixture.Combustion TechnoloAy.
(Park Ridge, NJ: Noyes Data Corp., 1981). 480 pp.
Good standard treatment of burning a mixture of coal and
oil.

Shih, C. C. et al. Emissions Assessment of Conventional
Stationary Combustion Systems. (Washington, D. C.: U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 1979). 2 vols.
In considering the issue of conversion to coal, it is
necessary to compare the effluent from oilfired boilers
with those fired by coal. This study allows that compar-
ison to be done in a generic, not site-specific, fashion.

U. S. Dept. of Energy, Energy Regulatory Administration.
Florida Statewide Coal.Conversion Study. (Washington, D. C. :
Dept. of Energy, Sept.- , 1983). 4 vols. NTIS Nr. DOE/RG-0063
Important study, funded by the U. S. Dept. of Energy on
request by the Public Service Commission'. This study
examines the feasibility of. converting oil-fired boilers
to coal in four categories: environmental, engineering,
economics, and site suitability; it recommends conversion
of 14 oil-fired boilers in Florida to coal.

Babcock and Wilcox Co. Coal-Water,Slurry Evaluation. (Palo
Alto, CA: EPRI, Feb., 1984). 3 vols. ERPI Nr. CS-3413.

1-20

Siting Handbook Chapter 1, Part B Draft 2

B. COAL-FIRED POWER PLANTS:
SIZE, TYPE, COST AND FUEL SUPPLY

1. Sizes-of Units

In 1930,1 the largest steam-electric unit in the United States
was about 200 megawatts (MW), and the average size of all
units was 20 MW. Over 95 percent of all units in operation at
that time had capacities of 50 MW or less. By 1955, the
largest unit size had increased to about 300 megawatts.

Reflecting these national trends, in the years before 1963,
the average coal-fir-ed power plant going on-line in Florida
was rated at 95.2 MW *. As shown in Table 1-2, in the decade
1962-1971, the average size of new units in Florida was 350
MW. The average capacity of coal-fired power plants certified
to go on-line for the first time 1984-1988 (not including
conversions of oil-fired units) is 550 MW. And the size of
coal-fired units may increase even further: Florida Power and
Light has indicated an interest in possibly applying for
certification of two coal-fired units at its Martin County
site which would be 783 MW each.

*All MW figures used in this chapter are maximum or gross MW
rating, unless otherwise indicated.

1-21

Siting Handbook Chapter 1, Part B Draft 2

Capital costs per kilowatt, aswell as operation and main-
tenance costs per unit of energy generated, are less for large
units than for small ones. This creates incentives to install
larger units. This trend to greater economies of scale is
likely to continue until, at some point, the incremental
savings may be offset by added physical or operational
problems. This point is not expected to be reached, particu-
larly for large utilities or those operating in pools, until
sometime after 1990. This is because utility interconnec-
tions, as is done in Florida with the Florida electric grid,
allow the most efficient use of each plant.

There are factors which tend to limit plant s izes. For
example, the amount of land required for a coal-fired plant
increases with capacity, principally because of the require-
ments for coal storage, ash and flue gas desulfurization,
sludge.disposal, and cooling ponds or towers, if required. The
amount of land and water required for lar.ge plants will
preclude the use of many otherwise desirable plant sites. The
land area required for power, plants constructed in Florida in
recent years is shown in Table 1-4. Note that 640 acres is
equivalent to one square mile. The vertical height of one
typical coal-fired plant--SECI's Seminole 1 unit, located near
Palatka, which went on-line in 1983--is shown in Fig. I-10.

Environmental problems tend to be greater for large plants,
and local concerns may limit the amount of capacity that will
be permitted at any one location. Plant size also affects
reliability: If a system is dependent on one or two large
units, a breakdown would result in greater consequences in
the event of a plant malfunction if the electric grid cannot
make up for the entire amount of loss.

2. Types of Units

In general, there are three kinds of power plant units: (1)
base load units, which operate a large percentage of the time
and supply most of the power consumed; (2) intermediate load
units, which are on-line less@often; and (3) le'ss efficient,
costly peak load units, which are operated only occasionally
to handle peak demand.

1-22

Siting Handbook Chapter 1, Part B Draft 2

1977.
Table 1-4: Acrea8e.of Major Power Plants in Florida,

Name Total Acreage In Use Acreage
1. Orlando Utilities
Lake Highland 10 7
Indian*River 95 20
11. City
ar:efnLakeland 9.3 9.3
McIntosh 414
111. Seminole Electric
Putnam County Approx. 21000
IV. Gainesville RUB
IT
J. R. Ke y- 11 11
Deer Haven 1,116 105
V. Florida Power and Light
Turkey Pgt 12.760 7,000
Lauderdale 438 ISO
Port Everglades 93 78
Riviera 22 21
St. Lucie 1,132 300
Cape Canaveral 85 29
Sanford 1,718 1.492
Putnam/Palatka 130 19
Fort Myers 20,533 29
Manatee 9,097 4,150
Cutler 86 32
Martin 10,000
V1. Tallahassee
Purdom 42 38
Hopkins 231 35
VII. Gulf Power Co.
cr-fs-t 312 200
Smith 841 270
Scholz 293 168
Ellis 1,934
VIII. Lake Worth
51 th 14 7
IX. Tampa Electric
Gannon 103 103
Hookers Point 26 26
Big Bend 1.079 891
Gas Turbin Big Bend 73 73
X. JEA
Southside 38 18
Kennedy 25 20
Northside 493 200
XI. Florida Powwcor-p-'
Anclote 405 376
Avon Park 56 53
Bartow 1,337 1.264
Bay Boro 8 8
crystal River 4,738 3,608
OeBary 2.209 960
Higgins 117 80
intercession City 90 90
Port St. Joe N/A N/A
Rio Pinar N/A NIA
Suwannee River 446 446
Turner - 122 122
-7
Total 54,748

Fig. I-10: Seminole Electric Cooperative's Seminole 1 Coal-Fired Power Plant, Palatka,
Florida. Source: SECI's Seminole 1 and 2 PPSA (1978).

COOLING TOWERS
450 FT. HIG14

STACK 600 FT MON

C14
BOILER BUILDING 245 FT. HIGH
TURBINE BUILDING F-1
ASH SILOS 100 FT. HIGH 93 FT. HIGH

CONVEYOR

GRADE COAL PILE CRUSHER HOUSE

PRECIPITATOR

1. ALL HEIGHTS ARE.APPROXIMATE
2. GRADE ELEV. APPROX. 70 FT. ABOVE MSL
OU'LO' NO
GH

YOR
' @CONVE
,@URI.NE
B
3 FT "I

Siting Handbook Chapter 1, Part B Draft 2

Load demands are different for each utility, and vary markedly
from day to day and season to season. "Load" is the total
electric power delivered or required by a utility system.*
Fig. I-11 shows the load demand of eleven representative
electric utilities in Florida. Fig. 1-12 shows the "loading
order" used by the Florida Electric Coordi:nating Group (FCG)
as it operated the Florida electric grid in the winter of
1979-80.

From these illustrations it can be seen how nuclear and coal-
fired plants were operated to the largest extent possible as
base-load units; when demand reached above about 6000 MW, oil
and gas steam units were used; and for peaks above about
14,000 MW costly combustion turbines were placed on-line.

High-pressure, high-temperature, fossil-fueled steam-electric
generating units 500 MW and larger are designed as "base load"
units and are built for continuous operation at or near full
load; these units are not desig -ned'for frequent stops and
starts and so-called "cycling" or part-time available genera-
tion as power demands change.

Base load plants produce power at the lowest cost; however,
when units having lower incremental production costs become
available for base load operations, older base load units can
be adapted and used as "intermediate" or peaking units before
they are retired. Fig. 1-12 shows how more expensive oil-fired
units are frequently used for intermediate loads and combus-
tion turbines, the most expensive of all to operate, are used
to meet peak-loads.

Because base-load units are used considerably more often than
intermediate- or peak-load units, they have a higher "capacity
factor." "Capacity factor" is defined as the degree to which a
power plant achieves its maximum possible production. This
figure can be computed by dividing the number of megawatt-hours
of actual production during a year by the product of the
plant's megawatt rating times the number of hours in a year:
8760.

*For 7definitions, see the Glossary, Attachment VI.

1-25

Siting Handbook Chapter 1, Part B Draft 2

Fig. I-11. Monthly Peak Demand of Eleven Repr esentative
Electric utilities in Floida. Source: PSC (1983).

REPRESENTATIVE SYSTEM MONTHLY PEAK DEMAND* . ......

20.000

19.0041,

16.000

15,000

14.00()

13.000

-OCr. -N-6-V. -DEC.
.JAN. FER. -NWAR. APR. MAY JUN. -JUL, AUG.

-SUM OF NON-COINCIDENTAL III-,AKSOF It MA.101( irriLint-'s: FLORIDA POWFR ANDLIGHT.
FLORIDA POWER. FLORIDA mmLic unixmi.,.s. (;ULF POWER, TAMPA ELECTRIC. FORT
P, ERCE, GAINENVILLF. -JACK.SoNVII.I.F. LAKELAND. NEW SNIYRNA, AND TALLAHASSEE.

1-12'. Loading Order for Winter 1979-1980 FCG Power Demand.
lur-ct;: DOE/SAI (1983).

Comb-tion Tuft-io, oilic-

cl-bt-d C-le Oil,(:,.

PI-t capac Ity $1111^

$70 -.W 40. b2
i onro
Ste- oil/c.. l.t. 1 570 -0.62
.Anc

'Ft.
3 7C) 40.32

465

5000 373 .5.75
....... .. .%\
S t."
337
S t .3,

........................ . . . .......
N
St... Nttch-a

_'0 11) 40 'm ho ;0 SO 0 100

Pprct-nt Tift-

1-26

Siting Handbook Chapter 1, Part B Draft 2

Table 1-5 shows that in Florida during 1980, the average coal
plant achieved a capacity factor of 49.9 percent, meaning that
the average plant was in operation sli.ghtly less than half the
time.*. The capacity factor of coal plants in Florida during r
1980 ranged from a high of 77.64 percent for Gulf' Power's
Smith I unit to a low of 32.92 percent for GPC's Crist 7.

This is remarkably close to the design criteria used by the
Florida Electric Coordinating Group in projecting the output
of new base-load plants: According to the FCG, a new coal-
fired base-load plant is designed to achieve a 70 percent
capacity factor, but in operation, with a 19 percent forced
outage rate, is projected to achieve a capacity factor of 51
percent. "Forced outages" include scheduled and unscheduled
periods of maintenance. Environmental Impact Statements
prepared for major coal-fired power plants in Florida in
recent years have frequently used a projected capacity factor
of 66 percent.

Table 1-6 shows the capacity factors for coal plants in
Florida projected for 1990 by the DOE/SAI study in 1983
assuming no conversion of oil-fired units. Note that this
study shows relatively high capacity factors for the large,
base-load units; the projected capacity factors range from a
high of .76 for Gainesville's Deerhaven 2 to a low of .60 for
Lakeland's McIntosh 3. These figures can be compared with the
projected capacity factors for 1990 civen in Table 1-8,
assuming an aggressive coal conversion program. In this-'case,
the capacity factors of large, base-load coal units drops to
an average of about .59

.3. The Cost of New Coal-Fired Power Plants

Even with the trend to larger, more economical power plants,
the cost of new power plants has been rising steadily in
recent years. The cost has risen not only due to inflation but
the cost per kilowatt of coal-fired power plants has risen in
terms of constant-value dollars.

* These capacity factors are based on maximum or gross
megawatt ratings. If they had been computed on peak summer or
winter capacity, which is often 10 to 15 percent higher, the
capacity figures would have been somewhat higher.

1-27

Table 1-5: Capacity Factors of Coal-Fired Power Plants 'in Florida, 1980.

IN-SERVICE MAX (GROSS) 1980 GENERA- CAPACITY
UTILITY/PLANT DATE CAPACITY TION (MWH) FACTOR
(MW) (MWH/8760 x capacity)

I. FLORIDA POWER CORP.
1. Bartow 1 (C-0-M) 1958 127.5
2. Crystal River 1 1966 440.5 2277.1 59.01
3. Crystal River 2 1969 523.8 2208.1 48.12

SUBTOTAL 1091.8 4485.2 46.90
00
Cq
II. TAMPA ELECTRIC CO. (TECO)
li Big Bend 1 1970 445.5 1500.3 38.44
2. Big Bend 2 1973 445.5 2373.8 60.83
3. Big Bend 3 1976 445.5 2565.9 65.75
4. Gannon 5 1965 239.4 1113.2 53.08
5. Gannon 6 1.967 414.0 2071.8 57.13

SUBTOTAL 1989.9 9625.0 55.22

III. GULF POWER CORP.
1. Crist 6 1970 369.8 1113.3 34.37
2. Crist 7 1973 578.0 1666.9 32.92
3-4. Scholz 1-2 1953 98.0 317.0 36.93
5. Smith 1 1965 149.6 1017.5 77.64
6. Smith 2 1967 190.4 1050.8 63.00
7. Crist 3 & 4 1952(&159) 187.5 69.4 30.84

SUBTOTAL 1573.3* 5234.9 42.55

GRAND TOTAL, 1980 4655.0* 19345.1 49.25

*Includes only coal-fired units in operation.
NOTE: CAPACITY FACTOR COMPUTED ON MA IMj6(GW) " NJWN "TE"EAW .
M M M = M M 1W

Siting Handbook Chapter 1, Part B Draft 2

Table 1-6: Projected 1990 Coal Demands for All Potential Coal-
Fired Powerplants and Capacity Factors, Assuming No Additional
Conversion of Oil Units. Source: DOE/SAI (1983).

Average Projected 1990
Utility and Plant Capacity Coal Demandt'
Generating Station Units Factorf' (103 tons)

Florida Power Corporation
Crystal River 1-5 0.620 4,582

Florida Power & Light Company;
Jacksonville Electric Authority
St. Johns River 1,2 0.680 2,568

Gainesville Regional Utilities
Deerhaven 2 0.760 642

Gulf Power Company
Crist 4-7 Not available 2,000
Scholz 1,2 Not available 230
Smith 1,2 Not available 1,000

City of Lakeland; Orlando
Utilities Commission
McIntosh 3 0.600 726

Orl'ando Utilities Commission;
Florida Municipal Power Agency;
City of Lakeland
Stanton 1 0.690 1,016

Seminole Electric Cooperative
Seminole 1,2 0.685 2,917
Taylor 1,2 0.700 2,987

Tampa Electric Company
Big Bend 1-4 0.719 3,831
Gannon 1-6 0.664 2,779

TOTAL 25,278

t' Estimates 'obtained from dispatch analysis conducted by Science Applica-
tions, Inc. for U.S. Department of Energy, Fuels Conversion Division--
except Crist, Scholz, and Smith estimates provided by the utility.

1-29

Siting Handbook Chapter 1, Part B Draft 2

As seen in Table 1-7, in 1.982, the average cost of new coal-
fired capacity coming into service in Florida was $710/kW
while the average cost of plants coming on-line in 1987 is
projected to be $1115/KW, in constant 1982 dollars.

The prime reason for the trend toward larger and larger units
is to obtain lower costs for power production. As shown
below, according to the FCG, the "cash price" of a typical,
Itgeneric" coal-fired 600-MW base load plant would be $1,047
per kilowatt in 1983; however, i:f the cost of finance at 1983
interest rates is added to this figure, with taxes, the cost
for a 600-MW unit would rise to $1,731/KW, and to $2,170/KW
for a smaller 425 MW unit. This shows a direct economy of
scale, using inflated, not constant, dollar payback figures.

CAPACITY CASH PRICE $/KW INTEREST TOTAL COST TOTAL
(MW) (Mill. 1983 $) .(Mill $) (20 yrs) ($/KW)

600 628.20 1047.0 195.22 1038.40 1730.67

425 444.98 1047.0 .162.48 922.27 2170.05

4. Fuel Supply

As seen in Table 1-8, in 1982 coal-fired power plants in
Florida consumed an estimated 10,930 tons of coal. Of this
amount, 34.5 percent of Florida's coal was delivered by rail,
64.5 percent by water, and 0.9% by truck. As seen in Fig. 1-6,
most of the coal delivered to Florida today is by barge,
although three sites--Gainesvil.le's Deerhaven plant in Alachua
County, TECO's Gannon plant in Killsborough County, and Gulf
Power's Scholz plant in Jackson County--receive coal by rail:

a. Rail Delivery

FPC'S Crystal River 1 & 2--About half the coal used by
FPC's Crystal River units 1 & 2 is delivered via 72-car unit
trains. The cars are owned by FPC. Final delivery is made
by Seaboard Coast Lines (SCL).

1-30

Table 1-7: The Cost of New Coal-Fired Power Plants Coming On-Line in Florida 1982-1987.
Source: Florida PSC (Dec., 1983 and Dec., 1982).

CAPACITY IN-SERVICE COST COST $ / KW
POWER PLANT OWNERSHIP (MW) DATE (Mill.$) (1982 $) (1982)

McIntosh 3, OUG/LAK 334 1982 229 229 686
Crystal River 4 FPC 640 1982 469 469 733

1982 Average $710

Seminole 1 SECI 600 1984 415 377 628
Crystal River 5 FPC 640 1984 409 338 528

1984 Average $578

Seminole 2 SECI 600 1985 415 312 520
Big Bend 4 TECO 417 1985 581 437 1048

1985 Average $784

St. Johns Riv.Pwr. Prk JEA/FPL 550 1987 871 654 1189
Stanton I OUC/LAK 415 1987 662 432 1041

1987 Average $1115

St. Johns. Riv. Pwr. JEA/FPL 500 1988 871 541 -1082

TOTAL 4696 4892 3789
DOLLAR PER KILOWATT, current $ = $1042
DOLLARS PER 2KILOWATT, 1982 $ = $80.7

Siting Handbook Chapte r 1, Part B Draft 2
Table 1-8: Estimated Annual Coal Use by Florida Powerplants
in Operation in 1982. Source: DOE/SAI (1983).

N,et Estimated Annual potential
Utility and Capabilityt' Coal Uset2 Coal Supply
Generating station Uni t (Rde) (103 tons) Regiont2

Florida Power Corp.
Crystal River 1 373 1,000 S. IL; E. KY
2. 469 1,200

Gainesville Regional
utilities WV; KY; VA
oeerhaven 2 235 700
Gulf Power CO. .250
Crist 4 81 250 IL; AL
5. 86
6 317 Soo
7 486 1,000
Scholz 1 46 U5 AL; IL; E. KY
2 46 U5
Smith 1 160 1,000 IL; AL
2 -188 (total)

City of Lakeland;
Orlando utilities
Commission
McIntosht3 3 334 800 E. KY

Tampa Electric CO.
ai g Bend 1 376t4 2,800 E. KY; W. KY;
2 362 (total) S. IL; OK
3 385t4 1,200 E. KY; W. KY;
Gannon 5 218 S. IL; OK
6 361t4
TOTAL 10,930 (1982).
ti Oata'from Florida Electric power Coordinating Group, Inc
t2 Coal.use estimates, except McIntosh, and potential supply regions provided
by the respective utilities; coal use for McIntosh was assumed since
utility estimates were not available.
t3 McIntosh Unit'3 brought on-line during 1982; the others were on-line prior
to 1982.
t4 Net capability that will be on-line in 1983 (1982 capabilities are slightly
less).

1-32

Siting Handbook Chapter 1, Part B Draft 2

TECO--The CAL-GLO mine in southeastern Kentucky supplies
approximately two-thirds of the coal used by Tampa Electric
Co (TECO). The primary delivery mode to GAnnon is by unit
trains using 80-ton cars owned by the railroad. The
Seaboard System Railroad is used, with final delivery via
SCL.

Gulf Power--Coal is delivered to the Scholz plant of the
=ulf Power Corp. from the Illinois basin and eastern
Kentucky via the Louisville and Nashville Railway (L&N).
Gulf Power's Daniel plant in Mississippi, which supplies
power to Florida, also receives coal by rail. It is interes-
ting in that it is the only plant operated by a Florida
utility that receives western coal. Unit trains are made to
the Daniel plant from Colorado and utah.

Municipal Utilities--The Gainesville-Alachua County Regional
Utility Board (RUB) has a long-term contract for coal for
its Deerhaven plant from West Virginia, and makes spot
purchases from Kentucky and Virginia. The unit train with
utility-owned cars travels over the CSX system.

Coal is delivered to the McIntosh plant from a mine in
eastern Kentucky via a 70-car unit train; final delivery is
over the SCL system.

b. Coal Deliveries by Water

Florida Power Corp.--FPC receives the other half of its coal
deliveries for the Crystal River plan via water from
southern Illinois. The coal is barged down the Mississippi
River to New Orleans and then transloaded to 17,500-ton
barges for delivery to the plant, which is located on the
Gulf of Mexico.

Tampa Electric Co.--TECO currently receives about one-third
of its coal for the Gannon and Big Bend plants via water.
This coal comes from western Kentucky and southern Illin-
ois. The companies involved with the water transport of the
coal (Mid-South Towing Co, Gulf Coast Transit, and Elctro
Coal Transfer Corp.), along with TECO itself, are all
subsidiaries of TECO Energy, a holding company. TECO has
also received Polish coal by water.

1-33

Siting Handbook Chapter 1, Part B Draft 2

Gulf Power Corp.--The major portion of coal used at GPC's
Crist and Smith plants comes from southern Illinois. it is
shipped down the Ohio and Mississippi rivers in river
barges; south of New Orleans, the 25- to 40-barge tows are
broken into 4-barge tows and brought through the Gulf
Intracoastal waterway and up the Escambia River to Crist, or
directly to Smith on the Intracoastal. During the 1970's the
Smith plant burned South African coal.

5. Annotated Bibliography

Berkshire County Regional Planning Commission. Evaluation of
Power Facilities: A Reviewer's Handbook. (Pittsfield, MA:
Berkshire County RPC, April, 1974). Available ILL: FSU Call
Nr. DOC HD 9685 U5.
This is probably the best single-volume introduction to
power plant technology and issues., and should be a basic
reference for any planner dealing with power plant siting
issues. Although it is presently somewhat out of date as
regards recent federal regulations and recent developments
in evironmental protection technology, it serves as an
excellent document for the overall description of power
plant technology and siting issues.

Florida Electric'Power Coordinating Group. 1983 Annual Plan-
,ning Workshop: Composite Forms. (Tampa, FL: FCG, 1983).
This volume, prepared each year by the FCG for the Annual
Planning Workshop of the Public Ser@vice Commission pro-
vides detailed planning assumptions,regarding the cost of
new plants, the projected need for new facilities and
future purchases of fuel.
r
hannon, Robert. Handbook of Coal-Based Electric Power
eneration: The Techn Utility Application and Economics
of Coal for Generating Electric Power. (Park Ridge, NJ: Noyes
ublications, 1982). 372 pp. Avail. ILL: Univ. of Florida Call
r.TK 105/S34 1982.
This is an excellent one-volume introduction to the
engineering of power plants. Using reports published by
the federal government, this book describes the state-of
the-art on power plant engineering, and provides a wealth
of background information pertinent to the overall opera-
tion and design of coal-fired power plants.

1-34

Siting Handbook Chapter 1, Part C Draft 2

C. IMPACTS OF INCREASED COAL USE IN FLORIDA

The Florida electric utility industry has projected that coal
consumption in Florida by the turn of the century will be more
than 300 percent above the 1983 level. Further, industry
forecasts imply that the deca-de 199.1-2001 could see the growth
of coal-fired capacity of 13,500 MW, equivalent to 25 new 650-
MW plants.

An increase in coal-consumption of this magnitude will have
major implications for the state. This section briefly
examines two of these: the impacts on the state's economy,
and the impact on reliability of the state's electrical
system. The projected impacts that this level of expansion
would have on air quality are discussed in Chapter 5 and the
impacts on the state's transportation system are discussed in
Chapter 7.

1. Economic Impact

The electric utility industry maintains that the cost of a new
600 MW coal-fired power plant coming on-line in 1987, in-
cluding the cost of interest, would be $1730 per kW, in
constant 1982 dollars. This.means that the total cost of a
600-MW plant would be about $1.04 billion including interest
charges and taxes.

1-35

ng Handbook Chapter 1, Part C Draft 2

Projecting the dollar amounts that utilities of the state are
likely to spend on this new capital construction is not easily
done, owing to vicissitudes of costs, demand for power,
imprecise plans regarding the type of equipment which would be
purchased, and so forth. Nevertheless, from these figures it
can be shown that if the electric utilities of Florida were to
construct the 13,500 MW of coal-fir-ed. capacity which which has
been projected but not certified, at a 1983 cost of $1730/kW
this would require the expenditure of $23.4 billion dollars.
However, since a portion of th-is coal, capacity would be
represented by oil-fired plants converted to coal, the actual
cost would be less than this amount, depending on the number
of plants converted. A cost of $23.4 billion (in constant 1983
dollars) would be equivalent to $1843 per person in 1990,
assuming the 1990 population is 12.7 million.

Not only is capital cost for new construction extraordinarily
expensive, the cost of fuel for coal-fired.power plants is
equally expensive. As seen in Fig. 1-15, in 1980 coal
delivered to Florida averaged slightly over $1.90 per million
Btu (MMBtu), which. was equivalent to a weighted average of
$43.29 per ton. Using economic forecasts of the Data Re-
sources Inc. (DRI), in 1982 the FCG predicted that between
1980 and 1996, coal prices will almost double in terms of
constaat dollars; and in terms of infl.ated, current dollars,
coal prices will nearly quadruple over that time period. This
will have a significant impact on utility prices charged to
ratepayers--and therefore impacts on the state's economy. Even
though the cost for both capi.ta-1 expansion and for fuel
purchase are exceedingly large, they must be compared with the
cost of other alternatives, such as oil-fired power, nuclear,
or conservation to offset the nee@d for new expansion. (See
Chapter 8 for further discussion of these comparisons.)

2. Impact on Reliability

To increase the reliability of electric power, utilities
maintain a "reserve margin"--i.e., -they t-ry to -have more
generating capacity than will be needed to meet the expected
level of demand. According to the U. S. Dept. of Energy, the
average utility in the nation maintains a reserve margin of
15-25 percent . The optimum reserve margins for four typical
large utilities is given in Fig. 1-16; for these cases, the
optimum was found to be 26 percent.

1-36

Siting Handbook Chapter 1, Part C .Draft 2

Fig. 1-15. The Cost of Coal Burned by Electric Power Plants
in Florida, 1960 - 1996. Sources: Historical PSC (1983);
Projected FCG (1983).

1000-

900-

800- CURRENT DOLLARS
- KEY INCREASE 1980 - 1985: 712
700- HISTORICAL (CURRENT I) INCREASE 1980 - 1990 191%
HISTORICAL (1900 $) INCREASE 1980 - 1996: 397%
600- ........... PROJECTED (CURRENT S) 5 5.3@'
500- ......... PROJECTED (1980 S)

400- ASSUMES FCG MEDIUM PRICE RATES 3"
OFSINCREASE AND CONTINUATION OF
"I ORtCAL PERCENTAGE OF LOW- 326,10'
300- AND HIGH SULFUR COAL IN FLORIDA. REAL DOLLARS
INCREASE 1980 - 1985: 25%
200- 155 INCREASE 1960 - 19W 57%
- 190.5 INCREASE 1980 - 1996: 98%
100- 54.2 71.2 65.1 101.3
2X5

1960 1970 1980 1990 2000

Fig. 1-16. Optimum Reserve Margins for Four Major Utilities.
Source: Cazalet (1978).

3
TVA PG&E

2
ADDITIONAL
COST TO
CONSUMERS
(millsikWh)

L
"0
IL

WEPCO

0 10 20 30 40
PLANNING RESERVE MARGIN
-.2

PT
CL 2

1-37

Siting Handbook Chapter 1, Part C Draft 2

As seen in Table 1-9, in 1983 the electric utilities of
Peninsular Florida had an expected reserve margin of 42
percent; that is, there was an an.expected peak demand of
19,410 MW, and available capacity 42 percent higher: 26,612
MW. These figures do not include Gulf Power Corp., a subsid-
iary of the Southern System, which can be computed separately.
Assuming power plants presently under construction come . on
line and demand continues to increase as the utilities
forecast, the Florida electric utility industry expects the
reserve margin of Peninsular Florida to increase to 48 percent
by 1989. Under the proposed construction schedule of the
utilities, this reserve margin would then fall by 2002 to 33
percent.

Also shown in Table 1-9 is the "Loss of Load Probability"
(LOLP) under different reserve margins. This term is one
which all planners dealing with.utility systems planning need
to understand. LOLP can be defined as the probability that at
some unspecified time, usually during a period of peak,demand,
the utility would fail to meet all power demands. As 'the
reserve margin is increased, the LOLP is decreased.

The question of how large the reserve margin should be is the
key issue: It costs billions of dollars to construct plants
which are not used to their fullest capacity. Planners
involved with the Need for Power Determination proceedings of
the Public Service Commission, explained in Chapter 2, will
need to consider this question as the central issue to be
addressed.

On the other hand, failing to have an adequate supply of power
is equally undesirable; there is a severe economic penalty for
not constructing nee-ded capacity. One study conducted in
Florida concluded that the cost of a power outage to commer-
cial and industrial customers stemming from lost business,
spoiled goods, production delays and so forth amounted to
$2.19 per kilowatt-hour (kWh). For a small business that may
consume 5000 kWh per month, a loss of one-day's service would
be painful enough; for a large industry which may consume 1
million kWh per month, the loss of power for a period of days
could be disastrous.

1-38

Table I-I.. Summary of Capacity, Demand and Reliability at Time of Summer Peak for
Peninsular Florida, As Projected by the Florida Electric Coordinating Group, 1983.
Source: FCG (1983).

(2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)

Installed Capacity Available Peak Rellabilit Indices
Capacity Import Capacity Demand Reserve Margin LOLP
Year (MW) (M W) (M W) (MW) (-Mw) %of Peak Days/Year

1983 26962 650 27612 19410 9202 42 .0ill

1984 26934 950 27884 19980 7904 40 .0055

1985 28613 2000 30613 20546 10067 49 .0005

1986 28591 2000 30591 21146 9445 45 .0013
1987 29546 2500 32046 21611, 10435 49 .0001

1988 29599 2400 31989 22081 9908 45 .0005

1989 30843 2400 33243 22487 10756 48 .0001

1990 30821 2400 33221 23105 10116 44 .0007

1991 31412 2400 33812 23957 9855 41 .0016
1992 31937 2400 34237 24657 9580 39 .0029

1997 35992 0 35992 27815 8177 29 .0906

2002 40917 0 40917 30797 10120 33 .0696

OPT I 1 14

Siting Handbook Chapter 1, Part C Draft 2

Therefore, the question of excess reserve margin has been a
highly controversial question in power plant siting pro-
ceedings. Critics have pointed out that when the Orlando
Stanton 1 plant comes on-line the utility will have a reserve
margin of 83 percent and that the Gainesville utility has a
reserve margin of 53 percent. The Public Service Commission
contends that these extraordinarily high reserve margins have
been necessary to reduce oil consumption and meet high
population growth.

3. Annotated Bibliography

ECONOMIC IMPACTS

Florida Electric Coordinating Group. Ten Year Plan: Annual
5_3 T___Vols_
Plannia& Workshop., (Tampa, FL: FCG, 198

Florid Public Service Commission.. Statistics of the Florida
Electric Utility Industry: 1982. (Tallahassee, FL: PSC, Dec.,
1983).

SYSTEM RELIABILITY

Cazalet, Edward et al. Costs and Benefits of Over/Under
Capacity in Electric Power @t@em flanning. (Palo Alto:
EPRI, d-ctober, 1978). EPRI. Rpt. Nr. EA-927.
One of the biggest issues in systems planning is how big a
reserve margin is adequate. This publication develops a
model for considering reserve margins, and recommends a
margin of about 30% for four large utilities.

Fowler, M. J. "Power Plant Performance." Environment. Vol.
20, No. 3 (April, 1978), pp. 25-32.
Useful article; discussed the percentage of time which
various types of power plants are out of service.

1-40

Siting Handbook Chapter 1, Part C Draft 2

Green, A. E. S. The Impact of Increased Coal Use in Florida.
(Gainesville, FL: Univ. of Florida, 1979). 2 vols.
This study, funded by the STAR program of the State
University System, was prepared by a consortium of profes-
sors at the Univ. of Florida. Unfortunately, it was never
published in a typeset format, and is available only in an
office copier format. It was prepared on the request of
the State Energy Office and even though it uses projec-
tions which are now out of date, it is very useful,
particularly regarding environmental impacts of power
plants. The research for this report lead to Coal Burning
Issues, discussed below.

Mosbaeck, E. J. 'Power Shortage Costs: Estimates nd Applica-
tions. (Palo Alto, CA: EPRI, Dec. , 1981). EPRI Rpt. Nr.
EA-1215. 3 vols. Interesting study of power outages,
including one in Florida. This study shows the high cost
of power outage; $2.19/kWh in Key West, showing drop in
dollar drop in commercial sales resulting from outages.

North American Electric Reliability Council. Thirteenth
Annual Review of Overall Reliability and Adequacy of Bulk
Power Supply in the Electric Utility Systems of North
America. (Princeton, NJ:.North American Electric Reliability
Council, August, 1983). 56 pp.
This publication, a summary of utility projections and
reserve margins, appears each year. It is the standard
basis of utility planning forecasts.

1-41

i
,I
I
I
I I
I
I PART II
I POWER PLANT SITING
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

-1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I CHAPTER 2
I POWER PLANT SITING IN FLORIDA
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

Siting Handbook Chapter 2, Part A Draft 2

CHAPTER 2

POWER PLANT SITING REGULATION5IN FLORIDA

The licensing of new power plants in Florida is governed
predominantly by the Power Plant Siting Act, sections 403.501
- 519, Florida Statutes. Part A of this chapter details the
provisions of this legislation, Part B describes the seven-
step certification process and. Part C details the respon-
sibilities of state and local government agencies under this
act.

A. FLORIDA POWER PLANT SITING

1. The Power Plant Siting Act

Passed in the 1973 legislative session, the Florida Electrical
Power Plant Siting Act (PPSA) became effective July 1, 1973.
The PPSA was designed to provide a one-stop site certification
procedure for construction or expansion of steam, solar or
nuclear electrical power plants. It also provided for coor-
dination of long-range planning by electric utilities with
local and state planning agencies. The act is included as
Attachment I.

II-1

Siting Handbook Chapter 2, Part A Draft 2

The legislative intent of the PPSA was to provide a centrally
coordinated state approval system for each proposed site. The
act recognized that selection of power plant sites and
associated transmission corridors would have a significant
impact on the welfare of the population, location and growth
of industry, and the use of the state's natural resources.
Under the act, a new plant would be issued a permit only after
a review conducted by a number of state agencies.

In the PPSA, the Legislature recognized the need for power
generation facilities. But it also stated, in section
403.502, that the legislative intent is to ensure that "the
location and operation of electrical power plants will produce
minimal adverse effects on human health, the ecology of the
land and its wildlife and the ecology of state waters and
their aquatic life." The legislative intent was for state F
agencies to balance the increasing demands for electrical
energy with the broad interests of the public. The act was
passed by the Legislature at the request of the Florida
electric utilities who felt that obtaining numerous separate
permits from regulatory agencies was too time consuming and
led to too many uncer-tainties.

Since the 'enactment of the PPSA, it has been amended a number
of times. In 1975, final certification authority was given to
the Florida Cabinet and the Division of Administrative Hear-
ings was assigned the authority to conduct the certification
hearings. In 1976 Water Management Districts were added to the
review process by rule, and in 1979 power plants less than 50
megawatts (MW) in size were exempted from the act. In 1981
Water Management Districts were added as a statutory party.

In 1980, the Legislature adopted language making the Florida
Public Service Commission (PSC) the exclusive agency of state
government authorized to certify the need for new power plants
and transmission lines. The amendment directed the PSC to
consider both the cost-effectiveness of a proposed facility,
and the role of conservation in meeting future need for power.
In 1981, the PPSA was amended to allow applicants for units
smaller than 50 MW to use the PPSA voluntarily.

11-2

Siting Handbook Chapter 2, Part A Draft 2

2. Provisions of the PPSA

As seen in Attachment II, the Power Plant Siting Act directs
the Department of Environmental Regulation to:

1. Adopt, promulgate or amend reasonable rules to
carry out the provisions of the act, including rules
setting forth env ironmental precautions to be followed
in relation to the location of electric power plants.

2. Prescribe the form, content, and necessary supporting
documentation for site certification applications.

3. Receive applications for final site locations and to
investigate their sufficiency.

4. Make, or contract for studies of electrical power
plant site certification applications.

5. Conduct hearings on the proposed location of the
electric power plant sites.

6. Require an application fee not to exceed $50,000 for
each application for certification.

7. Prepare a written report which is to include:

a. A'statement indicating whether the applica-
tion is in compliance with DER's rules.

b. A report from the Public Service Commission
setting forth the need for electricity in the
area to be serve.

C. A report from the Department of Community
Affairs regarding compatibility of the applica-
tion with the State Comprehensive Plan.

d. A report from the affected water management
district.

11-3

Siting Handbook Chapter 2, Part A Draft 2

e. An assessment of the environmental effects
of the construction and operation of the plant,
and the results of any studies conducted.

f. Comments received by DER from any other
agency.

g. A recommendation as to the disposition of
the application.

8. Give adequate public notice and to directly notify
all concerned state or local agencies and report any
comments received from these agencies to the Siting
Board (i.e., the Florida Cabinet) and to the applicant.

9. Prescribe the means for monitoring the effects
arising from the construction and operation of electri-
cal power plants to assure continued compliance with
terms of certification.

The report prepared by DER to meet the requirements of the
legislation is known as a "Staff Analysis Report." The
Bibliography provided below in Section 3 lists each staff 16
analysis report currently available to planners. As shown in
Table II-1, by January 1, 1984, a total of 18 applications had
been received during the ten years the Power Plant Siting Act
has been in effect.

The Power Plant Siting Section of the Florida Department of
Environmental Regulation currently has responsibility for
implementing this legislation. For more information, contact:

Power Plant Siting Program Administrator
Power Plant Siting Program
Florida Department of Environmental Regulation
2600 Blair Stone Road
Tallahassee, FL 32301
tel. 904/488-0310

11-4

Siting Handbook Chapter 2, Part A Draft 2

Table II-1. Power Plant Siting Applications Received by the
Florida Dept. of Environmental Regulation, 1973-1983. (Source:
DER)

0019 PLAWr MINAS A"LICATtOW
AqP&j.&jj- Pt&.tjUit j ?". unit AgpiLcotLan cortteic-i..
"Imsta. -d L-.tL- W Satins wa.t..d M..'L.9 -00'.
PA74-01 PUL@ rolotits, Ft Cide Vdaeff and Coast." cycle/ 12/03/73 0/30/74- to/ts/14-
Lt::. Co. 011-fird
242 Ill Mosesic
a90 -W let..
PA741-02 St., Locie 02 Florida P.-C *"less at/34Y74 ad/t:/75 - 05/10/76
toliLmlical Light Co. 07 1 7
".Load 042 PAS 03 31"111/74
PA74-03 dookLas 12 city 00 Ullsbasisee Fossil Smas 02111S/74 al/t7175 05/10/7'.
Talloassisew QW(Mill Fired
1 234 all
PAIO-04 D"gho"ol:Z Pooeit Stesse 03/14/74 04/37/79 03/16/70
G"AsevAil County =4 COOL-Vired leoisel
I Utilities assed T 09/77
PA74-09 LAI* Worth Lake worth utilities Combined cycle 06/24/74 14/19/79 09/18/?6
A." North ikth..Ity Il-'Ir
as %AAAA. MU."odis
PA14-al; Lake Parker 02 L&X.L." Utilities FowLll!re
:0" 07/74
to 1.
/G."11. W7S
,,ad
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
'M ilitir, re .11 St.- Mook-d 00IM-W74 12/0?/ 1
-Allawea, 63 O.I.ad. Utitit As C.:L/Net- 04/17/74
caseslookoo Ftrd 134;w
PATS-41 S.F. title Gott peosir p ... itist.- 04414YIS LZ/03/?S QS/07/74--
C4cy,viLL. Corporation C"i-F red
Ultia'a .0 W3000
PA17-64 Do" CO"tv 04" C.-ty is Pie. St.- 041011/77 11/02/77 ot/01171
'00OVArell ptase 4.d Llqh%) R.I.-Pired
is
F-LXlt"y
VA71-00 Cry taL Riter Florida Favor Fossil Stess, 12/14177 09/18-30/71 LL/21/19
to :ad is CO.P.-CiAm. coal-Vir
C@ra%.A 111- 440 Me .::"
VA74.10 5"is"I" Sool-L Clectric Fossil It. 00/07/70 WOWS a-0/111/19
IA '. CoMeca: A.0 C-1-F A, AId"
Pliketka 620 AN .-a
Fell-ti rt"Ll.. Cavity Ft&.1L.6 County 31*- SS/24/71 07/20/71
A-.- M.-firAml
M_AM 10
F-ilit
St. Vocorsberg
VA79.12 :tq'%AAAWS 04 To." Electric Co. Pa., ItAIa. 10/01 711 04/23/lt 06/11/01
as A. It ".-,I.wl
425 WA as/it/
past-13 St. 4oftes at-1, ift -ill. SAW- Fossil Stains .1-012 -11.1
"'o"r per"t'T AothorttV/1`14. CoaL-F A.
j=k@ILIO PaosC a 1,19"t Co. 2- 600 M Unit.
FAIlt-14 no 71.41 it Otis"" Utilities 0 .. At-stses as/iv/st 1/15-31/92 L2/LS/42
no C
C.o.ty onal-ion Cast/
1,

rA4j_LS Aar Plant Sasi.0141 cloccric FOSSIL St. MCA- e
TSF)AC COaAA%Y COOFAICAItt" Co.,-F,'od t.-t
Go* M units 02/10183
FASj-&# mcf."s To." 81actric P .. !I
"1 11 wara'alft, cavany .. ,St
C-L red t".."
"'Anat" cconcloo Sao MAP 03/04/02
PA42-17 Fla.CT-fted Fla. Crushed $to** fto 10/18/ 1 06/2-5/13 03/09144
t. casoft Coe".7 C1=or4Cl_ It ac-01I.C..
't ... 125
nor.Ainde Co"tV
PAW3-L6 Pt..U.. Co. V%_L1.4 coonty St." !oud 02/29/64 03170/44
woo.t.. *- =' -tt,.d I.-
MY 29 zeadditic" =9/04/411
St.- zte-burt;
Mill.tiorearb Co. MiLlebar"'aft It= "*.tl" 4
RUtC* SWO" C4"Cr 4. -111. 11 "'t
.'V rMility a, Is. 1 1. .
?..a I uLtiestoi
PA44-10 '(,-I- --ft C-ont"
AAAA:gy'r i1tty W
It

11-5

Siting Handbook Chapter 2, Part A Draft 2

3. Bibliography

Planners who become involved with power plant siting or
transmission line siting applications would benefit from
reading applicationi which have been received. in previous
years. The following is a bibliography of selected power
plant siting studies and applications which may be useful to
planners facing reviews of future siting applications.

STATE REGULATIONS: GENERAL

Florida Sierra Club. Power Plant Siting Handbook (Gainesville,
FL: Florida Sierra Club, 1601 N. W. 35th Way, Gainesville,
FL 32605, n.d.).
This publication, assembled by the Sierra Club with the
assistance of the Department of Environmental Regulation,
is designed as a guidebook for citizens and activists. It
includes copies of relevant legislation and regulations.

Green, Alex A. E. (ed.) The Impact of Increased Coal Utiliza-
tion in Florida. (Gainesville, FL: Univ. of Florida, 1979).
This study includes several sections on power plant siting
regulations prepared by attorneys.

11-6

Siting Handbook Chapter 2, Part A Draft 2

POWER PLANT SITING CASES IN FLORIDA

Gainesville/Alachua Cnty. Reg. Util. Board: Deerhaven Unit 2

Florida Dept. of Environmental Regulation, Power Plant Siting
Program. Electric Power Plant Site Certification Review for
Gainesville/Alachua County Regional Utilities Board Unit. No.
2, Case No. PA 74-04. (Tallahassee, FL: DER, March, 1978).

Florida Power Corp.: Crystal River Units 4 and 5

Florida Power Corp. Site Certification Application: Crystal
River Units 4 and 5. (St. Petersburg FL: Florida Power
Corp. Dec, 1977). 4 vols.

Fla. Div. of Admin. Hearings. In re: Florida Power Corpora-
tion Crystal River Units 4 and 5, Case No . 77-2212. (Talla-
hassee, FL: Div. of Adrnini@_trative Hearings, Oct., 1978), 18
PP.

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. Draft Environmental
Impact Statement, Florida Power Corp. Crystal River Units '4
and 5. (Atlanta, GA: USEPA Regional IV Office, July, 1980).
NTIS Nr. EPA 904/9 -80-048. 2 vols.

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. Final Environmental
Impact Statement, Florida Power Corporation Crystal River
Units 4 and 5. (Atlanta, GA: USEPA Region IV Office,
January,

11-7

Siting Handbook Chapter 2, Part A Draft 2

Florida Power and Light: St. Lucie 2

Fla. Div. of Admin. Hearin&s. In re: Florida Power and Light
Co. Applications for Power Plant Site Certification St. Lucie
Nuclear Plant No. 2. Case PA-74-02. (Tallahassee, FL: Dept. of.-
Administration, UcTT, 75). 34 pp.

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Draft EIS Related to
Operation of St. Lucie Plant, Unit 2 Docket 50-389. (Wash-
ington, D.C.: U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, October,
1981). NTIS Nr. NUREG-0842.

Florida Power and Light: Turkey Pt. Units 3 and 4

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Final Environmental
Statement Related to Steam Generator Repair at FPL Turkey Pt.
Plants Units 3 & 4. (Washington D. C.: U. S. NRC,- March,
1981). NTIS Nr. NUREG-0743.

Jacksonville Elec. Auth.: JEA/FPL St. Johns River Power Park

Fla. Div. of Admin. Hearings. In re: Jacksonville Electric
Authority St. Johns River Power Park Site Certification
Application. (Tallahassee, FL: Div. of Administrative Hear-
ings, 1981). Includes Final Order of Governor and Cabinet,
Sept. 1, 1981.

Florida Public Service Commission. In re: JEA/FPL Application
of Need for St. Johns River Power Pai7k- Units 1 and 2 and
'@_elaT_ed F-ac""T17-ties-'Order No. 10108. (Tallahassee, FL:
Florida Public Service _@O_Mmission June, 1981).

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. Draft Environmental
Impact Statement and State Analysis Report, Jacksonville
Electric Authority St. To-h-ns River Power Park. (Atlanta, GA:
USEPA Region IV Office, Oct., 1981). NTIS Nr. EPA 904/9081-
088.

11-8

Siting Handbook Chapter 2, Part A Draft 2

Florida Dept. of Environmental Regulation, Power Plant Siting
Section. Electric Power Plant Site Certification Review for
the JEA St. Johns River Power Park Units 1 and 2, Case No. PA
81-13. (Tallahassee, FL: October, 1981).

Lakeland Utilities

Fla. Div. of Admin. Hearings. In re. Application for
Electrical Power Plant Site Certification, City of Lakeland
Unit. No. 3, Case No. 76-922. (Tallahassee, TL_: Div. of
Administrative Hearings, Nov. , 1976), 10 pp.

Florida Dept of Environmental Regulation, Power Plant Siting
Section.. Electric Power Plant Site Certification Review for
the City of Lakeland Unit No. 3 Power Plant. (Tallahassee, FL:
DER, May, 1976).

Orlando Utilites Cmmsn: Stanton Energy Center Unit 1

Orlando Utilities Commission. Site 'Certification Application,
Curtis H. Stanton Energy Center, Unit 1. (Orlando, FL:
Orlando Utilities Commission, May, 1981). 5 vols.

Fla. Div. of Admin. Hearings. In re: Application of Orlando
Utilities Commission Curtis Stan'ton Energy Center Site Certi-
fication, Case No. 81-1431. (Tallahassee, FL: Div. of
Adminis-trative Hearings, Nov., 1982).

Florida Dept. of Environmental Regulation, Power Plant Site
Certification Section. Electric Power Plant Site Certifica-
tion Review for Orlando Utilities Commission Curtis H. Stanton
Energy Center Unit 1, Case No. PA 81-14. (Tallahassee, FL:
DER, March 13, 1982).

11-9

Siting Handbook Chapter 2,'Part A Draft 2

Seminole Electric Coop., Inc: Seminole Units. I and 2

Seminole Electric Cooperative. Site Certification Application
and Environmental Analysis: Seminole Plant Units 1 and 2.
(Tampa, FL: SECI, August, 1 978). 4 vols.

Tampa Electric Co.: Big Bend Unit 4

Tampa Electric Co. Site Certification Application for Big
Bend Station Unit 4. (Tampa, FL: TECO, Oct., 1979). 4
vols.

Florida Dept. of Environmental Regulation. Conditions of
Certification:Crystal River Units No. 4 & 5, Case No. PA 77-
09. (Tallahassee, FL: DER, Jan. 21, 1980).

Florida Div. of Admin. Hearings. In Re: Florida Power
Corporation Crystal River Units 4 & 5, Case No. 77-2212.
(Tallahassee, FL: Div. of Admin. Hearings, To-v. 2-f-,-1978).

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. Draft Environmental
Impact Statement, Tampa Elect. Co., Big Bend Unit 4 (Atlanta,
GA: USEPA Region IV Office, July, 1981). NTIS Nr. EPA 904/9-
81-070.

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. Draft Environmental
Impact Statement: Tampa Electric Co. Big Bend Unit. Nr. 4:
Technical Reference Document. (Atlanta, GA: U. S. EPA Region
IV, Oct., 1981). 2 vols.

II-10

Siting Handbook Chapter 2, Part B Draft 2

B. THE POWER PLANT SITING PROCESS

The Power Plant Siting Act establishes a nine-step process for
the certification of a proposed power plant. This procedure is
similar in many respects to the procedure established for the
certification of transmission lines described in Chapter 9.
These steps are as follows:

1. Pre-application discussions
2. The Need for Power Order of the Public
Service Commission
3. DER review for sufficiency and completeness
4. Certification review and studies
5. Land use hearing
6. The certification hearing
7. The Recommended Order of the Division of
Administrative Hearings
8. The Order of the Governor and Cabinet
9. Post-certification review by DER

This process is used for both new power plant site applica-
tions and for "supplemental" applications--i.e., those for an
addition to an existing plant.

The regulations issued by DER to govern this siting process
are found in Chapter 17-17, Florida Administrative Code, and
are reproduced in Attachment IV of this handbook. Additional
copies are available free from the Public Information Office
of DER (904/488-9334), and are available at any public
library in the state. (See Fig. II-1)

II-11

Siting Handbook Chapter 2, Part B Draft 2

1. Preapplication Discussions

Pre-application discussions begin as much as one year before
an application is submitted. During this time the utility may
elect to file a "Plan of Study" with DER detailing the kinds
of information it will submit with the application. Normally,
the utility meets with officials of DER and other agencies to
discuss the features of the project and the methodologies to
be used in conducting baseline studies. See the Bibliography,
Section 3 of Part A, for references to several typical Plan of
Study documents. The information to be submitted by the
utility in the formal certification application is listed in
DER rule 17.1, the application instructions.

2. PSC Determination of Need Proceedings

The Public Service Commission (PSC) mus,t issue a "Determina-
tion of Need" order before a proposed power plant line can be
approved. The PSC Need for Power process may be conducted
either before or after DER receives the certification applica-
tion, but the PSC order must be given before the proposed
plant is considered by the Governor and Cabinet. The PSC's
regulations are found in Ch. 25-22.81, Florida Administrative
Code (Attachment V).

Proceedings to determine the need for a proposed electrical
power plant begin with a petition by a utility or on the
Commission's own motion. Proceedings may begin prior to the
filing of an application for site certification of the
proposed power plant. The petition must contain information
about the proposed plant's impact on the reliability a , nd
integrity of the electric system, and the plant's cost
effectiveness.

Within seven days following the receipt of a petition, or
following its order commencing a proceeding on its own motion,
the Commission sets a hearing date within 90 days. Following
the hearing, each party may make submittals to the Commission
on a time schedule determined by the requirements of the
proceeding, but terminating no later than 120 days from the
receipt of the petition.

11-12

Siting Handbook Chapter 2, Part B Draft 2

Fig. II-1. The Power Plant Certification Procedure in Florida. Source: SECI

Florida ElectricE

PHASE PLANNINGI PHASE 11 PHASE
SCOPING DOCUI
3.b@ W.- s
Co.-" P,.*t SCA
Out swkq 6. shdi.
APPLICANT Fit. Nwk* ro-76---l
ol 6@
to sub-4
SCA

3
Cor-axft
DEPARTMENT OF Ptcjw coo,&Wi- Agmse, ond D'ol, POS Not., .1 scmv
ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION M-iig pwi, .1 M--q,
.1 -d S.I.
Yw

PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

PSC.U<A.
WM0. 0+-
Aq-- ..d
2 I`Jbk A-
DEPARTMENT OF VETERAN AND R-i-
COMMUNITY AFFAIRS. WATER 0'.11 POS
MANAGEMENT DISTRICTS,
OTHER PARTICIPATING AGENCIES. mandow
AND THE PUBLIC

CoPVrW (1) W82 The EM1117"Ontild LICeMkV GMW. InC. 6-12 N:.Ihg Pflm
to Sub"itial of SCA
D=
Flo. C
.m ft-ft No.
to 0*-

11-13

Siting Handbook Chapter 2, Part B Draft 2

Although it has not been widely understood, the key decision
point in the certification process is the Need for Power
Determination of the PSC. Whereas the review by DER focuses
on environmental impacts and how they can be mitigated,. the r
PSC Need for Power proceeding has become, in effect, the point
in the process at which the state either approves or disap-
proves the proposed project.

There have been instances in which government officials have
become involved in siting issues well after the PSC Need for
Power order has been given; once they entered in the siting
question, the basic question of whether or not a facility
would be constructed had already been dealt with. Because of
the central importance of the PS-C Need for Power order, local
officials who anticipate becoming involved in a siting ques-
tion may wish to be actively involved at this stage of the
process. This includes contacting the PSC to stay abreast of
hearings and, if desired, to become a formal party to the
proceedings. r

A "party" is a person or organization that has been recognized
as formally taking part in the proceedings. To be granted the
status of a party, persons must prove they are substantially
affected. Parties are usually represented by an attorney;
however, they can represent themselves if they can demonstrate
sufficient knowledge of administrative-procedure. A copy of a
form requesting to be given the status of a legal "party" is
included as Fig. IX-4.

Note that in section 403.508 of the law, the county or
municipality in whose jurisdiction the plant would be located
is allowed to be a party but this status must be requested
(See Attachment I). Requesting the status of being a "partyll
to the proceedings ensures that local officials will receive
all documents concerning the case. Note, too, that the
statutory requirements for being a party in power plant siting
are are different than in the Transmission Line Siting Act.
(See Chapter 9.)

11-14

Siting Handbook Chapter 2, Part B Draft 2

3. DER Review for Sufficiency and Completeness

Shortly after receiving an application (or amendment) DER
makes a determination regarding the "sufficiency" and "com-
pleteness" of the application. If DER's judgment regarding
11sufficiency" or "completeness" is contested by the applicant,
the hearing officer designated by the Division of Administra-
tive Hearings rules on the issue.

4. Certification Review and Studies

Within 15 days of receiving a power plant site application,
the Department of Environmental Regulation is required to
furnish copies of the application to the Department of
Community Affairs, the Public Service Commission, the approp-
riate Water Management District and all other reviewing
agencies. By law, these first three agencies must review the
application and present a preliminary report to DER within 60
days; they must submi.t a final report within five months.
Staff Analysis Reports prepared for power plants certified in
recent years are listed above in the Bibliography, Section 4
of Part A.

DER then cond ucts (or contracts for) a study of the proposed
generating facility including the following:

1. Cooling system requirements
2. Construction and operation safeguards
2. Proximity to transportation systems
3. Proximity to navigable waters and other
transportation systems
4. Soil and foundation conditions
5. Impact on water supplies
6. Impact on land use
7. Accessibility to transmission lines
8. Environmental impacts, including impacts on
air and water quality
9. Technical sufficiency of operational safe-
guards
10. Impact on public lands and submerged lands
11. Impact on plant and animal life, especially
endangered or threatened species.
12. Impact on archeological sites and historic
.preservation areas.

11-15

Siting Handbook Chapter 2, Part B Draft 2

DER distributes copies of the utility's application to other
state agencies, to the hearing officer, to local governmentsl
to libraries near the proposed pla:nt, and to "parties" in the
proceedings. In. most cases, these applications are several
volumes in length, plus several additional volumes of appen-
dices including site selection studies and need for power
determination studies.

In addition to these requirements, Ch. 17-17 FAqdirects DER
to publish notices of forthcoming he-arings. These notices must
be one-half of a newspaper page in size. A prominent heading
and map showing the power plant site is included in the
notice. Hearing notices explain how.groups, individuals or an
agency can become a party to the proceedings, as well as the
date and location of the hearing.

5. The Land Use Hearing

Within 90 days of receiving a site certification application,
DER must arrange for a public hearing in the county of the
proposed site to determine if the project,is consistent with
existing land uses and zoning ordinances. This proceeding is
directed by a hearing officer appointed by the Division of
Administrative Hearings. This is a point at which local
government planners become involved with the siting procedure,
although this hearing is restricted solely to land use ques-
tions.

If the site is found not to be in conformance with existing
land use and zoning ordinances, the applicant is responsible
for applying to have the site rezoned. If the rezoning
application is denied, it may be appealed to the Governor and
Cabinet. The Governor and Cabinet may override the local
government and authorize a variance to the local zoning and
land use plans after due notice is given and a public hearing
is held.

11-16

Siting Handbook Chapter 2, Part B Draft 2

6. The Certification Hearing

Within ten months of receipt of a complete application, a
public hearing is held to discuss the case. The hearing is
usually held during working hours, although hearings may
continue on into the evening. The location for the hearing is
usually a government auditorium or courtroom. Certification
hearings have taken as little as one day and as long as
twenty-two days.

At the hearing, the utility is required to make a formal
presentation on the proposed project. In addition, the
expected environmental impacts of the project, requests for
variances and other relevant issues are discussed.

The general public is normally given a chance to speak at the
end of the proceedings. Speakers are sworn in and are asked to
present new evidence or facts which have not been previously
brought up by other parties. General comments which simply
voice an objection to the project are discouraged. When a
number of persons representing the same organization, such as
a labor union or a,homeowners' association, wish to make the
same statement, they are asked to select a representative to
present their views and to indicate how many persons are
represented.

Since most private citizens will not qualify as experts in a
field related to the project, testimony of the general public
is taken as "oral communicationstv rather than expert opinion.
Thus the weight the hearing officer will give public testimony
is not as great as that afforded to an expert witness. Those
persons or organization which have been formally recognized as
11parties" to the proceedings can cross-examine a speaker and
later may be allowed to challenge or rebut the information
provided.

11-17

Siting Handbook Chapter 2, Part B Draft 2

7. Recommended Order of.DOAH

Within two weeks after a power plant certification application
is received, DER requests the Division of Administrative
Hearings (DOAH) of the Florida Department of Administration to
assign a "hearing officer" to preside over hearings or
disputes in the case. A hearing officer is an impartial
arbiter who presides over all legal proceedings connected with
the case (other than the PSC's,Need for Power hearing and the
hearing before the Siting Board).

Within twelve months of the certification hearing, the hearing
officer prepares a Recommended Order regarding the environmen-
tal and social suitability of the project. This Recommended
Order, which is presented to the Siting Board, may recommend
that: (1) the utility begranted the certification as applied
for; (2) the original site be modified; or (3) the application
be denied. (See the Bibliography, Section 4 of Part A of this
chapter for examples of Recommended Orders.)

8. The Order of the Governor and Cabinet

The action by the Siting Board to issue or deny certification
by approving, rejecting or modifying the recommended order.The
Board'sOrder is the final adminis.trative action required to
process a power plant site application. Although the Governor
and Cabinet, sitting as the Siting Board, have the final
authority to deny certification, in actual practice the Siting
Board usually adopts the recommendation of the hearing of-
ficer.

The Siting Board certification normally includes "Conditions of
Certification." In the Conditions of Certification imposed in
all power plants certified under the PSA, DER is given the
authority to monitor construction of the project and to
require the utility to provide information on environmental
monitoring, such as the water quality of wells near the plant,
air quality and water quali.ty of the body of water used to
receive heated water discharged by the plant.

11-18

Siting Handbook Chapter 2, Part B Draft 2

The Conditions of Certification which the Governor and Cabinet
may impose are binding, and the site certification is in lieu
of _any other permit required by any other state or local
agencies (mean'ing that no other reg-ulations or stipulations
can be imposed). See the Biblio.grap-hy for examples of the
orders issued by the @'-oard in recent years, along with the
Conditions of Certification-imposed.

9. Post-Certification Review

In the Conditions of Certification, DER is given the power to
monitor environmental conditions at and near the power plant.
t@onsequently, DER reviews and approves construction of the
plant, and then monitors environmental quality once the plant
is in operaticn.

11-19

Siting Handbook Chapter 2, Part C Draft 2

C. AGENCY RESPONSIBILITIES

Section 403.508 of the Power Plant Siting Act (PPSA) di'rects a
number of state- and local-government agencies to participate
in reviewing power plant site certification applications (See
Attachment I). Among the state agencies normally taking part
in power plant certification reviews are the Department of
Environmental Regulation (DER), the Department of Community
Affairs (DCA), the Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission (GFC),
and the Department of Natural Resources (DNR). In addition,
the Water Management Distzict, the county and the municipality
in whose jurisdiction the plant is to be located are also
directed by law to participate in the review. The role of
each of these and other reviewing agencies is detailed below.
For a directory of- these agencies, see Attachment IX.

1. The Department of Environmental Regulation

As lead agency in the certification process, DER in essence
functions as staff to the Governor aiid Cabinet sitting as the
Siting Board. DER is responsible for coordinating the reviews
of state and local agencies, disseminating the application
for certification, scheduling hearings, and providing public
notices. DER compiles and summarizes the multi-agency
review, called the "Certification Review,"

From the reports submitted by the state and local-government
agencies, and from its own analyses, DER develops a recommen-
dation as to whether or not the project should be certified.
DER also makes recommendations about any variances that may be
necessary and drafts the Conditions of Certification.

11-20

Siting Handbook Chapter 2, Part C Draft 2

DER investigates the impact of the project on water and air
quality, solid and chemical waste generation and disposal, as
well as protection of the habitat of wildlife and the protec-
tion of other "biological resources."

Once the project is certified, DER (in conjunction with other
agencies) reviews construction.of the plant to verify compli-
ance with the Conditions of Certification. In addition, a
site-specific review for any planned dredging or filling work
is made. DER field inspectors monitor the construction and
maintenance of the project, and initiate any necessary en-
forcement procedures that might be necessary.

2. The Department of Community Affairs

The PPSA directs the Department of Community Affairs to
prepare a report on the compatibility of the proposed power
plant with the state comprehensive plan. As part of this
review, DCA examines the proposed-power plant to determiae if
it is in conformity with local zoning ordinances and local
land use plans. DCA also considers the effect of the project
on local and regional growth and development patterns.

3. Department of Natural Resources

In its comments, the Department of Natural Resources usually
examines the impact of the proposed power plant project on
state-owned properties such as state parks and recreation
areas. DNR serves as staff to the Trustees of the Internal
-Improvements Trust Fund (i.e.,- the Governor and Cabinet),
which has title to all state-owned lands other than highway
rights-of-way.

11-21

Siting Handbook Chapter 2, Part C Draft 2

DNR has responsibility for protecting the ,manatee.,, Since
manatees seek out warm waters.in winter as refugia, they
frequently congregate around the thermal discharge of a power
plant. Consequently, DNR considers how best to protect mana-
tees, particularly if the.plant were to cease operation during
cold months.

4. Water Management Districts

The Water Management District in whose jurisdiction the plant
is to be located is required by law to prepare a report on the
impact of the project on water resources. This report
examines the amount of water to be withdrawn, proposed sources
of water, the temperature of discharged water, the quality of
water to be discharged, the effects of storing wastes and
coal, and so forth. Chapters 4 and 6 of this handbook are
designed to help Water Management Districts prepare this
report. For a map of the five Water Management Districts of
Florida, see Fig. IX-5.

5. Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission

The comments of the Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission (GFC)
usually address the impact of the proposed project on fish and
wildlife resources. The impact of the plant on threatened or
endangered species is considered, as is the impact on game
species. Each power plant certification application includes
lengthy analyses of the plant and animal species found at the
site. In recent siting cases, the GFC report has called
attention to such things as the location of eagles' nests, the
habitat of- the red cockaded woodpecker and the location of
nests of sandhill cranes at proposed sites. The GFC also
reviews plans of the utility to preserve these species.

11-22

Siting Handbook Chapter 2, Part C Draft 2

6. Other State Agencies

a. Department 01. Transportation--The Department of
Transportation reviews the site certification applica-
tions to determine if any associated transmission lines
which need to cross highways follow the DOT Utility
Accommodation Guide. In addition, DOT looks at other
transportation questicns, such as railroads that might be
run to the plant, or the impact of the plant on harbors
and ports.

b.Division of Archives, History and Records Managemert--
The Division of Archives, History and Records Management
of the Department of StaLce reviews proposed projects for
their impact on arche--,logica.1 arid historical sites. . In
its review, DAHRM examines the construction plans of the
utility, and usually conducts an on-site inspection of
the area for known or potential sites to be preserved..If
an archeological find is located during construction,
DAHRM works with the utility to investigate the find, or
protect it.

c. Office of the Public Counsel--The Office of the Public
Counsel represents rate payers before the Public Service
Commission. To date, the Public Counsel has never inter-
vened in a Need for Power Determination proceeding of the
PSC, but it is possible that the agency could do this in
the future. The Office of the.Public Counsel. might be
able to help private citizens or interest groups becoming
involved in a siting case,

d. Governor's Energy Office--Although the Governor's
Energy Office has never been a party to a power plant
siting case, the GEO has intervened before the PSU
regarding conservation goals for elcctric atilities, an
issue closely related to the PSC Need for Power Determin-
ation process. The GEO can provide local planners with
energy data useful in the Determlination of Need process.

11-23

Siting Handbook Chapter 2, Part C Draft 2

7. Local Governments

Local governments are the first avenue of assistance for citi-
zens. For this reason, the Power Plant Siting Act requires the
municipality and the county in which the plant is to be built
to prepare a report on its impact. The local governments'
reports shou-Id identify any variances from zoning ordinances
or land use plans which might be necessary; if the local
government objects to g-ranting a variance, this must also be
mentioned.

Under �403.508(5) of the PPSA, local governments in whose
jurisdiction the proposed plant is to be located are
automatically "parties" to the siting case,, unless they
waive this right (See Attachment I). The concerns of local
governments are addressed in the report of the Department
of Community Affairs.

8. Regional Planning Councils

The Power Plant Siting Act does not specifically mention
Regional Planning Councils (RPCs), but in practice they
RPCs are routinely asked to participate in the review of
applications. The areas that RPGs comment on are likely to
include the relationsh-4 of the proposed plarit to compre-
hensive plans in the region and conflicting issues between
local governments. RPCs are expected to provide assistance
to local governments in reviewing a proposed power plant.
(See Fig. IX-6 for a wap showing the eleven RPC districts
of Florida.)

9. Federal Agencies

Strictly speaking, federal agencies are not a formal part of
Florida's power plant siting process. However, a number of
federal agencies are routiDely involved in power plant siting
in all states under federal law. Among the federal agencies
most frequently involved in siting cases are the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), the Army Coips of Engineers (COE),
the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), and the Federal Aviation
Administration. For a directory of these agencies, see
Attachment IX.

11-24

Siting Handbook Chapter 2, Part C Draft 2

a. Environmental Protection Agency--EPA coordinates the
preparation of Environm@_nt]@_llmpact Statements under the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Not all new
power plants are reviewed through the EIS process, though
plants which must receive a National Pollutant Elim-ina-
tion System (NPDES) permit are required to have an EIS.
In addition to issuing NPDES permits, EPA also regulates
effluent discharges to the atmosphere under the Clean Air
Act. For examples of EISs and draft EISs prepared for
recent Florida power plants, see the Bibliography,
6ection 4 of Part A.

EPA has responsibility for the Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD) air quality regulations issued under
the Clean Air Act, as described in Chapter 5 of this
handbook. Administration of the PSD program in Florida
has been delegated to the D,-:,partm,:!nt of Environirental
Regulation.

Under the Resource Conservation Recovery Act, EPA has
responsibility for regulation of the generation,
transportation, storage 'and disposal.. of hazardous wastes.
And under section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act, EPA
regulates cooling water intake structures.

b. Army Corps of Engineers--The Army Corps of Engineers
considers the impact of a proposed plant on floodplains
and wetiands under Executive Orders 11988 and 11990. The
COE issues dredge-and-fill permits in navigable waters,
which are often required for intake and discharge struc-
tureo of power plants.

C. Fish and Wildlife Service---The Fish and Wildlife Service
of the U. S. Department of Interior establishes regula-
tions for the protection of species of plarits and animals
desIgnated as "rare, endangered or threatened" u,nder the
Endangered Species Act of 197/3. FWS officials review
draft Environmental Impac-C Statements, which invariably
contain large amounts of data on the wildlife found at a
propooed site.

11-25

Siting Handbook Chapter 2, Part C Draft 2

d. Other Fedeial Agencies

o The Rural Eiectrification Administration (REA):
must approve loans for rural electric cooperative
uti 1 i ties

0 The Department of Agriculture (DOA): Considers
important farmiand and forest land under USDA
Memorandum No. 1827 on Land Use Policy

0 The Forest Service of the Department o.f Agricul-
Iture considers impacts on federally-owned lands,
such as national parks, wildlife refuges and wilder-
ness areas.

0 The National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Admin-
istration (NOAA.': considers the consistency of a
proposed plant with the state's coastal zone manage-
ment plan under the Coastal Zone Management Act of
1972. In Florida, DER make the consistency deter-
min-ation, but it can be appealed to NOAA. The
Office of the Governor has issued a Coastal Consis-
tency Manual (See Bibliography).

o The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA): issues
permits to construct tall structures such as power
plant stacks and cooling towers.

11-26

Siting Handbook Chapter 2, Part C Draft 2

D. OTHER SITING LEGISLATION

Although power plant siting in Florida is governed primarily
by the Power Plant Siting Act, there are other statutes that
apply to the certification procedure. This section provides a
brief review of the Ten-Year Site Plan Act, other applicable
state legislation, and provides a list of sources on analogous
siting legislation in other states.

1. The Ten-Year Site Plan Act

Section 23.0190, Florida Statutes, requires each major elec-
tric utility to prepare and submit to DCA a ten-year site plan
.(TYSP) not less than every two years. This report is to
estimate the utility's power generating needs and to identify
the general location of proposed new power plant sites. For a
copy of the statute, see Attachment II.

Under the provisions of the act, DCA classifies each TYSP as
either "suitable" or "unsuitable." These findings are to be
submitted to the Florida Department of Environmental Regula-
tion for consideration at any subsequent certification
hearings.

In preparing i ts review, DCA considers comments from local
governments within whose jurisdiction a power plant is
proposed in the TYSP. To encourage comments from local
governments, DCA routinelydistributes the applicable TYSPs to
affected local governments for review. Therefore, the TYSP is
a vehicle for informing local governments of a proposed power
plant well before the utility may apply for certification.

11-27

Siting Handbook Chapter 2, Part C Draft 2

It should be noted that comments on a site mentioned in a
TYSP in no way take the place of comments a local government r
may want to make during the actual certification process. For
more information about this program, or fur copies of Ten-Year
Site Plans of utilities, contact:

Power Plant Siting Program
Bureau of Land and Water Management
Department of Community Affairs
2751 Executive Center Circle East
Tallahassee, FL 32301
tel. 904/488-9210.

2. Other Applicable Otate Legislation

Although the Power Plant Siting Act is unquestionably the main
law in Florida which governs the siting of power plants, other
state statutes come into play fron, time tc time, depending
both on the location of the proposed plant and on its
features. Some of these statutes are listed in Table 11-2. For
further information on additional state legislation, these two
publications are recommended:

1. Department of Environmental Regulation. A 'Manual of
State Regulator and Review Procedures. for Land
Developmen in Florida. (Tallahassee, FL: Dept. of
Administration, Bureau oi--' Comprehensive Planning,
1979).

2. Office of the Governor. Coastal Consistency Manual.
(Tallahassee, FL: Office of the Governor, 1983).

11-28

Siting Handbook Chapter 2, Part C Draft 2

Table 11-2: Statuatory Authorites of Florida's Coastal
Management Program. Source: Second Interim Report of ELMS
II Committee (Dec., 1983).

LEGAL LZCAL AOTHOPtTY ADMINIS-Zl1rua
Aw"ORITY OCSCXIPTION A=-ICY -

1. chapter 23, F.S. state comor,tMensl'o PlAnning, ave, OCA
"O-of plant site plans
2. cb:pter Lig. r.s. Public Records DOS
3. Cb ptat 120, ?.S. Kdmjnjs%Tatjv% Procedures XPC1 QOAK

4. chapter iso. r.S. Regional Planninq Councils RPC

S- Chapter 161, F.S. Coastal Conscruction DNA

Chapter 252. F.S. Disaster Preparedness OCA

Chapter 253. F.S. $410. Lease, at other T21-T,, ONR
Conveyance and oredq%nq DER
and filling in Submerged
Lands and Wetlands

111- Chapter 258, r-S. Outdoor Recreation and OMR
Coraoc@iic&cri

9. chapter iiii. r.s. Outdoor Recreation and CHR
Conservation

to. chapter z6o. r.s. Outdoor Recreation and ONR
Conservation

11- Ch&Ptdc 267, T.S. llist0tiC Preservation OOS

12. Chapter 208. P.s. economic [email protected]/ OlOC. OCR
Industrial Siting

13. Chapter 315. r.s. Part nail ties riA&nctnq Pact
14. Chapter 134. F.S. Public Transportation AU tno C L C i a 2
GOT

13. chapter 166. F.S. Public Utilacios PSC

16. Chapter 370, r.s. LAvtAq-R&3aacCs9 (MaCin*1
ZNR

17. chapter 372. r.s. Living Resources (fresn.acorj ard7c

18. Chapter 373. F.S. WLchdca.aL. Divecsion. DER. Uato
::o9:.q:,,,nd Consumption
w Save Our at we"

L2. Chapter 375. r.s. Outdoor Recreation and ONR
Conservation

20. Chapter 37.6. ?.S. Pollutant spill prevonclon own
and C*ncco% Parts and 44c@,v,,ys

21- Chapter 377, IF.S. Oil and Gas Pcoduction ONR

23. chapter 3so. r.s. Developments ad Regional CCA, DER

Management

23. chapter 3811. r.S. Arthropod Control ORRS

24. Chapter 403. ?.S. Sources of Water Pollution; OCR
S UCCOO ad Air Pollution:
P=r Plants; Ocedqtnq and
rillings Control of Hazardous
wastast Resource Rocovecy; Parts
and Waiterways
25. Chapter $81. F.S. Sail and Water Conseirvacion DACS

SO=: "a Flarids Coastal Alla4mva"t P10,1110111 Final E-immental State."et. AUquSt 1981.

-YIY:
MAK : AdMinistrocive Pmcedur" Committee ODS Oecarowt Of Scate
ACS Dept of Agriculture and Consumer Services cor 04H)VURVIC Of rransoortattan
OCA - Door Of CaMUnIty Affair% GFWFC Gimw & F@asn water Fish Comiiiian
DER Deat Of Soviriineiit&I Regulation OPS Office of Planning A" lwaqattnq
am" Debt of A041th & Psc Public Service conevision
O.Ot a . I 40naoilltativip sarviceii
01111 f mat ra sources AK 20910.41 Planning Council
DOAN Givtiian of Adminittracive imarings TILTF Trustees of 00 Lncerniii laqravq@
OCK Debt of Commerce ve@t Truit Fund
Will Water manaqcme t District

11-29

Siting Handbook Chapter 2, Part C Draft 2

3. Siting Procedures in Other States

Power plant siting in Florida can be compared with
analogous procedures. For those who want to study the
power plant siting legisi-ation and regulations of other
states, the following sources may be helpful:

GENERAL

Crillo, F. R. et al. An Evaluation of Regional Trends in
Power Plant SitinL,_@ and Energy Transport. (Argonne, IL: Argonne
Nationai Laboratory, July, 1S77). Prepared for EPA and ERDA.
274 pp. NTILS Nr. ANL/AA-7

National Governor's Assn. State Perspectives on Enern Facili- r
ty Siting. (Washington, D.C.: NGA).

Southern Governor's Conference. State and Regional Aspects of
M2.@ Energy Facility Siting. (Atianta, GA: Southern Inter-
state Nuclear Board, 1977).

Stevens, David. State Perspectives on Energy Facility Siting:
Current State Practices. (Washington, D. C.: National
Governor's Assn., Dec., 1978

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Improving Regulatory
Effectiveness in Federal/State Siting Actions. (Washington, D.
C.: U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, May, 1977).

11-30

Siting Handbook Chapter 2, Part C Draft 2

CAUFORNIA

California Energy Commission. Power Plant Siting Policy
Paper. (Sacramento, CA: Calif. EnJ`gycommission, Nov., 1978).

MARYLAND

Rogers, John et al. Maryland Major Facilities Study: Execu-
tive Summary. (Annapolis, MD: Maryland Dept. of Natural
Resources, January, 1978). Avail. ILL; Texas A&M Univ. at
Galveston, Call Nr. TJ 163.25 U6R6; NTIS Nr. PB-296-821

NEW ENGLAND

New England Rivers Basin Commission. Power Plant Siting
Study: Compendium of Staff Reports*- (U. S. Geological Survey,
Is
7-0
Resource Planning Analys 'fice, November, 1980).

NEW JERSEY

Rogers, Golden, Halpern. New Jersey Facility Development
Potential Study. (Trenton, NJ: New Jersey Dept.of Environ-
mental Protection, Div. of Coastal Resources, Sept., 1981).

NEW YORK

Cronin, Philip and Turner, Scott. "Article VIII of the Public
Service Law -- The Brave New World of Power Plant Siting in
New York: A Critique and Suggestion for an Alternative
Approach." Albany Law Review. (Summer, 1978).

OHIO

Winter, John and Conner, David. Power Plant Siting. (New
York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1978). PP.

11-31

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I CHAPTER 3
I POWER PLANT SITING METHODOLOGY
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

Siting Handbook Chapter 3, Part A Draft 2

CHAPTER 3

POWER PLANT SITING METHODOLOGIES

The main question likely to be faced by a local or regional
planner in a power plant siting question is whether or not
the site requested for certification by the applicant utility
is indeed the best available. As explained in Chapter 2,
when the Department of Environmental Regulation receives a
Power Plant Site Application (PPSA), local-governments and
regional planning agenices are asked to evalute the applica-
tion. As part of this review, planners will need to examine
the site selection methodology appearing in the application,
and to comment on the appropriateness of the site. This
chapter provides an overview of selected case studies of the
methodologies used in PPSAs in Florida in recent years, and
summarizes research findings of studies which have examined
methodologies used by a variety of electric utilities.

A. POWER PLANT SITING: FLORIDA CASE STUDIES

1. Power Plant Site Selection Studies

After a decision is made to construct a power plant, the
first step in the process of certifying the plant is to
evaluate potential sites. The sites considered in seven
recent power plant site selection studies are detailed below.
Maps showing the location of all seriously considered sites
are reproduced here because there is the possibility that the
same sites might be considered again in the future.The
Bibliography, Section 5, provides the full bibliographical
citation for each of these publications.

III-1

Siting Handbook Chapter 3, Part A Draft 2

a. The JEA/FPL St. Johns River Power Park -- The site selec-
tion study examined six potential sites for the proposed
power plant, all of which were located along the St. Johns
River. Three were in Clay County, one site was in St. Johns
County , and two were in Duval County. (See Fig.III-1)

b. OUC's Stanton 1 -- An OUC study published in 1980 narrowed
the search area to five potential sites, four in Orange
county, and one in Volusia County on the St. Johns River at
Lake Harney, near Geneva. (See Fig. 111-2).

C. SECI's Seminole Units I and 2 -- A study conducted by
Stanley ConsultanTs- f7r-sEff,-pu-blished in Apri.1 of 1977,
examined eleven potential sites. As shown in Fig. 111-3,
these sites were in the counties of Suwannee, Gilchrist,
Bradford, Madison, Citrus, Sum-ter, Charlotte and Putnam (the
county selected for the site to be certified).

d. 1978 FPC Study -- In.1978 a study conducted by Woodward-
Clyde Consultants for FPC examined eight potential sites. As
seen in Fig. 111-4, the study examined.sites in the counties
of Gulf, Suwannee, Volusia, Seminole, Orange and Osceola. Of
these, the Gulf County site was declared the "preferred"
site.

e. FPC's Crystal River Units 4 and 5 In 1977 when Florida
Power Corp. applied for certification of two additional coal-
fired units at the Crystal River power plant in Citrus
County, Chapter 8 of the Power Plant Site Application (PPSA)
considered eleven potential sites. As seen in Fig. 11-5,
the application provided information on sites in the counties
of Gulf, Volusia, Polk, Wakulla, Levy, Pasco, Putnam and
Citrus. (See Fig. 111-5)

111-2

Siting Handbook Chapter 3, Part A Draft 2

Fig. III-1. Location of Preferred Sites for the St. Johns
River Power Park. Source: Appendix W of Volume II of the
JEA/FPL SJRPP EIS Technical Reference Document.

0
0
M
NASSAU >
.PS,

!tport

IBAKER . . . . . . . .. . . . . ....

B ard

Fleming Island
UNION CLAY Switzerland

Green Cove
`19@ADFORD Springs ST
Willis Poinc* i
JOHNS

PUTNAM -j

FLAGLER
r

4C Prof erred Sites

111-3

Siting Handbook Chapter 3, Part A Draft 2

Fig. 111-2: Five Potential Sites for OUC's Stanton 1 Plant.
Source: -OUC's Site Selection Study, Volume I (Jan., 1980).

0 CANDIDATE ZONEb
POTENTIAL SITES

7 TRANSMISSION LINES VOLUSIA
t@ RAILACAO LINES 4
LAKE
7!
Eli

S
MINOLE BREVARD

SR So
ra-1, 0

'0
ORANGE,,
5 2 SP

OSCEOLA

111-4

Siting Handbook Chapter 3, Part A Draft 2

Fig. 111-3: Search Area and Locations of Eleven Proposed
Sites for a Coal-Fired Power Plant for Seminole Electric
Cooperative. Source: Stanley Consultants (April, 1977).

A111.

ou."

;-10
LT G-4
.5

fta
L-6

A"05

@AGE.

LLE

LOCATION
0 SEARCH AREA

111-5

Siting Handbook Chapter 3, Part A Draft 2

Fig. 111-4: Locations of Eight Proposed Sites for Coal-Fired
Power Plants for the Florida Power Corporation. Source:
Wo.odward-Clyde Consultants (October, 1978).

GULF COUNTY CANAL"-*' ASTOR

SUWANNEE RIVER
LAKE JESSUP

EAST OF
ORLANDO
SHINGLE CREEK

Cdl=!'

PHOSPHATE ZONE
LA,Ki KISSIMMEE

ft PUN OL49H

111-6

Siting Handbook Chapter 3, Part A Draft 2

Fig. 111-5: Eleven Alternative Sites for Power Generating
Units for the Florida*Power Corporation. Source: Chapter 8
of Volume II of the Technical Support Documents for FPC's
Crystal River Units 4 and 5 (July, 1980).

I NAM

VALAT a MOOT"
IV A mum
0L2VT

L ICA

COMAL 090AM lm*
WAS

CITT

0 L

...........

0 ALTERNATIVE SITES FOR POWER GENERATING UNITS
0 EXISTING RAMS

- MAJOR TRANSMISSION UW.3
SERVICE AREA SOUNDARY

111-7

Siting Handbook Chapter 3, Part A Draft 2

f. TECO's Proposed MacInnes Site -- The 1983 Ten-Year Site
Plan of Tampa Electric Co. named 19 potential sites for the
proposed MacInnes coal-fired power plant. As seen in Fig.
111-6, four of these sites were in Hardee County, along the
Peace River, eight were in Polk County, two were in Manatee
County, just south of the Hillsborough County line, and four
were located in Hillsborough County., Although the utili,ty
submitted a "Notice of Intent" to submit an application for
the so-called "MacInnes Site" (MA-1), located on Tampa Bay at
the Hillsborough-Manatee.county line, north of Bradenton, in
1982, the 1984 Ten-Year Site Plan does not include the
MacInnes site.

g. FPL's Martin Expansion Florida Power and Light has not
formally applied for certification of new coal-fired units at
the Martin plant in western Martin County, on Lake Okeecho-
bee. But the utility has published a study entitled ' Coal
Project which examines nine potential sites for a new coal- r
fired plant. Of these nine, one site is in Osceola county, kL
two in Highland County, two in Okeechobee County, one in St.
Lucie county, and three in Martin county. The study recom-
mends constructing the new coal-fired units at the site of
the present Martin County plant on Lake Okeechobee. (See Fig.
111-7)

2. Power Plant Site Selection Criteria in Florida

To select a proposed power plant site, most utilities (or
their consultant) conduct a study in which a large search
area is first considered. Potential sites -are then gradually
reduced to a few acceptable locations which are subsequently
examined in greater detail. There are, however, no state
regulations or standards for evaluating the strengths and
weaknesses of potential sites; each utility uses different
criteria for evaluating candidate sites.

111-8

Siting Handbook Chapter 3, Part A Draft 2

Fig. 111-6: Nineteen Potential Sites.for a Coal-Fired Power
Plant for Tampa Electric Co. Source: TECO Ten-Year Site Plan
(1983). Note: Site not listed in TECO's 1984 Ten-Year Site
Plan..

I W7,

PO-15

.9 PO-10 -20'
MW

111-9

Siting Handbook Chapter 3, Part A Draft 2

Fig. 111-7. Sites Examined by Florida Power and Light for a
Future Coal-Fired Power Plant. -Source: FPL's Coal Project.

F4
0 _8C 4--O-L A

too.." 411,1111,

0492CH0991
I $I LUCIE
L

La @A23 r

on a
0
07
GLADES

......... ..... -------

PALM 119AC.

HENDRY

500 KV TPANSMIS.WN UNEIS)
PEOUIREED

500 KV TRANSMISSION LM(SI
ALREMY PLANNED
EXISTING RAIL UNES

III-10

Siting Handbook Chapter 3, Part A Draft 2

Because many planners will want to examine the criteria used
by the applicant utility in a site certification application,
the evaluation criteria used in six recent power plant site
selection studies are presented below. This reviews shows
clearly that evaluation criteria vary widely from one utility
to another.

a. OUC's Stanton 1 -- The Site Selection Study conducted by
Orlando Utilities Commission for the Stanton plant included a
weighting scale based on 100 points. (See Table III-1). As
seen in Table 111-2, the five final candidate sites were
rated in the study using varying weights, a procedure known
as 11sensitivity analysis."

b. FPL's Coal Project -- The FPL publication Coal Project
includes a'rating system of 27 categories. As seen in- Table
111-3, each of the criteria was rated on a scale of I - 5, and
each received a weight of I - 5. Out of a potential of 390
points that any one site could receive, the site recommended
by the utility--the current Martin plant--received a total of
354 points.

According to the utility, the ratings were conducted by
11consultants with expertise in fields related to each criter-
ion." Based on the information provided by the
utility, it would be impossible to replicate the findings of
the study, although the utility did provide the results of a
sensitivity analysis in which differe-nt sets of weights were
assigned to each category.

C. SECI's Seminole Units 1 and 2 -- Appendix K of the Site
Certification Application of Seminole Electric Cooperative
for Seminole Units 1 @tnd 2 is the Site Selection study
conducted for the utility by Stanley Consultants. This study
includes a lengthy rating system called "Evaluation Criter-
ia." As seen in Table 111-4, this rating system is based on a
scale of 1000 points. Because no quantitative information is
provided, replication of the scoring is impossible.

III-11

Siting Handbook Chapter 3, Part A Draft 2

Table III-1: Environmental Evaluation Criteria Used by the
Orlando Utilities Commission in Rating Candidate Sites for a
Coal-Fired Power Plant. Source: OUC Site Selection Study for
Coal-Fired Power Plant, Volume I (Jan., 1980).

Site 1C Site 3A Site 19A Site 20A
Lake Site 2A South- Econlock- Econlock-
Harney Shingle east hatchee hatchee
S. E. Creek orange North South

Raw Adj. Raw Adj. Raw Adj. Raw Adj. Raw Adj.
Weight No. No. No. No. No. No. No. NO. No. No.

Technical/
Economic 100 98 98 100 100 97.6. 97.6 99.1 99.1 99.4 99.4

Hydrology

@Iater Quality 5 64 3.2 88.8 4.4 100* 5 89.6 4.5 95.6 4-8

Air Quality is 40 6 40 6 80 12 100 is 100 -15

Land Use (Future) 5 100 5 25 1.2 100 5 100 5 100 5

Ecology

Terrestrial
Ecosystems 25 100 25 60. 15 80 20 60 15 80 20
Aquatic
Exosystems 25 So 20 60 15 80 20 40 10 so 20

General site
Acceptability 23 100 25 20 5 100 25 60 15 100 25

Total
Environmental 100 - 84.2 - 46.6 - 87.0 - 64.5 - 89.8

111-12

Siting Handbook' Chapter 3, Part A Draft 2

Table 111-2: Weighting Scale Used by OUC to Evaluate Five
Potential Sites for the Stanton I Plant Showing Sensitivity
Analyses. Source: OUC Site Selection Study for Coal-Fired
Plant, Volume I (Jan., 1980).

Lake
iiarney Shingle Southeast Econlock- Econlock-
Southeast Creek Orange hatchee-N. hatchee-S.

Adj. Final Adj. Final Adj. Final Adj. Final Adj. Final
No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No.

50% Technical/
Econ;omic 98 49 100* so 97.6 48.8 99.1 49.6 99.4 49.7

50% Environmental 84.2 42.1 46.6 23.3 87.0 43.5 64.5 32.2 89.8 44.9
50/50 Total - 9,1.1 - 73;3 - 92.3 - 81.8 - 94.6

45% Technical/
Economic 98 44.1 100 4S 97.6 43.9 99.1 44.6 91.4 44.7

55% Environmental 84.2 46.3 46.6. 25.6 87.0 47.8 64.5 35.5 89.8 49.4

45/S5 Total - 90.4 - 70.6 - 91.7 - 80.1 - 94.1

40% Technical/
Economic 98 39.2 100 40 97.6 39.0 99.1 39.6 99.4 39.8

60%.Environmental 84.2 50.5 46.6 28.0 87.0 52.2 64.5 38.7 89.8 53.9

40/60 Total - 89.7 - 68.0 - 91.2 - 78.3 - 93.7

111-13

Siting Handbook Chapter 3, Part A Draft 2

Table 111-3: Power Plant Siting Criteria Used by Florida
Power and Light in the Study Coal Project. Source: FPL's Coal
Project.

M XATtW=

ENVIRONMENTAL CRI'MRIA
SITING CRITERIA VAIGHW@

I Land AvailaWlitY
4's

2 Land Use Compatibility

3 Cooling Miles Supply

4
@3 -@k
4 Cooling Options Available
5 Process water 11!@
S

3. 3-
6 Surface ftler Quality

7 Ground Vilifter Quality
2

8 Transmission Routing
3: 3

9 Fuel DOW" '@:'Z: 4 4 .4

v 4 S 3 2
10 Rail Accessibility i 2' 4:
11 Highifirelf, Accessibility -4- 4 pI
S 4 3

12 Port Accessibility 2 2
A. 2: i-2 @;2' 2'

113 T*trmrW Slalom 3@ S 3- 2' S 3 3 S

14 Aquatic Bic" 3 3- 2 2' 41
3 4 2 3
15 Rare & Endangered Species ;-4 .,2 3. 2: @-V 3 1. S 5 2 4
16 Air Quality - S02 5 3 3. 4: 4@: 5 5 5 5 5
4 5
17 Air Quality - Particulatelt 3 1, 5 5 5 3

18 Air Quality - Other
3 I'L:'3`f' -4@ 4 3 3 3
4, 4' j 3L. 24 t.

19 Noivr 2 2 4 4 1 2
2-@ 2,

20 Community Impact 4
4 S
3 3 5

21 Regional Economics 2 3 .4 4 4,' @-4 4
5 4 5 S

2, 2
22 System Convatibilitv 5 4 4

23 Multiple Use Potential 2. 4 4 3 4
3:@

24 Aesthetics 5
2 3 2

3 3, 2 5 4 4 4
25 Archavologicsi/Histaricil -4' @3
26 Site Preparation 5 "1 3, @1 2!- T,@ 5 2
2@

3
27 Construction Activities
TOTAL SIT9 SCORES" 216 M 236 220 257 200 354 283 261 2781

*SQ's of the PROOUCTS of each numerical
(along for each site and the associated criteria
A*Ight. NO F the SUMS Of the columns of
ratings alone.

111-14

Siting Handbook Chapter 3, Part A Draft 2

Table 111-4: Evaluation Criteria Used by Seminole Electric
Cooperative in the Site Selection Process for Seminole Units
I and 2. Source: Appendix K, Volume III, of the SECI PPSA
for Seminole Units l.and 2.

Criterion Points

I. WATER (250 pts)
A. Water Quantity and Reliability 140
B. Water Quality 30
C. Water Accessibility 80

II. TRANSPORTATION (250 pts)
A. Mode (Rail and Water) 60
B. Accessibility 100
C. Capacity 90

III. TRANSMISSION (150 pts)
A. Interconnections 30
B. System Capacity 40
C.. Routing and Sizing 80

IV. ENVIRONMENTAL (350 pts)
A. Emissions (SOx, NOx) 70
B. Physical (topography, geology) 100
C. Ecology (botany, zoology) 100
D. Socio-Economic Factors 30
(taxation, housing, employment)
E. Land Use 50

----------------------------- --------------------
GRAND TOTAL 1000

111-15

Siting Handbook Chapter 3, Part A Draft 2

d. FPC's Crystal River 4'and 5..-- According to the site
certification application submitted by Florida Power Corp.
for Crystal River Units 4 and 5, 13 sites were rated ac-
cording to 16 criteria. Although the application provides a
short narrative description of each potential site, and
provides a brief review of the economic cost factors of each
site, no quantitative rating of the competing sites is
provided in the application.

e. JEA/FPL St. Johns River Power Park Of all the site.
evaluation sTu-dies contained in certification studies in
recent years, the evaluation methodology used in the JEA/FPL
St. Johns River Power Park application, as presented in the
PPSA, is the most quantitative and the most replicable. The
study provides detailed information regarding the criteria to
be used in evaluating sites and provides the quantitative
scoring for each candidate site.

As see'n in Table 111-5, the FPL/JEA study, conducted by
United Engineers and Constructors, Inc., included detailed
site cost estimates for each candidate site, as well as
quantified environmental costs. Compared to the narratiVe
approach taken by some other utilities, this study was far
more sophisticated. Public dissatisfaction with the highest-
ranked site led to selection of the "Eastport site"--ranked
fifth out of six.

3. Power.Plant Siting Methodologies

The power plant siting methodologies used in these six
prominent Florida cases can be compared with the literature
on the subject developed across the nation. Some of the more
noteworthy studies of power plant 'siting methodology are
provided in the Bibliography, Section 5, below.

111-16

Siting Handbook Chapter 3, Part A Draft 2

Table 111-5: Site Selection Criteria Used in the Siting of
the JEA/FPL St. Johns River Power Park. Source: Appendix W,
JEA/FPL SJRPP EIS Technical Reference Document.

Site

TECHNICAWENVIRONKENTAL Willis Thomas
CONSIDERATION Point Valkill Bayard East@ort Creek Baldwin

Air Quality - Particulates A A A A A A
Air Quality - Short t rM NO, A A B B B B
Air Quality - S02 Ambeient ComplLance(l) A, A A B A A
Air Quality - S02 Prevention Sig. Det. A A A C C C
Land Use - Onsite A A B C B D -
Land Use - Cooling Makeup Piping A A C A C C
L:7d Use - Coal Conveyor/Barge Fac. A A C A C C
S twater Cooling Towers A A A B B B

To tal of A Ratings 8 8 4 3' 2 2

Total ol B Ratings 0 0 2 3 3 3

Total of C Ratings 0 0 2 2 3 3

Key to Ratings:

A - Little to No Potential for Technical or Environmental Problem that Could Result in Licensing Delay
B - Low to Moderate Potential for Technical or Environmental Problem that Could Result in Licensing Delay
C - Moderate to High Potential for Technical or Environmental Problem that Could Result 1. Licensing Deloy

Note:
(1) Assuming new taller stacks are constructed for the JEA Southside and Kennedy Stations

111-17

Siting Handbook Chapter 3, Part A Draft 2

Table 111-5 (Cont'd)

Site

COST Willis Thomas
PARAMETER Point Walkill Bayard Eastport Creek Baldwin

Land Rights and Costs 2.1 8.5 6.1 20.4 6.4 6.4
Geology/Foundation Penalty 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0
Makeup Pipe Installations 1.9 3.5 12.7 2.0 35.4 56.7
Makeup Pipe Equipment 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.9
Makeup Pumping Energy 1.2 0.9 2.8 1.4 8.5 17.1
Intake/Discharge Earthwork 3.6 0.0 3.6 0.0 0.0 0.0

Railroad Spur/Relocation 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0
Road Extension/Relocation 0.2 0.6, 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0

Transmission Construction 42.4 33.2 38.2 59.7 34.8 28.3
Transmission Losses 0.0 0.0 0.0 86.8 43.4 43.4

Saltwater Cooling 0.0 0.0 0.0. 1.9 1.9 1.9

Air Quality Modifications - Class I PSD 0.0 0.0 0.0 54.1 54.1 54.1
Operating
Air Quality Modifications - Class I PSD 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Investments
Tocal without Barge(l) 51.7 47.0 63.5 230.4 188.6 211.8
Differential Over Baas 4.7 Base 16.5 .4 141.6 16'4.8
Barge Unloadin@)Facility 13.4 13.4 13.4 13.4 13.4 13.4
Coal Conveyor( 2.5 4.8 17.2 2.1 36.5 58.4
Total with Rargd(l) 67.6 65.2 94.1 245.q 238.5 283.6
Bifferential Over Base 2.4 Base 28.9 180.1 173.3 218.4

(1) Fuel delivery to the Bayard site may require the use of an additional rail carrier. This was previously
estimated to add a $33 million dollar cost to the total site-related cost. This additional cost to a
gross estimate and is subject to future negotiations. It Is not included in the tabulation.

(2) Represents construction costs only since the conveyor is planned for backup fuel supply usage.

111-18

Siting Handbook Chapter 3, Part A Draft 2

Probably the most intensive study of power plant siting
methodologies was An Assessment of Nuclear Power Plant Siting
Methodologies, published in 1981 by the Brookhaven National
Laboratory for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. While this
and other BNL studies focus on siting procedures for nuclear
power plants, the conclusions of the studies appear to be
applicable to siting coal-fired power plants in Florida.

These Brookhaven studies evaluated the siting methodologies
employed in 48 major power plant siting cases in the 1970s.
The researchers tried to replicate the conclusions of the
utility site selection processes, but found a wide variance
among weights assigned to different factors, variances that
depended on the personal discretion of the people making the
evaluation. To make the site selection process more reliable,
the study recommends that any methodology used by a utility
meet the following criteria:

--The methodology should allow for careful, consistent, and
well-documented examination of all factors, tangible and
intangible. Important issues and tradeoffs among different
factors should be considered explicitly. Decisions should
reflect as accurately as possible the personal values of
decision makers.

--Methods should generate and preserve information about
impacts of different sites and tradeoffs among them.

--Methods should allow for input by more than one decision
maker, including nontechnical members of the general public.
Procedures should be understandable and not difficult to
use. Implications of different personal values for siting
considerations should be easy to determine. (See the study
by Duczik in the Bibliography below on this point.)

Based on these conclusions, the Brookhaven study provides a
checklist of questions that planners can use in reviewing the
methodology employed by a utility in its site certification
application. This checklist is included as Table 111-6.

111-19

Table 111-6: Checklist for Planners Reviewing Power Plant Siting Methodologies. Source:
Rowe et al (BNL, 1981).

REGION OF INTEREST CHECKLIST 1. Does the report specify how much money is involved (expressed
How is region of interest defined (Section 6.2)? as proportion of total cost and as unit cost of electricity)?
A. Service Area? Js the cost increase in fact large?
2. Is there anything special about excluded areas that might make
If less than service area, by what criteria is the region reduced? sites there worth the extra cost?
1. Nondiscretionary? 11. Comparison Screening (Weighting Summation) (Sections 2.5.2.1, 2.5.2.4.
2. Discretionary? Can a reasonable case be made that these and 4).
criteria are of importance so great that it is not possible A. Comparison attributes must necessarily be discretionary.
for other characteristics to override them? B. Do the attributes meet requirements for independence, clarity of
C. If this stage Is bypassed by substitution of results of a previous definition, and quantifiability required of the Weighting Summation
study. does that study meet current requirements? decision rule? I
C. What are the bases for converting attribute levels to subjective
value estimates?
D. What weighting-method Is used (Sections 2.6. 4, and 5)?
1. Does the report specify whose weights are represented?
2. Is the weighting method described? Is It a standard form?
REGIONAL SCREENING CHECKLIST 3. Does the method ensure ratio-scaled weights?
Exclusionary Screening (Sections 2.5.1.1 and 4). 4. If not, is its use justified?
A. Are exclusion criteria nondiscretionary? a. Is there awareness of problems related to implied weights
B. If not, are discretionary criteria of highest importance? arising from misapplication of methods.
1. Avoiding important local political or environmental problems? E. Is the decision rule correctly applied (Sections 2.5, 4, and 5)?
1. Weighting Summation is the only commonly used method for
2. Avoiding other problems of local importance as demonstrated by screening. Are attribute values multiplied by weights and
previous siting attempts? added? If not, why not?
C. Is there any logic behind levels of discretionary criteria or are F. Does the cutoff for inclusion among candidate areas have sufficient
they set arbitrarily at levels established by historical precedent? leeway to allow for uncertainty? Are any potential candidate areas
D. Are discretionary,exclusion criteria established loosely at levels excluded for reasons not included in the analysis? If so. are the
that allow for uncertainty? exclusions justified?
E. Are discretionary exclusion criteria cost related? Ill. Is this stage bypassed in deference to results of a previous study?
A. Is the study recent enough so that data are up to date?
B. Has the siting climate changed enough so that important attributes
and attitudes towards them are no longer valid? If not, are they
appropriate to this level of analysis?

Table 111-6 (Cont'd).

CANDIDATE SITE SELECTION CHECKLIST FINAL SITE SELECTION CHECKLIST
Is the method of candidate site selection specified (Sections 2.5, 4.5, 1. Is the method of site selection specified? Is it a standard method
and 5.3)? (Section 2.5)?
A. If so, is it a standard method or "seat of the pants?" A. If not. is its use justified? Does it seem reasonable with respect
Are selection criteria specified (Section 2.3)? to the theoretical considerations discussed In the technical papers
A. Are they complete or, if incomplete, are they appropriate to this associated with this report?
level of analysis? 1. How does it deal with tradeoffs?
1. Are they disproportionately cost related? 2. Are weights included? If so, do they meet the requirements of
B. Is there any consideration of tradeoffs among attributes? the method with respect to measurement theory?
3. Does the decision rule create implied weights different from
1. If so, are weights used? the specified weights?
2. Does the report specify whose weights are represented? Il. If the method is standard, is it applied correctly (Section 2.51?
3. ls the weighting method described? Is it a standard form7 A. Do the attributes meet requirements for independence, clarity of
(0 4. Does the method ensure ratio-scaled weights? definition, and quantifiability?
5. If not, is the reason why not Justified? B. What are the bases for converting attribute levels to subjective
6. Is the decision rule correctly applied? value estimates?
Ill. Are criteria for reducing the original slate to a smaller number of C. . What weighting method is used?
sites specified (Section 4.5)? 1. Does the report specify whose weights are represented?
A. Are tradeoffs considered? 2. Is the weighting method described? Is it a standard form?
1. If so, see tI.B above. a. If not, why not?
IV. Does the final slate of alternatives include more than two sites? 3. Does the method ensure ratio-scaled weights or at least a
A. If not, is the small number justified on some reasonable basis? nonarbitrary zero point?
V. Is anything done that specifically affects complexity? Are there 4. If not, is its use justified?
exogenous requirements that affect complexity (Section 5.3)? Ill. If the method is not correctly applied, is the 'complexity of the slate
A. If it is low, is there dominance or are all sites alike? of candidate sites sufficiently high so that correct application of the
11. Is there evidence of possible "&ck stacking" (extreme dominance)? method might make a difference in decision (Section 5.3)?
IV. Have sensitivity analyses been made on results?
A. If results are sensitive, how is the final decision justified?

Siting Handbook Chapter 3, Part A Draft 2

Another series of studies on power plant siting methodology
was conducted at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory in the late
1970s by Honea, Voelker, Hobbs, Jalbert and others. The Oak
Ridge researchers first rated 19 proposed criteria for siting
a coal-fired power plant using the "nominal group process."
This technique is an "iterative" method, similar to the Delphi
process, which allows ranking each item after repeated con-
siderations.* The results of the Oak Ridge ranking is shown
in Table 111-7.

Based on this process, the Oak Ridge researchers prepared a
cell-based computer program for locating and mapping potential
sites, and constructed. a weighted siting methodology using
seven criteria: water availability (10 pts), air quality
maintenance (10 pts), accessibility of low-sulfur coal (8
pts), barge accessibility (7 pts), rail accessibility (6 pts),
accessibility of high-sulfur coal (4 pts), and population
density (3 pts). See Table 111-8.

While this site selection system is not as sophisticated as
the one used, for example, by Seminole Electric Cooperative,
it is a point of reference for planners considering the issue
in Florida. For further information on the Oak Ridge Studies,
see the publications by Jalbert, Voelker and Honea in the
Bibliography, Section 5, below.

In addition, planners can consult the power plant siting
handbook prepared by the Berkshire County Regional Planning
Commission. In this handbook, the elements of site screening
are discussed, as is the site selection methodology used by
the Battelle National Laboratory. The Battelle methodology
can be compared with a methodology used in a PPSA to be
reviewed.

4For a definitions of these and other terms, see the Glossary,
Attachment VI.

111-22

Siting Handbook Chapter 3, Part A Draft 2

Table 111-7: Factors and Weights Used in Rating Power Plant
Siting Criteria by the Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Source:
Honea (1979).

First Second Factor Definition
vate Ott -
92 98 Availability of water Reflected In co:ts for
acquir "9 wetr
(exampie - reservoir).
Impact f getting and
using w:ter, and chance
;
f futurt conflict with
rowing use by others
9S 97 Miniamme proximity to NX guidelines
undesirable population
di stribution
91 94 MnImum adverse geological Geology and soils related
features to foundation cost and
14 f ty considerations Of
1.b: I d"Co
96 89 Minimum adverse impact on Pare and endangered
reqional aquatic triats so#c i:s and loss of
habitt
es Ila Minimum susceptibility to Include:,such.thinqs as
maximum hydrolooical/ dam flure and f, Pods
meteraloqical events
119, 65 minimum adverse Impact an Rare and endangered
reoiam I terrestrial Walk species and loss of
habitat
FM 93 minimize adverse Impact on Incompatibility with
e "' Ina and potential perceived Future
%nd use present use of site and
Cis undln:fare
75 72 Minimum I value for Bureau ':rro'i
11
of Economic Area Region acclera"tion p0autsentlikyl
4
seismic activity.
Tectonic province used at
this scale. Determine$
if standard5
cto ad
Impact onuqua
ans
71 70 ReqIonal water quality and que Ii 'It by PI nt
.I.nt
57 56 Presence of accept able Could not be sufficiently
trans portatIon I ystems def Ined
43 58 Land surface since and Pough terrain leads to
,a if exce sive qrading costs
and poor accessibility
53 55 Minimum P".imity to amn- Airports, military
-as hazards Instal ations, at
4A 1: Aclbtablo air diffusion Poor diffusion leads to
doublescont:inment and
Increa ad c sts
53 4 minimum advvr'e impact on Pra.i.ity to imoortant
hIstoric al /archaeolo0cal sites or presence of
aleas M-Plored sites as
Indian wounds

45 41 Adverse impact on re0onal Wousinq. services. etc.
economy
43 38 "inimum impact on regional Affect oa tterns of
recreatio recreation n' type of
recreation
31 35 Maximum proximity to load Could not be sufficiently
oafIed
36 24 Unfavorable attitude of potential for local
rtqional Population opposition
17 17 Kaximum reliability of Power to run plant. a
0ffst te power safety concern
::-m A. M. Votiker. Itnx, PI-9 @itinq: A. Appli"" i -.f Ch. Nominal Group Teciviiqiid.
ORKLIZ.EG/TMOSI. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge. Tennessee (February 1977).

111-23

Siting Handbook Chapter 3, Part A Draft 2

Table 111-8: Regional Siting Criteria Scale Used by the Oak
Ridge National Laboratory. Source: Honea (1979).

Variable Importance Category or value Compatibility
weight index

Water 3vai labi I i ty 10 Adjacent to stream with 7-day/10-year 110
low flow >194 Meld
Adjacent to stream which could have 4
7-day/10-year low flow >194 Mqd if
additional regulation wire imposed
Adjacent to Great Lakes 8
Adjacent to Atlantic Ocean or Gulf 5
of Mexico
Other counties
Air quality 10 4ot an AOMA 10
maintenance Partially an AQMA S
Areas (AQMA) Entirely an APMA b
Accessibility of 8 values represent calculations from
low- sulfur coal gravity model using tonnaae of
el. q% S) low-sulfur coal
Highest value in
Lowest value I
@3(10 miles from low-sulfur coal n
reserve
Harne accessibility 7 Adjacent to channel of 9 ft depth
Seismic activity 6 Activity level I (lowest risk) in
Activity level 11 5
Activity level III (highest risk) 0
Rail accessibility 6 Adjacent to medium- or heavy-duty 10
railroad
Not adjacent to medium. or heavy-duty 0
railroad
Accessibility of 4 Values represent calculations from
hiqh-sulfur coal gravity (andel using tonnage of high-
(:-I .9@@ S) sulfur coal
Miqhest value in
Lowest value 1
>300 miles from high-Sulfur coal 0
reserve
Poo0ation density 3 90-100% oF county has @500 n
inhabitants per squaTe mile
80-90% 2
70-60% 3
60-7M, 4

40-5M .6
30-40!', 7
20-30! 9
In-201. 9
0-101. 10
'Scare equals nturber of mi les of channel (maximum is 94.6).
bExcluded from consideration as potential candidate counties.

111-24

Siting Handbook Chapter 3, Part A Draft 2

4. Comments on Siting Methodology in Florida

Because there are no state standards for siting methodology
in Florida, the state cannot review a site certification
application to determine if it complies with approved site
procedures. However, planners reviewing an application may
want to consider the following comments and suggestions:

--In all cases studied, the utility provided detailed infor-
mation on only one proposed site. Planners may want to
request detailed information on additional sites so that they
can be compared with the site named by the applicant.

--In the Power Plant Site Application, some utilities have
supplied only -narrative, non-quantitative information to
describe the rating of potential sites. Because the informa-
tion provided is often sketchy, the conclusions of the utlity
cannot be replicated or confirmed. And applications with
quantified information often fail to meet the criteria of the
Brookhaven studies for a full description of assumptions and
reasons for choices made. Planners may want to request more
complete information from.the applicant.

--Some applications have not included the results of sensi-
tivity analyses, showing the effects of applying differing
weights to rating variables. Planners may wish to replicate
the applicant's conclusion using a number of different
weights.

--As a rule, most Florida utilities have not included the
public in the site selection process, as is done in a number
of other states. Certification by a municipally-owned
utility ultimately involves elected officials, but even in
these cases evidence is seldom given for public participation
in the early stages of site selection. Public planners could
request to be a part of site selection early in the process,
but unless the regulations issued by the Department of
Environmental Regulation are changed, this cannot be required.

--In none of the certification applications studied did the
applicant utility provide information about the relationship
of the utility to the proposed site. In reviewing a PPSA, a
planner may wish to tknow: Does the utility already own the
land? Does it have an option on the land? Do officials of
the utility have a financial interest in the land?

111-25

Siting Handbook Chapter 3, Part A Draft 2

5. Bibliography

POWER PLANT SITING STUDIES: FLORIDA

Environmental Science and Engineering, "Assessment of Al-
ternative Sites." Chapter 8.3 of U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency. Draft Environm'ental Impact Statement, Florida
Power Corporation Crystal River Units 4 and 5: Technical
Su@_Port Documents, Volume II. (Atlanta, GA: U.S. TTA''Region IV
Office, July, 1980). NTIS Nr: 904/9-80-048.

Florida Power and Light. FPL Coal Project. (Miami, FL:
Florida Power and Light, 19807)-

Jopling, David. "Power Plant Siting and the Florida Power and
Light Company." Public Utilities Fortnightly, (June, 1973).

Orlando Utilities Commission. Site Selection Study: Coal
Fired Power Plant. (Orlando, -FL: Orlando Utilities Commis-
sion, Jan., 1980). The report is in three volumes: Volume I,
Appendices (Volume II), and Executive Summary. A summary of
this study appears as Section 8 of OUC's Orlando Utility
Commission's Curtis H. Stanton Energy Center Site Certifica-
tion Application, Volume 3.(Orlando: OUC, n.d.).

Seminole Electric Cooperative, Inc. Site Selection Study:
Executive Summary." Appendix K of Volume III (Appendices) of
Site Certification and Environmental Analysis: Seminole Plants
Units No. 1 and No. 2. (Tampa: SECI, April, 1977). Prepared by
Stanley Consultants.

Tampa Electric Co. "Proposed.McInnes Site," in Ten-Year Site
Plan (Tampa, FL: Tampa Electric Co 1983).

111-26

Siting Handbook Chapter 3, Part A Draft 2

Wapora, Inc. "Appendix W: Summary of the Site Selection Pro-
cess.11 in U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. Environmen-
tal Impact Statement, State Analysis Report: Jacksonville
Electric Authority St. Johns River Power Park Technical
Reference Document. (Atlanta, GA: U_.S._TP-ARe`g-1`o-n IV Office,
October, 1981). NTIS Nr. EPA 904/9-81-088.

Woodward-Clyde Consultants. Ranking of Eight Sites for Coal-
Fired Power Plant Development for Florida Power Corporation,.
St. Petersburg, Florida. Appendix-to 1979 Ten Year Site Plan.
(St. Petersburg, FL: Florida Power Corp., 1979).

POWER PLANT SITING METHODOLOGY: GENERAL

Duczik, Dennis and Austin, Thomas. Citizen Participation in
Power Plant Siting. (Worcester, MA: Clark Univ., June, 1982).
Avail. ILL from Univ. of Texas at Austin, Call Nr. TJ 164
D827.

Eagles, T. W. et al. Modeling Plant Location Patterns:
Applications. (Palo Alto, CA: EPR.I, 1980 EPRI Rpt. Nr.
EA-1775.

Hekler, Karl (ed.). Evaluation of Power Facilities: A Re-
viewer's Handbook. (Pittsfield', MA: Berkshire County Regional
Planning Commission, 1974).

Hobbs, Benjamin. "A Comparison of Weighting Methods in Power
Plant Siting." Decision Sciences, (Oct., 1980).

Hobbs, Benjamin. "Multiobjective Power Plant Siting Methods."
Journal of the Energy Division. (Oak Ridge, TN: Oak Ridge
National Laboratory, Oct., 1980).

Hobbs, Benjamin. A Comparison of Regional Screening Methods.
(Washington, D. C.: Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 1981).
NTIS Nr. NUREG/CR-1688 Available ILL :FSU Call Nr. Y3 N88
25/1688.

111-27

Siting Handbook Chapter 3, Part A Draft 2

Honea, Robert. "Technology Characterization and Development
of Siting Criteria," in Oak Ridge Siting Analysis: A Baseline
Assessment Focusing on t]Te- National Energy Plan.- (15a idge,
TN: Oak Ridge National Laboratory, October, 1979).

Jalbert, J. S. and Dobson, J. F. A Cell-Based Land Use
Screening Procedure for Regional Si@i'a& Analysis., (Oak
Ridge,TN: Oak Ridge National Laboratory, 1977). NTIS Nr.:
ORNL-NUREG TM-8b.

Keeney, Ralph et al. An Evaluation and Comparison of Nuclear
Powerplant Siting Metho-dologies. (Washington, D. C.: U. S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, March, 1979).

Meier, Peter. Analytic Multi-Objective Decision Methods for
Power Plant Siting: A Review'of Theory and Applications.
(Brookhaven, N.Y.: Brookhaven National Laboratory, 1979).
NTIS Nr. NUREG/CR-168 7.

Rogers, John et al. Maryland Major Facilities Stu@@.
Executive Summary. (Annapolis, MD: Maryland Dept. of Natural
Resources, January, 1978). Avail. ILL; Texas A&M Univ. at
Galveston, Call Nr. TJ 163.25 U6R6; NTIS Nr. PB-296-817 (Vol.
1); PB-296-818 (Vol. 2); PB-296-819 (Vol. 3); PB-219-820 (Vol.
4); PB-296-821 (Executive Summary).

Rowe, Michael et al. An Assessment of Nuclear Power Plant
Siting Methodologies. (Brookhaven, NY: Brookhaven National
Laboratory, July, 1981). NTIS Nr. BNL/NUREG-51206). Avail.
ILL from Illinois State Univ.; Call Nr. Y3.N88: 25/1689.

Voelker, A. H. Power Plant Siting: An Application of the
Nominal Group Process Technique. (Oak R11--dge, TN: Oak Ridge
National Laboratory, 1977). NTIS Nr. ORNL/NUREG/TM-81.

111-28

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1 0 CHAPTER 4
POWER PLANT COOLING
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I
I
I
I
I

Siting Handbook Chapter 4, Part A Draft 2

CHAPTER 4

POWER PLANT COOLING

Power plants require enormous amounts of water: Over 25% of
all water withdrawn in Florida is for the purpose of power
plant cooling. Although this water is not consumed since it
can be used again, the heated water discharged by a plant is
10 to 30 degrees warmer than in-coming water, and has the
potential for causing significant harm to the environment.
The question of water use by power plants, therefore, is
significant, and has become a major issue in the
certification of a number of power plants in Florida.

For this reason, planners considering a power plant plant
site application will want to give close attention to the
plans of the utility for drawing in-and discharging cooling
water, and may wish to evaluate a number of different cooling
technologies. This chapter is designed to help planners with
these tasks.

A. POWER PLANT COOLING IN FLORIDA

1. Introduction

All waste heat from power plants must eventually be dissi-
pated to the environment. Some heat is tranferred directly
to the ambient air and, in the case of fossil-fueled plants,
some heat is discharged up the stacks. However, in all coal-
burning power plants presently in operation in Florida, the
bulk of the waste heat is transferred from the steam to
cooling water in the condensers, and then allowed to dissi-
pate heat to the atomosphere.

IV-1

Siting Handbook Chapter 4, Part A Draft 2

Water is used as the absorbent because of its general
abundance, its high "specific heat,"* and its ability to
dissipate heat in the evaporation process. But waste heat
discharged to water bodies contributes to physical and
biological changes, and constitutes a potential polluting
agent. Concerns for environmental protection--and the state
and federal regulations stemming from these concerns--
increasingly require the use of coo-ling systems that reduce
or eliminate the discharge of waste heat to water bodies.
These measures, however, increase both capital and operating
costs, and decrease plant efficiency.

Large amounts of water are used for cooling and condensing
purposes by major industries. Howev-er, electric power produc-
tion accounts for more than four-fifths of the total cooling
water used in the United States and accounts for nearly one-
third of the total water withdrawn for all purposes in the
nation.

The principal types of cooling systems now in use or proposed
for steam-electric plants are:

1) once-through cooling using fresh or saline water
2) cooling ponds, including spray ponds
3) natural draft cooling towers
4) mechanical draft cooling towers
5) dry cooling

In some cases, a combination of systems may be used. The
water withdrawal requirement varies widely among these
technologies. Fig. IV-1 provides diagrams illustrating these
cooling systems; each of these five technologies is described
in Section B.

*See Glossary, Attachment V, for a definition of terms.

IV-2

Fig. IV-1. Power Plant Cooling Technologies. Source: Hekler (1974). Used by permission.

AIR OUT

FAm

STEAM FROM TURBINE WATER TO BOILER
DENSER
WATER A :k W
IN
(From jecesen

OPEN CYCLE

COOLING
TOWERS
AIR IN (not used in this mods)

RIVER
JURIN WATER
:L AIR IN OUT

MECHANICAL DRAFT ONDENSER
WATER OUT
FLL MATERIAL WATER IN COOLING TOWER HYBRID CYCLE
(From condenser) (WET-TYPE)

NATURAL DRAFT COOLING TOWER COOLING
TOWERS
(WET TYPE)

RIVER

DIFFUSERS 4=!N I CONDENSER

CLOSED CYCLE

COOLING
WATER OUT TOWERS

WATER IN Wil
(Frown condense, BLOWDO IT t, AXE-UP WATER
-t@j@
C
E
NO
l'
Coo
TOWERS

SPRAY CANAL

iting Handbook Chapter4, Part A Draft 2

2. Power Plant Cooling in Florida

In dealing with the question of power plant cooling, planners
should bear in mind the distinction between water 11consumed"
and water "withdrawn." "Water consumption" implies removal
without returning water to the environment, while "water
withdrawal" implies return of the water to nature to be used
again.

According to the U. S. Geological Survey, 25.5 percent of all
water withdrawn in Florida in 1980 was for the cooling of
thermoelectric power plants. However, almost all of this
water was returned to be used again; only 1.7 percent of water
withdrawn in Florida for all purposes was consumed by power
plants. Of the total amount withdrawn for power production in
Florida in 1980 (15,699 million gallons per day), 88.2 percent
840 MGD) was saline.

Table IV-1 shows the types of cooling systems used by coal-
fired power plants in Florida in 1980, the last year for which
water use statistics have been published by U.S.G.S. In that
year, four coal-fired power plants used once-through saline
water for cooling, and two plants used fresh water cooling.
Since 1980 ten new coal-fired power plant units have been
either completed or certified. As seen in Table IV-2, two
plants (FPC's Crystal River units 4 and 5, and TECO's Big Bend
4) use saline cooling water, although the Crystal River units
will use cooling towers and the Big Bend 4 unit will use the
once through cooling process.

Three new units, all located along inland waters, use waste
discharged from sewage plants or heated water discharged by
power plants these are: The JEA/FPL St. Johns River Power
Park units I and 2, located on the St. Johns River near
Jacksonville, Lakeland Utility's McIntosh 3 plant, and OUC's
Stanton 1 plant (which will.use waste sewage for two-thirds of
its cooling water).

*See Chapter 1 for a description and a map showing the
location of each power plant referred to here.

IV-4

TABLE IV-1. Water Use by Coal-Fired Power Plants in Florida, 1980. Source: USGS (1983).

1980 POWER TYPE OF WATER WATER USE
UTILITY/PLANT COUNTY PRODUCTION COOLING USE (MG/D/MWH)
(MWH)* SYSTEM (MGD)

I. FLORIDA POWER CORP. (FPC)
1. Crystal River 1 & 2 Citrus 4485.2 Once-Through, Saline 758.8 5.91

II. TAMPA ELECTRIC CO. (TECO)
1. Gannon 5 & 6 Hillsbr. 5256.8 Once-Through, Saline n.a. n.a.
2. Big Bend 1 - 3 Hillsbr. 6440.0 Once-Through, Saline 1041.0 6.19

III. GULF POWER CORP.
1. Smith 1 & 2 Bay 2068.3 Once-Through, Saline 403.5 5.13
2. Scholz I & 2 Jackson 316.7 Once-Through, Fresh 118.0 2.68
3. Crist 4 - 7 Escambia 3762.0 Mechanical Draft 335.6 11.21
Tower, Brackish

Coal-fired steam boilers only; does not include combustion
turbine or nuclear

Siting Handbook Chapter 4, Part A Draft 2

The location of each plant discussed but not yet certified
reflects the need for proximity to a source of cooling water.
While these plants are only speculative, they are mentioned
because if Power Plant Site Applications for any of these are
file, planners may deal with these plants in future years.
FPL's Martin 3 and 4 plants would most certainly u-se the
cooling lake presently used by the Martin I and 2 oil-fired
units. FPL's "potential site" in Desoto county, near
Arcadia, is near the Peace River. Because water flow of the
river near Arcadia varies seasonally, a reservoir might have
to be built.

TECO's McInnes site, described in the 1983 Ten-Year Site Plan
(TYSP), is adjacent to Tampa Bay to take advantage of bay
waters. This site is not in the 1984 TYSP. FPC's Gulf County
site, which appeared in earlier TYSPs of FPC but does not
appear in the 1984 TYSP, is adjacent to St. Joseph's.Bay, on
the Gulf of Mexico. SECI is currently investigating the use
of fresh water wells for cooling the proposed Taylor County
site, south of Perry.

IV-6

Table IV-2. Water Use by Coal-Fired Power Plants in Florida Coming On-Line After 1980.
Sources: Utility PPSAs.

IN-SERVICE TYPE OF COOLING PROJECTED WATER
POWER PLANT/UTILITY COUNTY DATE COOLING SYSTEM WITHDRAWAL RATE
AND WATgR TYPE (MGD)

I. FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT
St. Johns River Power Park (see JEA below)

II. FLORIDA POWER CORP. (FPQ
Crystal River 4 and 5 Citrus 1982 & '84 Nat. Draft Cool. Twf. 663.5
(Saline)
III. TAMPA ELECTRIC CO. (TECO)
Big Bend 4 Hills. 1984 Once-Through 347.0
(Saline)
IV. GAINESVILLE/ALACHUA COUNTY
Deerhaven 2 Alachua 1981 Wet Cool Twrs, Mech. N.A.
(Fresh)
V. JACKSONVILLE ELECTRIC AUTH. (JEA)
St. Johns Riv. Power Park 1&2 Duval 1987 &'88 Nat. Draft Cool Twr. 11.23*
(Brackish)
VI CITY OF LAKELAND (LAK)
McIntosh 3 Polk 1982 Wet Cooling Tower, 229.0**
Mechanical (Fresh)
Stanton 1 (see OUC)

VII. ORLANDO UTILITIES CMMSN (OUC)
Stanton 1 Orange 1986 Nat..Draft Cool. Twrs 3.85***
(w/small cooling pond)
VIII.SEMINOLE ELECTRIC COOP (SECI)
Seminole 1 and 2 Putnam 1983 &'85 Closed-Cycle Low-Volume 23.0
Nat Draft Cooling Towers

(Fresh)
These figures are for'ground water and surface water withdrawn. Plants actually
require 362 MGD, but'an adjacent oil-fired plant is to grovide 97% of cooling water.
Uses 3 MGD of treated sewage waste water discharge
Two-thirds of water to be supplied by waste sewage from Iron Bridge
sewage treatment plant (2667 gall. per minute); precipitation
can provide 1037 GPM;*wells 202 GPM.

Siting Handbook Chapter 4, Part A Draft 2

3. Bibliography

Hanna, Steve and Pell, Jerry. Cooling Tower Environment,
1974. (Washington, D. C.: Energy Resea@"c_hand'Development
Administration, 1975).

Hekler, Karl. Evaluation of Power Facilities: A Reviewer's
Handbook. (Pittsfield, MA: Berkshire County Regional Plan-
ning Commission, April, 1974). Available ILL: FSU Call Nr.
DOC HD 9685 U5.

Nichols, Charles. Development Document for the Proposed Ef-
fluent Limitations, Guidelines and New Source Performance
'@_tandard's. (Washington, D.C.: U. S. Environ-mental Protec-
tion Agency, Oct., 1974) 2 vols.

Nietubicz, Richard and Green, Lamar. Cooling Tower Environ-
ment: 1978.- (Anapolis, MD: Maryland Dept. of Natural Re-
sources Power Plant Siting Program, May, 1978). Avail. ILL
from EPA Library: TD19 5.C6c66 1978 pt. 1.

IV_8

Siting Handbook Chapter 4, Part B Draft 2

B. TYPES OF COOLING SYSTEMS

1. Once-Through Cooling

With once-through cooling, water is take from a water body
suchas a river, lake or the ocean, passed through the
condenser, and then returned to the source body of water..
This type of system is generally used where there are
plentiful supplies of water and where the resulting effects
on water quality are not expected to be, ssevere. Normally,
once-through cooling is.more economical than other systems
and, in most cases, affords higher "thermal efficiency"
(i.e., less energy losses) for power production.

The amount of water a plant will use for once-through cooling-
is a function of the amount of heat to be removed the
temperature of the receiving water, the type of water in
which the discharg.e is located, currents, and so forth. This
can be illustrated by the Seminole 1 plant of the Seminole
Electric Cooperative, located on the St. Johns River near
Palatka. With two units totalling 1240 MW, the amount of
water which would have to be drawn in would be a direct
result of the temperature in the receiving waters allowed by
DER regulation.,

Max. Temp. Water Drawn In
Location Rise Allowable (Bill. Gal. per Day)
(Deg. Fahrenheit)

Coastal Waters 2 8.5
Fresh Water Stream 5 1.23
Open Waters 17 1.0

To put this amount in perspective, one billion gallons per
day is'equivalent to three times the, flow of Silver Springs.
Only three Florida rivers have an average daily flow this
large during dry years. One billion gallons per day is
equivalent to a water intake of 1.2 million acre-feet per
year. By comparison, the entire Hillsborough Bay contains
269,000 acre-feet at low tide. (An "acre-foot" is the amount
of water contained in one acre, spread to a depth of one
foot.) This refers to water "withdrawn" rather than "consumed."

IV-9

@.ting Handbook Chapter 4, Part B Draft 2

..DRIFT'.'-
HOT WATER ELIMINATOR
DISTRIBUTION

AIR
FILL INLET

41 44,

COLD WATER
BASIN

IV-10

Siting Handbook Chapter 4, Part B Draft 2

Fig. IV-2 shows the potential thermal impact in Hillsborough
Bay if all four units of TECO's Big Bend plant were operating
at 100% capacity. Note that at the point of discharge, the
temperature rise would be about 14.4 degrees F (8 degrees Q;
at a distance of one mile, the rise would be 8 degrees F (5
degrees Q; and at a distance of two miles, the temperature
rise would be about 3.6 degrees F (2.0 degrees Q. This is a
ftworst-case" scenario, for the plants operate at 100 per cent
of capacity only rarely.

2. Cooling Ponds

In a cooling pond, water is recirculated between the conden-
ser and the pond. In Florida, there are presently no coal-
fired power plants located on a cooling pond, but Florida
Power and Light has built cooling ponds for oil-fired plants,
located in Martin, Manatee and Seminole counties, and for its
Turkey Point nuclear plant in South Dade County.

At a cooling pond, sufficient.inflow is needed--from upstream
runoff, rainfall, by diversion from another stream, or by
groundwater makeup--to replace the water lost by evaporation
induced by the addition of heat to the pond and to control
the buildup of minerals in the cooling water. Cooling ponds
can be used for other purposes such as sources of municipal
water supply and for recreational uses.

The volume and surface area needed for a cooling pond depends
on a variety of factors, including: size of the power plant,
ambient air temperature, humidity, rainfall, wind speed and
so forth. The size of FPL's Manatee cooling pond varies from
2,500 to 4,000 acres, depending on how full it is. A cooling
pond sufficient for 3200 MW of coal-fired capacity at TECO's
MacInnes site has been projected by the utility to require
5,000 acres (approximately eight square miles). The cooling
capacity for a pond may be increased by spraying the warm
water into the air over the pond surface.

IV-11

Siting Handbook Chapter 4, Part B Draft 2

Fig. IV-2. Water Discharge Temperatures at the Big Bend
Power Plant, Tampa Bay, If All Four Units are at 100% Load
with No Dilution (i.e., short-duration maximum peak load).
Source: TECO BB4 PPSA. Note that a change of 8o C a change
of 14.4o F; a rise of 2o C a rise of 3.6o F.

Peninsula
HgWorougili &y

G
Z.K"
Whiskey
Temperature Stueno Kav
rim ('CJ

in* pe F@. Fishhook Sims Br
Key Guil spaii
2 Intake
3
4

7 Big
Bond
Station

Jac
Point of Disc arge rc I B,
di=harge annet

rampa Bay

Smrcv. TECO419800.

IV-12

Siting Handbook Chapter 4, Part B Draft 2

3. Natural Draft Cooling Towers

In natural draft cooling towers, the warm water is brought in
direct contact with a flow of air, and the heat of the water
is dissipated, principally by evaporation. As seen in Fig.
IV-1, the warm water is brought to a dispersal section at the
top of the tower, called the "fill". In "splash" type towers,
the fill breaks the water into droplets that subdivide as
they descend, thereby exposing large surface areas to the air
for the evaporative heat transfer. In "film" type cooling
towers, the water is allowed to descend as a thin film so as
to expose a large area to the air for heat transfer. The
cooled water is collected in a basin under the fill section
from which it is pumped back to the condenser to pick up more
heat and then is returned to the cooling tower.

Natural draft cooling towers, which may stand 450 feet high,
resemble the cooling towers commonly used for nuclear power
plants; the hyperbolic shape is often mistakenly associated
in the mind of the public only with nuclear power. In these
towers, water falls by means of gravity, unlike mechanical
draft towers in which large fans are used.

As seen in Table IV-2, natural draft cooling towers are far
and away the most common form of cooling for new coal-fired
power plants in Florida: All coal-r-fired plants certified to
come into service after 1985 will have natural draft cooling
towers. There are the JEA/FPL St. Johns River Power Park,
OUC's Stanton 1, SECI's Seminole 2, and FPC's Crystal River 5.

4. Mechanical Draft Cooling Towers

Until recently all cooling towers constructed in this country
for steam-electric plants were of the mechanical draft type.
In Florida, there are three major applications of mechanical
draft towers in coal-burning power plants: GFC's Crist powe 'r
plant near Pensacola; Gainesville's Deerhaven 2; and Lake-
land's MacIntosh 3. Fans in mechanical draft towers provide
positive control over the air supply, and thus permit sub-
stantial control over the temperature of the cooled water.
These towers, however, are more costly to operate than
natural draft towers because the fans consume considerable
amounts of power.

IV-13

Siting Handbook Chapter 4, Part B Draft 2

5. Dry Cooling Towers and Alternative Cooling Technology

In "dry" or "air" cooling systems, heat is dissipated to the
air by conduction and convection in a heat exchange analogous
to an automobile radiator. Thus, there are no evaporative
losses of water. Although this system consumes infinitely
less water than wet-cooled designs, a much greater air move-
ment is necessary to absorb the heat, particularly in high-
humidity areas such as Florida. This cooling technology has
been employed in drier regions of the nation, but thus far
has not been used in any Florida power plant.

Fig. IV-3 shows how two types of dry cooling systems operate.
In recent years, considerable attention has been given to
advanced cooling and combined wet/dry cooling techniques,
such as towers using ammonia as the coolant. Because this is
an untried technology in Florida, little detail will be given
to this technology here. However, planners considering
alternatives to convention water-using,methods may wish to
consult the bibliography on this subject below.

6. A Comparison of Cooling Technologies

The essential question that most planners will have in
reviewing a power plant site application is which technology
to be employed will achieve the necessary level of cooling at
the least cost and with the least environmental damage. As
an example of the kind of analysis which must be performed,
this section examines the environmental impact statement
prepared for the St. Johns River Power Park, owned jointly by
JEA and FPL and located just north of Jacksonville.

As shown in Table IV-3, the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency compared three types of cooling technologies in its
environmental impact assessment of the SJRPP: natural draft
cooling towers, rectangular mechanical draft cooling towers,
and round mechanical draft cooling towers. In this compari-
son, EPA did not consider a cooling pond, dry cooling or
once-through cooling.

IV-14

Fig. IV-3. Dry Cooling Technologies.- Source: Bartz (1982).,

Steam Steam
condensate
condensatel
Steam
Turbine

1__A

Water

Dry-co
Dry-cooii@g coils .-A
iteam condenser.,j
q*-J Water

'CUU
team
j
till
150 4?, 200
Wate
r
L Air

150
100
4)
E Cooling range High sink.
temperatuie'
(sensible heatin
(dry bulb)
4) 100
50 OL
E
team cond
17S
50
(c) Indirect-Closed Water Loop Steam
(d) Direct Steam

Siting Handbook Chapter 4, Part B Draft 2

In the St. Johns River Power Park EIS, the capital cost for
natural draft cooling towers was rated as significantly
higher than for mechanical draft towers, but the annualized
cost was lower. This is because no electricity is needed to
operate fans, as in mechanical draft towers.,-., More salt drift
would be given off with natural draft towers and these 360 -
550 foot towers would dominate the landscape for miles
around because of their commanding height. But despite these
drawbacks, EPA recommended natural draft towers in this ap-
plication, considering the economic benefits.

7. Bibliography

ONCE-THROUGH COOLING
(See Also: Impacts of Heated Water Discharge)

Barnes, D. Development Document for Best Available Control
TechnoloU for the Location, Design and Construction of
Cooling Water Intake Structures. (Washington, D. C.: U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 1976).

Hughes, G. H. Perspectives on Use of Fresh Water for
Cooling Systems for Thermonuclear T-owe'r Plants in Florida.
(Tallahassee, FL: U. S. Geological Survey, 1975).

Paddock, R. A. and Ditmas, J. D. An Assessment of the Once-
Through Cooling Alternative for Central Station Steam-Elec-
tric Generating Stations. (Argonne National Laboratory,
1978).

IV-16

Siting Handbook Chapter 4, Part B Draft 2

Table 11-3. Comparison of Cooling Technologies for the St.
Johns River Power Park Units I and 2. Source: SJRPP EIS (1981).

Rectangular
Charac- Natural Draft Mech. Draft
teristic Cooling Towers Cooling Towers

Capital Cost 46.178 36.703
(Mill. $)

Annualized Cost 10.660 12.163
(Mill. $)

Energy Con- base +12,145
sumption
(Net MW-hrs/yr)

Vapor Plumes higher rise, mod. rise
.1onger.drift and drift

Ground Fog mod. to low higher
Potential

Salt Drift longer drift shorter drift
lower higher
concentrations concentrations

Height tall moderate
(360 - 550') (60 100')

IV-17

Siting Handbook Chapter 4, Part B Draft 2

COOLING PONDS

Hughes, G. H. Perspectives on Use of Fresh Water for
a- P-ower'Plants in Florida.
Cooling Systems for Thermonucle r
(Tallahassee, FL: U. S. Geological Survey, 1975).

Yost, F. E. and Talmage, S. S. Ecological Investigations at
Power Plant Cooling Lakes, Resevoirs, and Ponds: An Annotated
Bibliography. (Palo Alto, CA: EPRI, June, 1981). EPRI Rpt.
Nr. EA-1874.

DRY COOLING TECHNOLOGY

Bartz, John (ed.) Proceedings of an EPRI Workshop on Water-
ConserviL& Cooling Systems. (P@Ylo Alto,CA: EPRI, 1982).

Bartz, John and Maulbetsch, John. "Are Dry-Cooled Power
Plants a Feasible Alternative?" Mechanical Engineering.
(Oct., 1981).

EPRI. Comparative Economics of Indirect and Direct Dry/Wet-
Peaking Cooling-Tower Systems, (Palo Alto, CA: EPRI, March,
1983). EPRI Rpt. Nr. CS-2925.

Englesson, G. A. Wet/Dry Cooling System Assessment Program.
(Palo Alto, CA: EPRI, June, 1983).

Fricke, H. D. et al. Power Plant Waste Heat Rejection Using
Dry Cooling Towers. (Palo Alto, CA: EPRI, 1980). EPRI Rpt.
Nr. CS-1324-SY

Hendrickson, Axel et al. Florida Acid Deposition Study,
Phase II Report. (Gainesville, FL: Environmental Science and

IV-18

Siting Handbook Chapter 4, Part B Draft 2

Engineering, January, 1983).
Hobbs, Benjamin and Skolitis, Diane. A linear Programming-
Based Evaluation of Water Supply and Conservation Alterna-
tiVe-s for Thermal Power Generation in the lexas Gulf Region.
(Palo Alto, CA: EPRI, 1983).

Larinoff, Michael. "Dry and Wet Peaking Tower Cooling Sys-
tems for Power Plant Applications." Journal of Engineering
for Power. July, 1976, pp. 335- 348.

Linsley, Kraeger Assoc. Proceedings: Workshop on Water
Supply for Electric Energy. (EPRI, August, 1980). EPRI Rpt.
Nr. WS-79-237.

Mitchell, Robert. Comparative Economics of Indirect and
Direct Dry/Wet-Peaking Cooling.Tower Systems. (Palo Alto,
CA: EPRI, 1983).

Nakamura S. L. and Dailey, N. S. Atmospheric and Terres-
trial Effects of Closed-Cycle Cooling Systems: An Annotated
Bibliography. (Palo Alto, CA: EPRI, 1980). EPRI Rpt. Nr.
EA-1438.

IV-19

Siting Handbook Chapter 4, Part C Draft 2

C. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF COOLING SYSTEMS

1. Impact of Thermal Discharges

All discharges of heated water will contribute to physical
and biological changes in the receiving body of water. These
changes can be beneficial, detrimental, or insignificant
depending upon the ecology of the particular water body, the
desired uses of that body, and the amount and temperature of
the discharges. When the discharge of heated cooling water
produces effects that are detrimental to other desired. uses
of water, it can be said that "thermal pollution" has
occurred.

Thermal pollution is significantly different from other forms
of pollution, since, unlike chemical wastes or sewage, it
does not involve the addition of foreign matter to the
environment and the heat is usually dissipated into the
atmosphere rather quickly. The addition of heat to water
bodies, however, may increase the rate of chemical solubility
and biochemical reactions, causing effects on aquatic
organisms in the area of higher temperatures. Thus, the
addition of heat to a water body can alter the aquatic
environment unfavorably and heat may then be regarded as a
potential polluting agent.

IV-20

Siting Handbook Chapter 4, Part C Draft 2

The capacity of water to hold dissolved oxygen is decreased
with an increase in temperature. This oxygen-carrying capaci-
ty is usually expressed as the "saturation level." Planners
will find that a key terms in power plant site applications is
the level of "biological oxygen demand" (termed BOD) in the
11receiving body of water" (RBW) and "dissolved oxygen" (DO).

The addition of heat to a water body can cause "stratifica-
tion," a condition in which the body of water is composed of
horizontal layers of water a different temperatures. These
layers also have different densities, reflecting their
temperature, and resist mixing. Heating causes a reduced
density in warmer water; a difference in temperature of only
a relatively few degrees is often sufficient to cause the
waters to flow in distinct layers. Stratification can
inhibit the movement of oxygen and nutrient between layers of
water, potentially starving both plants and animals in one or
more layers.

Temperature changes normally play an important and highly
regulatory role in the growth of aquatic plants and in the
growth and physiology of fish and other cold-blooded aquatic
animals. Reproductive cycles, digestive rates, respiration
rates, and other processes occurring in the bodies of aquatic
animals are often temperature dependent. These effects are
not consistent among species, however, so thermal constraints
are among the most difficult to define and establish.

On the other hand, thermal discharges when properly control-
led have resulted in an increase in the ability of certain
commercially valuable aquatic species to multiply, while at
the same time decreasing the time for the species to reach
maturity. It is apparent, therefore, that the impact of
.heated water discharges on aquatic ecosystems is not always
nagative; a thorough study may be needed.

IV-21

Siting Handbook Chapter 4, Part C Draft 2

Temperature is a major factor in determining the organic
waste assimilation capacity of a water body. The water
temperature plays a triple role, affecting the rate of
oxidation of pollutants, the capacity of the water to hold
oxygen in solution, and the rate of aeration of the water.
The net effect of adding heat to a body of water usually will
be a lowering of its capacity for satisfactorily assimilating
organic wastes.

Major studies have been completed on most once-through
cooling systems in Florida (see Bibliography, below). Typical
of these reports is the study of Florida Power Corp.'s
Crystal River plant directed by Dr. Samuel Snedaker of the
Dept. of Environmental Engineering at the University of
Florida from 1972 to 1974. This study found that total plant
and animal life in the discharge canal of the power plant was
35% less than in the intake canal.

Although the impact was severe close to the plant in the
discharge ("outflow") canal, farther from the plant, in the
discharge bay, over a period of one year the total 11pre-
dation" of the power plant (i.e, its negative effect on plant
and animal organisms) produced a 1.27 percent reduction in
all species in the discharge bay compared with the control
bay. (See Fig. !V-5).

At the time the study was undertaken, no cooling towers were
used at the Crystal River site; since that time, new units
have been built with cooling towers to reduce the temperature
of discharge water. The researchers found that water tem-
peratures in the discharge bay of the Gulf of Mexico averaged
about 4.5 degrees F higher than in a control bay nearby.

To reduce the undesirable impacts of--heated water discharge,
state regulations require that all new discharges, or pro-
posed discharges, of heated water into surface waters under
state jurisdiction meet strict environmental regulations.
Under the regulation, facilities discharging heated water on
or before July 1, 1972 are allowed to operate with no
thermal standards as long as they "do not substantially
damage or harm aquatic life or interfere with beneficial uses
assigned to the receiving body of water."

IV-22

Siting Handbook Chapter 4, Part C Draft 2

Fig. IV-4. Estimates of Total Community Gross Primary Produc-
tion, Outer Discharge Bay and Control Bay, Crystal River Power
Plant, 1972 1974. Source@: Snedaker et al. (1974).

OUTER CONTROL SAY
12.0- O'OUTER OISCHARGE SAY

10.0-

0
0 0

6.0- 0
0

4.0-

0
2.0-

S 01 'M' i S '01
JUNE 1972 1973 1974

IV-23

Siting Handbook Chapter 2, Part C Draft 2

7. Local Governments

Local governments are the. first aven,ue of assistance for citi-
zens. For this reason, the Power Plant Siting Act allows the
municipality-and the county in which the plant is to be built
to comment on its impact. The local. governments' commtns
should identify any variances from zoni ,ng ordinances or land
use plans which might be necessary; if the local government
objects to granting a variance, this must also be mentioned.

Under �403.508(5) of the PPSA, local governments in whose
jurisdiction the proposed plant is to be located are allowed
to be "parties" to the siting case. (See Attachment I). The
concerns of local governments are ad-dressed in the report of
the Department of Community Affairs. This provision is dif-
ferent than the corresponding section of the Transmission Line
Siting Act, which automatically makes local governments
parties, unless they waive the right. (See Fig. IV-4.)

8. Regional Planning Councils

The Power Plant Siting Act does not specifically mention
Regional Planning Councils (RPCs), but in practice they RPCs
are routinely asked to participate in the review of applica-
tions. The areas that RPCs comment on are likely to include
the relationship of the proposed plant to comprehensive plans
in the region and conflicting issues between local govern-
ments. RPCs are expected to provide assistance to local
governments in reviewing a proposed power plant. (See Fig. IX-
6 for a map of Florida's eleven RPC districts.)

9. Federal Agencies

Strictly speaking, federal agencies are not a formal part of
Florida's power plant siting process. However, a number of
federal agencies are routinely involved in power plant siting
in all states under federal law. Among the federal agencies
most frequently involved in siting cases are the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), the Army Corps of Engineers (COE),
the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), and the Federal Aviation
Administration. For a directory of these agencies, see
Attachment IX.

11-24

Siting Handbook Chapter 4, Part C Draft 2

Table IV-4. Maximum Heated Water Discharge Temperatures in
Florida. Source: Sect. 17-3.05, FAC. All temperatures are
maximum morning temperatures, degrees Fahrenheit.

COASTAL
STREAMS LAKES SUMMER REMAINDER OPEN WATER

NORTH
90 90 92 90 97
+5 +3 +2 +4 +17

SOUTH (PENNINSULAR FLORIDA)
92 92 92 90 97
+5, +3 +2 +4 +17

Fig. IV-5: Northern and Southern Discharge Temperature
Regions in Florida.

c-fto

I-oft

wt tum
nai,

caum

soft
IV-25

A@ft doo

Siting Handbook Chapter 4, Part C Draft 2

2. Cooling Tower Blowdown

In considering the environmental impacts of cooling towers,
planners need to understand to commonly used terms: cooling
tower "makeup" and cooling tower "blowdown." Cooling tower
"makeup" is the water which is drawn in to replace a portion
of the cooling water before dissolved chemicals become so
concentrated by evaporation that scaling occurs. It replaces
evaporation losses and "blowdown"--the heated water discharged
by the tower in order to avoid chemical concentrations that
could cause scaling.

As an example of this problem, Table IV-5 shows the antici-
pated chemical concentrations at the Point of Discharge (POD)
from the cooling towers of SECI's Seminole 1 plant on the St.
Johns River. The utility's power plant siting application
projected a level of Total Suspended Solids (TSS) 28 percent
above the "recommended" level set by the Department of
Environmental Regulation, Total Di.ssolved Solids-(TDS) were
projected to be 274 percent above the recommended level, and
aluminum 500 percent above. Iron was 124 percent above, and
chloride 540 percent above. These are maximum amounts at the
Point of Discharge, and will be less downstream, owing to the
diluting characteristics of river water flow.

Because cooling tower blowdown may contain chemical concen-
trations above in excess of-water quality criteria, planners
are likely to give detailed attention to the question of water
quality impacts from cooling. The discharge of hazardous
chemicals from cooling tower blowdown in excess of state
maximum standards has caused a number of electric utilities to
apply for--and receive--variances from state water quality
standards.

Table IV-6, for example, shows the two-year variances received.-
by- TECO for the Big Bend 4 plant for arsenic, cadmium,
chromium, copper, mercury, iron, nickel and selenium. In the
case of the St. Johns River Power Park, a two-year variance
was granted for mercury, and variances were granted for
aluminum, copper and iron for periods in which the background
levels are high. Twelve-months variances for construction
activities were also given.

IV-26

Siting Handbook Chapter 4, Part C Draft 2

Table IV-5. Maximum Chemical Concentrations of Cooling Tower
Blowdown and Recommended Concentration Limits, Seminole
Electric Cooperative, Seminole 1 Power Plant at Point of
Discharge. Source: SECI PPSA (1978).

Cooling Tower Recommended
Parameter Blowdown Max. Conc.

Total Suspended 32.0 mg/ltr 25.0 mg/1
Solids (TSS)

Total Dissolved 3740.0 mg/ltr 1000.0 mg/ltr
Solids (TDS)

Sodium 720.0 mg/ltr 680.0 mg/ltr

Magnesium 112.0 mg/ltr ----

Copper 40 ug/ltr 60.0 ug/ltr

Nickel 12.0 ug/ltr 100.0 ug/ltr

Zinc 280.0 ug/ltr 1000.0 ug/ltr

Chromium 80.0 ug/ltr 100.0 ug/ltr

Mercury 2.0 ug/ltr .05 ug/Itr

Aluminum 600.0 ug/ltr 100.0 ug/ltr

Iron 2240.0 ug/ltr 1000.0 ug/ltr

Manganese 120.0 ug/ltr 1500.0 ug/ltr

Chloride 1600.0 mg/ltr 250.0 mg/ltr

Sulfate 861.0 mg/ltr ---

Residual 200.0 ug/ ltr 5.0 ug/ltr
Chlorine

Phosphorus 1.0 mg/ltr 1.0 mg/ltr

Oil and Grease 15.0 mg/ltr 15.0 mg/ltr

IV-27

Siting Handbook Chapter 4, Part C Draft 2

Table IV-6. Water Quality Variances Granted to TECO for the
Big Bend 4 Plant. All figures in miligrams per liter (m/l)
unless otherwise marked. Source: TECO BB4 Order.

Pollutant Variance State Class III
Max. Conc. Marine Standards

arsenic 0.2 0.05
cadmium 0.005 5.0 ug/l
chromium 0.965 0.50 (in effluent)
copper 0.04 0.05
iron 0.001 0.30
mercury 0.007 0.1 ug/l
nickel 0.096 0.1
selenium 0.032 0.025

3. Impingement and Entrainment

One of the more potentially significant environmeatal impacts
of power plant cooling is termed "impingement and
entrainment." Entrainment" is the drawing in of plant and
animal organisms into the power plant with the cooling water;
Ili mpingementil is the damage done to the organisms in the
process by being pulled onto screens and other barriers.

Table IV-7 shows the rate of impingement experienced at FPC's.
Crystal River power plant during 1977-78. At that time, there
were three units in operation, two coal units and one nuclear
plant; together these three units drew in 1.318 million
gallons per minute (19 billion gallons per day) from from the
Gulf of Mexico. As seen in this example, the rate of impinge-
ment varies markedly with the season. Over the course of
twelve months, the three units impinged in a total of about
2.7 million fish, weighing about 12.5 million pounds; and
about 719,000 invertebrates, weighing about 3740 pounds.

IV-28

Siting Handbook Chapter 4, Part C Draft 2

Table IV-7: Mean 24-hour Impingemen.t Rates, Crystal River
Units 1, 2 and 3, 1977-78. Source: FPC Crystal River 4 and 5
EIS (1980). Note: the three units consumed water at a rate of
1.32 million gallons per minute (19 billion gallons per day).
All biomass figures in pounds.

Finfish Invertebrates
Month Number Biomass Number Biomass

Jan. 29,662 132.50 5,179 14.23
Feb. 20,187 43.64 2,961 6.00
Mar. 2,966 37.32 2,771 11.00
Apr. 2,734 14.64 1,015 14.65
May. 737 4.0 345 12.14
June 684 19.82 567 2.82
July 1,071 16.5 2,943 7.64
Aug. 891 9.77 2,749 7.90
Sept. 387 5.23 1,557 17.86
Oct. 568 6.95 651 6.0
Nov. 2,544 18.73 1,852 12.95
Dec. 25,286 99.34 1,047 9.82

24-hr MEAN 7,310 34.0 1,970 10.27

ANNUAL
TOTAL: 2,668,150 12,426.6 719,050 3749.54

IV-29

Siting Handbook Chapter 4, Part C Draft 2

To mitigate the impact of impingement and entrainment, a
number of power plants--including JEA's Northside plant and
TECO's Big Bend 4--have incorporated traveling screens near
the intake points. The total mortality rate of fish for the St.
Johns River Power Park was estimated to be about 0.5% - 0.9%
of the fish entering the intake canal. (See Fig. IV-6).

4. Additives: Chlorine and Anti-Corrosives

"Biofouling" occurs when an insulating layer of slime-forming
organisms forms on the waterside of the condenser tubes, thus
inhibiting the heat exchange process. Chlorination is the
most widely practiced method of biofouling control for both
once-through and recirculating cooling water systems. The
properties of chlorine that make it an effective biofouling
control agent are precisely the properties which cause
environmental concern. However, the addition of chlorine to
the receiving body of water causes the formation of toxic
compounds that.affect the health of aquatic organisms.

The large amount,,, of chlorine discharged are reflected in
Table IV-5. In this case, at the Point of Discharge, the
chlorine level is 200 micrograms per liter (ug/1), compared
with the state maximum concentration level of 5.0 ug/l. There
have been large numbers of studies completed on the effects of
chlorine on aquatic plants and animals. The effects vary
markedly from one species to another, and are complicated by a
variety of other factors, such as mortality from impingement,
the effects of sunlight, the length of time of exposure, and
so forth. For a complete treatment of the effects of chlorine
buildup in streams, rivers, lakes and bays, see the bibliogra-
phy below under "Chlorine Discharge."

Corrosion is an electrochemical process that occurs when metal
is immersed in water. Most metals rely on the presence of a
corrosion product film to impart corrosion protection. As
corrosion products form and increase in thickness, the cor-
rosion rate decreases continually until steady state condi-
tions are achieved.

IV-30

Fig. IV-6: Methods to Minimize Entrainment and Entrapment of Aquatic Species. Source:
EPRI (1984).

Traveling screen Low-pressure spray
with fish buckets
Water
circulation
pump
Air bubble Trash Curtain Fish
trough
curtain rack To condenser s

F-I

U-)

Fish bypass

Cooling water body

Sitingg Handbook Chapter 4, Part C Draft 2

Corrosion products are more of a problem in cooling tower
blowdown 'than in once-through cooling water discharge. The
concentration of pollutants (through evaporation) i 'n re-
circulating systems probably accounts for most of the dif-
ference in the level of dissolved metals observed between
once-through discharge and cooling water blowdown.

Chemical additives are needed at some plants with recircula-
ting cooling water system in order to prevent corrosion and
scaling. Chemical additives are also occasionally used at
plants with once-through cooling water systems for corrosion
control. Chemicals added to once-through cooling water to
control corrosion or added to recirculating cooling water to
control corrosion and scaling will usually be present in the
discharges.

5. Salt Drift

Another environmental impact from cooling power plants is that
of "salt drift." All cooling towers lose some of the in-
coming water as evaporation; the "plume" of mist rises from
the tower, carrying salt with it, a condition known as "salt
drift." The issue of salt drift has been a major question in
a number of power plant site certification cases in Florida,
particularly those in which the applicant utility sought to
use salty or brackish water.

A particularly thorough study of salt deposition in Maryland,
at the site of a nuclear power plant which is cooled by salt
water, showed that some species of plants can be affected by
high salt deposition rates, butothat after three years of
operation, yields of three crops near the plant "were statis-
tically equivalent to baseline levels."

A lengthy study of the Turkey Point plant by EPA concluded
that the environmental impacts of salt deposition at that site
were not considered harmful. According to the study, ItNo
measurable effects attributable to salt aerosol emissions from
test cooling devices were detected on'indigenous plants, soil
or fresh water sampled during or following operation." (See
Hindawi, et al. 1976.)

IV-32

Siting Handbook Chapter 4, Part C Draft 2

6. Bibliography

HEATED WATER DISCHARGE

Barnes, D. Development Document for Best Available Control
Technology for the Loca:tion, Design and Construction of
Cooling Water Intake Structures. (Washington, D. C.: U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 1976).

Florida Dept. of Environmental Regulation and the Florida
Public Service,Commission. Results of Task Force Evaluation
of Potential Sites for Once-Through Cooling. (Tallahassee, FL:
Dept. of Environmental Regulation, 1979).

Florida Power Corp. Interagency Research Advisory Committee.
Environmental Considerations. (St. Petersburg, FL: Florida
Power Corp, Oct, 1974). Available ILL: Univ. of Florida Call
Nr. 628.1683 F6 36c.

Gibson, R. A. et al. Florida Power Corporation Second
Crystal River Environmental Progress Report to the Federal
fnteragency Advisory Committee. (St. Petersburg-, FL: 'Florida
Power Corp., Jan., 1974).

Hopkins, T. K. et al. Anclote.Environmental Project Report,
1971. (Tampa, FL: Univ. of gouth Florida, 1971).

Hughes, G. H. Perspectives on.Use of Fresh.Water for Cooling
(Tallahas-
Systems for Thermonuclear Power Plants in Fl rida.
see, FL: U. S. Geological Survey, 1975).

Jensen, Loren, Davis, Robert, et al. ,The Effects of Elevated
Temperature upon Aquatic Invertebrates. (Washington, D.C.:
Edison Electric Institute, 1969).

IV-33

Siting Handbook Chapter 4, Part C Draft 2

Nichols, Charles. Development Document for the Proposed Ef-
fluent Limitations., Guidelines and New Source Performance
7-
Standards. (Washington, D.C.: U. S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency, Oct., 1974) 2 vols.

Paddock, R. A. and Ditmas, J. D. An Assessment of the Once-
Through Cooling Alternati-ve for -Central Station Steam-
Electric Generating Stations. (Argonne National Laboratory,
.1978).

Prager, J. C. Survey of Benthic Microbiota.,and Zooplankton
near Florida Power and Light's Turkey Point Power Plant.
(Corvallis, OR: EPA Office of Research and Development,
1976).

Tinsman, Jeff et al. "Effects of a Thermal Effluent on the
Reproduction of the American Oyster," in Tampa Electric Co. A
Study of Thermal Effects on Benthic Communities in the Big
Bend, Florida. (Tampa, FL: Tampa Electric Coj 1980).

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Draft EIS Related to
Operation of St. Lucie Plant, Unit 2 -L'Docket 50-389. (Wash-
ington, D.C.: U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, October,
1981). NTIS Nr. NUREG-0842.

Yost, F. E. and Talmage, S. S. Power Plant Cooling Lake.s,
Resevoirs, and Ponds: An Annotated Bibliography. (Palo Alto,
CA: EPRI, 1981).

Young, Don. "Salt Marshes and Thermal Additions at Crystal
River, Florida." in Snedaker, Samuel et al. Crystal River
Power Plant Environmental Considerations. (St. Petersburg, FL:
Florida Power Corp, 1974).

IV-34

Siting Handbook Chapter 4, Part C Draft 2

ADDITIVES: CHLORINE AND ANTI-CORROSIVES

Boies, David et al. Technical and,Economic Evaluations of
Cooling Systems Blowdown Technologies. (Corvallis, OR: U. S.
EPA National Environmental Research Laboratory, Nov., 1973).
EPA-660/2-73-026.

Hall, Lenwood et al. Power Plant Chlorination: A Biological
and Chemical Assessment. (Palo Alto, CA: EPRI, Dec., 1981).
EPRI Rpt. Nr. EA-1750.

Jolley, Robert. Water Chlorination: Environmental Impact and
Health Effects. Proceedings of a Conference on the
Environmental Impact of Water Chlorination., (Ann Arbor, MI:
Ann Arbor Science, 19 78). Available ILL: FTU Call Nr.:
TD462 C66 1975.

Opresko, D. M. Review of Open Literature on the Effects.of
Chlorine on Aquatic Organisms. (Palo Alto, CA: EPRI, August,
1980). EPRI Rpt. Nr. EA-14 91.

Vanderhorst, J. R. Effects of Chlorine on Marine Benthos.
(Palo Alto, CA: EPRI, October,-19-82). EPRI Rpt. Nr. EA-2696.

SALT DRIFT

Hindawi, I. J. et al. Ecological Effects of Aerosol Drift
from a Saltwater Cooling System. (Corvallis, OR: U. S. EPA
Environmental Research Laboratory, 1976). NTIS EPA-600/3-76-
078; PB-258. Provides results of a three-year study of FPL's
Turkey Point cooling towers salt drift.

McCune, D. C. and Silkerman, H. D. "The Effects of Saline
Aerosols @of Cooiing Towers." Journal of the Air Pollution
Control Assn. Vol. 27 (1976), pp. 319-32-4.

Nietubicz, Richard and Lamar Green (eds.) The Cooling Tower
Environment, 1978: Proceedings of a Symposium, May 2-4, 1978.
(Silver Spring, MD: Water Resources Research Center, May,
1978).

IV-35

I
I
I
I.
I
I
I
I CHAPTER 5
I AIR POLLUTION
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

Siting Handbook Chapter 5 Draft 2

CHAPTER 5

AIR POLLUTION

Reducing air pollution from fossil-fueled steam-electric
plants to acceptable levels is one of the major challenges
facing the electric utility industry. The need to resolve air
pollution and other environmental problems has a significant
bearing on where electr:Ec generating plants will be sited,
what kind of plants will be built, what fuels will be burned,
how much electricity will cost the consumer, and generally
whether the electric utility industry will meet the demands
for power in coming years.

When a utility applies for certification to construct a coal-
fired power plant, the question of the plant's impact on air
quality is likely to be a major issue in the certification
proceeding. Consequently, local planners can expect to deal
with air pollution questions surrounding a proposed plant.
Accordingly, this handbook provides planners with an overview
of the types of pollutants emitted from coal-fired plants,
their health effects, state air quality standards, and the
technology available to reduce air pollution.

V-1

Siting Handbook Chapter 5, Part A Draft 2

A. AIR POLLUTION FROM POWER PLANTS IN FLORIDA

Compared to some of the industrial states of the Northeast,
Florida has enjoyed relatively clean air. Still, this state
has air pollution problems that can be aggravated by a major
11point source" such as a power plant. -This section examines
types of emissions associated with coal plants, and summarizes
the air pollution standards currently enforced by the state
Department of Environmental Regulation.

1. Air Pollutants from Coal Combu-,tion

There are six types of air pollutants commonly associated with
coal-fired power plants: sulfur oxides (SOx), nitrogen oxides
(NOx), particulate matter (often referred to as Total Suspen-
ded Particulates--TSP); carbon monoxide (CO); carbon dioxide
(CO-A and trace elements (mercury, lead, organic molecules,
radioactive particles and others).

Sulfur Oxides--originate during the combustion of sulfur-
bearing coal, oil, and to a much smaller extent, natural gas.
As seen in Table V-4, over 73 percent of all SO'2 generated in
Florida in 1980 originated from electric utilities; other
sources included industry (18.9 percent), transportation (4.2
percent), solid waste and heating. The yearly discharge of
S02 in Florida is over one million tons. (See Part B of this
chapter for a discussion of SOi.

V-2

Siting Handbook Chapter 5, Part A Draft 2

Nitrogen Oxides--are primarily the products of reactions
between oxygen and nitrogen in the combustion of fossil fuels
in internal combustion engines and furnaces. As seen in Table
V-11, in 1980, 44.9 percent of all nitrogen oxides produced in
Florida were from transportation and 43.5 percent from elec-
tric 'utilities; industry provided 6.7 percent. The total 1980
discharge in Florida was 773,000 tons. (See Part C for a
discussion of NOx).

Particulate Matter--includes fly ash from power plants and
industrial plant stacks, soot and ash from other combustion
processes, and dust from metallurgical plants, quarrying, and
other industrial and agricultural processes. In 1985 electric
utilities are projected by the Florida Department of Environ-
mental Regulation (DER) to generate 54,100 tons of particulate
matter, representing about 8 percent of the state's total
production of 696,800 tons. (See Part D, Particulates)

Carbon Monoxide--as an air pollutant originates primarily in
gasoline-fueled internal combustion engines and in other
devices burning fossil fuels under conditions of incomplete
combustion. According to DER, in 1985 Florida's utilities will
generate about 22,50 '0 tons of CO per year, less than 1% of the
state's projected total of 2,259,200 tons. Because utilities
contribute such a small portion of the total, carbon monoxide
will not be given detailed attention in this handbook.

Carbon Dioxide--is not, strictly speaking, a pollutant.
However, in recent years attention has focused on the "green-
house effect," in which a bu 'ild-up of C02 in the Earth's
atmosphere, resulting from the combustion of fossil fuels,
could raise the temperature of the Earth, possibly with
profound effects. The contribution of utilities to C02 produc-
tion is relatively low. (The "greenhouse effect is treated in
detail in Part E, "Other Emissions.")

Trace Elements--include mercury, organic compounds such as
dioxin, and radioactive particles. Each of these could be
harmful if present at a high enough concentration. Mercury gas
is discussed in Part E; radioactivity in Particulates, Part D.

V-3

Siting Handbook Chapter 5, Part A Draft 2

2. Florida Air Quality Regulations

When a power plant site application is received by the
Department of Environmental Regulation, it is reviewed to
ensure that the proposed plant will be in compliance with the
Florida Ambient Air Quality Standards (FAAQS). These standards
are contained in Chapter 17-2, Florida Administrative Code
(FAC). The regulations are not reproduced in this handbook,
but they are easily available from any library or from DER.

The 1970 Clean Air Act required the federal Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) to establish National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS). Two sets of standards were promul-
gated: 11primary standards," established to protect public
health; and "secondary standards,ff to 11protect the public
welfare from any known or anticipated adverse effects as-
sociated with the presence of any known pollutants." To date,
NAA.QS have been adopted for sulfur dioxide, particulate
matter, nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons,
ozone and lead.

Subsequently, the state of Florida-adopted the Florida Ambient
Air Quality Standards (FAAQS). By law, state standards must
be at least as stringent as federal standards, and may exceed
federal standards. See Table V-1 for a comparison of state
and federal standards. Note that the Florida standards are
more stringent than the federal standards for sulfur dioxide
and total suspended particulates.

An area with air quality superior to levels mandated by the
NAAQS for a particular pollutant is classified as an "Attain-
ment Area" for that pollutant; an area with worse air quality
than the NAAQS for a particular pollutant is labeled as a Non-
Attainment Area. Areas with air quality cleaner than the
NAAQS are regulated by "Prevention of Significant Deteriora-
tion" limits on new construction of air pollution sources. At
the present time, EPA has established PSD standards for sulfur
dioxide and particulate matter only.

V-4

Siting Handbook Chapter 5, Part A Draft 2

Table V-I: Federal and Florlda Ambient Air Quality Stan-
dards in Effect as of January 1, 1984. Source: DER (1983).

State of Federal Federal
.Averaging Florida Primary Secondary
Pollutant Time Standard Standard Standard

8-hour* 10 mg/m3 10 mg/m3 (same as
Carbon Monoxide (9 ppm) (9 ppm) primary)
1-hour* 40 mg/m3 40 mg/m3 (same as
(35 ppm) (35 ppm) primary)

Quarterly_- (same as
Lead Arithmetic Mean 1.5 ug/m3 1.5 ug/m3 primary)

Annual - 100 Ug/m3 100 ug/m3 (same as
Nitrogen Dioxide Arithmetic Mean (0.05 ppm) (0.05 ppm) primary)

(same as
Ozone 1-hourt 0.12 ppm 0.12 ppm primary)
Annual 60 ug/m3 80 ug/m3
Arithmetic Mean (0.02 ppm) (0.03 ppm)
Sulfur Dioxide 24-hour* 260 ug/m3 365 ug/m3
(0.1 ppm) (0.14 ppm)
3-hour* 1300 ug/m3 1300 ug/m
(0.5 ppm) (0.5 ppm)

Annual
Total Geometric Mean 60 ug/m3 75 ug/m3 (see note)
Suspended
Particulate 24-hour* 150'ug/m3 260 ug/m3 150 ug/m3
A - I I

Not to be exceeded more than once per year.
t Not to be exceeded more than an average of once per year
over a three year period.

V-5

Siting Handbook Chapter 5, Part A Draft 2

Section 107(d) of the Clean Air Act, as amended, directed each
state to submit to EPA a list of NAAQS attainment areas; this
list was published by EPA in the Federal Register on March 3,
1978. The Non-Attainment areas in-Florida for each pollutant
are published in Chapter 17-2, FAC, by the Department of
Environmental Regulation. This reference can be consulted by
planners regarding any specific county or pollutant, and is
referred to in all power plant site certification applica-
tions. Thefederal Register is available at any library.

The nation is divided into three types of PSD regions: Class
I, Class II, and Class III areas. Class I areas have the most
stringent standards, and Class III the least stringent. The
entire state of Florida, other than the four Federally
protected areas shown in Fig. V-1, is designated as a Class II
area; there are no Class III 4reas in Florida. The four
protected areas in Florida, designated as Class I, are:

1. Everglades National Park
2. Chassahowitzka National Wilderness Area
3. St. Marks National Wilderness Area
4. Bradwell Bay Wilderness Arela (Apalachicola Nat. Forest)

In addition to these four Federally-protected areas, there are
two National Wilderness Areas in Georgia -- the Okefenokee NWA
and the Wolf Island NWA -- that are Class I areas and must be
taken into consideration in siting new power plants in
northern Florida. Certifying new pollution sources that could
affect a Class I area is governed by special regulations (See
Section 17-2.31 FAC.).

Table V-2 shows the Florida PSD maximums for sulfur dioxide
and particulates for Class I and Class II areas. The applica-
ble maximum for 3-hour concentrations and 24-hour concen-
trations may be e xceeded only once per year at any site

v-6

Siting Ha,ndbook Chapter 5, Part A Draft 2

Table V-2: Maximum Allowable Concentrations of S02 and
particulate Matter in State of Florida Prevention of Signifi-
cant Deterioration Class I and Class II Areas. All figures in
micrograms per cubic meter (ug/m3).

POLLUTANT/STANDARD CLASS I AREAS CLASS II AREAS

PARTICULATE MATTER
Annual geometric mean 5 19
Twenty-four hour maximum 10 37

SULFUR DIOXIDE
Annual arithmetic mean 2 20
Twenty-fou'r hour maximum 5 91
Three-hour maximum 25 512

Fig. V-1: Class I Air Quality Areas in Florida.

loom

.. LM

Loom Ix. GQM

am 0.11
Bradwell Bay Wilderness Area
hs National Wildermess Area ftu@
CRUM LAM

-Am

r
'WIN
'A=

MOM "41LA"" U@
Chassahowitzka National Wilderntiss Area
0-LO" ftAM

Mew
un
Ev.erglades National Park

caum

17
- 7Z
U
j V-7

Siting Handbook Chapter 5, Part A Draft 2

3. New Source Performance Standards

Part of the DER review of power plant site certification
applications is to ensure that the project will not cause a
violation of air quality standards. The Florida regulations
for new coal-fired power plants adopt prevailing Federal
standards by reference in Section 17-2.660 FAC. The federal
regulations referred to are contained in Code of the Federal
Register, Vol. 40, section 60.40, Subp_@_rtD_. T'--F-ossil Fuel
Steam Generators."

This is the section of Federal regulations that deals with
"New Source Performance Standards" (NSPS) for stationary
sources--including large power plants (i.e., those consuming
fuel at a rate equal to or greater than 250 million Btu per
hour). Existing plants are presently covered by less strin-
gent regulations. NSPS standards--given in pounds per million
Btu (lbs/MMBtu)--for new coal-fired plants are as follows:
Annual
Emission Rate
Pollutant (lbs/MMBtu)

Sulfur Dioxide 1.2
Particulates 0.03
Nitrogen Oxides 0.6
(for bituminous coal)
Sulfur Removal 90% (most coals)

---When the-Department-of Environmental Regulation considers an
application, it must certify that the pollution control
equipment proposed for the new plant is the best available on
the market. This is knows as a "Best Available Control
Technology" (BACT) review. To make a BACT determination, DER
is to consider factors such as competing technologies on the
market, the cost of these technologies, and BACT determina-
tions made in other states.

As technology becomes more and more able to reduce pollution
in an economical and reliable fashion, BACT standards are made
progressively more stringent. Tables V-8 and V-9 provide good
examples of the kind of analyses planners need to consider in
reviewing technologies on the market to reduce sulfur dioxide.
The use of best available control technology allows a new
plant to achieve NSPS standards@

V-8

Siting Handbook Chapter 5, Part A Draft 2

As seen in Table V-3, all plants certified in, Florida in
recent years met the NSPS SO 1/2 standard of 1.2 lbs/MMBtu;

howver, they vary considerably in the margin by which they
exceed NSPS.. For example, SECI's Seminole units 1 and 2. are
designed to emit S0 1/2 at a rate very close to the allowable
maximum of 1.2 lbs/MMBtu, whereas the JEA/FPL St. Johns River
Power Park units 1 and 2 are designed to achieve a rate of .76
lbs/MMBtu. This is shown graphically in Fig. V-2.

These levels of SO 1/2 reduction can be compared with the coal-
fired power plants which went on-line in Florida in the 1960s
and the 1970s. As will be seen in Part B below, these plants
are much dirtier, emitting SO 1/2 at rates as high as 4.89
lbs/MMBtu.

Fig. V-2: SO 1/2 Emission Rates for New and Existing Coal-Fired
Power Plants in Florida. Sources: PPSAs.

5.0- *3 Key 1969 (3.02)-
I CRYSTAL RIVER I & 2(FPC)1966-
2 BIG BEND 1. 2 & 3 (TECO) 1970 1976 (4.89)
4.0 3 CRIST 6 & 7 (GPC) 1970 & 1973 (3.6)
4 CRYSTAL RIVER 4 (FPC) 1992 (0.95)
2 5 BIG SEND 4 (TECO) 1984 (0.70)
3.0 6 STANTON I (OUC) 1986 (0-76)
7 S.J.R.P.P. (JEA/FPL) 1988 (0-76)

2-0 -1960 EMISSION RATES

NSPS STANDARD (1.2 LBS PER MILLION STU)
1.0 .................... --------------------------------------------------------
4

V-9

Table V-3: Air Pollution Emis'sion Rates and Control Devices for Recently Certified Coal-Fired
Power Plants in Florida. Source: Power Plant Site Applications. Data for SOx/MWH Available Only
.for Power Plants for which -an Environmental Impact Statement was prepared.

IN-SERVICE SO.;, S02 so., NOx
PLANT/UTILITY COUNTY DATE (lbs/MMBtu) FGD Per MWH* Control TSP

1. Deerhaven 2 (GVL) Alachua 1981 N.A. No N.A. No ESP

2. McIntosh 3 (LAK) Polk 1982 N.A. Yes N.A. LNB ESP

3-4. Crystal River (FPC) Citrus 1982 & 3.02 LS 6.92 LS ESP
Units 4 and 5 1984 (@ 66%)

5-6, Seminole (SECI) Putnam 1983 & 1.15 Yes N.A. NSPS ESP
Units 1 and 2 1985

7. Big Bend 4 (TECO) Hills. 1984 0.82 Yes 5.79 NSPS ESP
(@ 75%)

8. Stanton 1 (OUC/LAK) Orange 1986 1.18 Yes N.A. NSPS ESP&MC

9-10. St. Johns River Duval 1987 & 0.76 Yes 2.8 NSPS ESP
Power Park 1988 (@ 70%)
Units 1 and 2
(JEA/FPL)

NSPS = New Source Performanace Standards FGD = Flue Gas Desulfurization
NOx = Nitrogen Oxides ESP = Electrostatic Precipitator
S02 = Sulfur Dioxide LS = Low Sulfur Coal
*At projected capacity factor.

Siting Handbook Chapter 5, Part A Draft 2

4. Air Quality Modeling

When a power plant site certification application is reviewed
by the Deptment of Environmental Regulation, it is subjected
to computer-based modeling to determine if it will be in
compliance with applicable air quality regulations. The
computer model used in Florida is known as the "CRSTER" model. r
The model provides forecast concentrations for both Total
Suspended Particulates (TSP) and S02' for 3-hour maximums, 24-
hour maximums and average annual concentrations, both from the
power plant alone and in combination with other sources of
pollution.

A typical computer-generated map resulting from use of the
CRSTER model is shown in Fig. V-3. As seen in this example,
the maps produced by use of.the CRSTER model show projected
concentrations of pollutants emitted from the point source as
"isopleths"--i.e., lines of equal concentrations.

The air pollution potential of a coal-fired power plant
depends on the direction and the dispersion of the 11plume"
coming from the stack or stacks. As seen in Fig. V-4, how
this plume rises and spreads is dependent on a variety of
factors, including: the velocity and direction of prevailing
winds, the temperature of the gases as emitted from the stack,
the amount of the pollutants, local temperatures, local
rainfall, the "mixing depth" of the atmosphere, "atmospheric
stability," and other such factors. All of these factors, and
others, are taken into account in the CRSTER model.

The CRSTER model is not a regional or statewide model; it
provides predicted concentration levels for a distance of only
20 kilometers (about 12.4 miles) from the point source. The
computer-generated maps produced by the CRSTER program typ-
ically show an area only 10 kilometers by 10 kilometers on a
side (6.2 miles on a side). However, as shown in Fig. V-5,
after a distance of about 5 kilometers from the plant (about 3
miles), the concentration of pollutants tends to become more
uniform, so the model provides a useful'tool to project the
air quality impact of a proposed plant.

While there are numerous other models available, the CRSTL9
model has been validated in field testing situations; one
study found it to give "no systematic pattern of over-
prediction or under-prediction."

V-11,

Siting Handbook Chapter 5, Part A Draft 2

Fig. V-3: Average Annual Concentration of Total Suspended
Particulates in Micrograms per Cubic Meter (ug/m3), TECO's Big
Bend 4 Plant. Source: TECO's Big Bend 4 PPSA.

.............. !......... : .......... ...................

...................... .. . ....

..........
..............
................... .. ... ........ ......

. . ................... .........
......................................
.......... . ....... ............

..........
. . ................ ... .... ... I .................
.. ........ ...... ........ ........
+ + +
... ...............
............. + -
..................
... .................. ........ ...........

4. ..........
............ .

. . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
+ + P
. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

............ ..

..........

.................

....... ... .............

.......... A ........
.... ..... ..

..................... ...........
.................... ............... ..............
. .............

............... ........
......... .
......... ...... .........

........... ...........
...........
................ .....................

.............
1- ...................
....... 0 ....... I . .......2
.............. ........... .................

.. ................... ......... .........

V-12

Siting Handbook Chapter 5, Part A Draft 2

Fig. V-4: Plume Behavior During Constantly Varying Temperature
Differentials. Source: Dvorak (1978).

-AOIABATIC

T LOOPING

T CONING

T FANNING

Fig. V-5: Relative Concentration of Tracers Emitted from a
Power Plant Stack. Source: Bowne (1981).

z
0 1.0- CLASS
Uj A

j Z 0.5-
UJ

z
0

0 10 is
DISTANCE FROM STACK (KM)

V-13

Siting Handbook Chapter 5, Part A Draft 2

5. Bibliography

FEDERAL REGULATIONS

Delaney, B. T. et al. Methodology for Determining the Impacts
of Environmental Regulato ry Programs (Palo Alto: EPRI, May,
f981). EPRI Report Nr. CS-1834.

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. Guidance for Lowest
Achievable Emission Rates from 18 Major Stationary Sources of
Particulate, Nitrogen Oxides, Sulfur Dioxide, or Volatile
Organic Compounds. (Washington, D. C. EPA April, 1979).
NTIS Nr. EPA 450/3-79-024.

STATE REGULATIONS

Chapter 17-2, Florida Administrative Code.

Florida Bureau of Air Quality Management. Exceedances of the
Ambient Air Quality Standards in Florida, 1981. (Tallahassee,
FL: Dept. of Environmental R-eg-@-IaTi-on, Oct., 1982).

AIR QUALITY MODELING

Bowne, N. E. et al. Preliminary Results from the EPRI Plume
Model Validation Project: Plains Site. (Palo Alto, CA:
EPRI, April, 1981). EPRI Rpt. Nr. EA-1788.

Drake, R. L. and Barranger, S. M. Mathematical Models for
Atmospheric Pollutants.(Palo Alto, CA: EPRI, Aug., 1979).
EPRI Rpt. Nr. EA-1131.

V-14

Siting Handbook Chapter 5, Part A Draft 2

Eliassen, Anton. "A Review of Long-Range Transport Modeling."
Journal of Applied Meteorology. (March, 1980).

Fahien, Raymond and Theyuni, M. "Air Pollution Dispersion
Problems of Florida," in Green, A. E. S. (ed.), The Impact of
Increased Coal Use in Florida. (Gainesville, FL: Univ. of
Florida, 19T9-)-.

Turner, D. Bruce. "Atmospheric Dispersion Modeling--A Criti-
cal Review." Journal of the'Air Pollution Control Assn. (May,
1979).

Wilson, William. "Sulfates in the Atmosphere: A Progress Re-
port." Atmospheric Environment. (December, 1978).

V-15

Siting Handbook Chapter 5, Part B Draft 2

B. SULFUR DIOXIDE

In recent years, the question of sulfur dioxide (SO,:2`) emis-
sions from power plants has become a heated issue, with SO'2
linked with "acid rain" and adverse health impacts. For this
reason, planners reviewing a Power Plant Site Application
(PPSA) may wish, to give close attention to levels Of S02
projected to be emitted from a proposed power plant and to the
plans of the utility to control SO-2-' emissions. This section
is designed to assist planners in conducting this type of
review.

I.Sources and Amounts of S02'in Florida

As shown in Table V-4, in 1980 electric utilities generated 73
percent of all S02'produced in Florida. The ten largest
sources of S-02,in Florida in 1980 were all electric utilities;
the ten largest industrial sources of SO-'2- together were
smaller that the largest utility S02'polluter, TECO's Big Bend
plant in Hillsborough County. Three of the four largest
sources of SC@. were coal plants.

Existing coal-fired plants emit S02 at a much higher rate than
existing oil-fired units. In 1980, the three-largest coal-
fired plants emitted S02 at an average rate of 20.04 tons, per
megawatt-hour (tons/MWH); the five largest oil- 'fired plants
emitted S02 at a rate of 8.50 tons/MWH, 60 percent less than
the rate of the coal-fired plants. (See Fig. V-5)

New coal-fired power plants presently under construction,
however, are much cleaner than ones installed in previous
years. All new units will meet federal New Source Pollution
Standards of 1.2 pounds of sulfur dioxide per million Btu.
(See Fig. Table-V-3)

V-16

Siting Handbook Chapter 5, Part B Draft 2

Table V-4: Estimated Emissions of SO'2' in Florida, 1980.
Source: ESE (1983).

Emissions Pct
(tons)

Point Sources
Utility 742,351 73.2
Nonutility 189,717 18.7

SUBTOTAL 932,068 91.8

Area Sources
Fuel Consumption 39,533 3.9
Solid Waste 260 .0
Transportation 42,603 4.2
Miscellaneous 360 .0

SUBTOTAL 82,756 8.2
GRAND TOTAL 1,014,824 100.0

Table V-5: - Ten-Highest SO. 2" Emissions from Utility Sources
in Florida, 1980. Source: ESE (1983).

EMISSIONS MWH TONS/
UTILITY/PLANT COUNTY (TONS) FUEL* (1980)* MW.H
1. TECO/Big Bend Hillsbr. 159,000 Coal 6450.0 24.65
2. GPC/Crist Escambia 74,720 Coal 3473.6 21.51
3. FPC/Crystal Riv. Citrus 69,400 Coal* 4485.2 15.47
4. FPC/Anclote Pasco 56,800 Oil 5012.1 11.33
5. TECO/Gannon Hillsbr. 39,800 Coal 5109.0 .7.79
6. FPL/Ft. Meyers Lee 38,580 Oil 3276.1 11.78
7. FPL/Sanford Volusia 34,460 Oil 3999.6 8.62
8. FPL/Cape Canav. Brevard 33,190 Oil 4584.1 7.24
9. FPL/Manatee Manatee 31,410 Oil 6002.6 5.23
10. JEA/Northside Duval 29,870 Oil N/A
Average, Coal-Fired Plants = 14.92 tons/MWH
Average, Oil-Fired Plants = 8.84 tons/MWH
*Steam units only.

V-17

Siting Handbook Chapter 5, Part B Draft 2

The levels of SO2. emissions from new power plants in
Florida--as low as .76 lbs/MMBtu for the St. Johns River Power
Park near Jacksonville--can be compared with existing plants.
As can be seen in Table V-6, the existing plants emit S02 at a
considerably higher rate.

The number of tons Of SO-2 which a power plant will emit
depends on the sulfur content of the coal, the use of a flue
gas desulfurization unit, the capacity factor of the plant,
the size of the plant and so forth. Therefore, projecting
emissions from new units is difficult, but can be done: As
showrf in Table V-3, the Environmental Impact Statements
prepared for three new power plants in Florida indicate that
the rate of S02 emission has been lowered from the projected
4.81 tons per megawatt-hour (MWH) for FPC's Crystal River
units 4 and 5, certified in 1978, which do not use flue gas
desulfurization, to 2.8 tons per MWH for the St. Johns River
Power Park units 1 and 2, certified in 1982, which do use FGD.

One factor which contributes to the emission rate of coal-
fired power plants is the sulfur content of the coal burened.
In 1980, the average sulfur content of coal as burned in
Florida varied from a low of .62 percent for Gainesville
utilities to a high of 2.39 percent for TECO (See Table V-7).
The cost implications of low sulfur coal, however, are
important: According to the industry, low-sulfur coal is
expected to cost about 30 to 50 percent more than high-sulfur
coal.

*This chapter speaks only of SO emissions. In actuality,
however, both sulfur dioxide (SOA and sulfur trioxide (S03)
are produced in a coal-fired power plant. Approximately 97
percent of the sulfur-bearing compounds enter the flue gas as
sulfur dioxide (SO-2) gas. For this reason, this handbook deals
almost exclusively with SO-2'. The small quantities of sulfur
trioxide (S03) which are emitted occur more in the form of an
aerosol than a gas. Sulfur trioxide is highly corrosive,
since it readily combines with water to form sulfuric acid.
Sulfur trioxide is a noxious constituent in a plume and
contributes to acid rain.

V-18

Siting Handbook Chapter 5, Part B Draft 2

Table V-6: Sulfur Dioxide Emissions from Coal-Fired Power
Plants in Florida, 1980. Source: Florida Electric Coordinating
Group.

PLANT/UTILITY* COUNTY 1980 SO'2@_ S02-: Flue Gas
(Yr In-Service) (Th. Tons)(lbs/MMBtu) Desulf.

Crystal River(FPC) Citrus 69.40 3.02 No
Units 1 and 2 (1966 & 1969)

Big Bend (TECO) Hillsbr. 159.0 4.89 No
Units 1, 2 & 3 (1970, 1973 & 1976)

Crist(GPQ - Escamb 55.26 3.60 No
Units 6 and 7 (1970 & 1473)

Smith (GPQ Bay 19.16 1.76 No
Units I and 2 (1965 & 1967)

Does not include small FPL or GVL uses which were not
standard power plant uses in 1980.

Table V-7. Coal Consumption and Average Sulfur Content,
Florida Electric Utilities, 1980. Source: ESE (1983).

COAL Averg. Th. Tons
UTILITY (1000 tons) Pct. Sulfur S02

FPL 51 0.70 0.71
FPC 1,920 1.94 74.5
GVL 26 0.62 0.3
GPC 2,840 2.08 118.0
TECO 3,847 2.39 184.0

TOTAL 8,684 2.17 377.0

V-19

Siting Handbook Chapter 5, Part B Draft 2

While projections of SO-:, generation in future years are
difficu lt, Fig. V-5A shows the results of a major study on
acid deposition in Florida conducted by the Florida Dept. of
Environmental Regulation, published in 1984. This DER study
forecasts that under current federal and state air pollution
control regulations, by the year 2000 the state would be
generating about 1.4 million tons of sulfur dioxide annually.

Chapter I shows that as of the end of 1983, there were 6300 MW
of coal-fired power plants on-line in Florida and that the
utiities are projecting that by the turn of the century there
may be some 26,500 MW of coal-fired capacity in the state.
Assuming today's environmental standards and an average
capacity factor of 59 percent, this means that by the year
2000, coal-fired plants in Florida could be generating about
654,900 tons of SO, annually. Coal would thus represent about
46 percent of all SO2* generated statewide in 2001. (See Fig.
V-5A)

This projection , shown in Fig., V-5A, assumes today's average
rate of 13,210 tons per gross MW per year for newly construc-
ted units, less units retired before 2001.

V-20

Siting Handbook Chapter 1, Part C Draft 2

V- TA-
Fig. S02 Emissions from Coal-Fired Power Plants in
Florida, 1976-2000. Sources: Statewide figures from DER
(1984); Coal Plants from DCA (1984).

S02 EMISSIMS,

1.4
Base Case 141 t5i

1299
1120

1024
L .............. ......
L . .........A..........
I ..................... 909
0 824
N
743
T 656
0
N
S
0.4 510
............
361.5 363.5 x Total
A Utilities
+ C o a

1976 1980 less ?Sao t gas C_ 217,

YEAR

Siting Handbook Chapter 5,.Part B Draft 2

2. Health Effects of S02

Sulfur dioxide is a colorless, nonflammable gas that is
emitted into the atmosphere mainly as a result of the combus-
tion of coal and oil. At concentrations from 0.3 to 1.0 parts
per million (ppm), equivalent to 780 to 2600 micrograms per
cubic meter (ug/m3), S02 causes a taste sensation. At concen-
trations above 3.0 ppm, the gas has a pungent, irritating
odor. In the atmosphere, S02 is partly converted by phot-
ochemical and catalytic reactions to sulfur trioxide, sulfuric
acid, and.various sulfate particles which , like SO2, can also
cause adverse health effects.*

On the average, SO2. concentrations in Florida during 1981 were
less than 20% of the state's 60 ug/m3 annual average ambient
standard. Maximum short-term concentrations (three-hour and
24-hour averages) were also generally much less than the
corresponding standard. However, a total of eight 24-hour
average S02' concentrations in excess of this amount were
recorded in that year: five in Duval County, two in Nassau
County and one in Escambia County. The only area of the state
currently designated a "non-attainment area" for S02 in the
Florida State Implementation Plan (SIP) is an area north of
Pinellas County.

Sulfur dioxide is a pulmonary irritant, affecting primarily
the upper respiratory system. An exposure to 1.5 ppm (3900
ug/m3) of S02 for a few minutes may produce a reversible
constriction of the bronchial tubes in healthy persons, making
breathing difficult. When associated with particulate matter,
SO-2 becomes an irritant of the lower respiratory system. (For
further information on the studies cited here, see the
Bibliography, Section 6.)

In experimental animals, chronic exposure to sulfur dioxide
produces a thickening of the mucous layer in the trachea and
other changes that resemble chronic bronchitis. In animals
exposed to S02 concentrations of 0.1, 1.0 and 20 ppm, the rate
of mucuous transport is decreased owing to inhibition of
ciliary motion caused by sulfur dioxide . These adverse ef-
fects of S02' on defense mechanisms on animals may have
important implications regarding response of individuals
exposed to other pollutants or pathogenic agents.

*See Glossary, Attachment VI, for definitions of terms.

V-20

Siting Handbook Chapter 5, Part B Draft 2

Exposure of patients with chronic respiratory disease to
levels of S02-- in a concentration of 0.10 - 0.15 ppm for one-
half hour to one hour results in decreased pulmonary
functions; exposure at this level for one hour decreases the
performance of long-distance runners. However, one study
found that continuous exposure of guinea pigs and monkeys to
0.1 and 5 ppm of sulfur dioxide for up to one year did not
produce any detectable pulmonary effects.

The annual Florida standard for S02 is 0.02 ppm (60 ug/m3),
and levels in Florida average less than 20 percent of this
amount. However, in 1981 eight 24-hour periods in excess of
0.1 ppm (260 ug/m3) were recorded. Still, these levels are
generally lower than the concentrations used in the research
cited above.

According to the Florida Department.of Environmental Regula-
tion, the as.sociation between long-term exposure to S02- and
chronic morbidity and mortality is not clear. Nevertheless, a
number of studies have shown that, in areas where average
annual concentrations of both total suspended particulates and
SO-2 have exceeded about 100 ug/m3, mortality, morbidity and
other health-related indices have been higher. A study done at
the Oak Ridge National Laboratory estimates that by 1990, the
combustion of fossil fuels will cause the deaths of from 110 -
1800 persons per year in Florida, even though Florida's SCI
level is less than 100 ug/m3.

Similarly, a link*between S02 and cancer is suspected, but not
fully established, by some researchers. See the Winchester
reference in the bibliography regarding research on lung
cancer and S02 levels. A study of smelter workers exposed to
SOx appears to link SOx to cancer; the sulfur oxides in this
study seemed to serve as a possible promoter rather than a
causitive agent. (See Hackney et al., 1983).

V-21

Siting Handbook Chapter 5, Part B Draft 2

3. Sulfur Oxides Control Technology

As shown in Table V@3, all recently-certified coal-fired power
plants in Florida are using flue gas desulfurization (FGD)
units to reduce the o-u-*tput of SO-2-. Flue gas desulfurization
systems can be broadly classified in three major categories:
(1) throwaway processes; (2) gypsum processes; and (3) regen-
erative processes. Each of these can also be characterized as
11wet" or "dry" systems.

Throwaway Processes--.are designed for the eventual disposal
of the byproducts as waste. These processes involve wet
scrubbing of flue gases for absorption, followed by various
methods for neutralizing the acidity and separating the
sulfur compounds from the scrubbing liquor. How a typical
system works in shown in Fig. V-6.

Gypsum Processes--are designed to produce gypsum that may be
used in place of naturally occurring gypsum in such products
as plaster., wallboard, and cement. This process, like
throwaway processes, involves the use of lime or limestone,
but includes an oxidation.step to insure the recovery of
sulfur compounds in the form of gypsum.

Regenerative Processes--are designed to regenerate the
primary reactants and concentrate the sulfur dioxide.
Further processing can then convert the SO,,, into sulfuric
acid or elemental sulfur. These processes include both wet
and dry scrubbing.

The efficiencies of these systems vary from 50 percent removal
of sulfur up to 92 percent, and some newer systems can achieve
a 95 percent reduction when combined with coal washing. A
comparison of the costs of these systems in included below in
Table V-9.

Overall, wet scrubbers using lime or limestone dominate the
market, and according to the utility industry, are expected to
to continue to dominate in coming years. According to DER,
"On balance, the wet process appears to be better suited to
large generating units, even though dry processes release gas
at higher temperatures, require less capital investment, and
are simpler to operate."

V-22

Fig. V-6: Flue Gas Cleaning Flow Diagram,. Source: OUC Stanton I P

FLUE GAS

AIR HEATER

AIR
STEAM
GENERATOR AAAAA
ELECTROSTATIC
PRECIPITATOR

Uj
_j U.
U_ _j

FLY ASH
BOILER BAG FILTER INDUCED
DRAFT FANS REA TIO
HOPPER ASH T HK
VACUUM SLURRY
CYCLONIC DUST PUMP WASTE
SEPARATOR
COAL FLY ASH THICKENER
SILO
LINE
SILO DEWATERING
SYSTEM
KA I R

OF LY Al SH
AG F LTE R C
A

US T
VACI
R PU@

S
SCRUBBER
' U
L
SLUDGE
MIXER S UD GE
@@FLY- @UJD E V
FLY-SLUDGE 141XTURE
TO LANDFILL

Siting Handbook Chapter 5, Part B Draft 2

Of the ten new coal-fired power plants certified.to come on-
line in Florida in the 1980s, eight have been designed to use
wet limestone scrubbing. This type of scrubbing has been the
technology of choice among Florida utilities because it is
usually the most cost-effective way to achieve BACT standards.
Fig. V-7 shows a typical wet scrubber.

As an example, the cost for the wet limestone scrubbing
alternative at the St. Johns River Power Park over its life
expectancy was estimated to be about $900 million. A lime
spray dryer was projected to cost about $1.36 billion over the
same time period, 51 percent.more, thoug-h it would require
significantly less energy to operate. (See Table V-8).

As noted earlier, the St. Johns River Power Park's expected
SO-@, emission level of 0.76 lbs/MMBtu is relatively low
compared with other coal-fired plants in Florida. It is
technologically possible to better this performance, but there
are significant cost considerations. According to the EIS for
this plant, to achieve a level of 0.4 lbs/MMBtu would cost an
additional $3 million in capital costs; and because the system
would consume more power, it would mean an additional $926,700
dollars per year to operate. Over its life expectancy, the
more expensive system was estimated to cost $26.6 million more
than the wet limestone process which was certified.

The comparisons shown in Tables V-8 and V-9 show how planners
can evaluate one technology against another in terms of SO-2
reduction and cost. However, since it is the Environmental
Regulation Commission which sets state air pollution emission
standards, the ability of local planners to impact on the
degree of stringency required for a plant may be limited.

V-24

Siting Handbook Chapter 5, Part B Draft 2

Fig. V-7: A Typical Wet Scrubber. Source: Babcock and Wilcox.

Flue Gas

Vist Eliminator

SPray
@rist Eliminator

P r a

Absorber
Flue Gas

Recycle Pumps

V-25

Table V-8: Comparison of Sulfur Dioxide Control Alternatives for the St. Johns River
Power Park. Source: EPA SJRPP EIS (1981).

Equivalent
Cost ($ X 1000) Energy
Annual Equiv. Consumption
System/Control Level Capital O&M Annual @(kw-yr) - Advantages Disadvantages
1. Lime/Limestone 283,523 99,997 900,063 24,982 1. Energy consumption
Scrubber lower than System 2 1. Energy consumption
(0.76 lb/MMBtu) 2. Lowest equivalent higher than System 3
cost 2. Water consumption
higher than System 3

2. Lime/Limestone 286,267 102,954 926,679 26,047 1. Lowest emission rate 1. Highest energy con-
Scrubber 2. Equivalent cost sumption
(0.4 lb/MMBtu) lower 'than System 2. Sludge generation CN
3 by $213,8341000 higher >.
3. Equivalent cost,higher
than Sy3teM I by
$26,616,000
4. Higher water consumption
than System 3

3. Lime Spray,Dryer 415,487 151,342 1,362,214 15,106 1. Low energy consump- 1. Cost higher than
(0..76 I.b/MMBtu) tion System I by $240,450,000
2. No wet sludge and System 2 by
handling $213,834,000
3. Low water usage 2. Not as much operating
experience.as for lime/
limestone scrubber
3. Will not allow produc-
tion of a usable by-
product (gypsum)

Siting Handbook Chapter 5, Part E Draft 2

3. Bibliography

MERCURY GAS

Rogozen, Michael and Hausknecht, Donald. Health Effects of
Mercury and Its Compounds. (Palo Alto, CA: EPRI, July, 1978).
EPRI Rpt. Nr. EC-224.

CARBON DIOXIDE AND THE "GREENHOUSE EFFECT" r

Emmanuel, W. R. et al. "The Expanded Use of Fossil Fuels by
the U. S. and Global Carbon Dioxide Problem." Journal of
Environmental Management, Nr. 10 (1980), pp. 37-49.

Seidel, Stephen and Dale Keyes. Can We Delay A Greenhouse r
Warning? (Washington, D.C.: U. S. EPA Office of Policy
Analysis, Nov., 1983).

V-56

I ..
I
I
I
I
I
I
I CHAPTER 6
I WATER POLLUTION: SOLID WASTES AND COAL STORAGE
I
I
I
I
I 'D
I
I
I - .. .
I
I

Siting Handbook Chapter 6, Part A Draft 2

CHAPTER 6

WATER POLLUTION: SOLID WASTES AND COAL STORAGE

Large amounts of both solid wastes and coal are stored at a
coal-fired power plant. Rainwater passing through these
storage areas can become polluted. Water pollution from coal
plants has been sharply reduced in newer plants, but has not
been totally eliminated.

The purpose of this chapter is to help planners--such as staff
of Water Management Districts--to better understand the
sources of water pollution from power plants and techniques
that can employed to help protect water quality. In addition,
the chapter summarizes current Florida water pollution regula-
tions and considers the effect of water pollution on plant and
animal life.

A. PRODUCTION AND STORAGE OF SOLID WASTES

This section provides basic information on the types of wastes
stored at a coal power plant, the amount of these wastes, and
the space needed to store them. In addition, a review of
Florida water quality standards is presented.

VI-1

Siting Handbook Chapter 6, Part A Draft 2

1. High Volume Wastes at Coal-Fired Power Plants

Solid waste is generated from two major sources at a coal-
fired power plant:- (1) The largest quantity of solid wastes
produced at a coal plant is generated by the flue gas desul-
furization (FGD) sysf'em; (2) the other major solid waste is
coal combustion ash. Collectively, FGD waste and coal ash
are called-"high volume wastes."*

a. Coal Combustion Ash--is the residue produced by the
comb@_stion of coal. It consists of the unburned organic
matter and the inorganic mineral constituents present in the
coal. The quantity and chemical characteristics of ash depend
on the coal, boiler operating conditions, and air pollution
control devices.

Two types of ash are produced during combustion: "fly ash" and
"bottom ash." Fly ash consists of the finer particles
entrained in the flue gas stream; bottom ash is the coarser,
heavier material that accumulates in the furnace bottom as r
loose ash or slag. Fly ash is a valuable, recoverable resource
which can be sold as a by-product for a variety of uses.

In coal-burning boilers, some of the fly ash (or "carryover
ash") settles in the economizer section of the boiler. This
ash, called "economizer ash", typically comprises the larger
particles of fly ash.

b. FGD Sludge and Gypsum--In a wet limestone FGD scrubber,
sulfi@_rdi`oxide in-the flue gas reacts with a limestone slurry
producing a waste which must be removed. "Throwaway" (or
finonregenerative") FGD systems produce large amounts of waste
sludge; "regenerative" systems produce calcium sulfite and
calcium sulfate (gypsum) which must be stored. The gypsum
produced by the FGD system can be of a commercial grade,
comparable in quality to natural gypsum deposits, and can be
sold commercially. (For more information on FGD systems, see
Chapter 5).

*See Glossary, Attachment VI, for definitions of terms.

VI-2

Siting Handbook Chapter 6, Part A Draft 2

Other solid wastes,. generated on an infrequent basis by a coal
plant, include sludges from the sedimentation ponds, storm-
water retention basins, cooling towers, and wastewater treat-
ment facilities. Only comparatively small quantities of these
wastes are produced.

2. Amounts of Solid Wastes

The amounts of wastes generated by a coal-fired power plant
depend on the type of coal being burned, the type oC boiler,
the type of FGD unit, and so fort-h. Table IV-1 provides
projected amounts for three typical units: SECI's Seminole
units 1 and 2, TECO's Big Bend 4 and OUC's Stanton unit 1.
FPC's Crystal River units 4 and 5 do not have a flue gas
desulfurization system, and therefore produce substantially
less wastes than these plant--but far more air pollution.

As seen in Table VI-1, th e total amount of solids generated by
TECO's 486-MW Big Bend 4 is projected to be about 357,400 tons
per year; OUC's 460-MW Stanton 1 is projected to generate
somewhat less: 265,400 TPY. SECI"s two 650-MW S-eminole units
together are expected to generate about 811,000 tons per year.
When adjusted for tons per gross MW of capacity per year, the
average for these four boilers is slightly over 9000 tons per
megawatt per year.

To put this amount in perspective, it can be estimated that
SECI's Seminole units 1 and 2 together will produce somewhat
more than the equivalent of a trailer-truck of waste every two
hours This represents about 13.5 truckfuls per day, almost
5000 truckfuls per year.

In these three examples, solid waste from flue gas desulfuri-
zation units (FGD) was by far the highest amount: At OUC's
Stanton 1 FGD sludge represents 76 percent of all solid
waste; at SECI's Seminole I and'2, 67 percent; and at the TECO
Big Bend 4 site, 59 percent. Fly ash at the Seminole plant
represents 23% of wastes and 29% at TECO's Big Bend 4.

VI-3

Siting Handbook Chapter 6, Part A 'Draft 2

Table VI-1. Projected Quantities of Solid Wastes from Three
Typical Coal-Fired Power Plants in Florida. Source: TECO 's
Big Bend 4 EIS (1982); OUC's Stanto-n PPSA (1982); and SECI
Seminole Units 1 and 2 PPSA (1978).

Plant/Process Amount
(and Gross MW) (Tons/Yr) Tons/MW/Yr Pct

OUC Stanton 1*
(460 MW)
Pulverized Rejects 3,800 8.26 1.4
Bottom Ash 12,200 26.52 4.6
Fly and Boiler 48,400 105.22 18.2
Hopper Ash
Scrubber Solids 201,000 436.96 75.7

TOTAL 265,400 576.96 100.0

TECO Big Bend 4** r
(486 MW)
Bottom Ash 25,680 52.84 7.2
Pyrites 19,000 39.09 5.3
Fly Ash 102,700 211.32 28.7
Gypsum 210,000 432.10 58.8

TOTAL 357,38-0 735.35 100.0

SECI Seminole Units 1 and 2***
(1300 MW)
Bottom Ash 79,200 60.92 9.8
Economizer Fly Ash neg. neg neg
Precipitator Fly Ash 185,800 142.92 22.9
FGD sludge 546,000 420.00 67.3

TOTAL 811,000 623.85 100.0

*Assuming Illinois Coal
**Assuming average capacity factor of 52.57 percent;
assumes bottom ash is 80% and fly ash is 20% and ash
content is 13.5 percent.
***Assumes 66 percent Capacity Factor

VI-4

Siting Handbook Chapter 6, Part A Draft 2

3. Storage of Solid Wastes

To store this solid waste consumes large amounts of land area.
Over an operating life expectancy of thirty years, the OUC
Stanton 1 plant may require 78 acres (312 acres if all four
units are built). The JEA/FPL.St. Johns River Power Park is
likely to require 531 acres of landfill.

Over the life expectancy of the plant, solid wastes from
SECI's Seminole units 1 and 2 are projected to cover 267 acres
(about one-half square mile) spread to a depth of 68 feet.
This represents an estimated 18, 150 acre-feet of wastes. (An
Itacre-foot" is one acre spread to a depth of one foot.) The
land required for this amount of storage is shown in Fig. VI-1.

The amount of land needed for solid waste storage in three
recently-sited power plants in Florida is shown in Table VI-2.
Note that the the number of acre-feet per gross megawatt
varies substantially. This is because some flue gas
desulfurization systems produce far more waste products than
others.

Table VI-2: Size of La ndf.il.1 Needed at Four Major Coal-Fired
Power Plants in Florida. Source: PPSAs.
Total Size After 30 Yrs
Gross Acre/Ft
PLANT MW Per Yr Acres Acre-Feet Acre-Ft/MW

SECI Seminole 1300 600 N/A 18150 13.96
.Units 1 and 2
OUC Stanton 1 174 78 5220 11.35
St. Johns Rive 1280 1062 531 31860 24.89
Power Park
Units 1 and 2

VI-5

Siting Handbook Chapter 6, Part A Draft 2

Fig. VI-1. Layout of Major Station Facilities, Including
Landfill and Ash Ponds, SECI's Seminole Units 1 and 2. Source:
SECI Seminole Units I and 2 PPSA (1978).

-Z!E

ICE-

T`9

LEGEND:
A
SWITCHYARD

POWER 8LOCX

C ASH PONOS
64 D COOLING TOWERS

WASTE STORAGE AREAS

igh
Ottis"
017 17

n is 0 1 mile.
SOURCE: BURNS j@ND ROE/ INC. PLANT SCALE
LAyouT, DWG. NO. SCO02 I

VI-6

.Siting Handbook Chapter 6, Part A Draft 2

The waste material is usually placed into an on-site, moni-
tored landfill, developed in cells. The landfill is construc-
ted on compacted material, above the high water table. A
diagram of a typical landfill cell is shown in Fig. VI-2. At
the St. Johns River Power Park, cells will be 10 acres each,
filled to a height of 60 feet.

Before the wastes are first placed in a cell, dikes (or
"diversion berms") are constructed to divert water runoff
into a sedimentation pond. In addition, a perimeter ditch
inside the berm is constructed to collect rainwater runoff
from the landfill. Collected runoff water is then treated
before disposal.

A system of groundwater monitoring wells is installed before
the waste material is placed in the cell, and a monitoring
program is begun'* The syste-m includes wells "upgradient" and
"downgradient" of the disposal area. Water levels are routine-
ly monitored, and water samples are collected periodically for
analysis.

Fugitive dust emissions from the waste site.can be held to a
minimum. The continuous placement and compaction of new
(moist) material over the old wastes helps prevent the
formation of dust. Covering the landfill with soil and
seeding it after it is filled eliminates possible future dust
production after it is closed.

When the cell is filled, it is closed to the elements. The
waste materials are first covered with a granular base (such
as bottom ash) and then topsoil is placed on the top and sides
of the cell. The tops of the completed cells are sloped to
improve surface runoff and reduce infiltration. Interfacing
side slopes of the cells are not covered. The final step in
closing a cell is to seed the topsoil.

VI-7

Siting Handbook Chapter 6, Part A Draft 2

Fig. VI-2. Diagram of a Typical Landfill Cell Showing Berms
and Drainage Trenches. Source: OUC's Stanton 1 PPSA (1981).

VI-8

Siting Handbook Chapter 6, Part A Draft 2

4. Florida Water Quality Standards

The storage of solid wastes and coal at a power plant repre-
sents a potential source of. water pollution. Consequently,
when a power plant site application (PPSA) is received by the
Department of Environmental Regulation, the plans of the
utility are reviewed to determine if the proposed project will
comply with the state's water quality regulations. This
section reviews those standards which were in effect as of
January 1, 1984. Standards are different for f1surface waters"
and "ground water," so these'two types of water are dealt with
separately here.

The water quality standards of Florida are contained in
chapter 17-3, Florida Administrative Code. These rules are
not reproduced in this handbook, but are easily available from
any library or from the DER public affairs office. The water
quality regulations include mirrimum criteria for all waters,
thermal standards, chemical sta-ndards for various classes of
groundwaters and surface waters. (Thermal standards are
discussed in Chapter 4

The water quality criteria require that all waters at all
places and at all times be free from man-induced discharges
that:

Form "putrescent" deposits
Float as debris, scum or oil nuisances
Produce color, odor, taste, turbidity, or other
nuisances
Are acutely toxic
Cause concentrations that could cause cancer or
adverse genetic effects
Pose a serious danger to public health, safety, or
welfare.

Note that "turbidityll.means containing suspended particles,
causing the water to be dirty, muddy, discolored or opaque.
"Acutely toxic" is defined as a concentration of a substance
greater than 1/3 of the concentration of that substance that
will kill 50 percent of a test biological organism'within 96
hours. This is referred to in power plant siting applications
as "LC50." "Putrescent" means containing rotten or decayed
materials.

VI-9

Siting Handbook Chapter 6, Part A Draft 2

a. Surface Water Regulations--There are five classifications
of surface waters which apply to all surface waters other than
f1mixing zones." A mixing zone is a volume of water around a
discharge of pollutants within which concentrations of
pollutants above standards are diluted by mixing with the
flambient" water.(i.e., the water as found in'in the environ-
ment). In coal-fired power plants, "mixing zones" are often
allowed at the outlet where the cooling tower blowdown is
released, and, if separate, in the runoff from the coal
storage pile, as shown in Fig. VI-3.

Surface waters are classified on the basis of the highest
intended usage: r

Class I-A Waters--are those used as a supply of "potable"
(i.e., drinking) water.

Class II Waters--are those designated for shellfish har-
vesting or propagation of shellfish.

Class III Waters--are for recreation and propagation and
management of fish and wildlife. Most of the waters in
Florida are Class III. Most power plants discharge water
into Class III water. L

Class IV Waters--are used for agriculture and industrial
"@7a_ter s-upplies.

Class V Waters--are intended for navigation, utility and
1-ndustrTial use. The Fenholloway River near Perry is the
only Class V water in Florida.

Certain waters of the state are designated as "Outstanding
Florida Waters." These waters include surface waters around
or in federal or state parks, wildlife refuges, wilderness
areas, environmentally endangere,d lands, aquatic preserves,
National Seashores, and Marine and Estuarine Sanctuaries.

The water quality standards for each class are given in Ch.
17-3, FAC.

VI-10

Siting Handbook Chapter 6, Part A Draft 2

The heavy metals found in water discharged from coal-fired
power plants are of particular concern. These metals include
aluminum, arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, cyanide, iron,
lead, mercury, nickel, selenium, silver and zinc. These can be
found in concentrations high enough to exceed the Chapter 17-
3 standards in the mixing zone; when they exceed the state
standards outside the mixing zone,. applicant utilities have
often requested variances from the state standards. Examples
of this include the variances granted to TECO for the Big Bend
4 plant, and to JEA/FPL for the St. Johns River Power Park.

Chlorine is found primarily in cooling water discharges due to
its use as a biocide or antifouling agent in the cooling
system, but minor amounts of chlorine may be discharged from
on-site sewage treatment plants.

b. Groundwater Standards--All groundwaters in the state are
classified into one of four classes on the basis of designated
use:

Class G-I: Potable water use, groundwater in "single
source aquifers" (i.e., the only source of.drinking water
in the area) which has a "Total Dissolved Solids" (TDS)
content of less than 3,000 milligrams per liter (mg/1).

Class G-II: Potable water use, groundwater in aquifers
which has a TDS content of Less than 10,000 mg/l, unless
otherwise classified by the Environmental. Regulation
Commission (EIZC), the commission which sets regulatory
standards that DER administers.

Class G-III: Non-potable water use, groundwater in uncon-
fined aquifers which has a TDS content of 10,000 mg/l or
greater, or which has a TDS content of 3,000 - 10,000 mg/l
and either has been declared by the ERC as having no
reasonable potential as a future source of drinking water,
or has been designated by DER as an "exempted aquifer."

Class G-IV: Non-potable water use, groundwater in confined
aquifers which has a total dissolved solids content of
10,000 mg/l (milligrams per liter) or greater.

VI-11

Siting Handbook Chap.ter 6, Part A Draft 2

All groundwater must be free from domestic, industrial,
agricultural, or other man-induced di.scharges in concentra-
tions which alone or in combination with other substances are:

--Harmful to plants, animals, or organisms that are native F
to the soil and responsible for treatment or stabilization
of the discharge permitted by the Department of
Environmental Regulation; or

--Carcinogenic*" (cancer causing), "mutagentc" (causing
mutations), "teratogenic" (causing birth defects) or toxic
to human beings, unless specific criteria are established
for such components in 17-3.404; or

--Acutely toxic to indigenous species of significance to
the aquatic community within surface waters affected by the
groundwater at the point of contact with surface waters; or

--A serious danger to the public health, safety, or
welfare; or which create or constitute a nuisance.

Classes G-I and G-II are also required to meet the primary and
secondary drinking water quality standards for public water
systems as listed in Chapter 17--22, Florida Administrative
Code. When the natural "unaffected" background quality of the
groundwater exceeds the drinking water criteria, the "repre-
sentative background" would be the standard for Classes G-I
and G-II.

*See Glossary, Attachment VI, for definitions of terms.

VI-12

Siting Handbook Chapter 6, Part A Draft 2

5. Bibliography

Chatten, Cowherd, et al. Hazardous Emission.Characteristics
of Utility Boilers. (Washington, D. C.: U. S. EPA Office of
Research and Development, July, 1975). ,

Green, A. E. S.(ed.) The Impact of Increased Coal Use in
Florida.. (Gainesville, FL: Univ. of Florida, 1979).

Green, A. E. S. (ed.) Coal-Burning Issues. (Gainesville, FL:
Univ. of Florida Press, 1980).

Leo, P. P..and Rossof, J. Control of Waste and Water Pollu-
tion from Coal-Fired Power Plants: Second R&D Report. (Cor-
vallis, OR: 'U. S. EPA Office of Research and Development,
Nov., 1978). NTIS Nr..PB-291 396. EPA-600/7-78-224.

Nichols, Charles. Development Document for the Proposed
Effluent Limitations, 'Guidelines and New Source Performance
Standards.. (Washington, D.C.: U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Oct., 1974) 2 vols.

Rogozen, Michael and Hausknecht, Donald. Health Effects of
Mercury and Its Compounds. (Palo Alto, CA: EPRI, July,
1978). EPRI Rpt. Nr. EC-224.

Pisarcik, Joan and Bolch, W. Emmett. "Environmental Impacts
of Trace Elements as a Result of Increased Coal Use in
Florida." in Green, A. E. S. (ed.) The Impact of Increased
Coal Use in Florida. (Gainesville, FL: Univ. of Florida,
1979).

VI-13

Siting Handbook Chapter 6, Part B Draft 2

B. WATER POLLUTION FROM STORED SOLIDS

Water pollution at a power plant can occur when rain water
passes through stored wastes or drains from coal storage
piles. This section identifies the pollutants associated with
the storage of wastes and coal, and compares the constituents
in water runoff from coal power plants with Florida's water
quality standards.

1. Water Pollution from Stored Wastes

As described earlier in this chapter, a typical coal-fired
power plant may include hundreds of acres of landfill storage
for wastes such as bottom ash, fly ash, and flue gas desul-
furization sludge. Seepage of water through the wastes can
transfer pollutants from ash and FGD sludge into the adjacent
soil. This process is called "leaching."

"Leachate" may be defined as the liquid that has "percolated"
through or drained from waste or other materials, and contains
soluble, partially soluble, or "miscible" components removed
from these materials. Both "vertical" and "lateral" seepage of
leachate can occur from ash and sludge waste-storage sites,
particularly where the waste material is deposited as a
slurry. The major impact of seepage is the addition of
pollutants to groundwater and soil resulting in the potential
contamination of water supplies for both humans and wildlife.

VI-14

'Siting Handbook Chapter 6, Part B Draft 2

The chemical characteristics of wa stewater draining from ash
storage areas are a function of the inlet (or "makeup") water,
composition of the fuel burned, and the composition of other
wastewaters discharged into-the ash settling ponds. Table VI-3
shows the projected chemical characteristics of the storm
water runoff at SECI's Seminole plant, compared with the
Florida's groundwater standards in effect in 1978.

The concentrations shown in this example are at the point of
discharge (POD) in the St. Johns River. As the pollutants are
carried away by the river, they of course become diluted to
much lower concentrations. Fig. VI-3 shows the decreasing
levels of concentrations projected in the Power Plant Site
Application (PPSA) for the Seminole plant.

As is seen in this example, a majority of the hazardous
leachate elements are trace metals: aluminum, copper, chrom-
ium, mercury, selenium, zinc, and others. In most cases the
concentration of these elements in the sludge at the point of
discharge (POD) is in excess of state water quality standards
.that were in effect at the time the plant was certified.

In addition to trace metals, leachate contains organic com-
pounds (i.e,, those containing carbon). Table VI-4 lists the
concentrations of organic emissions from the holding pond at a
typical 1000 MW coal-fired power plant. Of these compounds,
only phenol, with a concentration of 97 micrograms per liter
(ug/1) was reported to be present at a dangerous concentra-
tion. The EPA has established a maximum concentration for
phenol for health of 5 ug/l and for the environment of 100
ug/l; phenols have been found to be both mutagenic and
carcinogenic.

The 1984 Legislature amended water discharge standards for
power plants. Planners should bear in mind the special
exemption for power plants in reviewing a PPSA.

VI-15

Siting Handbook Chapter 6, Part B Draft 2

Table VI-3: Concentrations of Chemical Constituents in Flue
Gas Desulfurization Sludge, SECI Seminole Units 1 and 2 at the
Point of Discharge (POD). Source: SECI Seminole 1 and 2 PPSA
(1978).

Scrubber Sludge Concentration Range Class 1-8 Water
Constituents Liquors;mg/1 Solids;mg/kg Quality Criteria (mg/l@
Aluminum 0.03 2.0 a

Arsenic 0.004 1.8 0.6 52 0.05

Beryllium 0.001 0.18 0.05 6

Cadmium 0.004 0.11 0.08 4 0.01
b
Calcium 10 - 2600 (10.5) - (26.8)

Chromium 0.0011 - 0.5 10 - 250 0.05

Copper 0.002 - 0.56 8 - 76

Lead 0.005 - 0.52 0.23 - 21 0.05

Magnesium 0.1 - 2750

Mercury 0.00005 0.001 5 0.002

Potassium 5.9 - 760

Selenium 0.0006 - 2.7 2 - 17 0.01

Sodium 10.0 - 29,000 (3.7)

Zinc 0.001 - O.S9 45 - 430

Chloride 4ZO - 33,000 (0.9)

Fluoride 0.6 - 58 1.5

Sulfate 600 - 84,000 (3.5) - (47.3)

Sulfite 0.9 - 3500 (0.2) - (69.2)
TOS 2800 - 162,700c

PH 4.3 - 12.7
aNot analyzed.
bParentheses indicate percent weight.
CTypical maximum: approximately 10,000 (see Section 5.1.1.2.2).

VI-16

Siting Handbook Chapter 6, Part B Draft 2

Fig. VI-3: Concentration of Chemical Pollutants Released by
SECI's Seminole Units 1 and 2 into the St. Johns River. Note:
Isopleths show percentage of original concentration at point
of discharge (POD). Source: SECI's Seminole Units 1 & 2 PPSA
(1978).

POD

0.3%(Iv)
0.5%= 0.2%

oowA#srREAm

0.3%(IV) Notes: 1) Isopleths Represent Maximum Percentage
of Original Excess Chemical Concentrations Exper-
ienced During the 7-Day MAF. (For Des@ription of
7-Day MAF See Section 2.3.1.1.)
2) The Concentrations of Chemical Constit-
uents at Isopleth I are Given in Table 5.2-3.
Concentrations at Remaining Isopleths are Given
0.2% (V) in Appendix C

3000 15M 0 3000

SCALE IN FEET

0.1%(vo

PALATKA

VI-17

Siting Handbook Chapter., 6, Part B Draft 2'

Table VI-4: Concentration of Organic Chemicals in Surface
Runoff Water from a Holding Pond at a Typical 1000 MW Coal-
Fired Power Plant. Source: Rosecrance and Colby (1980).

Concentration (1) r
Chemical (Ug/1) Kj/day
Methylene chloride 17 01.48
Chloroform 6 0.17
1,1,.l-Trichloroethane 1 0.028
Benzene 2 0.056
Toluene 6 0.17
Phenol 97 2.7
oil and Grease 5000 140
TOTAL 5000 140

(1) Assumes runoff of 28 Joe J/day

VI-18

Siting Handbook Cha pter 6, Part B Draft 2

2. Water Pollution from Coal Storage

Coal-fired power plants typically maintain-a 90-day supply of
coal. Water pollution from coal pile storage is a function of
the type of coal., the amount of time the water stays in the
coal-storage area, the amount of rainfall and the mitigative
measures employed. Therefore, pollution will vary consider-
ably with such factors as the amount of rainfall, the type of
liner under the coal pile, and the type of holding pond the
utility constructs to catch the runoff before it enters
surface water or ground water.

The concentration of pollutants is inversely related to the
water flow--meaning that the faster the rate of water move-
ment, the less contact the coal has with the water, and the
less the contamination. Studies of coal pile leachate show a
marked variance from one site to another.

A 1978 study by Wachter and Blackwood for the U. S. Environ-
mental. Protection Agency, concluded that average coal pile
runoff concentrations were not large enough to approach
hazardous levels. However, the researchers concluded that:

Adverse impacts on aquatic biological life and water quality
are generated by increases in suspended sediments and
acidity. Coal minerals containing calcium and magnesium
produce undesirable alkalinity and hardness in waters.
Ferrous bicarbonate may also form, consuming oxygen and
creating a bitter taste.

The results of this study are shown in Table VI-5. Note that
in this example, "hazardous concentration" is a term used by
EPA and may not necessarily reflect Florida water quality
standards. The Wachter and Blackwood study found that all
pollutants from coal pile runoff were less than one percent of
"hazardous levels" except for selenium (20 percent), nickel (3
percent), and arsenic (2 percent).

VI-19

Siting Handbook Chapter 6, Part B Draft 2

Table VI-5: Hazardous and Runoff Concentration Levels for
Inorganic Pollutants From Coal Storage Areas. Source: Wachter
and Blackwood (1978). Note that CR is the concentration of
pollutants in runoff; CH is the hazardous concentration; and
C /C is the ratio of these two factors.
R H

Runoff Hazardous
concentration, concentration,
Effluent g/m3 g/m3 Ci/CH ratio

Antimony 0.0004 0.225 (40, 43) 0.0018
Arsenic 0.001a 0.05 (44) 0.02
Asbestos O.OOj 0.63 (40, 43) 0.0016
Beryllium NDL 0.011 (44) -C
Cadmium 2 X 10-7 0.01 (44) 0.00002
Chromium 4 X 10-7 0.05 (44) 0.000008
Copper 47x 10-6 1.0 (44) 0.000007
Cyanides 7 X 10-7 O.OOS (44) 0.00014
Lead 6 X 10-6 0.05 (44) 0.00012
Mercury 1 X 10-7 0.002 (44) 0.00005
Nickel 4 x 10-5 0.0013 (4-4) 0.031
Selenium O.OOj 0.01 (44) 0.2 C
Silver NDL b 0.05 (44) . - C
Thallium NDL 0.008 (41, 43) -
Zinc 7 x 10-5 5.0 (44) 0.000014

aFree silica concentration.
bNo detectable level.'

Not calculated.

VI-20

Siting Handbook Chapter 6, Part B Draft 2

3. The Chemistry of Leachate Contamination

The danger to plant and animal life of "leachate" from a coal
power plant depends on a variety of factors, including the
material being leached, its concentration, the amount of
rainfall, the "permeability" of the.soil, and the physical
characteristics of the soil beneath the storage area.

a. Permeability--is a measure of how easily water will pass or
flow through a material and is thus an important factor in
determining the volume of leachate that can drain through the
material. Per*meability in a landfill is usually measured in
ficentimeters per second." A low permeability may be in the
order of I x 10-6 centimeters per second; this is the same as
.000001 cm/sec or 0.32 meters per year. A much higher permea-
bility would be, for example, 1 x 10-4 cm/sec (i.e., .0001
cm/sec-).

At the FPL/JEA St. Johns River Power Park, for example, the
permeability of the landfill cells was calculated to be 9 x
10-4 cm/sec'(i.e., .0009 cm/sec, equivalent to 5.4 meters per
week). At this rate, with the expected amount of rainfall,
the SJRPP Environmental Impact Statement projects that about
500 gallons per day of leachate will enter surface waters. Of
this amount, about 2 to 5 pounds o'f heavy metals--including
arsenic, selenium, zinc, copper, lead, mercury, nickel, silver
and antimony--will enter the surface water each year.

b. Soil Type--The physical properties of a soil also influence
movement of leachate from a waste-storage site. As seen in
Table VI-6, soils such as sands and sandy loams have a much
greater probability of contamination than do clays. Also, the
greater the rainfall, and the higher the acidity of the waste,
the higher the possibility of contamination.

Another property of a soil that influences the transport of
solutes is called the "cation exchange capacity" (CEC).
Generally, the higher the CEC, the greater the soil's ability
to adsorb cations from coal ash or FGD sludge leachates. For
most soils, the higher the clay content and organic matter of
soil, the greater its cation exchange capacity and,
consequently, its ability to trap pollutants.

VI-21

Siting Handbook Chapter 6, Part B Draft 2

Table VI-6: Potential for Adverse Effects to Groundwater and
the Terrestrial Food Chain from Seepage from Unlined Ash and
Sludge Waste-Disposal Sites. Source: Dvorak (1978).

Relative probability of
Groundwater Food chain contamination
Factor contamination via soil

Nature of waste
Dry Low to moderate Low to moderate
Slurry High High
Acid High High
Alkaline Low to moderate Low to moderate
Nature of substrataa
Granite Extremely low Not applicable
Shale Low Not applicable
Sandstone Moderate Not applicable
Sand High Not applicable
Soil High High

Nature of soils
Clays Low High
Loams High High
Sands, sandy loams Very high High to low
Rainfall zoneb
< 25 cm (< 10 inches) Low Low to high
25-76 cm (10-30 inches) Low to high High
> 76 cm (> 30 inches) High High, except for sandy areas

aDefined as the layer or layers of natural material beneath the waste, or
bbetween the waste impoundment and the groundwater aquifer.
Annual average precipitation.

VI-22

Siting Handbook Chapter 6, Part B Draft 2

4. Impacts on Plant and Animal Life

Little can be said with certainty about the toxicity of
leachate from coal ash and FGD sludge materials; however, it
is known that pathological effects produced by exposure to the
trace elements found in leachate fr-om power plants can disrupt
terrestrial and aquatic food webs when these toxic elements
are introduced into wildlife populations. Consequently, these
impacts should always be examined when siting a coal-fired
plant.

Owing to the complex interaction among the kinds of animals,
kinds of soils, amount of concen,trations, amount of rain and
so forth, these impacts are difficult to quantify with
accuracy. Table VI-7 lis.ts the known toxic effects of trace
elements found in the leachate of power palnt waste and
storage sites. For definitions of technical terms, see the
Glossary, Attachment VI.

Note that even if minute quantities of trace elements are
released into the soil, plants and animals can concentrate
these pollutants into levels of concentration that can be
potentially dangerous. This concentrating property of
organisms in known variously as "bioaccumulation," "bio-
concentration," and "biomagnificat.ion." All these terms
describe an essential biological process, but one that can
work to the organism's disadvantage if the substance-,
concentrated is harmful. This effect is often found in
organisms at or near the top of the food chain, such as large
fish, fish-eating birds and man. (See Table VI-8.)

Bioaccumulation and biomagnificati.on of trace elements depend
on a number of factors, varying from species to species, and
from one element to another. Table VI-8 lists concentrations
of 29 trace elements in four types of living organisms:
"benthos"' (i.e, organisms that live in or near the bottoms of
bodies of water), plants, invertebrates, and fish. (For
further information, see the study by Dvorak et al. Tables VI-
7 and VI-8 are from Dvorak et al. (1978). listed in the
Bibliography, Section 6.)

VI-23

Siting Handbook Chapter 6, Part B Draft 2

Table VI-7: General Manifestations of Trace Elements in
Animals. Source: Dvorak (1978).

Target organs or characteristics r
Element of toxicity Comments

Arsenic Has been associated with increased Non-accumulative in animals but has
incidence of lung cancer. affinity for hair, nails, and skin.

Barium Has strong stimulating effect on all Poorly absorbed with generally little
muscles in acute poisoning. retention In tissue.

Beryllium Characteristic granulomatous changes of Via inhalation, beryllium Is corre-
lung tissue is brought about by long- lated with an interference in the
term exposure. passage of oxygen.

Cadmium Is linked with the incidence of hyper- Accumulative in all animals and toxic
tension in experimental animals. to all systems and functions In humans
and animals.

Cobalt Causes changes In lungs typical of With increasing age, the body burden
pneumoconiosis. Also causes induction of cobalt diminishes.
of PolycYthemia in many species.

Copper Associated with induction of haemolytic In excess, results in some accumulation
disease. especially in certain species. in the tissue. especially in the liver.

Chromium Hexavalent compounds extremely toxic to In particular, the respiratory tract
body tissue. Insoluble forms retained and fat tissue accumulate this metal. kL
in lung tissue.

Fluoride Contributes to dental fluorosis In Deposits in bone tissue.
animals.
Lead Newly absorbed lead is mostly retained Has Strong affinity to accumulate in k6
in the body as lead triphosphate, espe- bone tissue.
cially in liver, kidneys, pancreas,
and aorta.

Manganese Acute intoxication involves changes in Most amounts taken into the body are
the respiratory system, whereas chronic retained, especially in liver and
poisoning affects the central nervous lymph nodes.
system.

Mercury Organic forms have effects on brain Can bioaccumulate in tissues of
tissue. The inorganic form is more animals.
linked to damage to liver and kidneys.

Molybdenum Associated with degenerative changes Can accumulate in tissues.
in liver cells.

Nickel Associated with cancer of lungs. Very poorly absorbed from gut.

Selenium Associated with alkali disease in Is converted in the body into a
cattle-. volatile compound which is eliminated
through breath and sweat.

Vanadium Is found to inhibit the synthesis of Vanadium salts are poorly absorbed
cholesterol and other lipids. Other from the gastrointestinal tract.
complications leading to cardiovas-
cular diseases are also prevalent.

Zinc Intoxication produces either lung or Absorbed or injected zinc is incor-
intestinal tract manifestations. porated at varying rates into dif-
ferent tissue, indicating varying
rates of zinc turnover.

VI-24

Siting Handbook Chapter 6, Part B Draft 2

Table VI-8. Concentrations of Trace Elements in Abiotic and
Biotic Compounds of an Ash Basin Receiving Stream. Note:
"Abiotic" refers to water with no living organisms. Source:
Dvorak (1978).

Concentration (ppm)
Trace Abiotic Biotic
element Water Benthos Plants Invertebrates Fish

Aluminum 13.0 40,657.0 3,985.1 1,199.3 215.5
1 ron 16.9 20,912.4 1,113.2 1,202,.6 154.7
Potassium 6.1 8,149.2 1,803.6 2,666.2 1,946.2
Calcium 9.2 1,844.8 850.1 2,656.4 5,752.9
Magnesium 4.1 5,460.8 656.2 369.4 307.2
Titanium 0.9 2,388.5 109.4 71.5 15.1
Sod i Lon 7.7 688.0 267.9 703.8 309.8
Chlorine 3.8 84.1 198.2 364.9 131.4
Barium 0.7 294.2 36.3 50.2 20.0
Strontium 0.3 236.6 60.3 48.4 36.3
Manganese 0.07 46.2 70.2 21A 10.0
Cerium 0.2 129.7 9.7 4.3 1.6
Tin 0.1 85.0 18.0 20.7 3.4
Rubidium 0.4 51.6 8.2 29.0 8.5
Vanadium 0.04 63.9 4.7 4.4 0.6
Chromium 0.2 38.4 5.7 9.7 2.8
Zinc 0.4 6.4 5.0 14.9 11.8
Arsenic .0.06 19.7 4.2 2.1 0.5
Lanthanum <0.01 20.3 1.4 1.4 0.1
Thorium 0.03 15.3 1.3 1.7 0.3
Bromine 0.1 1.2 3.0 10.1 2.9
Selenium 0.1 6.1 1.8 2.6 9.4
Cobalt 0.1 10.6 1.7 1.7 0.5
Iodine 0.1 4.6 1.3 3.4 0.4
Uranium 0.01 8.0 0.7 0.3 0.1
Cadmium 0.1 1.7 1.5 4.0 1.3
Cesium <0.01 3.9 0.6 0.7 0.5
Antimony 0.07 1.0 0.8 2.1 0.7
Mercury 0.03 0.8 0.5 0.5 0.2

aAdapted from Guthrie and Cherry (1976).

VI-25

Siting Handbook Chapter 6, Part B Draft 2

5. Techniques to Reduce Water Pollution

To reduce water pollution from a coal power plant, three major
techniques can be employed: (1) storage areas can be
constructed with berms to channel water runoff into settling
ponds; (2) relatively impermeable liners can be placed under-
neath the storage areas; and (3) waste products can be sold or
compacted.

a. Construction of Berms--To reduce coal pile leachate and
unoff, dikes (o _@_rms") are constructed around the coal
r r 11b
pil,e storage area. In addition, holding ponds to settle
suspended solids before entering ground water reduce TSS
(total suspended solids). How berms can reduce water runoff
during rainstorms is shown in Fig. VI-4, a diagram of water
flow at the coal storage areas of OUC's Stanton 1 plant. Note
that in this example, all drainage water is first channeled
into a sedimentation pond--and then drained into the St. Johns
River.

b. Impermeable Liners--To reduce leaching of contaminants
into the soil, landfill sites at power plants are frequently
lined with low permeability clay. This makes'a relatively
impervious barrier between the wastes and the "substrate" -_
the ground below. As an alternative to clay, some power plants
install an impervious polyethylene liner. It was estimated
that at TECO's Big Bend 4, for example, where such a liner was
not installed, that this type of liner would cost an addi-
tional $2.1 million. Recent research in Texas, however, has
raised serious questions about the ability of these liners to
retain their low permeability over a period of years.

With the use of a low-permeability clay liner at TECO's Big
Bend 4 site, an estimated 250 gallons per minute of leachate
will seep out of the bottom-ash pond into the "surficial
aquifer" (i.e., ground water immediately below the surface).
Leakage from the bottom-ash pond to the Floridan aquifer
farther below is predicted to be 0.42 gallons per minute.

VI-26

Siting Handbook Chapter 6, Part B Draft 2

C. Compaction and Commercial Sales--To reduce leaching of
pollutants, scrubber sludge can be mixed with coal ash. The
natural Cementing property of fly ash (called "pozzolanic"
properties) binds the sludge, reducing leaching. This is
beneficial for many utilities because sludge and ash can be
stored in one simple process, making them more suitable for
landfilling and taking up less land area. The permeability of
compacted ash at OUC's Stanton plant, for example, was
predicted to be 1 x 10-6 centimeters per sec (cm/sec), a
fairly low permeability. Some compaction processes have been
used to make concrete-like blocks, which can then be dumped
offshore to form artificial reefs. (See Bibliography, below).

According to the industry, abou-t 19 percent of fly ash is sold
commercially, and many utilities, including TECO in Florida,
sell flue-gas desulfurization byproducts (gypsum) commercial-
ly. See the Bibliography for further references on these
programs.

VI-27

I 'd

Fig. VI-4. Storm Drainage System at the Coal Storage Pile, SECI Seminole 1.
Source: SECI's Seminole 1 PPSA (1978) Stanton 1 PPSA (1978).

5OD 0 590 1000

SCALE IN FEET

15- MINUTE $t- JOHNS
DETENTION RIVER
POND

00
F
AS"
ONDS
P >
H H COAL PILE

LEGEND
D,RE CI'Om OF
FLOW IN DITCH
COAL PILE
DRAINAGE SYSTEM
01 RECTION OF GROUND
FLOW OF RAINFALL
CULVERT
PROPOSED ROAD
PROPERTY LINE

SE490ARD C043t 'LINE RAILROAD
f

Siting Handbook Chapter 6, Part B Draft 2

Bibliography

STORAGE OF FGD BYPRODUCTS
(See Also: Chapter 5)

Knight, R. G. et al. FGD Sludge Disposal Manual. Second
Edition. (Palo Alto, CA: EPRI, Sept. 1980). EPRI Rpt. Nr.
CS-1515.

STORAGE OF FLY ASH

Turner, R. R. et al. Leachability and Aqueous Speciation of
Selected Trace Constituents of Coal Fly Ash. (Palo Alto, CA:
EPRI, 1982). EPRI Rpt. Nr. EA-2588.

Maryland Dept. of Natural Resources. Power Plant Cumulative
Environmental Impact Report. (Annapolis, MD: Maryland Dept.
of Natural Resources, Power Plant Siting Program, November,
1978).

Maryland Dept. of Natural Resources. Power Plant Cumulative
Environmental Impact Report. (Annapolis, MD: Maryland Dept.
of Natural Resources, February, 1982).

Rosecrance, A. E. and Colby, B. N. Organic Material Emissions
From Holding Ponds at Coal-Fired Power Generation Facilities.
(Palo Alto, CA: EPRI, March, 1980). EPRI Rpt. Nr. EA-1377.

POLLUTION FROM COAL STORAGE

Davis, Edward and Boegly, William. "A Review of Water Quality
Issues Associated with Coal Storage." Journal of Environmental
Quality.. Vol. 10, No. 2 (April - June, 1981), pp. 127 - 133.

Leo, P. P. and Rossof, J. Control of Waste and Water Pollu-
tion from Coal-Fired Power Plants: Second R&D Report. (Cor-
vallis, OR: U. S. EPA Office of Resear7h-and Development,
Nov., 1978). NTIS Nr. PB-291 396. EPA-600/7-78-224.

VI-29

Siting Handbook Chapter 6, Part B Draft 2

Rosecrance, A. E. and Colby, B. J. Organic Material Emissions
From Holding Ponds at Coal-Fired Power Generation Facilities.
(Palo Alto, CA: EPRI, March, 1980). EPRI Rpt. Nr. EA-1377.

Wachter, R. A. and Blackwood, T. R. Source Assessment: Water
Pollution from Coal Storage Areas. (Washington, D. C.: U. S.
EPA, 1978).

IMPACTS ON PLANT AND ANIMAL LIFE

Dvorak, A. J. et al. Impacts of Coal-Fired Power Plants on
Fish, Wildlife,_ and Their Habitats. (Washington, D.C.: GPO,
March, 1978). NTIS Nr. FWS/OBS-78-29.

UTILIZATION OF BY-PRODUCTS

Baker, Michael. Coal Combustion By-Products Utilization
Manual. (Palo Alto, CA: EPRI, Feb., 1984). EPRI Rpt. #CS-3122.

Univ. of California at Berkley. Testing and Correlation of Fly
Ash Properties with Respect to Pozzolanic Behavior. (Palo
Alto, CA: EPRI, Jan.., 1984).

Parker, J. H. Coal Wastes Artificial Reef ProgramL Phase 3:
Summary Report. (Palo Alto, CA, Oct., 1981). EPRI Rpt. Nr.
CS-2009.

VI-30

I
I
I
I
I
I I
I
I CHAPTER 7
OTHER IMPACTS
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

Siting Handbook Chapter 7, Part A Draft 2

CHAPTER 7

OTHER IMPACTS OF POWER PLANTS

In earlier chapters, the impact of power plants on air and
water quality have been examined. While local planners may
have considerable interest in those subjects, their primary
responsibility will be to assess questions such as socio-
economic, noise, and transportation impacts. This chapter has
been prepared to assist planners in considering these types of
impacts.

A. SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACTS

Construction of a new coal-fired power plant, which could
easily cost $1-2 billion, is obviously a major undertaking
which can have a significant impact on a community. This is
especially true in a rural area or a small town where con-
struction and operation of a power plant can seriously burden
social services such as schools, hospitals and roads. Even
when the project is located near a large urban area, it will
have an impact through the expenditure of millions of dollars
in salaries and tax revenues.

Because of the large economic impact of power plants, each
Power Plant Site Application (PPSA) contains a section fore-
casting the impact the plant will have on the community. To
help planners evaluate the socio-economic impact projections
made in PPSAs this section summarizes the impacts projected in
three typical PPSAs and compares these projections with the
actual impacts experienced.

VII-1

Siting Handbook Chapter 7, Part A Draft 2

1. Projected Socio-Economic Impact in Three Florida PPSAs

Summaries of the socio-economic impacts projected in the Power
Plant Site Application (PPSAs) of three recently-sited power
plants in Florida are presented below. Each of these three
case studies was chosen for a different reason:

--The St. Johns River Power Park, consisting of two 600-
MW units, located close to Jacksonville, typifies impacts
projected for a large new power plant located adjacent to an
urban area.

--FPC's Crystal River Units 4 and 5 PPSA was chosen as an
example of socio-economic impacts resulting from the ad-
dition of two new large units in a rural area, 100 miles
from a major urban center.

--SECI's Seminole plant was selected to typify socio-
economic impacts resulting from construction of two large
units near a small city (Palatka), within commuting distance
of a major urban area (Jacksonville), 50 miles away.

Table VII-1 summarizes the socio-economic impacts projected by
the applicant utility in the PPSA of each of these three case
studies. It should be noted that since each of the projects
was approximately the same size, no adjustment was made for
the size (MW capacity) of the plant in this comparison.

In reading Table VII-1 planners should bear in mind the
definition of "multiplier," which is a measure of the total
impact that a project will have on an area. The "multiplier"
is defined as "the inverse of 1 minus the marginal propensity
to spend (c) times the fraction of of consumer sales which
which become local income (h)." This can be expressed as:
I
M = ---------------
I - (c x h )

The industrial multiplier used by the Florida Bureau of
Economic Analysis in Florida is 2.616, slightly more than the
aggregate multiplier for power plant projects of 2.4 found by
Leistritz (see Bibliography). If the multiplier used in the
PPSA is 2.5, this implies that a payroll of $1 million would
have a total impact of $2.5 million on the community.

VII-2

Table VII-1: Socio-Economic Impacts Projected.in Three Representative Power Plant Site
Certification Applications in Florida. Sources: JEA/FPL SJRPP PPSA (1981); FPC's CR4&5
PPSA (1978); SECI Seminole 1&2 PPSA (1978). Note: Annual Payroll Figures are in Millions
of Dollars.

Peak Operating Multi- No.-of Induced Peak Assumed
Power Plant Workforce Workforce plier Used In-Migrating Pop. Prop. County
(Utility) Projected Payroll in PPSA Workers Growth Taxes Tax Rate.
Gross MW (Annual (Mill $ (Mills)
.Payroll) /year)

St. Johns 2,316 375 1.76 533 1300 N/A
River Pwr Prk ($60.2)
(JEA/FPL)
1280 MW

Seminole 1,013 140 2.5 250 751 $11.74 16.34
1
LO Units I & 2 ($30)
(SECI)
1300 MW

Crystal River 10030 132 N/A N/A N/A $5.3 11.64
Units 4 & 5 ($20)
(FPQ
1390 MW

JEA is a tax-exempt public authority, but makes "payments in lieu of taxes." One-half of
the plant is owned by JEA, which was expected to pay property taxes reaching a maximum of
$5.4 million per year in 1987 (in constant 1980 dollars), declining to $4.06 million in
1997 and $2.03 million in 2012 as the plant is depreciated.

Siting Handbook Chapter 7, Part A Draft 2

a. St. Johns River Power Park -- The SJRPP is an example of a
large power plant located near a major metropolitan area. The
plant consists of-two units, the first-one to come on-line in
1987, and the second in 1988.

As seen in Fig. VII-1, the peak labor force for the power
plant was estimated by the PPSA to total 2,316 workers. Of
these workers, 77 percent were predicted in the PPSA to be,
hired from the local area, and 23 percent to move into the
area ("relocators"). These workers were projected to generate
4,078 new jobs in the community, for a multiplier effect of
1.76. This influx of population is projected to result in
1,300 additional persons in the community, an increase in the
projected 1985 population of Duval County by only 1.6 percent.

As seen in Table VII-2, the construction payroll was projected
to total about $206.3 million over five year.s, with a peak
payroll of about $60.2 million,(in 1980 dollars). In 1986,
when both units were expected to be in full operation, the
workforce was projected to be 375 persons, with an an-nual
payroll of $6.4 million. Of these workers, about.124. were
forecast to move into the area.

Because JEA is a municipal utility, it is exempt from property
taxes. However, it makes "payments in lieu of taxes." One-
half of the plant is owned by Florida Power and Light, an
investor-owned utility that is subject to taxes. See the
footnote in Table VII-1 regarding projected,tax revenues.

b. FPC's Crystal River Units 4 and 5 -- The socio-economic
impacts resulting from constructing Crystal River units 4 and
5 typify the impacts expected from the addition of two large
units to a power plant located in a small, rural county with a
population of 65,500.

VII-4

Fig VII-1: Peak Population Influx Projected for JEA/FPL St. Johns River Power Park. Source:
Appendix Q, Technical Reference Document, SJRPP EIS (1981).

1985 Miles From Peak
Projected Proposed Distribution Construction Percentage Increase
Population Project Factor Population Over Projected
County/Population Locus (Pd Site (Di) (DFI) Influxi. 1985 Population
Baker/MacClenny 16,800 39.0 0.009 12 >1.0
Clay/Orange Park 76,600 23.5 0.065 85 1.1
Duval/Jacksonville 680,000 15.0 0.844 1,097 1.6

H
Flagler/Bunnell 12,400 78.5 0.004 5 >1.0
I
Ln Nassau/Fernandino Beach 42,700 31.0 0.029 38 >1.0
Putnam/Palatka 53,700 55.0 0.022 29 >1.0
St. Johns/St. Augustine 58,100 47.0 0.027 35 >1.0

ITotal population influx during peak construction phase: 1,300

Siting Handbook Chapter 7, Part A Draft 2

Table VII-2: Estimated Payroll Income for Construction and
Operation of the St. Johns River Power Park. Source: Appen-
dix Q, Technical Reference Documents, JEA/FPL SJRPP EIS.

Estimated Payroll income generated by the
construction of the SjRPP.

Numbe r Construction Ihmber Seca oda ry
Year of Jobs Payroll of Secondary jobs Payroll
1982 254 6,604,000 447 4,570.575
1983 1,366 35,516,000 2,405 24.591,125
1984 2,316 60,216,000 4.352 44.499,200
1985 59,644,000 4,310 44.069.750
1986 1.089 28,314,000 2.046 20.920,350
1987 614 15,964,000 1,154 11.799,650

Total 206.2543,000 150,450,640
OF

Combined Total 356,708,640

Payroll income generated by operation of the SjRPP.

Number of Non-Basic
Number of Operation Non-Basic Secondary
Year Operation Jobs Payroll- Secondary Jobs Payroll

1982

1983 -

1984 68 $1,158.720 128 $1.308,800

1985 281 S4.788,240 528 $5,398,800

1986 281 $4.788.240 528 $5,208,625

1987 375 $6,390,000 705 $7.208,625
1988 375 $6,390.000 705 $7.208,625 IL

2025 375 $6.390.000 705 $7,208,625

2026 28L $4,788,240 528 $5.398,800

2027 281 $4,788,240 528 $5,398,000

Total $269,520,000 $326,912,000

VII-6

Siting Handbook Chapter 7, Part A Draft 2

FPC stated that an average of 750 construction workers would
be employed for the two units, over seven years, with peak
employment rising to 1,030 personnel during the fourth year.
Based on the experience of the utility with construction of
other units at Crystal River, FPC predicted that 25 percent
of the construction workers would come from within a radius of
20 miles, 25 percent from within the next 20 miles, 25
percent from the next 20 mile-radius, and 25 percent from
beyond this 60-mile radius.

For the two units, FPC projected that the construction labor
cost would be about $20 million per year for seven years.
When both units are on-line, the utility estimated a total
direct employment of 132 additional persons, with an annual
payroll of $3.4 million.

According to the applicant, social services, schools and
housing of Citrus County would be adequate to absorb the
influx of workers with little difficulty. Once the two units
are completed, the PPSA predicted that they would generate
about $5.3 million in net property taxes annually. These
projections, of course, cannot be confirmed until construction
is complete and the two units have been appraised by the
county tax assessor,

C. SECI's Seminole Units 1 and 2 -- Construction of SECI's
Seminole units 1 and 2 north-o-T-Palatka represents the type of
impacts expected by a project located near a small city
(Palatka), within commuting distance of a major metropolitan
area (Jacksonville).

According to the SECI PPSA, it was assumed that 85 percent of
the manual laborers would commute from the Jacksonville area,
50 miles away; 5 percent would relocate to the Palatka area;
and 10 percent would be local residents. For supervisory
personnel, the utility projected that 75 percent would commute
from Jacksonville, 20 percent would relocate to Palatka, and 5
percent would be local residents.

VII-7

Siting Handbook Chapter 7, Part A Draft 2

As seen in Table VII-1, the total direct construction work-
force was projected to reach a peak of 1,013. The total labor
cost was estimated to rise to a maximum of about $30 million
annually during the period of greatest employment, the third
year. When the plant is operational, the utility estimated a r
total direct employment of 140 additional persons.

Using a multiplier of 2.5 and assuming that 5 percent of the
manual laborers and 20% of.the supervisory personnel would
relocate to Palatka, SECI forecast that the project will
generate a maximum population increase of about 751 new
residents in Putnam County in the sixth year (see Table VII-
3). This is an increase of 1.6% above baseline population
projections.

Assuming 3 persons per household, SECI projected the need for
about 250 additional housing units. But because there were
1,567 dwelling units available at the time of the study, the
utility projected no adverse impacts on housing. An increase
of 1.6 percent in the county's population was not considered a
significant strain on the county's services such as police
protection, medical care and education.

As seen in Table VII-4, SECI projected that property taxes for
units 1 and 2 together, assuming a 100 percent assessment
ratio and a total county tax of 16.326 mills would be $11.74
million in 1985, declining slowly thereafter as the plant is
depreciated. An independent analysis of the accuracy of these
projections is presented in Section 2, below.

2. Analysis of Socio-Economic Im2acts

In conducting the PPSA review detailed in Chapter 2, local
planners will wish to have reliable estimates of socio-
economic impacts. To assist planners in reviewing the relia-
bility of socio-economic impacts contained in PPSAs, this
section presents the results of two studies which have
compared projections made by utilities in site applications
with actual impacts experienced in the community:

VII-8

Table VII-3: Aggregate Projected Population Change due to Seminole Project,,Putnam County,
Florida. Sourcee SECI Seminole I and 2 PPSA (1978). Note that "Incremental Relocators"
refers to the number of persons moving into (or out of) the county.

Incremental
Population Change
Incremental Due to Seminole
Total Relocaters Project (Direct Aggregate
Incremental Incremental Plus Family Plus Indirect Population
Construction Phase Operation Phase Incremental Total Members (Direct Population in- Change Due to
Relocaters Relocaters Relocaters Population Increase crease) Seminole Project
Year (A t) (80 (C0 (00 (Ed (Ft)
M (2) (3) (4) (5) - (6) 17)
1979 0 0 0 0 0

1979 5 0 3b 38

1980 14 0 14 42 105 143

1981 24 0 24 72 180 323

1982 22 0 22 66 165 488

1983 -15 50 35 105 263 751

-2 a -2 -6 -15 736

1985 -32 20 -12 -36 -90 646

1986 -16 0 -16 -46 -120 526

Source: Burns and Roe, Inc., April 24, 1978; U. S. Dept. of Commerce, 1974, Statistical Abst
e)ine 5 Regional Multipliers, Wasfiington. O.C ; Seminoli -Electric
U. S. Water Resources Council, January 1977, Guid ract of the U. S., page xiii;
Cooperative, Inc., May 2, 1978. and Dames & Moore, June 1918.

Siting Handbook Chapter 7, Part A Draft 2

Table VII-4: Projected Putnam County Property Taxes, Seminole
Units I & 2. Note: Assumes no change in 1977 Putnam county
tax rates in future years. Source: SECI's Seminole 1 & 2
PPSA.

1983 LM4 MS L9845 1987 1988 1989 1990 L991 1992 3993 1994 L996 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
Unit I 4on-exempt value 1 368.0 35S.7 343.5 331.2 318.9 306.7 294.4 282.1 269.9 257.6 245.3 233.1 220.8 208.5 196.3 184.0 171.7 159.5
Unit 2 Non-exempt valuez 0 a 372.1 359.7 347.3 334.9 322.5 310.1 297.7 285.3 272.9 260.5 2MI 235.7 223.3 210.9 19B.5 186.1
TOTAL. Plant and Equipment 368.0 355.7 715.6 690.9 666.2 641.6 616.9 592.2 567.5 542.9 518.2 493.6 468.9 444.2 419.6 394.9 370.2 345.6
CoallstSckpile non-exempt
va ue 1.5 1.6 3.4 3.6 3.8 4.0 4.3 4.5 4.8 5 1 5.4 5.7 6.1 6.4 6.8 7.2 7.7 8.1
TOTAL. Assessed Value 369.5 357.3 719.0 6M.5 670.0 645.6 621.2 596.7 572.4 548.0 S23.6 499.3 475.0 450.6 426.4 402.1 377.9 353.7

Esti ma ted Putnam County Ad
Valorem Taxes @ 16.326
mi Is1978) 6.03 5.83 11.74 11.34 10.94 10.54 10.14 9.74 9.35 8.95 8.55 8.15 7.75 7.36 6.96 6.56 6.17 5.79

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
147.2 134.9 122.7 110.4 98.1 85.9 73.6 61.3 49.1 36.8 24.5 12.3 0 0 0
161 3 148 9 136 4 124 0 111 6
JI 2 _@I 1 74 4 J2 0 41 6 j@ 2 14 8 11 1 1
320.9 296.2 271.6 246.8 222.1 197.5 172.8 148.1 123.5 98.8 74.1 49.5 24.8 12.4 0

8 6 9 1 9 7 10 3 9 11 5 _15_
_L2 2 13 0 13 8 14 6 5 16 4 8 7 9 2 0
329.5 305.3 281.3 2SM 233.0 209.0 185.0 161.1 137.3 IT3.4 89.6 65.9 33.5 21.6 0

5.38 4.98 4.59 4.20 3.00 3.41 M2 2.63 2.24 l.BS 1.46 1.08 0.55 0.35 0 191.43

NOTES:
I S460 million less 20% for estimated value of tax exempt pollution control equipment. Depreciated straightline over 30 years.
Assume unit is "Substantially" completed for commercial use as of l/l/83 (an line 6/7/83). and that assessment ratio on non.
exempt property is 100%.
2 S465.17 million less 20% for pollution control equipment. Depreciated straightline 30 years. A*ssume unit is substantially
complete I/l/85 (on line 6/l/85).
3 Coal stockpile of 75 days supply. On basis of 1.5 mtpy per unit, stockpile equals 308,219.2 tons. Use 310,000 ton/unit
average. Vdlue of coal based an 1978 cost of SI.60 per million Btu. escalates to 1986 at 5.3' @er year and 6.01, thereafter
(per SECT letter dated 5/2/78). Assume coal average heat value of 12.000 Btu Per pound. Thereafter, gross value of
inventory -
310.000 tons x 2400 lbs x 12.000 Btu/lb x SI.60/million Btu - $11.904,000 (1978) x 0.053) 5 S15,411,140 (1983)
S16,227,931 (1984)
(x 2) $34.176.022 (1985)
S3S.987.351 (1986)
6.0% $38,146,592 (1987)
Assume assessment ratio PAN
Source: SEC[

V I I 10

Siting Handbook, Chapter 7, Part A Draft 2

--One study, conducted by John Gilmore and others at the
University of Denver, and published by EPRI in 1982,
compared the socio-economic impacts of twelve power plant
construction projects as actually measured with the impacts
projected prior to the project's start.

--A 1984 study by the Northeast Florida Regional Planning
Council (NEFRPC) compared the socio-economic impacts
projected by Seminole Electric Cooperative's PPSA for the
Seminole plant with actual impacts experienced in Putnam
County.

Both of these studies, as well as others cited in the Anno-
tated Bibliography, can be consulted by local planners when
reviewing a PPSA. If the reviewer feels that the socio-
economic forecast is inaccurate, incomplete or otherwise
insufficent, he can request the applicant utility, either
directly or through DER, to provide additional information.
However, under Florida law, the applicant is not required to
provide more information than is required in the PPSA Instruc-
tions (DER Form 17-1.2.11 C 1).

A recent study of the way socio-economic impacts are dealt
with in power plant site certification applications conducted
by the Northeast Florida Regional Planning Council has called
for a substantial revision to''DER's rules to require far more
information from applicants. At the time this is written DER
has not modified its application instructions to reflect these
recommendations.

a. Gilmore Study--Gilmore.found that the labor force needed
for a project-and therefore the entire socio-economic impact
of the project--was usually underestimated in the site appli-
cation. Fig. VII-2 shows the labor force actually employed by
three plants, compared with t.he predicted workforce.

In addition, the Gilmore study noted a number of socio-
economic problems with power plant construction projects which
planners should be aware of when reviewing a PPSA:

VII-11

Siting Handbook Chapter 7, Part A Draft 2

--In all but one case, the magnitude of construction
employment differed substantially from the estimates made
pr ior to commencement of the project.

--In many of the cases studied, delays occurred because of
labo--'r stoppagest regulatory delays, changes in the utili-
ty's load factor, and in material shortages.

--The presence and activity of labor unions have a major
impact on the supply of labor, which will have a strong
impact on the number of in-migrating workers. (This was
also found in the NEFRPC study.)

--In nearly all cases, the geographic extent of the impact
area was greater than had been estimated.

--The construction of a major new power plant frequently
brings with it construction of new public facilities, such
as schools, firehouses, and city halls.

--In many cases, there was a mismatch between the community
receiving the financial benefits and the communities
suffering adverse impacts.

--In all cases studied, the impact of additional traffic
caused by plant construction was identified as a serious
local impact.

--Secondary employment effects caused by operating the
plant were greater than anticipated.

--Housing impacts tended to be small, as workers preferred
mobile homes, long-term rentals of motel rooms, or boarding
houses.

--Concern over the socio-economic impact of power plants
built adjacent to large urban areas can largely be ignored,
but impacts in rural areas can be very important.

The Gilmore study compared the actual, measured impacts with
those projected by 11 different models. Among the integrated
models evaluated by the Gilmore study were the Argonne Model
(SEAM), the Mountain West model (BREAM), the Los Alamos model
(BOOM), the model used in the EPA Action Handbook, the
DRI/RPA model (WEST), and the Arthur D. Little,model (SIMPACT).

VII-12

Siting Handbook Chapter 7, Part A Draft

Fig. VII-2: Actual vs. Projected Construction Workforce, Three
Power Plant Construction Projects. Source: Gilmore et al.
(1982)

2JO00 - Coal Creek Station
(11000 MW)
I A00 - Actual employment

1.000-
Soo. Projected. employment

0
f975 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1960 1981 1962 1983

11500 ' Boardman Plani etual
(550 MW) mployment
(A 1,000-

Projected
(r 500-
0

0
2 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 We 1979 1960 1981 1912 1983
0
tj 4,500 Bellefonte Nuclear Plant
(2,664 MW)
4,000
z
0 Actual employment
U 3,500 (aroqected beyond
U. M.4-1980
0
M 3,000
W

:5 2,500
z

2.000
Projected
1,500 \.*-employment

I Poo -

500

1973 1914 1975 1976 1977. 1178 1979 1480 1981 t982 f9@3
YEAR END,EACH YEAR
Spume 0, m, Q61a ... ell trljflt tshilly w pillrd builder .14 efich of the. ("..o

VII-13
Pro

Siting Handbook Chapter 7, Part A Draft 2

b. NEFRPC Study--A study by the Northeast Florida Regional
Planning Council published in 1984 compared the actual
impacts of Seminole Electric Cooperative's Seminole plant in
Putnam County with the PPSA submitted for the plant. As in
the Gilmore study, the researchers found significant dis-
crepancies between the projected impacts and the impacts
which actually occurred. The NEFRPC study found that;

--the peak workforce was double the amount projected in the
PPSA, causing far greater socio-economic impacts than had
been forecast. These figures are graphed in Fig. VII-3.
The problem of utilities frequently underestimating the
socio-economic impacts of a proposed power plant was also
found the Gilmore study.

--Whereas the PPSA projected that 40 percent of the
county's assessed valuation would be represented by the
power plant, in actuality it became only 30 percent. One
reason for this was that with the addition of the plant to
the tax rolls, the county's tax rate was lowered. This
action was not anticipated in the PPSA.

--The PPSA for Seminole Units 1 and 2 projected that 5 per
cent of the workforce would relocate to the county. In
actuality, 28 percent relocated, thus causing a much
greater socio-economic impact than had been projected.

--The power plant--construction workforce came from a con-
siderably wider geographical region than had been forecast
in the PPSA, thereby distributing the impacts throughout
the region.

VII-14

Siting Handbook Chapter 7, Part A Dr aft

Fig. VII-3: Projected vs. Actual Workforce, SECI's Seminole
Units 1 and 2. Source: NEFRP.C (1984).

2000

1500
5%

1000

Soo

0-
Quarter 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 Projected
Year 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 Actual
,Source: Seminole Electric Company 1984
Northeast Florida Regional Planning Council

VII-15

Siting Handbook Chapter 7, Part A Draft 2

3. Annotated Bibliography

Berkshire County Regional Planning Commission. Evaluation of
Power Facilities: A Reviewer's Handbook. (Pittsfield, MA:
f-erkshire County RPC, April, 1974).- Available ILL: FSU Call
Nr. DOC HD 9685 U5.
This handbook goes into great depth describing the socio-
economic impact of a transient labor force. While much
of this information is-narrative and descriptive, rather
than quantified, it a valuable reference.

Clemente, F. et al. Public Reaction to Proposed EneE2a
Facilities: A Sociological Analysis. F
(Pennsylvania State
Univ., ter for Study of the Environmental Policy, 1978).

Curry, Martha. State and Local Planning Procedures Dealing
with Social and Economic Impacts from Nuclear Power Plants.
(Washington, D. C.: U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
January, 1977).

Fishkind, Henry et al. The Fiscal Impact Model. (Gainesville,
FL: The Univ. of Florida Bureau of-Economic and Business Re-
search, June, 1983).
Dr. Henry Fishkind and others at the Bureau of Economic
and Business Research of the Univ. of Florida have
prepared a fiscal impact model validated in Florida.
This project, coordinated by the Bureau of Land and Water
Management of the Florida Deptment of Community Affairs
and funded by the STAR grant program of the Board of
Regents, provides projections regarding home sales,
social services, tax revenues, commercial development,
transportation impact and other variables. It may be run
on a desk-top microcomputer. For more information on this
model, contact Dale Eaker, Florida Bureau of Land and
Water Management, Tallahassee, FL (904/488-4925).

Gilmore, J. S. Socioeconomic Impacts of Power Plants. (Palo
Alto, CA: EPRI, 1982). EPRI Rpt. 2228.
See text.

VII-16

Siting Hand book Chapter 7, Part A Draft 2

Leistritz, Larry. Economic, Demographic, and Social Factors
Affecting Energy-Impacted Communities: An Assessment Model and
Implications-for Nuclear- Energy Centers. (North Dakota State
Univ., 1977).

Maryland Power Plant Siting Program. RIFLE: Regional Impact
on Facility Locations on the Economy. (Annapolis, MD: Maryland
er Plant Siting Program, February, 1983). 2 vols.
One of the most intensive efforts to project socio-
economic impacts has been undertaken by the state of
Maryland, which has produced the RIFLE program. This
model is particularly valuable in projecting impacts on
social services, such as health care, education, police
protection and water supply. For information on running
the Maryland model, call the Maryland Power Plant Siting
Program office (301) 269-2269.

Myhra, David.- Energy Plant S-ites: Community Planning., (At-
lanta, GA: Conway Publishers, 1980).
To assist communities with overcoming the adverse effects
of "boomtown" development, David Myhra has written this
guide to community planning that should be useful to
planners dealing with power plant siting.

North Central Florida Regional Planning Council. Economic,
Fiscal, and Land Use.Analysis, Seminole Electric Coal-Fired
Electric Generating Plant, Taylor County, Florida. (Gainesvil-
le, FL: NCFRPC, in preparation).
This study examines the pote.ntial socio-economic impacts
resulting from possible construction of two coal-fired
power plants near Perry (SECI's proposed Taylor units 1
and 2). At the time this handbook goes to press, this
study has not been published. For further information,
contact the regional planning council.

VII-17

Siting Handbook Chapter 7, Part A Draft 2

Northeast Florida Regional Planning Council. An Analysis of
the Socio-Economic Impacts of the Seminole Electric
Cooperative Power Plant, Putnam County, Florida.
(Jacksonville, FL: NEFRPC, 1984).
This study, like the NCFRPC study, was funded by the
Coastal Energy Impact Program. See text for main
conclusions of this study.

Strain, J. Robert. Community Economic Growth: Impact Model.
(Gainesville, FL: Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences,
1982.) Circular # 513.
Dr. Robert Strain at IFAS (the Institute for Food and
Agricultural Sciences of the Univ. of Florida) has
developed a socio-economic impact model specifically
tailored to impacts in Florida. For further information,
contact Dr. Strain at the Univ. of Florida, Gainesville,
FL 32606 (tel. 904/392-1718).

Stacey, Gary and Duchi, Mary. A Method for the Analysis of
Socioeconomic Impacts of Large Energy Projects and Facilities.
(Columbus, OH: Battelle Laboratories,. March, 1980).
Gary Stache and Mary Duc-hi of Battelle Laboratories,
Columbus, OH, have developed a model that has been used
to project the socio-economic impact of power plant
construction. For further information on using this
model, the researchers may be contacted at (614) 424-
6494.

VII-18

Siting Handbook Chapter 7, Part B Draft 2

B. NOISE IMPACTS

Whenever a -power plant is proposed, one of the concerns
certain to arise is the question of noise. Although there are
no state noise stand 'ards for stationary sources such as power
plants, all Florida Power Plant Site Applications (PPSAs)
provide data on the projecte.d noise level of the proposed
plant, and this is an appropriate area for review by local
planners.

To enable planners to better interpret these noise level
projections appearing in PPSAs, this section indicates how
sound levels are measured, reviews comparative noise levels,
and examines the projected noise levels predicted for two
coal-fired power plant projects in Florida.

1. Noise Measurement and Regulations

Noise can be described either by spectrum component or
overall energy levels. The more complete description is by
spectrum components, --in which sound energy is quantified at
different frequencies. This is an important method of charac-
terizing sound since the human ear has a sensitivity which
varies markedly with frequency. Typically, a spectrum de-
scription uses nine separate octave bands. The sound energy
is measured in decibels (dB) on a logarthymic scale; i.e.,
decibels are increased arithmetically, sound intensity is
increased geometrically.

The individual octave bands of the sound spectrum are weighted
according to the frequency sensitivity of the human ear. An
overall sound level, described as the "A-weighted sound
pressure level," reported in units of dBA, can be obtained.
Table VII-5 lists several common sources of noise in terms of
their overall dBA levels. The following units of measurement
are normally used:

VII-19

Siting Handbook Chapter 7, Part B Draft 2

Table VII-5: Typical A-Weighted Sound Levels' Measured with a
Sound-Level Meter. Source: Maryland PPCEIP (1982).

DECIBELS

140

50 HP Siren (100')
130

Jet Takeoff (200')
120

Riveting machine 110

100
Textile--Weaving-Plant-
Subway Train (20')
90 Boiler Room

Pneumatic Drill (509
80 Inside Sport Car (50 MPH)

Freight Train 0009
Vacuum Cleaner (101) 70
Speech (19 Near Freeway (Auto Traffic)
60 Large Store

Large Transformer (2009 Private Business Office
50

Average Residence
40 Nightime Residential areas

Soft whisper (59
30

Threshold Of Hearing 0

Note: These values are taken from the literature. Sound-level measurements
give only part of the information usually necessary to handle noise problems,
and are often supplemented by analysis of the noise spectra.

VII-20

Siting Handbook Chapter 7, Part B Draft 2

Leq (Equivalent Sound Level)--is the A-weighted sound
pressure level averaged over a 24-hour period.

Ldn (Day/Night Sound Level)--is the dBA sound level
averaged over a 24-hour period, but where the hours
from 10 PM to 7 AM are treated as if they were 10 dB
greater than the actual level. Thus L10 would be the
dBA level exceeded 10 percent*of the time, and the L50
would be the level exceeded 50% of the time.

Table VII-6 provides design noise levels in five different
land uses as used by the Environmental Protection Agency.
Note that the interior of a-home, hospital, library or motel
is designed for an L10 of 55 dBA; outdoors these structures
should not exceed an LIO of 70 dBA. In these structures, the
Environmental Protection Agency uses a level of 45 dBA as a
level at which there is an "Activity Interference,"

2. Power Plant Noise Levels

Construction noise levels can be deafening at close range. At
a distance of 50 feet, a large construction crane can register
a level of 88 dBA, an air compressor 81 dBA, a concrete mixer
85 dBA, and a pile driver 101 dBA.

Fig. VII-4 shows the level of construction noise (Leq)
predicted for the St. Johns River Power Park (SJRPP) at a
distance of one mile. In this project, the Leq at a distance
of one mile was projected to r-each 57 dBA at times, exceeding
the EPA residential standard of 55 dBA. TECO states that at a
distance of 900 feet from construction of the Big Bend 4
plant, noise levels averaged 55 dBA and occasionally rose to
64 dBA.

Power plant operation is likewise noisy at close range. As
seen in Table VII-7, according to the SJRPP EIS, at a distance
of 50 feet, cooling tower noise is estimated to be 76 dBA, the
turbine-generator 95 dBA, and the stacker-reclaimer (i.e., the
coal loader), 75 dBA. These noise levels can be compared with
the level of 70 dBA set by EPA to avoid damage to hearing.

VII-21

Siting Handbook Chapter 7, Part B Draft 2

Table VII-6: Summary of Maximum Noise Limits IdiBntified by
EPA as Requisite to Protect Public Health with an Adequate
Margin of Safety. Source: CSPC (1980).

Recommended
Effect Protected (Maximum)
Against Noise Level Area

Hearing Loss Level Equivalent
24 hrs. 70 decibels All Areas

Outdoor Activity 55 decibels Outdoor areas,
Interference residential areas,
Annoyance farms, schoolyards,
playgrounds

Indoor Activity 45 decibels Indoor areas,
Interference & schools, churches,
Annoyance etc.

C. Occupational Health

Occupational injuries for pipeline construction and
operation from.1985 to 2035 were predicted using methodo-

VII-22

Siting Handbook Chapter 7, Part B Dr .aft 2

Fig. VII-4: Projected Construction Noise Levels by Construe-
tion Period at a Distance of One Mile from the JEA/FPL St.
Johns River Power Park. Source: Appendix T, Technical
Reference Documents, SJRPP EIS (1981).

52.2 52.0
- - - - - - - - - - - 50.5
so- - - -
47.3

40-

July. 1982 Jan. 1983 July. 1963 Jan.. 1984 July, 1985 lk.-c. 1985

VII-23

Siting Handbook Chapter 7, Part B Draft 2

Table VII-7: Projected Operational Noise Levels at the
Nearest Residence, St. Johns River Power Park. Source:
Appendix T, Techni.cal Support Documents, JEA/FPL SJRPP EIS
(1981).

Attenuated
Distance Level a:
Total to Nearest riearest
Level Number Re Sidenceb Aest;z.%Qe
Component dB(A)& 4& Feet of Units (fieet) (43.0
Cooling Tower 76 50 2 3700 38

Forced Draft Fan as 5 4 5200 31

Induced Draft Fan 85 5 a 5400 34

Primary Air Pan as 5 4 5200 31

Turbine-Ceneracor 95 5 2 5200 38

Main Transformer as 5 4 4300 31

Aux. Transformer as 5 4 4300 31

Rotary Coal Car
Dumper 73 50 1 5700 32

Stacker-Reclaimer 75 50 1 6000 33

Total plant noise level projected to nearest residence 44 4B(A)

a Per Eba3co specifications and vendor information
t, Monitoring Station 3, Figure 4.6-2.

VII-24

Siting Handbook Chapter 7, Part B Draft 2

At a distance of 3700 feet, however, the noise from the
cooling tower was predicted to reach a level of only 38 dBA.
At a distance of one mile, the turbine generator was predicted
to register 38 dBA--a level lower than that of traffic on a
major highway or road. If the background noise level is
greater than the noise from the power plant, the plant's sound
will be effectively masked; since the projected average level
from the plant was 44 dBA, less than existing noise levels,
the noise impact from the plant was not considered significant.

Table VII-8 shows the maximum sound levels predicted by TECO
for operation of the Big Bend 4 plant, both by itself, and in
conjunction with units 1-3. Note that with all four units in
operation, at a distance of 4000 feet the noise level from the
plant was predicted to be 60 dBA, significantly above the 45
dBA maximum recommended by EPA to avoid "acti.vity inter-
ference" in a residential area..But at a distance of 8000 feet
(the location of the closest occupied structure),* the noise
level was predicted to decrease to 45 dBA, the same level as
the daytime level on the major highway.

VII-25

Table VII-8: Maximum Sound Levels Predicted by Operation of TECO's Big Bend 4 Power
Plant. Source: TECO BB4 EIS (1981).

Units 1, 2, 3, 4
Units 1, 2, 3 Units 1, 2, 3, 4 (combined)
Ambient-sound- Ambient residual (combined) Unit 4 (combined) intermittent
level-monitoring sound levelac continuous sound continuous continuous sound level
locationsc9d Day Right level sound level sound level Day Night

Location 4
7500 ft NE at
Adamoville 46 43 36 39 41 46 46
Location 5
3800 ft ESE at
Big Bend Road 53 52 45 46 49 56 55
Location 6
4000 ft S at
Newman Branch Road 43 44 44 45 48 60 54
Location 7
8000 ft SSW at
Apollo Beach Road 43 37 35 36 39 47 45
Location 8
8000 ft SW at
Apollo Beach Motel 45 42 35 36 39 45 45

aAdapted from TECO (1979).
bdBA referenced to 0.0002 microbar.
cAverage of values obtained during survey of January 16, 17, and 18, 1978.
dThe monitoring network is depicted in Figure 3-3.

Siting Handbook Chapter 7, Part C Draft 2

C. TRANSPORTATION IMPACTS

Transportation impacts resulting from construction of a new
coal-fired power plant can be categorized into two broad
areas: (1) impacts -of coal transportation and delivery by
means of rail, barge or pipeline; and (2) impacts from
increased truck and automobile traffic at the power plant
site. This section examines each of these impacts.

In a Power Plant Site Application (PPSA), the applicant
utility generally projects the impact from increased traffic,
but normally omits the impacts resulting from the transporta-
tion of coal. Nevertheless, the:impacts of coal transportation
can be significant and worthy of consideration by planners.

A handbook on power plant siting, however, cannot deal in
depth with transportation impacts. Much of the information
presented in this section is based on the 1980 report of the
Florida Coal Slurry Pipeline Study Committee, a study by SAI
Inc. on coal transportation conducted for the Florida State-
wide Coal Conversion Study, and the report on transportation
impacts appearing in the Universit.y-of Florida study The
Impact of Increased Coal Use in Florida (1980). Planners
dealing with this subject are encouraged to consult these and
other references cited in the Bibliography, Section 4.

VII-27

Siting Handbook Chapter 7, Part C Draft 2

1. Future Levels of Coal Deliveries

As was discussed in Chapter 1, Florida had 6280 MW of coal-
fired capacity on-line,. and as a result of the units presently
under construction, by 1992 coal capacity in projected to
double. As seen in Fig. 1-13, in 1980 8.8 million tons of
coal were burned in Florida power plants. The Ten-Year Plan of
the Florida Electric Coordinating Group proj-ects that by 1985
coal consumption will to increase to 17.7 million tons, to
25.4 million tons in 1990, and to 27.6 million tons in 1992,
more than three times the 1980 amount. (See Table VII-9.)

By the turn of the cent ury, utility projections forecast a
need for about 26,500 MW of coal capacity, 322 percent more
than the 1983 amount. An increase in coal capacity of this
magnitude would mean a dramatic increase in the tonnag@e of
coal shipped into the state. Projecting the amount of coal
that will be burned in Florida in years after 1990 is highly
speculative, but estimates can be made using standard assump-
tions such as the capacity factor of new plants, the type of
coal to burned, and the number of plants in operation. Coal
plants in Florida burn coal at an average rate of 2.93 tons
per gross megawatt. If this rate were to continue into the
future, and if there were to be 26,500 MW of coal-fired
capacity in Florida by 2001, coal consumption in Florida
could rise to 77.6 million tons in 2001, almost nine times
more than in 1980. (See Fig. VII-5)

This increase in coal deliveries could have a profound effect
on the state's rail network and ports. With the upsurge in
coal consumption, construction of a coal slurry pipeline to
link coal fields of Appalachia with markets in Georgia and
Florida has been proposed.

Table VII-10 shows the likely source of coal supply for six
coal-fired power plants in Florida u-nder construction or
proposed to come on-line during the 1980s. Coal transporta-
tion by barge is being considered for five of these plants
(TECO's Big Bend 4, FPC's Crystal River 4 and 5, the JEA/FPL
St. Johns River Power Park, and SECI's proposed Taylor units 1
and 2). Coal delivery by rail is being considered for two
plants: the St. Johns River Power Park and OUC's Stanton 1.
Table VI-11 shows potential means of coal transportation to
existing oil-fired power plants that could be converted to
coal, as projected by the DOE/SAI study in 1983.

VII-28

Siting Handbook Chapter 7, Part C Draft 2

Table VII-9: Projected 1990 Coal Demands for All Coal-Fired
Power Plants in Florida. Source: SAI/DOE (1983).

Average Proj cted 1990
Utility and Plant Capacity Coal oamanot
Generating Station Units Factortl (103 tons)

Florida Power Corporation
Anc I at* 1.2 0.605 1,468
Bartow 2,3 0.502 551
Crystal River 1.2,4,5 0.402 2.90

Florida Power & Light Company
Canaveral 1,2 0.695 1.743
Ft. Myers 2 0.320 410
Manatee 1.2 0.490 2, 116
Martin 1,2 0.250 1,083
part Everglades 3.4 0.655 1.654
4,5 0.675 1,691
Turkaj- Point 0.600 1,517

Florida Power & Light Company;
Jacksonville Electric Autbority
St. Johns River 1.2 0.680 2,566

Gainesville Regional Utilities
0 rhav 1.2 0.490 555
Gulf"P.r"Company
Crist 4-7 Mot available 2,000
Scholz 1.2 Not available 230
Smith 1.2 Not available 11000

Jacksonville Electric Authority
Morthside 1-3 0.590 1.391

City of Lakeland;
Orlando Utilities Commission
McIntosh 1-3 0.287 472

Orlando Utilities Commission
Indian 2,3 0.275 293
Orl anda U:iviwirties Commission;
Florida Municipal Power Agency;
City of Lakeland
Stanton 1 0.490 720

Seminole Electric Cooperative
Seminole 1.2 0.67S 2,896
Taylor 1.2 0.700 2,987

City of Tallahassee
Hopkins --- 1,2 0.575 409

Tans Electric Company
Big Bond 1-4 0.668 3,542
Gannon 1-6 0.382 14 596

TOTAL 35,850

t' Estimates obtained from dispatch analysis conducted by Science Applications, Inc., for
U_ S. Department of Energy, Fuels Conversion Givision-except Crist. Scholz, and Smith
estimates provided by the utility.

VII-29

Siting Handbook Chapter 7, Part C Draft 2

Fig. VII-5: Coal Consumpti.on by Electric Power Plants in
Florida, 1960-2001. Sources: PSC (1960-1981); PPSAs (1982-
1991); figure for. 2001 extrapolated from PSC GWH pro-jection of
137,500 GWR from coal in that year.

80- 7Z36

70-

60- KEY

HISTORICAL

PROJECTED
50-
0 EXTRAPOLATED1

40-

SOURCE
30 1960 - 1981 PSC
1982 - 1991 UTILITY SITE APPLICATIONS
1992 - 2001 DCA

20- @6 17.7

10 52 5.8 '[email protected]
1 .3 11111A
11960 19.M 1980 1990 2000

VII-30

Siting Handbook Chapter 7, Part C Draft 2

Table VI-10: Transpo 'rtat-ion Options and Potential Coal Supply
Regions Being Considered for Six Coal-Fired Power Plants Under
Construction or Proposed for Certification in Florida. Source:
DOE/SAI (1983).

Generating Date Potential
Station Unit On-Line Supply Region Transportation Optionst'
Big Bend 4- 3/85 S. IL River barge down .
Mississippi to ocean
barges at Davant (New
Orleans) to plant.

Crystal River 4 12/82 WV (33%) Rail to river barge down
5 12/84 Ohio and Mississippi
rivers to ocean barges
at New Orleans to plant.
VA (33%) Rail (SOU) to Mobile to
ocean barges to plant.
WY (33%) Rail to river barge on
Mississippi River at
St. Louis or Metropolis,
to ocean barges at New
Orleans to plant.

St. Johns River 1 12/85 Appalachia; Rail (SCL) directly from
2 6/87 AL; IL mine.
Otean transport to Port
of Jacksonville.

Seminole 1 6/83 W. KY River barge down Ohio
2 1/85 S. OH and Mississippi rivers,
through Gulf Intra-
coastal Waterway to Part
of St. Joe, transfer to
rail (SCL) to plant.

Stanton 1 11/86 Not available Rail (SCL) directly from
mine.

Taylor 1 6/88 W. KY River barge down Ohio
2 1/90 S. OH and Mississippi rivers,
through Gulf Intra-
coastal to Port St. Joe,
transfer to rail (SOU or
SCL) to plant.
tl Rail lines making final delivery: SCL - Seaboard Coast Line, SOU
Southern Railway.
Source: Information provided by the uti'lities.

VII-31

Siting Handbook Chapter 7, Part C Draft 2

Table Vt[-11: Transportation Options and Potential supply
Regions Being Considered for Conversion of Oil-Fired Power
Plants in Florida. Source: DOE/SAI (1983).

Gwwating' Potential Coal
Station. unit Supply Region Transportation Optionst'

Anclote 1.2 Not available Florida Power Corp. believes that conversion
is not economically feasible; may consider a
coal/oil mixture delivered by pipeline.
No existing barge-receiving facilities.
Rail spur (SCL) within 1.5 miles; travels
through residential area.
Bartow 2 Close to river Ocean barge (13,500-ton) directly to plant.
system (preferably Rail to seaboard termination point (e.g.,
Mississippi River) Pinellas Park rail siding); transfer to barge
or truck to plant.
Canaveral 1.2 E. KY Rail (FEC) through Jacksonville.
N. WV Ocein transport from Atlantic Coast port to
Part of Canaveral; transfer to barge an
Atriantic Intracoastal Waterway to plant.
1 W Rail (SCL) directly from mine.
E. KY; VA Coal-slurry pipeline.
Ft. Myers 2 E. KY Barge from Part Tampa/Manatee area to plant.
N. Wy
Hopkins 1,2 Not available Rail (SCL) directly from mint.
Indian River 2.3 Appalachia; IL Rail (FEC) directly from mine.
Ocean transport from Atlantic coast port to
Port of Canaveral; transfer to barge on
Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway to plant.
McIntosh 1,2 E. XY Rail (SCL) directly from mine.
Manatee 1.2 E. KY Rail (SCL) directly from mines.
N. WV
Martin 1.2 E. KY Rail (FEC or SCL) directly from mines.
N. WV Ocean transport from Atlantic Coast part to
Part of Canaveral; transfer to rail (FEC)
to plant.
Morthside 1-3 Appalachia; Rail (SCL) directly from mine.
AL; IL; W. KY Ocean transport to Part of Jacksonville.
Part Everglades 3.4 E. KY Rail (FEC) directly from mines.
M. WV Ocean transport from Atlantic coast part to
Part of Canaveral; transfer to rail (FEC)
to plant.
Ocean transport from Atlantic coast port
directly to Port Everglades.
Sanford 4,5 E. KY Rail (SCL) directly from mints.
N. WV Ocean transport from Atlantic coast port to
Part of Jacksonville; transfer to river barge
to plant.
Turkey Point 1.2 E. KY Rail (FEC) directly from mines.
N. WY Ocean transport from Atlantic coast part (or
possibly Gulf coast port) to either Part of
Canaveral or Port Everglades; transfer to
rail (FEC).ta,.plant.
Ocean transport from Atlantic coast part (or
possibly Gulf coast port) to either Part of
Canaveral or Port Everglades; transfer to
barge on Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway to
plant.
t' Rail lines making fin& I delivery: FEC Florida East Coast; SCL Seaboard Coast Line.
Source: Information provided by the utilities.

VII-32

-Siting Handbook Chapter 7. Part C Draft 2

1. Impacts from Coal Transportation by Rail

Coal is normally delivered to a power plant by rail using -a
long "unit train" consisting of 70-100 hopper cars of 100 tons
each. The cars are designed to be unloaded in a rapid
fashion, with an average unloading time of about 30 ' seconds
each. The train is typically pulled by six 3,600 horsepower
locomotives at an average speed of 15 to 50 miles- per hour.
Unloading of the entire unit train may be as fast as 30
minutes.

In 1979 ;there were 214 unit train deliveries to two Florida
utilities: Tampa Electric Co. and Florida Power Corp. This rep-
resented an average of 4.1 unit trains per week in the state.

As a rule of thumb, a 600 MW power plant operating at a 68
percent capacity factor requires about 30,000 tons of coal per
week. This means that the plant will receive an average of
about three unit trains per week, if each train has 100 cars,
and each car carries 100 tons of coal. Based on these averages,
the U. S. Office of Technology Assessment estimates that if 25
million tons of coal per year were delivered to Florida by
rail, approximately sixty 80-car.unit trains per week would be
required. This is the amount that would be required if the
state had the equivalent of 16 600-MW coal-fired plants.*

As shown in Chapter I, the Flori da electric utility industry
forecasts a quintupling of coal consumption in Florida by the
end of the century. If rail transportation is used for coal
delivery, impacts would include: increased noise levels along
railway lines; increased traffic delays at grade crossings;
and an increase in personal injuries due to rail
transportation. Fig. VII-6 provides a map of the rail
transpor-tation network in Florida, showing where these impacts
would be experienced.

*See Chapter 1 for details on coal projections. The Florida
electric utility industry predicts that 25 million tons will
be reached in 1990. However, only a portion of all coal is
shipped by rail.

VII-33

Fig. VII-6. The Florida Rail Network. Source: Coal Slurry Pipeline Study Committee (1980).

cl rFNSAf:0I.A JA KSONVILIA

PANAMA c 'I

AINI. VIM

FLORIDA RAILROADS
*414WA-4 PASSENGER SERVICE
CLASS I
'ORLAPI Cf)
- - - GA. sommn" a FLA. RAILWAY CO.
- . LOUISVILIt & NASIIVILI.t RAILROAD CO.
.: ........ St. LOUIS-SAN FRANCISCO RAILWAY CO.
- SEABOARD COAST LINC RAILROAD CO@
-FLA. CAST COAST RAILWAY CO.
CLASS 11 ST. PETIAS"UnG

....... APALACIIICOLA NOFIIIIERN RAILAOAC' CO.
2....... ATLANTA & ST@ ANDMINS BAY RAILWAY CO.
a....... LIVE OAK. PtRnY & GULF RAILROAD CO.
ISOUI"[R" RAILWAY1
....... ME MARIANNA & BLOUNTSIOWII RAILROAD CO.
....... Tiff SUUTH GA. RAILWAY CO. ISOUMERPq RAILWAY)
source: Division of state Planning, 1978. Iforkipj. P!!pn i@r_ the riorlda state MIAMI
L0!PT!_k1LRs_1_ve ?_10n. Vol. 12, Tra"sF--- - - I
ortation Sect on.

Siting Handbook Chapter 7, Part C Draft 2

a. 'Noise Impacts -- Noise impacts from trains depend on train
speed, the number and type of locomotives, train weight,
topographical grade and type of track. The maximum sound
level registered at a distance of 50 feet is between 80 and
100 dBA, far in excess of the 55 dBA set by EPA as the maximum
standard for residential areas. Except for rail spur lines
built specifically to deliver coal to power plants, these
impacts will occur along existing railways where they already
occur, although they will occur more frequently.

In its assessment of the coal slurry pipeline, the Office of
Technology Assessment (OTA) has projected that if 25 million
tons of coal were shipped to Florida by rail, there would be
29 "coal operations" per day on Florida rail lines.. This,
says OTA, would expose an additional 7000 persons to sounds
above the 55 dBA standard on the Waycross (Georgia.) to Ft.
Lauderdale route, and an additional 4000 persons on the
Waycross to Tampa route. The time of each "exposure" would be
about one to three minutes.

b. Traffic Delays -- The Seabord Coastline Railroad has
calculated that if 25 million tons of coal were brought into
Florida by rail, traffic delays at grade-level crossings would
be experienced at a number of locations. As show below, many
of these impacts would be far removed from the location of the
power plant:

Additional
Minutes Crossing
Location Closed Per Day

Live Oak 30
Williston 24
Dade City 24
Paradise 24
Green Cove Springs 12
DeFuniak Springs 15

VII-35

Siting Handbook Chapter 7, Part C Draft 2

C. Personal Injuries -- As coal shi.pments increase rail traf-
fic, the probability of car-train collisions with injury and
death to both railroad workers and automobile passengers would
increase. Table VII-12 shows the number of increased injuries
and deaths projected by OTA in the event that 25 million tons
of coal is shipped to Florida by rail Yearly. OTA predicts
that with this level of coal shipments, the annual number of
deaths from rail transportation in Florida would increase from
11.4 to 13.5, an average of 2.1 more deaths per year attrib-
utable to coal transportation by rail.

In considering these impacts, however, planners should compare
anticipated deaths from other transportation alternatives,
such as coal shipment by barge, shipment of oil, use of a coal
slurry pipeline, and so forth.

d. Air Pollution -- If 25 million tons o,f coal were shipped to
Flo@_iFTa_by rail annually, air emissions from diesel locomo- r
tives would increase. The Coal Slurry Pipeline Study Committee
report estimated that this increase would be - approximately
6,900 tons per year (TPY) of NOx, 90 TPY of S02)and 1,250 TPY
of hydrocarbons. In addition, about 0.1 to 1% of the total
coal tonnage shipped would become fugitive dust. These
figures can be compared with the projected output of TECO's
Big Bend unit 4, which is expected to generate 8,760 TPY of
NOx and 18,396 TPY of S02 operating at 75 percent capacity.

2. Impacts of A Coal Slurry Pipeline

As indicated in Chapter 1, there have been proposals to
construct a coal slurry pipeline (CSP) to connect the coal
fields of Appalachia to the coal-fired power plants of Georgia
and Florida. Operation of a coal slurry pipeline would be
expected to include bring about impacts on water quality, land
use and air quality, in addition to construction impacts.

VII-36

Table-VII-12: Predicted Annual Grade Crossing Injuries and De ath in the Event of 25
Million Tons of Coal per Year are Shipping to Florida by R'ail. Source: Coal Slurry
Pipeline Study Committee (1980).

Predicted Annual scenario-Specific Grade Crossing

injuries and Deaths, 1985

T a T2 T 2-Irl Number of coal Tonnage
6
Itoute Deaths injuries Deaths Injuries. Deaths injuries -Crossings (10 tons/yr)

Tracy city-waycross b 6.0 23.6 6.5 25.2 0.5 1.6 480 16
Waycross-Tampa c 1.3 Sal 1.6 6.4 0.3 1.3 190
Waycross-Ft. Lauderda led 4.1 15.9 5.4 20.9 1.3 5.0' 281 8

TOTALS 11.4 44.6 13.5 52.5 2.1 7.9 951 32

aTI is the current number of trains per day as they appear in the grade-crossing inventory data.
T2'T, plus the projected increase in coal trains per day.
bAverage Ti and T2 are 20.7 and 35.3 respectively.
CAverage T1 and T2 are 9.1 and 16.4 respectively.
Average T1 and T2 are 22.4 and 29.7 respectively
Source% OTA Task Reports: Slurry Coal pipeline

Siting Handbook Chapter 7, Part C Draft 2

a. Water Quality Impacts -- A coal slurry pipeline requires
about one ton of water for each ton of coal; therefore, if the
pipeline transported 25 million tons of coal per year, it is
expected to discharge about 16.5 million gallons of water per
day (MGD). This amount is equivalent to about 10% of the
cooling water needed for the power plants that would be served
by the coal slurry pipeline. This water could either be
treated and discharged into surface waters, or could be used
as cooling makeup water for the power plant.

The greatest potential harm to the environment from the r
pipeline would be from the discharge of transport water,
since the water would contain substantial amounts of contam-
inants. This water is likely to contain high levels of sodium,
phosphate, sulfide, chromate, potassium, aluminum, lead, and
iron, as well as have a high degree of alkalinity (i.e., a
high pH value).

There is also the possibility of a leak or rupture from the
pipeline, or a break in the levee surrounding a holding pond.
Severity of an accident such as this would depend on the
location of the damage, and the amount of slurry released.

b. Land Use ImRacts -- The land use impacts of a coal slurry
pipeline would depend on the exact route selected. In the
absence of a specific route, land use impacts can only be
estimated in a general fashion.

According to the Coal Slurry Pipeline Study Committee report,
a pipeline following the general route shown in Chapter I
would run through Florida for about 578 miles and would
require about 6,936 acres of land in this state. Assuming a
right-of-way (ROW) of 100 feet, requiring 12 acres per linear
mile, the CSP might require about 2,688 acres of agricultural
land, 294 acres of upland forest, and 60 acres of wetlands.

C. Air Quality Impacts -- Operation of the pipeline's pumps
would require electricity equivalent to the output of a 300 MW
power plant--with the corresponding air quality impact of a
power plant that size spread the length of the pipeline.

VII-38

Siting Handbook Chapter 7, Part C Draft 2

3. Impacts of Coal Deliveries by Barge

As shown in Chapter 1, the most likely means of coal trans-
portation for most new coal and coal-conversion power plants
in Florida would be by barge. Of the five coal-fired plants
under construction as of January 1, 1984, three (TECO's Big
Bend 4, FPC's Crystal River, and JEA/FPL's St. Johns River
Power Park) may use barge delivery. And of the 14 oil-fired
plants studied by the U. S. Department of Energy for possible
conversion to coal, eight plants are considered able to
receive coal by barge. These eight are: Bartow (FPC), Canav-
eral (FPL), Ft. Meyers (FPL), Indian River (FPL), Northside
(JEA), Port Everglades (FPL), Sanford (FPL), Turkey Point
(FPL).

Major impacts of increased coal deliveries by barge would
include construction impacts, maintenance impacts, and opera-
tional impacts:

a Construction Impacts -- A-s seen in Fig. VII-7, Florida
currently has 27 major ports and a lengthy network of inland
waterways. However, to barge coal to specific power plants
may require deepening of some waterways, and widening of'
others. Dredging causes destruction of river bottoms, and may
stir up toxic materials and agitate sediments, killing fish by
suffocation.

b. Maintenance Impacts -- It will be necessary to dredge
channels routinely. The "spoil" (i.e., the dredged material)
must be placed safely away from the channel. Keeping the
channel free of weeds can cause damage to both plants. and
animals.

C. Operational Impacts -- Barge transportation brings with it
the possibility of coal spills and some air impacts from the
operation of diesel engines. In addition, there will be
social impacts resulting from population growth and employment
increases, especially around port and harbor areas.

VII-39

Fig, VI-7o. Ports and Waterways of Florida. Source: CSPSC (1980),

PORT OF W I POW OF FERMANDWA REAW
PE14SACOLA POITt OF
k' JACKSONVILLE
Sk Masks
PORT OF PANAMA CITY por I of
PORT ST OOE St. Agustin*
Pt*1 of Apobakaft St. Johns piv" ewe* PWI

Pod of ........ Pod 01
01fus Porift De Loan - "#* Smyv no

PORT CANAVERAL

PORT OF
NRT Of St PETERSOU00 TAMPA
PORT PORT OF
MANATEE FOW PIERCE
WArER SYSTEM

PORT OF
PALM SEX"

PM ENERGLAM
FLORIDA PORTS A"D WAIERWATS

PORT OF
MAM PORTS
0 MAMI
a SPAts. POSTS
MRAC00sut
......... COOSS FkCRIV^ OA"Gt CANA1,

Siting Handbook Chapter 7, Part C Draft 2

4. Traffic Impacts of Power Plants

The study by Gilmore of 15 power plants discussed in Part A of
this chapter found that one of the major problems at the sites
studied was construction traffic. Because of the problems
represented by construction traffic, Power Plant Site
Applications (PPSAs) usually include a section dealing with
projected traffic levels. This sectionis particularly
appropriate for planners who may review and comment on the
traffic impact sectionof a PPSA. Identification of impacts
can lead to recommendations and implementation of mitigative
measures.

To help planners review PPSA traffic data and to consider
actions that might be take to reduce the problem, this section
summarizes the traffic volume projections of the JEA/FPL St.
Johns River Power Park. In additiont the study of -traffic
levels actually measured at the Seminole construction site are
shown, to compare with the projections presented in PPSAs.

a. St. Johns River Power Park -- Located close to Jack.son-
ville and near major roadways, traffic congestion stemming
from construction of the St. Johns River Power Park was a
question of considerable importance. As seen in Table VII-13,
the utility projected a peak workforce of 2,575. Assuming 1.2
persons per vehicle, the SJRPP PPSA predicted 3,700 daily
trips (1,850 each direction) resulting from construction of
the plant.

Assuming a 20 percent growth 1980 to 1985, the utility
projected a peak construction traffic volume at one intersec-
tion to be above the "C Volume" (i.e., the traffic volume at
which all traffic clears an intersection). To mitigate this
undesirable impact, the EIS recommends the addition.of traffic
signals, street widening and redesign of five intersections.

VII-41

A INNI

Table VII-13: Projected Average Daily and Peak Hour Traffic Volumes in the St. Johns
River Power Park Vicinity, 1980 and 1985. Source: Appendix S, Volume II, SJRPP EIS,
Technical'Support Documents (1981).

Projected 1985
Projected Peak Hour Volume/
1980 Average 1980 Peak 1985 Average Level of Service
Daily Traffic Hour Volume Daily Traffic C Volume

Heckscher Drive 10,265 835 16,136 2753/2600

Main Street 16,446 1,386 21,962 2605/5200

Eastport Road 7,591 615 10,459 1276/2000

New Berlin Road 1,636 159 5,781 1972/1800 >

ASSUMPT IONS: GIVEN:
20% Gro wth (1980-1985) Construction Employment - 2,575 (1985 peak)
1.2 Persons per car Construction Truck Traffic - 37,200 in*1985
(peak)
90% work between 8:00 a.m. - 4:30 p.m.

Siting Handbook Chapter 7, Part C Draft 2

b. SECI's Seminole Units I and 2--The PPSA submitted for
SECI's Seminole plant included a description of existing
traffic volumes, but did not project traffic levels that would
be experienced during construction. According to a study by
the Northeast Florida Regional Planning Council, five traffic
count locations near the Seminole site experienced "dramatic"
increases in average daily traffic during the peak construc-
tion year (1982).

In that year, traffic volume ranged from 60 percent to 93
percent higher than the levels experienced three years before;
the total number of trips per day at nine count locations rose
from 74,600 trips in 1979 to 102,000 in 1982. The utility
took a number of actions to reduce traffic congestion, such as
staggering shifts. According to the NEFRPC study, these were
helpful in reducing delays.

VII-43

Siting Handbook Chapter 7, Part C Draft 2

5. Bibliography

COAL TRANSPORTATION BY RAIL

Capehart, Ba rney. "Transportation Impacts." in Green, A. E. S.
(ed.) The Impact of Increased Coal Use in Florida._ (Gainesvil-
le, FL: Univ. of Florida, 1979).

U. S. Dept. of Energy, Economic Regulatory Administration,
Office of Fuels Programs. The Florida Statewide Coal Conver-
sion Study: Coal Supply and Transportation Analysis. (Wash-
ERA, Sept., 1983). NTIS Nr. DOE/RG-0063.

THE COAL SLURRY PIPELINE

Bechtel Corp. Florida Gas Coal Slurry Pipeline Feasibility
Study. (Winter Park, FL: Florida Gas Transmission Co., . Nov.,
1978)

Florida Coal Slurry Pipeline Study Committee. Report to the
1980 Florida Legislature. (Tallahassee, FL: Florida Public
Service Commission, 1980).

National Economic Research Associates, Inc. Pipeline Trans-
2ortation of Coal to Georgia and Florida. (New York: NERA,
February, 1980).

Office of Technology Assessment. Task Force Reports: Slurry
Coal Pipelines. (Washington, D. C.: OTA, 1978). two vols.

CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC

Gilmore, J. S. Socioeconomic Impacts of Power Plants. (Palo
Alto, CA: EPRI, 1982). EPRI Rpt. Nr. 2228.

Northeast Florida Regional Planning Council. Power Plant
Mitigation and Coal Barge Feasibility Study. (jacksonville,
FL: NEFRTC-,-Feb-., 1984).

VII-44

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I CHAPTER 8

ALTERNATIVES TO NEW CONSTRUCTION
I
I -
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

Siting Handbook Chapter 8, Part A Draft 2

CHAPTER 8

ALTERNATIVES TO NEW COAL-FIRED POWER PLANTS

As shown in Chapter 1, the state's Public Service Commission
(PSQ is forecasting an enormous growth in electric power
generation in Florida. According to the PSC's latest
forecast, made in December of 1983, peak summer demand will
rise from 19,649 MW in 1982 to 29,556 MW in the year 2003, an
increase of 50 percent in 21 years. Almost all of this
growth, says the PSC, would come from coal.

An increase in coal consumptio n of this magnitude could carry
with it major implications for Florida's environment and would
have a significant impact on the cost of electricity, on land
use, and on Florida's transportation systems. Consequently,
this chapter examines the costs and benefits of possible
alternatives to new coal capacity. Part A examines energy
conservation and residential renewable energy resources such
as solar energy. Part B looks at production alternatives.such
as nuclear power, peat and natural gas, as well as several
renewable energy generating alternatives, such as the use of
municipal wastes, cogeneration and hydropower.

For a power plant to be certified in Florida, the PSC must
first issue a "Determination of Need" order. This chapter is
designed to assist planners becoming involved in the PSC's
Determination of Need proceedings. (See Chapter 2 for further
information on the PSC Determination of Need process.)

VIII-1

Siting Handbook Chapter 8, Part A Draft 2

A. CONSERVATION AND RENEWABLE ENERGY RESOURCES

In considering alternatives to all or part of any proposed
capital expansion as part of the PSC Need for Power Determina- r
tion, planners may want to give careful consideration to
energy conservation and renewable energy resources. This
section reviews FEECA (the Florida Energy Efficiency and
Conservation Act) under which utilities operate conservation
programs, and then examines the degre.e to which intensified
conservation and renewable energy resource programs could
offset the need for additional amounts of coal-fired capacity.

1. The Florida Energy Efficiency and Conservation Act

In 1980, the Legislature of Florida adopted the Florida Energy
Efficiency and Conservati.on Act (FEECA), Sect. 366.82(2),
Florida Statutes. This act directed the Florida Public
Service Commission to:

adopt appropriate goals.for increasing the efficiency
of . . . energy consumption, specifically including goals
designed to increase the conservation of expensive re-
sources, such as petroleum fuel, and to reduce the growth
rates of electric consumption and especially weather-
sensitive peak demand.

Based on this legislation, in September of 1980 the PSC
adopted conservation goals for Florida's electric utilities.
Under the FEECA regulations:

VIII-2

Siting Handbook Chapter 8, Part A Draft 2

The growth im kilowatt-hour sales must not be more
than 75% of the average annual growth rate of residen-
tial customers.

-- Winter and summer peak KW demand must not grow more
than 72.25% of the average growth of residential
customers.

Oil consumption must be reduced by 1989 to less
than,58.734 million barrels per year (compared with the
69.994 mill. bbl. utilities consumed in 1980).

Later in 1980 electric utilities submitted plans to achieve
the FEECA goals; a number of these FEECA plans are included
in the Bibliography, Section 4. Table VIII-1 shows the FEECA
programs and projected savings of the three-largest electric
utilities of Florida. The FEECA plans submitted by the major
electric utilities of Florida are important documents which
could be of significant value to planners involved with the
PSC Need for Power Determination process.

According to the PSC, the FEECA program will reduce the need
for new generating capacity in 1989 by.6,917 megawatts (MW),
compared to projections made in 1979, a projected reduction of
18.3 percent. (See Table VIII-2). A reduction of 6,917 MW is
approximately equivalent to avoiding the construction of
eleven new 600 MW coal-fired power plants. According to the
PSC, this represents a cost avoidance of an estimated $8.5
billion. (See Fig. VIII-1).

Table VZ-1: Effects of the FEECA PSC Conservation Goals.
Source: Florida PSC (1982). 1989 1989 Pct.
1979 1989 Goal Savings Savings

Nr. of Residential 3.9 5.3
Customers (Mill)
Kilowatt-Hours (Bill) 93.8 144.7 123.7 21.0 14.5
Summer Peak (GW) 18.0 28.2 24.6 4.9 17.4
Winter Peak (KW) 20.0 30.7 24.6 6.1 19.9
Generating Capacity 24.9 37.7 30.8* 6.9 18.3
(Bill. KW)
*If goal achieved.

VIII-3

Siting Handbook Chapter 8, Part A Draft 2

Table VIII-2: Projected 1990 Savings for Selected Major
Conservation Programs for FPL, FPC and TECO. Source: DOE/SAI
(1983).

1990 Cumulative Savings
Penetration
Winter Sumer of Potential
MW MW GWh Market

FP&L

Residential Audits - - - 28
Water Heater Insulation 10 6 35 -
Reflective Window Film 0 24 91 17
Residential Ceiling Insulation 40 40 149 15
,gh Efficiency Cooling and
Heating Appliances (cash incentive) 661 584 2232 10
Efficient Home Credit 385 385 1544 (about 20%)
Comm./Ind. Energy Analysis 74 74 4T5 19
High Pressure Sodium Steet Lights 0 0 200 100
Pool Pump Timers 104 IT3 164 72
R 31dential Load Control 180 162 0 25.4
Midential and General
Service TOD Rates 233 233 202 9.7 op
C/I Too. Rates 189 189 252 1.9
High Efficiency Water Heaters 28 104 613 15
Cogan. & Small Power Production 171 203 992 -
Retail Appliance Dealer Program __m 72 1017 50
Total 2104 2249 7966

TECO

Heat Pumps 217.0 0 16-7 Not Specified
Storage Water Heating 73.1 29.5 0
Energy Efficient Buildings
Award (residential) 2.5 7.2 26.o
(C/I) 7.5 9.8 40.o
Audits
(Residential) 7.0 5.0 22.0
(Commercial) .53 1.23 14.0
(Large C/1) .53 15.0 30.0
Load Control 88.7 64.8 0
cogeneration 15.0 15.0 52.5
C/I Interruptible 13.0 13.0 -
High Pressure Sodium
Street Lights o-6.o 0 23.0
Total 425-431 160 224

MW GWh
FPC
Residential Audits 48.4 145.1 Not Specified
Supplemental Audits 28.4 323.9
C/I Audits 50.6 126.9
Energy Saver New Construction 124.0 324.7
C/I Energy Efficiency Award 17.6 44.1
Cogen. 4 Small Power Production 66.o 330.0
Conservation Equipment Incentive 72.0 170.0
Home Fix-up (a) 13.7 153.3
Education (b) 4.1 11.6
High Pressure Sodium Street Lights 8.8 37.0
Resid. Conservation Financing (b) 15
.3 76.7
Load Management 662.0 23.9
Total 1071 1767

arncludes 30% interaction with other conservation Programs
bIncludeS 90% interaction with other conservation programs
Sources: FP&L 1982, FPC 1980, TECO 1980

VIII-4

Fig. VIO-1: Projected Savings of FEECA on Generating Capacity, 1979 - 1989. Source:
Florida PSC (1982). Note that these savings were projected using the PSC 1979 forecast.
Since the current forecast is different, savings projected in Fig. VIII-2 are somewhat
different.

40
37.7
Capacity
35 Savings
0
0 6900 M
0
30 3Q8
X 44

24B
25
- Equivalent to 11 650 MW plants
20- 6illion
CD Avoided Cost $8.5

15 -A
1979 1985 1990

Siting Handbook Chapter 8, Part A Draft 2

Despite the savings resulting from FEECA, the Florida Electric
Coordinating Group (FCG) predicts that by 1992 Peninsular
Florida will have a total of 34,237 MW of installed powerplant
capacity, 22 percent higher than 1983. Since the initiation of
the FEECA program, the PSC has certified the need for 1,967
megawatts of new coal-fired capacity "to displace imported
oil." Thus the certification of new units has reduced the
tangible benefits of FEECA and has contributed to
extraordinarily high reserve margins in Florida.

Because other factors such as increasing prices and federally-
mandated conservation-programs are also at play at the same
time, it is difficult to know the extent to which FEECA alone
achieved these projected savings of needed new capacity. In
the PSC reports on the FEECA program, the PSC &k4 not
estimated the extent to which price a-increases may have
contributed to reducing consumption. And no comparisons are
made between conservation in Florida with FEECA, and conserva-
tion actions that take place in other states without the FEECA
program. For these reasons, it is difficult to indicate
exactly what contribution the FEECA program itself has had in
reducing the need for new capacity.

In December of 1981, the PSC amended its power plant siting
regulations (Section 25-22.81, Florida Administrative Code) to
require utilities seeking certification to include an analysis
of both "generating alternatives" and "nongenerating alterna-
tives." According to the regulations, the application is now
to include:

A summary discussion of the major available generating
alternatives which were examined and evaluated in
arriving at the decision to p.ursue the proposed gener-
ating unit. The discussion shall include a general
description of t-he generating unit alternatives,
including purchases where a.ppropriate ... [and] a discus-
sion of viable nongene.rating alternatives including an
evaluation of the nature and extent of reductions in
the growth rates of peak demand, KWH consumption and
oil consumption resulting from the goals and programs
adopted pursuant to the Florida Energy Efficiency and
Conservation Act both historically and prospectively
and the effects on timing and size of the proposed
plant.

VIII-6

Siting Handbook Ch apter 8, Part A Draft 2

There is not yet enough experience with this new requirement
to indicate what effect it may have on the PSC Need for Power
Determination process. But it is likely that these regulations
will require far more attention to alternatives than previous
applications have given.

2. Opportunities for Intensified Conservation

The reduction in new coal-fired construction resulting from
FEECA conservation programs appears significant, but there is
evidence that this program could be inte.nsified manyfold, and
that additional savings could result. Planners becoming
involved with PSC's Need for Power Determination process will
need to consider the extent to which conservation and. renew-
able energy resources could economically offset the need for
some or all of the capacity needs stated by the utility.

Although relatively few studies of the potential for conserva-
tion and renewable-resources.to offset the need for new power
plant construction in Florida have been conducted, there are
several prominent ones which planners should consult. These
include:

(1) Alternatives to Coal Conversion, prepared for the
U. S. Dept. of Energy by Science Applications Inc. and
published in October of 1983

(2) Florida's Electric Future: Building Plentiful
Supplies on Conservation', written by Capehart et al.,
and published in 1982 by' the Florida Conservation
Foundation.

(3) Major nationwide studies, such as the CONAES study,
the SERI study, the Harvard study, the Sant study, and
the California study.

In considering alternatives to constructing new coal-fired
capacity, planners must bear in mind that in terms of 1983
dollars, the cost of new units, according to the FCG, is $1730
per KW (kilowatt). Therefore, other factors being equal, if
the projected cost of a particular conservation or alternative
energy measure offsets the need for new capacity at a rate

VIII-7

Siting Handbook Chapter 8, Part A Draft 2

less than this amount, it is in the economic interest of both
the consumer and the utility to opt for the conservation
measure, not new construction. However, there are other
factors, such as reliability and finance, which also must be
taken into consideration.

a. DOE/SAI Study

In 1983 the consulting firm of Science Applications, Inc.1
prepared a report e.nti,tled The Florida Statewide Coal Conver-
sion Study: Alternatives to Coal Conversion for Florida Utili-
ties. Published by the U. S. Dept. of Energy, the study was
commissioned at the request of the Florida Public Service
Commission.

As shown in Table VIII-3, in the judgment of the SAI re-
searchers, an aggressive program of energy conservation,
cogeneration and use of wastes for fuel could reduce peak
megawatt demand by 9.3 percent in 1990, compared with projec-
tions made by the electric utility industry which already
included the effects of FEECA.

Of the 2,380 MW of peak summer demand that SAI claims would
result from its proposals, 1200 MW (50 percent) would be
achieved through residential conservation and load control;
700 MW (29 percent) through commercial sector conservation
measures; 110 MW (5 percent) -from the industrial sector; 130
MW (5 percent) from the combustion of municipal wastes; and
240 MW (10 percent) from industrial cogeneration. These
savings are over and above the savings.projected from FEECA.

A reduction of 2380 MW is equivalent to the net output of four
600 (net) MW power plants. At a cost of $1,730 per KW (in 1983
dollars) this would represent a cost avoidance of some $4.12
billion in construction costs - These savings are, however,
hypothetical because in actual-i't.y the conservation program
might simply bring abo.ut only reduced use of existing plants,
and a larger reserve margin, rather than actual reductions.

SAI believes that 12,830 GWH can be saved by its recommen-
dations. In Fig. VIII-2 this amount is compared both with the
1983 PSC forecast of 142,633 GWH for 1092 and with the effects
of other conservation programs.

VIII-8

ing Handbook Chapter 8,-Part A Draft 2

Table VIII-3: Conservation and Alternative Energy Source
Offering Significant Reductions in Projected 1990 Loads.
Source: DOE/SAI (1983).

Average Average Average
Reduction in Reduction Reduction in Reduction in
Annual Demand in Demand Winter Peak Demand Summer Peak Demand
(GWh) (mw) (MW) (MW)
RVdtntial Conservation 4700 540 TOO 1200
a Load Control

* Increased Insulation/
Weath rization
* Appliano: and Lighting
Efficiency
0 HVAC Improvements
e Load Control

Commercial Sector Conservation 3300 370 400 700
e Lighting Efficiency
a Waste Heat-Recovery
Insulation
HVAC Efficiency
Industrial Sector 440 110 110 110
Motor Efficiency
ACS
rAlt.r.ative Fuels 1130 130 130 130
-0 Municipal Solid Waste

Cogeneration 2110 240 240 240
Phosphate Industry
Other Industrial

Total Reductions 12,180 1390 1580 2380
Fercent of Projected Load3a 9.2% 9.2% 5.8% 9.3% 1
aCowpared to projected 1990 load@ .,i iCG 1982 Flan

VIII-9

.ng Handbook Chapter 8, Part A Draft 2

b. FCF Study

In October of 1982, the Florida Conservation Foundation (FCF)
published Florida'-s---Electric Future: Building Plentiful
Supplies on (f-o-ns-ervation: A -Proposed State Electric Conserva-
tion Policy, whose principal author was Dr. Barney Capehart,
an engineering professor at the Univ. of Florida. The
Capehart study was an outgrowth of studies funded by the STAR
program of the Board of Regents, conducted at the request of
the Governor's Energy Office.

As seen in Table VIIII-4, the FCF study concludes that an
aggressive conservation program could offset the need for
eight 600-MW Florida power plants at today's population, and
17 by the year 2005. According to the authors, there is no
need to certify another Florida power plant in this century,
if cost-effective conservation and alternative energy sources
are used to meet the energy demands of Florida's ever-growing
population. All these projected savings are over and above
those projected for the FEECA program.

This study compared the cost of offsetting the need for new
construction with the cost of a number of conservation
measures. The conclusions reached by the FCF study are shown
in Table VIII-5 as the "Utility Payback Ratio." If the cost of
the measure is projected to offset the need for new capacity
at the same cost as new construction, its ratio would be 1.0;
if the ratio is higher than 1.0, the researchers maintained
that it would be in the economic interest of both the utility
and the customer to opt for the conservation measure rather
than new construction. As.seen in Table VIII-5, most of the
measures had a ratio higher than 1.0. The FCF program assumed
the utilities would subsidize the cost of most measures; the
study considered only residential energy conservation
measures.

The FCF study projects a near-term savings of 460 million
barrels of oil. Assuming 6.3 MMBtu per bbl and 10,000 Btu per
kWh, this is equivalent to a savings of 39,000 GWH, 27
percent below the PSC forecast for 1992 of 142,633 GWH. This
level of savings is compared with the SAI/DOE savings and with
utility savings projections in Fig. VIII-2.

VIII-10

Siting Handbook Chapter 8, Part A Draft 2

Table VIII-4: Power Plant and Fuel Savings Possible from
Conservation Alternatives. Source: FCF (1982).

CarFuted Frcm Simulated Using
Present Pocuiation Year 200S Population

600-W Barrels 600-&W Tons of
Plants of Oil Plants Goal
Scenario Saved Saved/Yr Saved Saved/Yr

I. High efficiency
el*ctrf4aI appli-
ances 5.2 3.1 x 107 10.8 M x 106

2. Nigh efficiency Al C.
and refrigerators
and direct use of gas,
oil and coal 7.2 4.1 x 107 14.8 4.0 x 106

3. High eff iciency
appliances and
building improve-
ments 6 2 3.6 x 107 13.2 S.4 x 106

4. High efficiency
appliances and
Maximum use of
solar 6.2 3.6 x 107 IYJ S.S x las

S. Combination of
2 and 3 (short
term) 7.9 4.6 x 107 17.0 6.4 x 106

6. Combination of
3 and 4 (long
term) 7.0 4.0 x 107 15.0 6.3 x 106

V I I I - 11

Table VIII-5: Economic Ranking of Conservation Alternatives. Source: FCF (1982).

Utility
Electrical Purchase Energi Customer Customer Customer Dollar
Energy Cost or Cost Utility Pa)back Return an Benefit Milyr Savings
Savings, Cost Savings Saved Per Dollar
Alternative Milyr Difference Per Year Payback Period, Investment. Cost Per S/Yr Of Customer
Ratio Years Percent Ratio Spent Cost

SPACE HEATING
Heat Pump-State 7493 $ 780 $149.08 1.6 5.2 12.5 1.5 48 4.3
Heat Pump-N. Florida 3900 $ 780 $214.00 2.7 3.3 23.3 2.4 75 6.0
Heat Pump-S. Florida $48 $ 780 $ 50.88 0.6 15.3 1.5
Wood-State 33IS $1020 $104.40 1.0 9.0 6.9
Wood-N. Florida SIM $1020 $148.15 2.8 5.9 11.2 26 2.4
Gas (Conv.)-State 4420 $ ISO $167.76 IS.0 0.9 106.8 8.7 41 3.8
Gas (Conv.)-State
(gas price up SOM 4420 $ ISO $119.04 C14
Gas (Conv.1-S. Florida 1500 $ ISO $ 57.00 15.0 1.3 74.4 6.3 29 2.6 @4
Gas (HI-Eff)-State 4.S 2.6 33.0 3.0 37 3.3 1
(over conv. gas) 4420 $ ISO $ 23.52 6.4 10.7 1.2
Gas (HI-Eft)-N. Florida
lover conv. gas) 6900 $ ISO 36.72
Coal-State 331S $114S $165.69 4.1 19.5 1.9 >
Coal-N. Florida 517S $1145 $253.98 1.6 6.9 11.1 1.1 39 3.S
Oil (Conv.)-State 4420 $ 200 $ S6.58 2.8 4.5 18.8 1.8 53 5.8
Oil (HI-Elf)-State 11.3 j.S 18.3 2.2 20 1.8
(over conv. oil) 4420 $ 120 $ 50.01
2.4 36.7 3.1
HOT WATER HEATING

Insulation Jacket with
Thermostat Reduction 480 $ 76 $ 28.80 6.1 0.9 104.1 8.0 277 24.9
Tinier' 480 $ so $ 28.80 2.8 1.7 50.9 4.6 36 3.2
Dedicated Heat Pump 2S20 S 760 $151.20 1.4 5.0 13.2 1.6 so 4.5
Heat Recovery Unit 2S20 $ 430 $ISI.20 13.91 2.0 ILS 2.0 so 7.9
Solar with Electric Backup 2520 S186S $ISI.20 O.S 12.3 3.1 0.6 27 2.4
Solar with Electric Backup
and 40% Tax Credit 2S20 $1025 $151.20 0.9 6.8 9.0 1.2 42 4.4
Solar with Backup Restricted
to Off-Peak and 40'. Tax
Credit 2520 $102S $151.20 1.1 6.8 9.0 1.2 37 3.3
Solar without Backup. with
40% Tax Credit 3600 $IO2S $216.00 I.S 4.7 16.1 1.7 70 6.3
Conventional Gas MOO $ 4S $132.00 0.3 286.7 23.2 42 3.8
Gas (Hi-Eff) (over conv.
oil gas) 3600 $ 120 $ 20.16 6.0 10.1 1.3

Table VIII-5: (Cont'd)

Utility
Dal lar
Electrical Purchase Energy Customer C"s1cmer Cuslcmer Kmi/yr Savings
Energy Cost or Cost Utility Payback Return on Benefit Saved Per Dollar
Savings, cost Savings payback Period, Investment, Cost Per $/Yr of Customer
Alternative IM/yr Difference Per Year Ratio Years Percent Ratio Spent Cost

SPACE COOLING

High-Efficlency Air Condi-
tioners-State 1128 $ 630 $ 79.68 11.41 7.9 6.0 1.0 32 2.9
High-Efficiency Air Condl-
tioners-S. Florida 2143 $ 630 $128.50 12.31 4.9 13.7 1.6 so 4.6
119S $ 300 $ 03.70 13.11 3.i cr)
Ceiling Fans 2.2 70 6.3

REFRIGERATION

High-Efficlency Refrigerators 089 $ 200 S fis.00 2.0 3.1 25.8 7.6 62 7.4

BUILDING MODIFICATIONS

Added Attic Insulation 179 $ 570 70.74 0.8 1.1 12.4 1.0 31 2.8
Caulking and Weathers tripping 540 $ 168 $ 12.40 1.0 5.2 12.6 1.5 48 4.3
Storm Windows ills $ $36 $ 68.10 0.7 9.3 7.4 0.8 27 2.4
Passive Solar Landscaping 1860 $1000 $111.60 11.21 9.0 7.8 0.9 28 2.5
UTILITY PROGRAMS

Time-of-Day Rates :SOO $ 100 30.00 I.s 3.3 23.3 2.4 7S 6.8
Inverted Block Rates . so $ 3.00
Voltage Reduction-State 760 (;WH

Siting Handbook Chapter 8, Part A Draft 2

c. Nationwide Studies

In addition to these two Florida-specific studies, there have
been a number of prominent nationwide studies on the potential
of conservation and renewable resources to offset the need for
new capacity. While a handbook an power plant siting in
Florida cannot detail these studies in depth, it is worthwhile
noting several of the most important of these investigations;
see the Annotated Bibliography, Section 4, for synopses of
some of these studies.

3. Utility Position

The Florida Electric Coordinating Group (FCG) does not agree
that significant additional savings are feasible. As shown in
Fig. VIII-2, the FCG maintains that an intensified energy
conservation program would only save about one percent of
projected power. Appl@4Athis amount to the 142,633 GWH
projected by the PSC in December of 1983 for 1992, this
translate$ into a savings of about 1426 GWH, equivalent to a
capacity savings of about 278 MW, r,,o,*, half the output of
0
one 600-MW plant.

There are three reason for this, according to the FCG:

1. Portfolio Interaction -- Conservation measures are
not a7ditive.

2. Rebound Effect -- Some customers who install conser-
vation measures will choose to increase comfort levels
rather than decrease consumption.

3. Saturation -- Only a limited percentage of all
customers will avail themselves of cost-effective conser-
vation measures.
16

VIII-14

Fig. VIII-2: Projected GWH Savings from Three Intensified Energy Conservation Programs:
SAI/DOE Program, FCF Program and FCG Program. Sources: Baseline projections: PSC (Dec.,
1983); FCF (1982); SAI/DOE 1983); FCG (1983).

--Q ova. G

1A
Ln

Acoc'
Aw

77.9
PSC- 9 F3

ADO

AZZ *4' eOC- 4-04 CA/.b VAIS
JTJ Poo" W&POW '4C '-p-a 44- /79 S C

Siting Handbook Chapter 1, Part A Draft 2

4. Annotated Bibliography

FEECA

Florida Public Service Commission. Calculations of Statewide
FEECA Demand and Energy Goals.. (Tallahassee, FL: Public
Service Commission, December, 1983).

Florida Public Service Commission. Annual Report to the
Legislature on the Florida Energy,Efficiency and Conservation
Act Accomplishments. (Tallahassee, FL: PSC, March, 1982).

UTILITY FEECA PLANS

Florida Power and Light. Energy Management Plan for the '80s.
(Miami, FL: FP&L, Nov., 1980).

Jacksonville Electric Authority. Energy Conservation Plan.
(Jacksonville, FL: JEA, Dec., 1980).

FLORIDA CONSERVATION STUDIES

Capehart, Barney et al. Florida'[email protected] Future: Building
Plentiful Supplies on Conservation. (Winter Park, FL: Florida
Conservation Foundation, Oct., 1982).

U. S. Dept. of Energy, Economic Regulatory Administration,
Office of Fuels Programs. The..Florida Statewide Coal Conver-
sion Study: Alternatives to..Coal Conversion for Florida
Utilities. (Washington, D.C.: ERA, Oct., 1983). NTIS Nr.
DOE/RG-00@@4.

Florida Electric Coordinating Group. 1982 Conservation
Planning and Load Forecast Workshog Report. (Tampa, FL: FCG,
December, 1982).

VIII-16

Siting Handbook Chapter 1, Part A Draft 2

NATIONWIDE CONSERVATION STUDIES

Craig, Paul (ed.) et al. Distributed Energy Systems in
California's Future.. (Washington, D. C.: U. S. Dept. of
Energy, Asst.. Secretary for En.vironme.nt). 2 vols. NTIS Nr.
HCP/P7405-03.
This 1977 report of the Department of Energy, entitled
Distributed, Energy Systems.in California's Future, pre-
,sents an energy future for'the' state of California which
emphasizes the po-tential for.the state to achieve a self-
sufficiency in energy resources through the use of a
renewable, decentralized energy production and distribu-
tion system. While a number of measures studie.d--on-site
solar, waste-to-energy conversion, energy farms, etc.--are
applicable to Florida, some measures, such as hydroe-
lectric, geothermal power and wind energy, have little
application in this state.

Sant, R,oger. The Least-cost'...Ener.gy. Strategy: Minimizing
Consumer Costs T-hrough Competition. (Carnegie-Me'llon Insti-
tute, 1979).
In 1979 the Energy Productivity Center of the Carnegie-
Mellon Institute under Roger Sant, a former Assistant
Administrator of the Federal Energy Administration,
published The Least-Cost Energy Strategy: Minimizing
Consumer Costs Through Competition. In thls study Sant
maintains that if conservation is chosen, prices to
consumers would be reduced by 17 percent of 1978 costs.
This would lead to a 22 percent gain in energy efficiency.

Stobaugh, Robert and Yergin, Daniel (eds.) Energy Future:
Report of the Energy Project at the Harvard Business School.
(Random House, 1979).

In 1979 Robert Stobaugh and Daniel Yer gin, professors at
the Harvard Business School, published Energy Future:
Report of the Energy Project,at the Harvard Business
School. Th-l*--S- report coftclude'@_th'@_t40 percent of the
nationts energy needs-by the year 2000 could be met by
conservation, and 20 percent from solar.

VIII-17

Siting Handbook Chapter 1, Part A Draft 2

Committee on Nuclear and Alternative Energy Systems. Alterna-
tive Energy Demand Futures to 2010 (Washington, D. C.:
National Academy of Sciences,
In 1979 the Committee on Nuclear and Alternative Energy
Systems of the National Academy of Sciences produced a
report which concluded that it would be technically
feasible for the nation to consume the same amount of
energy in the year 2010 as was consumed in 1980. The
CONAES study predicted that, compared with 1975, by the
year 2000, the energy efficiency of electric space heating
could become 57 percent of the 1975 level, the energy
efficiency of refrigerators could be 58 percent of 1975,
and the energy efficiency of air conditioning could be 66
percent of 1975.

U. S. Dept. of Energy, Asst. Secretary for Policy and Evalua-
tion. L Energy Futures for the United States. (Oak Ridge,
Low
TN: U. S. DOE Technical Information Center, June, 1980).:

VIII-18

Siting Handbook Chapter 8, Part B Draft 2

B. GENERATING ALTERNATIVES

Each Power Plant Site Application (PPSA) submitted in Florida
in recent years has included a section which examines
11alternatives" to the proposed plant. in general, the altern-
atives which have received serious attention are generating
options, such as nuclear power, conversion of oil-fired
boilers to coal and natural gas. This section reviews the way
alternatives have been treated in several typical PPSAs and
provides a brief review of the costs and implications of
alterantives to construction of new coal-fired power plants.

1. Alternatives in Recent PPSAs

the way in which "alterantives" have been considered in site
.certification applications can be seen in two case studies:
(1) the application of the Orlando Utilities Commission for
the Stanton 1 plant; and (2) the application of JEA and FPL
for the St. Johns River Power Park.

a. OUC_ Stanton 1 ARplication -- In the Need for Power
application of the Orlando Utilities Commission for the
Stanton 1 plant filed in.May of 1981, the utility included a
section which briefly mentioned 18 alternatives. Seven of
these were generation alternatives, including nuclear power
and purchased power; eleven were renewable energy alterna-
tives, such as wind energy, ocean thermal energy, cogenera-
tion, solar energy and hydro power.

VIII-19

Siting Handbook Chapter 8, Part B Draft 2

The OUC application dismissed in turn each of the "high
technology" alternatives--such as satellite solar, ocean
thermal energy and photovoltaics--stating that the commercial
operation date of each would be far in the future. No attempt
was made in the application to assemble a package of currently
available conservation and renewable resource technologies to
offset the need for all or part of the proposed plant.

b. JEA/FPL St. Johns River Power Park--The Environmental
Impact Statement prepared for the JEA/FPL St. Johns River
Power Park included four "alternatives:"

Alternative 1 -- Use of refuse as a power source,
residential solar energy, conversion of two existing
JEA oil-fired units to coal, and purchase of some power
from Georgia.

Alternative 2 -- Conversion of two FPL oil-fired units
to coal, and purchase of additional power from Georgia.

Alternative 3 -- Conversion of two FPL oil-fired units
to coal, purchase of power from Georgia., and
construction of a much smaller (280 MW) coal-fired
plant at the SJRPP site.

Alternative 4 -- Conversion of two FPL and two JEA oil-
fired units to coal, and purchase of additional power
from Georgia.

Thus, these four alternatives were almost exclusively devoted
to production alternatives: conversion of oil-fired units to
coal, importation of nuclear power from Georgia, and produc-
tion of power from municipal urban wastes. Little attention in
the SJRPP EIS was given to solar energy, and none to end-use
conservation. As seen in Table VIII-6, the federal Environ-
mental Protection Agency concluded that construction of two
new coal-fired units would be less costly than these four
alternatives.

VIII-20

Siting Handbook Chapter 8, Part B Draft 2

Table VIII-6: Projected Cost in Terms of Dollars per Barrel
off Oil Burned or Displaced by Alternative Technologies.
Source: JEA/FPL SJRPP EIS (1981).

8 gar Ibl. of Oil Saved or Cons=ed
JEA FPL
LTStem 3 , M L a I t
So action 40.67 32.95 23-13 44-39 '@2.67 =81
.i
Iroposed action (SJM) 20.74 17.83 14.13 .26.95 Z3.80 19.81

VaStle (without tTansmissiou costs
or turaria purchase of powev) 15.19 29.08

Coal conversion:
=
Saa rd without scrubber 19.27

rd with. 3c=bber 45
S

Northside without 3crubber 23.11 -

Narthside Vith. scz-4bber 24.34

Coal-oil mixture (Narthside) 17.62

Small coal plant 22.37

Solar damstic hat Water 37.91 62.23

Refuse-fired generation 21.77 37-21

107- R a high oil and coal prices
ki 2 medium oil and coal prices
L = low oil and coal prices

VIII-21

SSifiggMad8bohk C8hppeEr8$,PRzttBB Dbafft22

2. Comparison of Generat.in& Alternatives

In reviewing a PPSA, planners should carefully consider the
possibility that the need for all or some of the proposed
capacity construction could be offset by some other generating
alternative. For each of the alternatives, the planner should
examine the projected cost in terms of dollars per kilowatt of
capital cost and cents per kWh of power produced compared with
coal. In 1983, the Florida Electric Coordinating Group
projected that the cost of a 600-MW coal-fired powerplant
going on-line in 1987 would be $1740/kW (see Chapter 1).

Alter-natives to be evaluated should include:

--importation of power generated elsewhere
--use of cogenerated power
--conversion of certain oil-fired plants to coal
--combustion of municipal urban waste for power production
--combustion of wood as a fuel
--use of nuclear power
--use of coal-oil mixture in an oil-fired plant
--use of coal-water mixture in an oil-fired plant
--increased use of natural gas
--peat as a fuel

Several of these options are discussed briefly below. For
information on conversion of oil-fired units to coal, see
Chapter 1; for information on the importation of electricity
from other states, see Chapter 10.

a. Nuclear Power--Florida currently has five nuclear power
plants and nuclear power provides aobut 10 percent of all
power produced in the state. Ass seen in Fig. VIII-3,four of
these plants, owned by Florida Power and Light, are located in
South Florida; one nuclear plant, owned by Florida Power
Corp., is located at the Crystal River plant 100 miles north
of St. Petersburg. Five orders for nuclear plants in Florida
have been canceled, and there is no indication in the current
Ten-Year Plan of the Florida electric utility industry that
nu@_lear power is being seriously considered as an option.

In addition to questions of the safety and environmental
impacts of nuclear power, the cost of nuclear power has been a
major consideration: It is estimated that a nuclear plant

VIII-22

Siting Handbook Chapter 8, Part B Draft 2

contracted for in 1984 would cost about $3,000 per kilowatt
(kW), about 73 percent higher-than the cost of a new coal-
fired plant as projected by the FCG. The latest nuclear unit
'to go on-line in Florida, FPL's St. Lucie 2, was completed for
$1.4 billion, four times its original estimate of $360

b. Peat Fuel--Peat, a substance similar in nature to "young
coal," is used as a fuel for power plants in Canada, Ireland
and the Soviet Union. Florida has some of the largest peat
deposits in-the----n-a-tibA-!__ as shown in Fig. VIII-4, Florida's
peat deposits are found both in North Central Florida and in
South Florida, near Lake Okeechobee (See Fig. VIII-4).

Seminole Electric Coop. has discussed the construction of
three peat-fired powerplants of 100 (net) MW each, and the
1982 Ten-Year Plan of-the FCG forecast that by 1992 Florida
would have three 300 of MW peat-fired capacity in operation,
generating 1843 GWH annually, equivalent to about 1.3 percent
of. all power produced in the state. These plants are not
currently being listed in the utility's Ten-Year Plan, but
because of the extensive peat deposits in Florida, there is a
real possibillity that peat may be considered in future years.

c. Combustion of Wastes for Power Production--A recent study
indicated that Florida could econmically obtain up to about
tenpercent of its electric power needs from the combustion of
refuse.As shown in Fig. VIII-5, approximately 17 communities
in Florida that are burning refuse to produce electricity or
are considering its feasibility. The nation's largest refuse-
to-energy plant is located in Dade County; a large plant i-s
located in Pinellas County, and another one is planned for
Hillsborough County.

d. Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion--As an experimental
technology, OTEC will see only limited application this
century. However, there are plans to request federal
assistance for projects throughout the nation, including
Florida, and the Governor's Energy Office has forecast that by
the turn of the century OTEC may account for about 70 MW of
capacity off the shores of Florida.

VIII-23

Siting Handbook Chapter 8, Part B Draft 2

e. Hydropower--Florida, as one of the flattest states in the
nation, is obviously not a prime candidate for hydroelectric
power production. However, several studies conducted for the
U. S. Department of Energy and coordinated by the Governor's
Energy Office have indicated some potential for "low-head"
hydro in Florida. The GEO has forecast that hydropower will
rise slightly during this century with the addition of two or
three small hydro facilities.

f. Gulf Stream Current--It has been estimated that the energy
available in the Gulf Stream is equivalent to 25 1000-MW
power plants. Howver, harnessing this energy source for
commerical power is still experimental. To produce 2000 MW
would require about 50 turbines, each 550 feet in diameter.

VIII-24

Siting Handbook Chapter 8, Part B Draft 2

Fig. VIII-3..-I, Nnclear Power Plants in Florida.

NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS
IN FLORIDA

MOAN"

WON 1000MCM
DUIML

W*XU"
MW%M
CILM
Pismo

ONE PUMM

VGLUM
Cr9stal Rivet 3 LAM

PROM
PMK 08CRIMA

pan"

VIA11001 St. Lucie 1.
Total 'Capacitg QNSM
*ARM

us PMA MMACM

COLL"
SAMM UX"

TAWMIN Gulf
MOMMS 04M

U00" urkeg Point 3,4

VIII-25

Siting Handbook Chapter 8, Part B Draft 2

Fig. VIII-4: Peat Deposits in.Florida.

MAJOR PEAT DEPOSITS IN FLORIDA

UNLWMR UNNA ke

vaum

cnwn

SBWWU
110y"Aw on"=

Room
POLK

%mum onsidered bg
A Up= Seminole
110

cp*Av,wM GLAM

MA Mau= JACK@
SAM.
no" Lao"

rM W=
. .. .... ....
MONOM

LUMOMM"

GUW FRAINUI

VIII-26

Siting Handbook Chapter 8, Part B Draft 2

Fig. VIII-5: The Location of Resource Recovery Facilities
Producing Electric Power in Florida.

MAN"

MAL

CM-
UN".

Furdom Mp ALAIMOM

Fla. Crushed Stone Co
125 Cn"M L"a
$Emma" alt Disneg World
McIntosh 3
36
finellos. Co. RRF
so

Hillsbo(ough Co. RRF

Sarasota-Manatee Co. RR
ajft%jgaM QLA@ Palm Beach
Hamm
U.S. SWacf Corporation us Co. RRF

CM- "cum COLLM
Spam LOOM JACCOM

MUM GO=
&W Dade Co. RRF
KV S*fmaoLS WNW" 77

ON-LINE 5/1/83
PLANNED/pRoPoSa

40TE:.ONLY COGENE RATION PROJECTS CONNECTED TO THE
FLORIDA ELECTRIC POWER GRID ARE INCLUDED

VIII-27

Siting Handbook Chapter 8, Part B Draft 2

3. Bibliography

GENERATION ALTERNATIVES: GENERAL

Governor's Energy Office. Forecasts of Energy Consumption in
Florida: '1980 - 2000. (Tallahassee, FL: Governor's Energy
Office, Sept., 1981).

WOOD AS A FUEL
Nor'west-Pacific Corp. Feasibility study for a Forest-Residue
Fuel Electric Generating Plant. (Palo Alto, (@A-: EPRI, May,
1981).

NUCLEAR POWER

Komanoff, Charles.

IMPORTATION OF POWER

PEAT AS A FUEL

U. S. Dept. of Energy. Peat Prospectus. (Washington, D. C.: U.'
S. DOE, Div. of fossil Fuel Processing, July, 1979).

Institute for Gas Technology. Management of Peat as an Energy
Resource. Executive Conference Proceedings, July 22-24, 1979.
(Chicago, IL: Institute for Gas Technology, n. d.).

HYDROELECTRIC POWER

VIII-28

Siting Handbook Chapter 8, Part B Draft 2

RESOURCE RECOVERY

Florida Resource Recovery Council. What Happening in Resource
Recovery in Florida? (Tallahassee: RRC, 1977).

Florida Dept. of Environmental Regulation. Resource Recovery
Activity Report. (Tallahassee, FL: DER, Resource Recovery
Program Office, 1983).

Metropolitan Dade County. Application for Certification for
Proposed Electric Generating Plant Site. (Miami, FL: Metro
Dade County, July, 1977).

Florida Dept. of Environmental Regulation. Resource Recovery
Activity Report. (Tallahassee, FL: DER, Jan., 1983).

Wood, Christopher. Florida Resources Recovery Facility.
(Manchester, Eng.: Univ. of Manc'hester, Feb., 1983).

OCEAN THERMAL ENERGY CONVERSION

U. S. Dept. of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration. Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion. Final
Environmental Impact Statement. (Washington, D. C.: NOAA
Office of Minerals and Energy, July, 1981).

Mangarella, Peter. An Assessment of the Ocean Thermal Energy
Potential of the Florf-da Current.. (Washington, D. C.: National
Science To-und-@-tion, June,-1975). NSF/RA/N-75/302.

Bathen, Karl. An Evaluation of Oceanographic and Socio-
Economic. Aspects of a 'Nearshore Ocean Thermal Energy
Conversion Pilot Plant in Subtropical Hawaiin Waters.
(Washington, D. C.: National Science Foundation, April, 1975).
NTIS Nr. PB80-127145.

Craig, H. L. et al. Source book of Oceanographic Properties
Affecting Biofouling and Corrosion of OTEC Plants at Selected
Sites. (Washignton, D. C. U. S. Dept. of t-nergy, Oct.,
1978). NTIS Nr. BNL-2483.

VIII-29

Siting Handbook Chapter 8, Part B Draft 2

GULF STREAM POWER

Seluk, Daniel et al. Hot Water Hydraulics of the Gulf Stream
Sited OTGM. (Washington, D. C.: National Science Foundation,
RANN,,March, 1975). NSF/RA/N-75-027

Smith, Walton and Charlier, Roger. "Turbines in the Ocean,11
Sea Frontiers., Vol. 27, No. 5, (Sept-Oct, 1981).

COGENERATION
Bishop, Patricia et al. The Potential for Cogeneration in
Florida.,(Orlando, FL: University of Centr@_lFlorida, 1980).

VIII-30

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
PART III
I TRANSMISSION LINE SITING
I
I
I
I .
I
I
I
I

I
I

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I CHAPTER 9
1
1 TRANSMISSION LINE SITING IN FLORIDA
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

I
I

Siting Handbook Chapter 9, Part A Draft 2

CHAPTER 9

TRANSMISSION LINE SITING IN FLORIDA

Transmission line siting in Florida is governed primarily by
the Transmission Line Siting Act; the provisions of this act
are summarized in Part A of this chapter. This act provides
for an eight-step procedure leading to certification of
proposed lines by the Governor and Cabinet, as explained in
Part B. Part C of this chapter reviews the responsibilities
of state- and local-government agencies under the act.*

A. THE TRANSMISSION LINE SITING ACT

1. LeSislative History

The Transmission Line Siting Act (TLSA) of 1980 is found in
sections 403.521 - 403.536, Florida Statutes. The act, as
amended in 1983, is included as Attachment III.

*Many of the provisions of the transmission line siting process
are similar to those of the power plant siting process
detailed in Chapter 2. This chapter has been designed to
stand alone; for this reason, some of the material contained
in Chapter 2 is repeated in this section.

IX-1

Siting Handbook Chapter 9, Part A Draft 2

From 1973 until the time the TLSA act went into effect in
1980, electrical transmission lines were sited under the
"Developments of Regional Impact" (DRI) process, ch. 380, F.S.
Eleven transmission lines, all but one of which.was 230-240
kilovolts (kV), were certified through the DRI process.

Under the DRI process, the utility submitted an application
for review by each local government through whose jurisdiction
the line would pass. DRI reviews were frequently lengthy and
time-consuming, and the process was not well suited for long
lines passing through many counties. Because of these prob-
lems, the utilities pressed for an alternative state review
process.

After considering various transmission line siting bills for
several years, in 1980 the Legislature enacted the Transmission
Line Siting Act (TLSA). Similar in nature to the Power Plant
Siting Act, the new law directed the Public Service Commission
to determine the need,for the proposed line, and the Depart-
ment of Environmental Regulation was given the authority to
coordinate state review of the proposed line's social and
environmental impacts. As im-the PPSA, the Governor and
Cabinet, sitting as the Siting Board, was given the power to
award or deny the site certification. In 1983, the act was
substantially amended.

IX-2

Siting Handbook Chapter 9, Part A Draft 2

2. frovisions of the Transmission Line Siting Act

This section briefly summarizes the provisions of the TLSA.
Planners involved in a transmission line siting case are urged
to consult the three in-depth analyses of the act and its
application described in the Annotated Bibliography, Section 3
below.

Under the original wording of the Transmi'ssion Line Siting Act
(TLSA) a proposed.transmission line would be be subject to
certification if it met the same criteria as those used in the
DRI process: the proposed line would have to carry 230
kilovolts (kV) or more, and would have to cross a county line.
In 1983 a third criterion for certification was added: the
proposed line would have to be longer than 15 miles in length.

The certific. ate required by the TLSA constitutes the sole
license of the state or local agencies for the location,
construction, and maintenance of the project. This means that
the TLSA preempts any other approval or permit. The certifi-
cation is valid for the life of the transmission line,
provided that construction or acquisition of the right-of-way
(ROW) is begun within five.years of certification.

Under the provisions of the Transmission Line Siting Act, the
state certifies a transmission line "corridor" up to one mile
in width, rather than the actual route of the line itself.
While the corridor may be the same size as the line's ROW,
generally it is much wider. Once the utility purchases rights
to a relatively narrow right-of-way and begins to construct
the line, the corridor in essence disappears.

An example of a proposed corridor is shown in Fig. IX-1. In
this case, Florida Power and Light proposed a corridor one
mile wide for its "Duval-to-Poinsett" twin 500-kV lines. The
ROW as actually constructed was 300 ft. wide.*

Originally, the utility was the only body which could propose
a corridor for certification. However, the concept of "alter-
nate corridors" proposed by other parties to the certification
proceedings came.into being and was formally amended into the

IX-3

Siting Handbook Chapter 9, Part A Draft 2

act in 1983. Under the amendment, persons who prefer a route
other than the one proposed by the utility may have their
proposed alternativeroute or routes considered for certifica-
tion. Fig. IX-2 shows several alternative corridors proposed
by Volusia County in the Duval-to-Poinsett case.

The certification does not give the utility a right to
construct any other certifiable lines or features other than
those specified in the certificate and licensed by the Siting
Board (the Governor and Cabinet). The utility may build
additional lines in the ROW if no certification is required
for the new lines; if the new lines meet the.threshold of the
Transmission Line Siting Act, a new application mus,t be filed.
If the utility merely desires to widen the right-of-way, this
would be considered a "modification of certification" and
permission to do so would have to be obtained.

Substations or switchyards connecting the proposed transmis-
sion line to the state's electric grid are not covered by
certification, and are still subject to local control. Pro-
posed substations at locations along the route may be con-
sidered in a certification review if their placement influen-
ces the location of the corridor.

For this reason, the state does not have specific oversight
over the construction of substations. However, the TLSA
directs the Public Service Commission to state the "approp-
riate starting and ending point" of a line in its Determina-
tion of Need order. The PSC statement does not pinpoint a
precise location for substations, but does indicate the
general connection of the proposed line into the state
electrical grid.

*Usually, transmission line cases are referred to by the names
of the two substations at either end of the proposed line.
Thus the "Duval-to-Poinsett" case involved two 500-kV lines
running between a substation in Duval County, known as the
Duval substation, to the Poinsett substation, on Lake Poin-
sett, just west of Cocoa Beach.

IX-4

Siting Handbook Chapter 9, Part A Draft 2

Fig. IX-1. Preferred Transmission Corridor of the Duval-to-
Poinsett Twin 500-kV Lines Proposed by Florida Power and Light
Co. for an Area Due South of Palatka.

7
iv
24
23

Oft
ST

------- --- P V--

777--r

Referred Gorrider Features, 2-17

--I FrIaltild AMO
prols C41ridw EM loark. now golla-% am r
Nalwai Resource Areas 6-6
='v IC-1 no* arid EXIM9 Devolovirmant
lai. - C-1.. "Walla
Pattitit-I AF04100160" IndantiarZ Alroarl. and MMMV
W4 Historic sit" 69"llons installations
UrAqW A"O.RWINA L&M Duval-Poinsoft
Soo kv
Transmission Cor"dar

IX-5

Siting Handbook Chapter 9, Part A Draft 2

Fig. IX-2 Alternative Transmission Line Corridors Proposed by
Volusia County in the Duval-to-Poinsett Twin 500-kV Transmis-
sion Line Certification Hearings.

2
s
Zi

1 3

.1 A
_4*

c,
2 -:7 0 - _. -
4 -4

1.% EA

4 Option a t-

FPL Proterred Conrld
Atternad Car idar
iF

IX-6

Siting Handbook Chapter 9, Part A Draft 2

As seen in Table IX-1, from 1981,through 1.983, four applica-
tions for certification under the TLSA were received by DER.
Documents relating to the appl.ications--inclu.d-ing the Certifi-
cation Review*coordinated by DER, th'e Recommended Order issued
by DOAH and the Determination of Need order of the PSC--are
listed in the Annotated Bibliography, Section 3 below. Con-
sulting these documents could be helpful to planners reviewing
a proposed certification application.

3. Other Applicable Acts

While the principal law regulating'the siting of transmission
lines in Florida is the Transmission Line Siting Act, there
are a number of other statutes which may affect the siting
process. Potentially applicable federal and state statutes
are listed in Chapter 2, Part D, Power Plant Siting Regula-
tions.

IX-7

Table IX-1. Transmission Line Certification Applications Received by the Dept. of
Environmental Regulation under the Transmission Line Siting Act, 1981 - 1983. (Source: DER).

STATUS
TRANSMISSION LINE SITING APPLICATIONS

Application Name and Size Counties Crossed Utility Application (psC) Need Environmental Certification
Number Received Determined Hearing Date

TABI-01 Hopkins - Leon, Gadsden City@of 04/02/81 03/31/81 07/31/81 08/04/81
Bainbridge Tallahassee
230 KV

TA81-02 Central Fla. - Sumter, Polk Florida 06/29/81 07/21/81 12/10-11/81 07/26/82
Kathleen Power Modified
500 KV Corporation 09/21/81

TABI-03 Duval 06/29/01 01/11-27/82 10/08/82 partial I
Duval, (flay Florida Power 08/05/81 00
Poinsett Plagler, Putnam, & Light 11/18/82 final >4
2 500 We Seminole, orange, Company
I Volusia
TA83-04 Midway-Jensen- St. Lucie, Martin Florida Power 01/10/83 12/28/82 05/23/83 01/17/84
Crane & Light
230 KV Company

EXPECTED APPLICATIONS

?TA84-05 Kathleen- Polk, Pasco, Florida July or
Lake Tarpon Hillsborough, Power August '84
500 KV Sumter. Pinellas Corporation

Siting Handbook Chapter 9, Part A Draft 2

Annotated Bibliography

TRANSMISSION-LINE SITING IN FLORIDA
Hopping, Wade- and Raepple, Carolyn. "A Solution to the
Regulatory Maze: The Transmissi-on Line Siting Act." FSU Law
Review, Vol 8 (1980), pp. 441-461.

Wade Hopping and Carolyn Raepple are Florida attorneys who
have represented electric utilities in numerous legal
proceedings. This article reflects the desire of the
utilities to remove the siting of transmission lines from
the DRI process and summarizes the provisions of the
legislation which was eventually was enacted.

Florida House of-Representatives. Transmission Line Siting in
Florida: An Evaluation of Ch.@80-65, Laws of Florida (Talla-
hassee, FL: Florida House of Representatives, Committee on
Energy, Oct., 1982).

Before the amendments of 1983 were adopted, the Committee
on Energy conducted a lengthy analysis of the TLSA. This
report summarizes summarizes the conclusions of that study.

Minerva, Dana. Transmission Line Siting: Toward a Mor e
Rationale Decision-Making Process. (Tallahassee, FL: Florida
State Univ., Dept. of Urban and Regional Planning, Master's
Thesis, May, 1982).

IX-9

Siting Handbook Chapter 9, Part A Draft 2

TRANSMISSION LINE SITING: GENERAL

Moran, Mary. "Transmission Line Siting: Local Concerns Versus
State Energy Interests" Urban Law Annual (Vol. 19, 1980), pp.
183 - 201.

This is a good analysis of the basic problem in transmission
line siting: local interests may be intense, but since lines
span numerous jurisdictions, the state must intervene to
settle conflicts between jurisdictions.

TRANSMISSION LINE SITING CERTIFICATION REVIEWS

NOTE: These documents normally include the compiled agency
review, the Recommended Order of the hearing.officer, the
Conditions of Certification of the Siting Boar'd and the
Determination of Need Order of the Public Service Commission.

Florida Dept. of Environmental Regulation, Power Plant Siting
Section: Electric Transmission Line Corridor Certification
Review for FPL's Duval to Poinsett Double 5U-OkV Til-rcuit, Case
No. TA-81-03. (Tallahassee, FL: DER, October, 1981).

Florida Dept. of Environmental Regulation, Power Plant Siting
Section. Electric Transmission Line Corridor Ce-rtific.
Review for the Florida Power Co@Ts Central Florida-to@
Kathleen 500 ]@-VCircuit, Case No. TA 81-02. (Tall.: DER. Nov.,
1981).

Florida Dept. of Environmental Regulation, Power Plant Siting
Section. Electric Transmission Line Corridor Certification
Review for the City of Tallahassee-Hopkins-to-Bainbridge
Intertie, Case No. TA.81-01. (Tallahassee, FL DER, June,
1981). 76 pp-

IX-10

Siting Handbook Chapter 9, Part A Draft 2

TYPICAL RECOMMENDED ORDERS OF THE
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Fla. Div. of Admin. Hearings. In re: Florida.Power and Light
Co. Duval-Poinsett Transmission CorridorL Case No. 81-1938.
(Tallahassee, FL: Div. of Administrative Hearings, August,
1982). 27 pp. Includes Final Order of the Governor and Cabinet
of October 8, 1982, and Conditions of Certification.

Fla. Div. of Admin. Hearings. ' In re: City of Tallahassee
Transmission Line Corridor Certification Application.Case 81-
1022: FindLn&E: of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Recommended
Order. (Tallahassee, FL: DOAR, July 23, 1981). Attached are
the Final Order of the Governor and Cabinet of Aug 17, 1981
and the DER Conditions of Certification.

TRANSMISSION LINE CERTIFICATION APPLICATIONS

Florida Power Corp. Application for Certification of a
7
Proposed Electrical Transmission Line Corridor: Centraf
Florida -- Kathleen 500 kV Tra'nsmission Project. (St.
Petersburg, FL: Florida T`owe-rCo'r--p., June, 1981).

Florida Power and Light Co. Application for Development
Approval Lake Poinsett-Martin-Midway 500 kV Transmission Lines
and Modifications to Existing 240 kV System. (Miami, FL:
7-1ori Power and Light, n.d.).

IX-11

Siting Handbook Chapter 9, Part B Draft 2

B. THE TRANSMISSION LINE SITING PROCEDURE

The Transmission Line Siting Act, and the rules which have
been issued to implement the act, establish an e1ght-step
procedure for certifying proposed transmission lines:

1. Pre-application Discussions
2. The PSC Determination of Need Order
3. DER Review for Sufficiency and Completeness
4. Certification Review and Studies
5. The Certification Hearing
6. The Recommended Order of DOAH
7. The Order of the Governor and Cabinet
8. Post-Certification Review by DER

As can be seen, in many ways the TLSA certification process is
similar to the process of the Power Plant Siting Act process
described in Chapter 2, although there are certain differen-
ces, which will be noted. Each of the step-s is described
below, with attention given to the points in the process when
local government planners are likely to become involved.

As shown in Fig. IX-3, the TLSA and the regulations that
implement it prescribe a seven-month "time clock" for proces-
sing an application. These regulations are found in Chapter
17-17, Florida Admini.strative Code. (Attachment IV). The times
for action given below can be changed by the hearing officer,
and will be somewhat different if an alternate route is
considered.

IX-12

Siting Handbook Chapter 9, Part B Draft 2

Fig. IX-2- The Transmission Line Siting Process in Flori-
da.

CLOCX STEPSANO ACTIO NS

MLI SUMITS UTILITY SEW pSC
DAY a APnI ON TO CERTIFICATION of
D NZM FOR LINE

N ED NOT NEEDED

rjtwm STOP9
DER DEYERMINES
;UMCIQ= AND
DAY 1-7 umnrmEss
OF APPLICATION

INCOWLZTZ

DAY 1-14 UTILITY UT T
CON79STS InT9,14y
DETMINATION APPLICA ON

PROCESS STOM

HEARING
OFFICER
KAM
< DrrEMRATION 1, e'."Of-
COMPLET

rPRocisr, sTops
v/ DER DISTRIBUTES
DAY 1-7 APPLICATION TO
STATUTORY PARTIES

STATUTORY PARTIES 5 T
DAY 7-90 REPORTS TO DER;
ORDER INCLUDED
COWILl

NMI
Cz OF BZAIING
F
19HED AT LEAS
M
60 DAYS PRIOR To
HEARING

TO
HEARING
%7@

czaTinCATION
DAY 90-120 NZARING

ISSUED By staING
VAT 120-150
VAT IWI&O GOVERNOR AND CAAIMlYTFT.ITT.N:GTj
AS SITING BOARD ACCE
FOR MODIFY RMCCMUND2
UT"L'
ER
@N.Zb FO
'ED

ESE MS

IX-13

Siting Handbook Chapter 9, Part B Draft 2

1. Preapplication Discussions

Pre-application discussions begin as much as one year before
an application is submitted. During this time the utility may
elect to file a "Plan of Study" with DER detailing the kinds
of information it will submit with the application; the plan
will vary from project to project, depending on the scale and
location of the transmission line. Normally, the utility meets
with officials of DER and other agencies to discuss the size
and location of the project, as well as the methodology to be
used in selecting the proposed corridor route.

2. PSC Determination of Need Proceedings

Under the Transmission Line Siting Act, the Public Service
Commission must issue a "Determination of Need" order before a
proposed transmission line can be approved. The PSC Determina-
tion of Need process may be conducted either before or after
DER receives the certification application, but the PSC's
"Determination of Need" order must be approved before the
proposed line is considered by the Governor and Cabinet.

Frequently the public assumes that the key decision points in
the certification process are either the review coordinated by
DER or the certification hearing before the Governor and
Cabinet. In actual practice, however, this has not been the
case; the key decision point has been the Determination of
Need order of the PSC. Whereas the review by DER focuses on
environmental impacts and how they can be mitigated, the PSC
Determination of Need order has, in practice, become the point
in the process in which the state either approves or disap-
proves the proposed project.

Local government officials sometimes have not become involved
in siting issues until after the PSC Need Determination order
has been given; they have apparently not realized the impor-
tance of the PSC Need Determination. As a result, when they
entered the siting process, the basic question of whether or
not a transmission line would be constructed had essentially
already been determined.

IX-14

Siting Handbook Chapter 9, Part B Draft 2

A "party" i.s a person or organization that has been recognized
as formally taking part in the proceedings. To be granted the
status of a "party," persons must prove they are substantially
affected. Parties are usually, represented by an attorney;
however, they can represent themselves if they have sufficient
knowledge of administrative procedure.

Under the TLSA, local governments through whose jurisdiction
the proposed line is to pass are automatically parties to the
Siting case, unless they waive this right. (See sect. 403.527
of the TLSA, Attachment III.) However, because of the impor-
tance of the PSC Determination of Need order, local officials
who anticipate becoming involved in a siting question may wish
to contact the PSC concerning the Determination of Need pro-
ceeding, and .-,* I to actively take part. Becoming a party
ensures that local planners will receive all documents con-
cerning the case, A copy of a form requesting the status of a
legal "party" is included as Fig. IX-4.

3. Initial DER Review

Within seven days after a transmission line certification
application is received, DER requests the Division of Adminis-
trative Hearings (DOAH) of the Florida Department of Adminis-
tration to assign a "hearing officer" to preside over hearings
or disputes in the case. A hearing officer is an impartial
mediator who presides over all legal. proceedings connected
with certification of the proposed line (other than the PSC's
Need Determination hearing and the hearing before the Governor
and Cabinet sitting as the "Siting Board"). The TLSA speci-
fies that the assigned hearing officer should, to the extent
possible, have prior experience or training in this type of
certification proceeding.

DER distributes copies of the utility's application to other
state agencies, the hearing officer, local governments,
libraries near the proposed transmission line, and parties in
the proceedings.

Within twenty working days after receiving an application (or
amendment) DER makes a determination regarding the t1suffic-
iency" and "completeness" of the application. If DER's
judgment regarding "sufficiency" or "completeness" is contes-
ted by the applicant, the hearing officer rules on the issue.

IX-15

Siting Handbook Chapter 9, Part B Draft 2

Fig. IX-4: Sample Form Requesting the Legal Status of a
."Party" to a Siting Case.

BEFORE THE STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

In Re: FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT
COmPANY - Duval to poinsett
Transmission Line Corridor,

Petitioner,

Vs.
Case No. 81-1938

STATE or FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT
OF EVIRONMENTAL REGULATION,
Et AL.,

Respondents.
AUG 24 1981

BUREAU OF LAND
& WATER MANAGEMENTF
NOTICE 0F INTENT TO BE A PARTY AND
NOTICE OF APPEARANCE

THE STATE or FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT oF ENVIRONMENTAL

REGULATION hereby fileD notice of its intent to be a party

in this proceeding and the undersigned counsel enters his
appearance an behalf of the Department.
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the original and one true copy

of the foregoing has been furnished by u.s. mail to the

Division of Administrative Hearings. The Oakland Building,

2009 Apalachee Parkway, Tallahassee, Florida 32301 and a

true COPY Of the SAMe to the persons Listed below on this
21st day of August 1981:

CARLOS ALVAREZ, ESQ. KEN GILLELAND, ESQ.
Hopping, Boyd, Green & Same, P.A. Game and Freshwater Fish
Post Office Box 6526 Commission
Tallahassee. Florida 32301 Bryant Building
Tallahassee, Florida 32301
JOHN WILLIAMS, ESQ.
Department of Natural Resources PAUL SEXTON, ESQ.
3300 Commonwealth Boulevard Public Service Commission
Tallahassee, Florida 32304 101 East Gaines Street
Tallahassee, Florida 32301
LAURENCE KEESEY, ESQ.
Department of Veterans and ROBERT CHASTAIN, ESQ.
community Affairs Department of Agriculture
Room 530, Carlton Building and Consumer Services
Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mayo Building
Tallahassee. Florida 32301

Louis F. Hubener
Assistant General Counsel
2600 Blair Stone Road
TAllahassee, Florida 32301
Telephones (904) 488-9730

IX-16

Siting Handbook Chapter 9, Part B Draft 2

4. Certification Studies

After the application is.received, DER coordinates the prepar-
ation of a report called the "Certification Review" which
examines a number of key issues. See the.Bibliography, Sec*tio-'n
3 of Part A of this chapter, for examples of certification
studies. Among the impacts studied are the following:

Transportation--The study examines the plans of the
utility to cross navigable waterways,- highways, and rail-
roads, as well as the impact the proposed line is expected
to have on nearby airports. The Utility Guide published by
the Florida Department of Transportation governs the
crossing of highways.

Surrounding Land Uses--Using analyses prepared by the
Department of Community Affairs and local governments, the
report summarizes local zoning and land use ordinances,
and identifies any conflicts between the plan of the
utility and the local regulations.

Public Lands--The Department of Natural Resources analyzes
the li7e--r's-potential impact on state lands such as state
parks and state forests.

Draina&e and Wetlands--Both DER and Water Management Dis-
tricts analyze the impact of the proposed project on
drainage and wetlands. However, since the certification
,application is for a broad corridor, comments often must
be limited to generalities; site-specific analyses must
await the "post-certification review" mandated by the
conditions of certification.

Plants and Animals--Based on comments of the Florida Game
and Fresh Water Fish Commission, the certification review
gives considerable attention to expected impacts on
protected plants and animals such as the eagle and the red
cockaded woodpecker. While the utility is encouraged to
avoid harming "threatened or endangered" plant species,
current law does not require land owners to preserve the
species or their habitat. Note that even if the utility
has obtained only an easement to construct the line, and
does does not actually hold title to the land, it is
presumed to have these "ownership" privileges.

IX-17

Siting Handbook Chapter 9, Part B Draft 2

Archeological Sites and Historic Preservation Areas--The
Division of Archives, History and Records Management of
the Department of State examines the proposed corridor for
possible damage to sites of particular historical or
archeological value needing protection. Typically, DAHRM
officials review maps of the proposed corridor and then
conduct an on-site investigation of areas considered
potentially in need of preservation.

Water Quantity and Water Quality--Access roads for trans-
mission lines can restrict the flow of surface water and
therefore need to have properly sized culverts that allow
adequate flow of surface water. Both the Department of
Environmental Regulation and Water Management Districts
study this issue. Culverts can block the "sheet flow" of
surface water, so both the size and the direction of
culverts, which needs to be parallel to the direction of
sheet flow, are most important.

Construction Impacts--The Certi.fication Review examines
the construction and clearing techniques proposed by the
applicant, points out the probable impacts on the environ-
ment, and recommends construction practices that will
reduce damage. DER has, for example, recommended the use
of moveable pads under heavy equi-pment to reduce the
destruction of vegetation.

Maintenance of the Right-of-Way--Frequently, an item of
concern in the C rtification Review is the height of vege-
tation left in the ROW. Clearing vegetation can destroy
wildlife habitat, but a cleared ROW may also serve as a
firebreak. The possible adverse effects of using herbi-
cides to maintain the right-of-way are also considered.

Potential Electromagnetic Effects -- In the amendments of
1983, DER was given the authority to set standards related
to electromagnetic radiation from transmission lines
proposed for certification. In the future, DER analyses
will reflect this new requirement.

IX-18

Siting Handbook Chapter 9, Part B Draft 2

5. The Certification Hearing

No less than 150 days after receipt of a complete application,
a public hearing is held to discuss the case. Normally, the
hearing is scheduled by the hearing officer in a city near the
proposed corridor. The hearing is usually held during working
hours, although on occasion hearings continue on into the
evening. The location for the hearing is usually a county
courtroom or an auditorium. Certification hearings have taken
as little as one day and as long as twenty-two days.

Although the certification hearing is held at a central
location near the line, there have been instances in which
citizens have had to drive up to 100 miles to attend these
hearings. For this reason the Transmission Line Siting Act now
provides for a portion of the certification hearing to be held
in each county through which the proposed line passes, if
requested by a local government in that county. The hearing
officer must be requested to schedule a county hearing within
50 days after DER receives the complete application.

State regulations require the applicant utility to pay for
publishing half-page notices in a local newspaper 80 days
before the hearing to inform the public of the propose*d
transmission line. At the hearing, the utility is required to
make a formal presentation on the proposed project in a way
the public can readily understand. In addition, the expected
environmental impacts of the project, requests for variances,
the need to cross highways, and other relevant issues are
discussed.

IX-19

Siting Handbook Chapter 9, Part B Draft 2

The general public is.allowed to speak at the end of the
proceedings. Speakers are sworn in and are asked to present
new evidence or facts which have not been previously brought
up by other parties. General comments which simply voice an
objection to the project are discouraged. When a number of
persons representing the same organization, such as a labor
union or a homeowners' association, wish to make the same
statement, they are asked to select a representative to
present their views and to indicate how many persons are
represented.

Since most private citizens will not qualify as experts in a
field related to the project, testimony of the general public
is taken as simply "oral communications"-rather than expert
opinion. Thus the weight the hearing officer will give public
testimony is not as great as that afforded to an expert
witness--but it is considered. Those persons or organization
which have been formally recognized as "parties" to the
proceedings can cross-examine a speaker and later may be
allowed to challenge or rebut the information provided. For a r
good explanation of how a "quasi-judicial" proceeding such as
this is conducted, with information on how to present testi-
mony, see the article "Public Participation in Quasi-Judicial
Administrative Hearings" by Nancy Stroud, appe.aring in the
Sierra Club power plant siting handbook. (See the Bibliogra-
phy for Chapter 2.)

Local governments may hold "informational public meetings" on
a proposed power line. Such a meeting is optional, but it
must be held within 80 days after the application is filed.
(See sect. 403.5272 of the Transmission Line Siting Act in
Attachment III.)

6. Recommended Order

Following the certification hearing, the hearing officer
prepares a Recommended Order, which is then presented to the
Siting Board (i.e., the Governor and Cabinet). The Recommended
Order may recommend that (1) the utility be granted the
certification as applied for, (2) an alternate corridor be
certified, (3) the original application be modified, or (4)
the application be denied. (See the Bibliography, Section 3
of Part-A of this chapter for examples of Recommended Orders.)

IX-20

Siting Handbook Chapter 9, Part B Draft 2

The Recommended Order must be filed within 50 days following
the completion of.the transcript of the certification hearing.

7. Order of the Governor and Cabinet

In Florida, the Governor and Cabinet, sitting as the Siting
Board have the final authority to certify a transmission line.
In actual practice, however, the Siting Board usually adopts
the recommendation of the hearing officer.

The Siting Board normally imposes' "Conditions of Certifi-
cation" on the.applicant. Ty-pica.l.iy, these conditions give
the Department of Environmental Regulation the power to review
the utility's plan-s for the exact placement of towers and the
construction of roads. Also included are a series of legal
clauses relating to enforceability, severability, and the
right-of-entry for inspector-s. In addition, there.usually is a
requirement to verify that the right-of-way avoids certain
prohibited areas, such as the habitat of endangered animals.

The Conditions of.Certifica-tion may contain specific guide-
lines concerning dredge-and-fill operations, road crossings,
construction in the vicinity of endangered animal species,
protection of archaeological sites, compliance with the
National Electric Safety Code., and revegetation of road
slopes. Any variances to rules, statutes, or ordinances are
also specified in the conditions. (See the Bibliography,
Section 3 of Part A of this chapter for examples of Conditions
of Certification imposed by the Siting Board in recent years.)

8. Post-Certification Review

The Conditions of Certification authorize DER to approve or
disapprove the exact placement of the li-ne and its towers, as
wel 1 as modifications to the utility'splan that would not
cause any significant environmental 'impact, modifications
necessary to meet federal permit requirements, emergency
replacement of a line, or replacement because of catastrophes.
The utility must file a report on emergency replacements of
towers and lines.

IX-21

Siting Handbook Chapter 9, Part C Draft 2

C. AGENCY RESPONSIBILITIES

Although the Transmission Line Siting Act assigns the Depart-
ment of Environmental Regulation the lead responsibility for
reviewing certification applications, a number of other state-
and local-governments agencies are also directed by law and
regulation to participate. These include the Department of
Community Affairs (DCA), the Game and Fresh Water Fish Commis-
sion (GFC), the Department of Natural Resources (DNR), and all
affected Water Management Districts (WMDs), Regional Planning
Councils (RPCs) and local governments (counties and cities).
The role of each of these and other reviewing agencies is
detailed below.

For a directory giving the current addresses and personnel of
these agencies, see Attachment IX.

1. The Department of Environmental Regulation

As lead agency in the certification process, DER in essence
functions as staff to the Governor and Cabinet sitting as the
Siting Board. DER is responsible for coordinating the reviews
of state and local agencies, disseminating the application for
certification, scheduling hearings, and providing public no-
tices. DER compiles and summarizes the multi-agency review,
called the "Certification Review."

From the reports submitted by the state- and local-government
agencies, and from its own analyses, DER a recommendation as
to whether or not the project should be certified. DER also
makes recommendations about any variances that may be neces-
sary and drafts the Conditions of Certification.

IX-22

Siting Handbook Chapter 9, Part C Draft 2

DER investigates the impact of the project on water and air
quality, solid and chemical waste generation and dispo-sal, as
well as protection of the habitat of wildlife and the protec-
tion of other biological resources.

Once the project is certified, DER reviews the selected
location. of the right-of-way (in conjunction with the other
agencies) to verify compliance with the Conditions of Certi-
fication. In addition, a site-specific review for any planned
dredging or filling -work is made. DER field inspectors
monitor the construction and maintenance of the project, and
initiate any necessary enforcement procedures that might be
necessary.

2. The Department of Community Affairs

DCA prepares a report on the impact of the proposed transmis-
sion line project on "land use and other matters within its
jurisdiction." In practice,-DCA examines the proposed line to
determine if it is in.conformity with local.zoning ordinances
and local land use plans. DCA also considers the effect of the
project on local and regional growth and development patterns.

3. Department of Natural Resources

In its report, the Department of Natural Resources examines
the impact of the proposed transmission line project on state-
owned properties such as state parks and recreation areas.
DNR serves as staff to the Trustees of the Internal Improve-
ments Trust Fund (i.e., the Governor and Cabinet),. which has
title 'to all state-owned lands other than,highway ri.ghts-of-
way.

IX-23

Siting Handbook Chapter 9, Part C Draft 2 r

If state-owned land is to be crossed by the proposed transmis-
sion line, an easement or "fee-simple transfer" must be
arranged and approved by the Governor and Cabinet. "Fee
simple transfer" means outright purchase of the land.

After a transmission line is certified, DNR must approve any
construction activity conducted on or across state-owned
lands. Until this approval has been received from DNR, DER
cannot verify that the project is in compliance with condi-
tions of certification that may have been imposed.

4. Water Management Districts

Each Water Management District through which the proposed
transmission line passes is required to prepare a report on
the impact of the project on water resources. This report
normally focuses on the design and the construction of the
access roads. Water Management Districts direct particular
attention to the potential of the proposed roads to disrupt
the flow of surface water and examine the adequacy of culverts
and bridges of the line's access roads to pass storm waters.
Since a wide "corridor" is certified, and not the actual line
itself, a thorough analysis of the project's impact cannot be
done until a specific right-of-way has been approved. (See
Fig. IX-5 showing a the five Water Management Districts of
Florida.)

5. Game and Freshwater Fish Commission

The report of the Game and Fish Commission addresses the
impact of the proposed project on fish and wildlife resources.
The impact of the line on rare or endangered species is
considered, as is the impact on game species. (Note in Fig.
IX-1 how the proposed-line was directed around eagles nests
found in the corridor.)

IX-24

Siting Handbook Chapter 9, Part C Draft 2

Fi.g IX-5: Water Management Districts of Florida.

SANIIA
*03* WIN

64ASSAU

410"
e, 41,604! VUVAA
WAVINIA
IATI04 ova
I* CIA1

ST. JOHNS RIVER
moRT14WEST FILORWA w*Tep uAmAGUAENT
"A'MR ow^"k%4GA#6$*T AA III DISTRICT
DISTRICT ots" iC^men
SUNUMFE AM- Iqv
WAT&A too"
DISTINCT
vow"

r
"Is I

Ax *K Al sGUT% FLORIOA
SOUTFAWST FLORIDA *ATVA VAMAGIENINT
*AT*ft *AAI*AGXMFIdy OISTACCT
0337RICT
-4- L
MAIGAIIIII Mow
Is

tw*401

-ift ##AC*
tot I""$"

IX-25

Siting Handbook Chapter 9, Part C Draft 2

The intent of the GFC report is to guide the utility in
avoiding sensitive areas when selection. of the right-of-way is
made, if the corridor itself is generally found acceptable.
However, if a conflict with certain species exists-for the
entire width of the proposed corridor, GFC may recommend that
an entire area be avoided, or the corridor segment not be
certified.

6. Other State Agencies

Other state agencies that frequently comment on applications
for proposed transmission lines include: the Department of
Transportation, the Division of Archives, History and Records
Management (DAHRM) of the Department of State; and the
Division of Forestry of the Department of Agriculture and
Consumer Services.

a. Department of Transportation--For a transmission line to
cross a state highway, the utility must first receive a
permit from the Department of Transportation, which holds
title to state highway rights-of-way.

b. Division of Archives, History and Records Management---
The Division of Archives, History and Records Management of
the Department of State reviews proposed projects for their
impact on archeological and historical sites. In its review
of the utility's corridor plan, DAHRM recommends avoiding
certain known or potential sites; if an archeological find
is located during construction, DAHRM works with the utility
to investigate the site, or protect it.

C. Division of Forestry--The Division of Forestry of the
Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services only
becomes involved in the certification of transmission lines
if a State Forest is involved.

IX-26

Siting Handbook Chapter 9, Part C Draft 2

7. local Governments

Local go vernments are the first avenue of assistance for their
citizens. For this reason, the 1983 amendments to the Trans-
mission Line Siting Act required the cities and counties
through which the proposed line is to pass to prepare a report
on its impact or to adopt by resolution the report prepared by
the area's Regional Planning Council.

The local governments' reports must identify any variances
from zoning ordinances or land use plans which might be
necessary; if the local government objects to granting a
variance, this must also be mentioned. Since certification is
the only permit granted, any necessary road crossing approvals
for city or county roads must be addressed. .

To help ensure that local concern s are addressed in the
certification process, DER encourages local governments to
answer the following questions when submitting comments on a
proposed transmission line project:

- Are there any special requirements for county or city road
crossings which need to be included under certification?
Are there any other permitting activities previously
exercised over transmission lines of this scale and their
access facilities which need to be addressed?

- How does the project interact with existing and future
planning, zoning, and land use development for the area
through which the corridor will pass? Is the alignment
acceptable in comparison? Are there specific areas where
the corridor or right-of-way should not be located? Why?

- Will the corridor pass over 'any county- or city-owned
lands not identified in.the application? Will there be
any problems in granting an easement across identified or
unidentified municipal lands?

- Are there any socio-eco.nomic factors such as the-division
of neighb-orhoods, property values, or aesthetics, which
should be addressed in the certification process? What
about conflicts with local support services, such as.radio
interference with emergency vehicles or broadcast towers?

IX-27

Siting Handbook Chapter 9, Part C Draft 2

- Are there environmental or special use factors which the
county or city is particularly concerned about, such as
proximity to landfills or unregistered airplane landing
fields?

The TLSA has been amended to encourage public meetings to
inform citizens about a proposed transmission line project.
The act suggests that a public meeting be held early enough to
allow the local government to propose an alternative corridor,
if this is needed.

Local governments are required under the TLSA to prepare
preliminary reports in time for public meetings, well before
the certification hearing. This helps determine if alterna-
tive corridors are necessary, points out problems with state
agency reportst helps state agencies prepare their final
reports.

8. Regional Planning Councils

The TLSA now requires each affected Regional Planning Council
to comment on matters within its jurisdiction. The areas that
RPCs comment on include the relationship of the proposed line
to comprehensive plans in the region and conflicting issues
between and among local governments. RPCs are expected to
provide assistance to local governments in reviewing a pro-
posed transmission line. (See Fig. IX"6 for a map showing the
Regional Planning Council districts of Florida.)

9. Federal Agencies

Strictly speaking, federal agencies are not a formal part of
Florida's Transmission Line Siting Act. However, a number of
federal agencies are routinely involved in transmission line
siting in all states. Among these federal agencies are the
Army Corps of Engineers, the Fish and Wildlife Service, and
the Federal Aviation Administration:

IX-28

Siting Handbook Chapter 9, Part C Draft 2

Fig. IX-6: Regional Planning Council Districts of Florida.

SAINI& LOOM
Nos, I
a- 2 cft- am"
USENT'r TXVLOX umm
CLAY
GULF Faaeau,
CIAI ALACIRM, Jo."
Plartn" Manning 00111
01 QKmils counde's Oirectors

LM MANIGN
west Fo, Ewwnwa Sam Ploss OMAN F. Knit" VOLUMA
OkaiWM VALTAn POW Office ece 486 5
Bar @i6wwf poraftow 32593-04M
(9N) 433-1459 LAWM
c"M"
2 Apsimnee Calhow Loch Enft Pefteet
Rafthn Lio" PW Office Box 4n ORANGE
Goftoon VVIM" sko@ W424 6
Jaclawn &0 (904167"5?1 PASCO
-Wftfwn -OLX
3 mom Cohost Alachus Lata"M Chodes F. Justice
Brook" Mattson 2002 N.W 13M St.
Cokofto Suafthhoo Gaawavas a2so, \7- -
Hwl T&OW (9041376-3344 8 AIVM
Unton 011W S;C 62D.51 54
cldw-alt "am
4 w, -owo SaW Nageau A. Dar" Castle 09 3010 MONLAAM ST. LUMM
Plot Cw ftn" S" I Baypne Road
Duval St. jorm's Suft 9 .am
FI"W JaclLionhwN.M16
19041737-7311 CNA,%,wM GLAM
SiC 62o-s4w 10
.0wow
Ofts Mahon 0. Who LIZ
Surraw 1241 SW IOM S"M
LOT Ocada 326744790 9
JW4 =-=?
SIC Z75,40

6 East Canwad Brovard OWAM. Cufford Gudw
Renato LAND Saff-vie 1011 Wyn,,h, Road
Orange Sude tos DAM
vokAm WWNw Pwk 32789
(305) 645-3M
S;C 333-1101

7 cwww Fiat Desoto Okeechobee Joe" Duandl
Han" Pok pow Office Onaeor 2099
MgMands Bana. 33830
(813) SM@146
Si@ SS2-7090

8 %"a BMW MaSooitaigh pa= WIMIGM F. Ockun=
AA&I&tw pheg" 945A=:."1qvahJ
S,
J8'3) 577-5151
SiC SS&Z217
9 southan" Chahofte Wavy .0 F- ow" Departnigme of Community Affairs
plorift Co4w Lee 2121 West FM Sheel
Goose Swasaa Ft. MVWS 33901 anks of Me Secretary
1813) 334-7382 (W4) 489-WO
SiC SU-7290 may 1994
10 Tmes. Coast Wd- Raw PWm Beach Son, SIM.W
Nation St. LuC* POW Office Box 396
Stuan 33495-0398
(305) 2"13
SIC451-5150

South Florlds am-ad Mohm)e Berri ftformn
Dam 34Q Hoovaow B".
Suaq 140
HOUV@3=1
@WS) N I @2M @Oaoe@
3M) 6204M BhieaO)

IX-29

Siting Handbook Chapter 9, Part C Draft 2

a. Army Corps of Engineers--The Army Corps of Engineers (COE)
reviews the proposed line for its impacts on waters of the
United States if dredging or filling is planned for the
project. Normally the COE comments only on the site-specific
information such as the exact placement of towers and water
crossings. Because federal agencies are not bound by a state
permit, it is conceivable that the Corps could deny permitting
a portion of the project within a corridor certified by the
state.

b. Fish and Wildlife Service--The Fish and Wildlife Service
(FWS) of t'@e U. S. Department of Interior frequently comments
on the potential for impact to endangered or threatened
species and may be called in under any federal permitting
activities for a consultation pursuant to Section 7 of the
Endangered Species Act4 If a federally-listed species may be
adversely impacted by the project, this may be cause to
withhold the federal permit. The comments of Florida's Game
and Fish Commission are used in the analysis conducted by FWS.

C. Federal Aviation Administration--Comments are solicited
from the Federal Avi on Administration of the U. S.
Department of Transportation whenever a proposed line is
located neat an airport.

d. Federally-Owned Lands--If the project will cross federally
owned lands such as a National Park or a National Forest, the
utility must make ownership arrangements or obtain easements.
If the land management agency objects, this may force the
utility to reroute the corridor. Normally, however, the
utility makes these arrangements before an application is
submitted.

IX-30

I
I I
I
I
I p
I
I

CHAPTER 10

f
I
IMPACTS OF TRANSMISSION LINES
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

Siting Handbook Chapter 10, Part A Draft 2

CHAPTER 10

IMPACTS OF TRANSMISSION LINES

The impacts of transmission lines can be classified in two
major categories: (1) operational impacts, such as electro-
magnetic radiation, noise, and ozone production; and (2)
construction and land use impacts, such as impacts on water
quality., vegetation, wildlife and and property values. In this
chapter, an overview of transmission lines in Florida is
provided in Part A. Operational impacts are examined in Part
B; construction and land use impacts are discussed in Part C.

A. TRANSMISSION LINES IN FLORIDA

1. Description and Engineering Characteristics

The need to transport electrical energy efficiently and
economically from one location to another in increasing
amounts has led to continual development of higher and higher
transmission voltages. Virtually all long-distance transmis-
sion in Florida is by means of alternating current (ac),
either 230 kilovo'lts (kV) or, for longer distances, 500 kV ac
as primary transmission levels.

X-1

Siting Handbook Chapter 10, Part A Draft 2

Lines rated at 765 kilovolt systems are in use in some
locations in the country, and pilot 1200 kV systems have been
developed. A few direct current (dc) systems are also in use,
and the trend may be to shift to more dc systems for long
distance transport. None, however, is being discussed for
Florida at the present time.

Certain design features are used in all high voltage transmis-
sion lines for electrical and structural engineering reasons.
Three wires are used per percuit because power phases coming
from turbine generators come in three alternating pulses;
three wires are used, and each wire carries a third of the
overall flow.

Conductor wires typically are made of aluminum with steel
reinforcements; hence the ACSR (Aluminum Conductor, Steel
Reinforcements) rating often given when describing the -cir-
cuitry. The conductor wires are suspended on disk insulators
made of special materials. A ground wire and a lightning
shield wire are also a part of a complete circuit.

Fig, X-1 shows typical towers configurations. Although towers
vary from company to company and with the terrain, in Florida
typical 500 kV towers are four-legged steel lattice-work
structures, guyed lattice-work steel "V's", or tubular steel
towers resembling a "pi" symbol. Angle structures use a
stronger variation of the tangent (straight-line) structure.
The 230 KV systems typically use wooden "H" structures or
concrete mono-poles.

Span lengths used are related to the conductor gauge, the
tower design, the terrain, and any right-of-way (ROW) width
limitations. The large 500 KV circuits average 1000-1300 foot
spans, while wooden H-frames for 230 kV lines typically have
600-foot spans. However, in uneven terrain, these heights and
spans will be adjusted on a tower-by-tower basis so that at
least a specific ground clearance is achieved under adverse
operating conditions (e.g. overheating or ice-buildup).
Clearances are calculated according to standards outlined in
the National Electric Safety Code.

X-2

Siting Handbook Chapter 10, Part A Draft 2

Fig. X-1: High-Voltage Transmissi@on Line Towers.

LArnm STRtcrum- 5 mmwm"

r STM SNO-E POLE STRUCTURE 7 TOWM/M1.9

14s2th
VMCO M-FRAW STRUCTURE r IMLA

STEEL + FMME STRUCTURE 5 TOWCW MU

DREYFUSS STRUCTURE 13/N$/LT20 STOWWWLE
T__

DREYFUSS STRUCTURE WNSM26 7, /M"

GUYED "Y' STRUCTURE 5 TOWM/MILC

GUYED V SrRUCTURE 5 =NERS/IMLE RISI#T OF WAY 15d
2L

X-3

Siting Handbook Chapter 10, Part A Draft 2

In other instances, the necessity @o span a physiographic
feature such as a river may mandate use of special towers; for
500 KV circuits such towers allow spans up to.1800 feet or
more but are quite costly. When ROW widths are a limiting
factor such as in densely developed residential areas, tall r
towers or short spans may be used to hold up line sag within a
safety clearance zone.

Widths of the right-of-way can vary quite widely, from as
narrow as 35 feet for a single 230-kV line, to several hundred
feet for multiple circuit routes. Design must ensure that
structures or vegetation will not interfere with the swing of
the conductors or knock down lines, if, for example, a tree r
should fall over. Also tower and line maintenance must not be
hindered.

Transmission lines are rated in terms of megavolt-amperes
(MVA),- a concept closely related to megawattage. For example,
a 240 MVA line will transport around 240 megawatts (MW) of
power. The line can carry more power than that, but may
.overload, becoming hot and stretching closer to the ground
than safety limits prescribe. This may also cause damage to
the circuits.

Lines are also described in terms of the voltage they can
carry, a geometrically rather than linearly related function
of power (wattage). For example 138 KV line can carry about
200 megawatts of power; a 240 KV line, 600-700,MW; and a 500
KV line, 2500-3000 MW. Line losses caused by radiation or
energy and by friction decrease with the use of larger lines;
therefore the trend is to use increasingly larger conductors
for bulk power movement.

Transmission circuits are interconnected at substations,
switchyards, or power plant bus-bars. Substations contain
banks of transformers where power levels are changed via
current induction to the appropriate voltage for the distri-
bution system. Switchyards simply route the current to the
various regional lines, while bus-bard introduce generated
power from the turbines into the electric grid.

X-4

Siting Handbook Chapter 10, Part A Draft 2

2. High-Voltage Transmission Lines in Florida

Fig. X-2 provides a map of 500 kV lines in the state.
Notice that in an effort to improve reliability of the Florida
electric grid and to import power from Georgia, twin 500 kV
lines are being constructed parallel to the eastern shore of
the Florida peninsula. When completed in 1985, these twin
lines will run from the Jacksonville area, past Daytona Beach,
and on to the Gold Coast, just west of Palm Beach, Ft.
Lauderdale and Miami.

In addition to the twin 500 kV lines in'the east, the Public
Service Commission and the utilities are currently exploring
the feasibility of constructing a second 500 kV tie into
Georgia. Paralleling the twin lines of the east, this second
line would cross the Suwannee River, and r-un east of the the
population centers of Tampa and St.Petersburg on Tampa Bay,
and into southwest Florida east of Sarasota and Ft. Meyers.
At the time of this writing, the western link has not been
certified and it is uncertain what future this proposal may
have.

A map showing the smaller 230 kV lines in the state is
published each year in the Ten-Year Plan published by the FCG
and is not reproduced here.

The advantage of using high voltage lines in bulk power
distribution has become a major issue in power plant siting
cases in Florida because of the availability of nuclear and
coal-based electricity in Georgia. Although up to 4500 MW of
power could be available from Georgia, the electric utilities
of Florida are currently committed to purchase of only abo,ut
the following amounts:

Year Amount Year Amount

1984 950 1989 2,400
1985 2,000 1990 2,400
1986 2 000 1991 2,400
1987 2:500 1996 0
1988 2,400 2001 0

X-5

Siting Handbook Chapter 10, Part A Draft 2

Other advantages include energy interchanges between and among
systems to utilize cheaper base-load, rather than using more
expensive mid-range or peaking units. Another advantage is the
sharing of operating reserves so that an individual utility
does not need to construct extensive (and expensive) back-up
facilities. And, finally, interconnections improve system
reliability by providing alternate pathways for power flow.

To benefit from these advantages the Florida Electric Grid has
been formed to tie together the utilities of the state.
However, a study by the U. S. Dept. of Energy showed Florida
electric power supply to be among the most unreliable in the
nation, stemming, in part, because of the state's geographical
isolation from other power networks.

x-6

Siting Handbook Chapter 10, Part A Draft 2

Fig. X-2: 500 kV Power Lines in Florida.

to Hatc h

Keg
OUWA.
Cm- Duval In Service

Certified
-Von
TOYI Rice' Considered
Ft White Um
doomm
Crysto 1JW Central Rorida
River inseft
Kathleen
La
Osceola
Tarpon
Midway

NNN%Aft= Uj=
0.range tin
River I MAM Corbett
to Farley
S&AM6 JACKSM CGLUM Andytown
ROM
WALIM Tom *ADO. Levee

LOM"
CQ(yville GULF FFWAVA.V
Source: F(G, DER

X-7

Siting Handbook Chapter 10, Part B Draft 2

B. OPERATIONAL IMPACTS

In recent years, as utilities have applied for permission to
construct transmission lines of higher and higher voltages,
the public has become increasingly interested in the poten-
tial for health-related effects of power transmission. As a
result, a number of studies of this
issue have been conducted.

This section provides a brief review of the conclusions. of
studies carried out in four state and by the Electric Power
Research Institute. However, this is not an in-depth examina-
tion of the subject, and any planner becoming involved in this
question is encouraged to consult the Bibliography provided
below in Section 4.

X-8

Siting Handbook Chapter 10, Part B Draft 2

l..Electric Transmission Line Fields

Long-d istance transmission of electric pow .er is normally
accomplished using Extra-High Voltage transmission lines--
i.e., those above 345 kV (kilovolts). Although voltages as
'high as 765 kV have been used in some states, and high voltage
direct current (HVDC) lines have also been used in some area,
there are no plans in Florida to use either HVDC lines or any
voltage above 500 kV. Consequently, this section deals almost
exclusively with the possible impacts of 500 kV AC power
transmission at 60 hertz (i.e., 60 cycles per second).

The strength of an electrical field surrounding a power line,
measured in "kilovolts per meter" (kV/m), decreases with the
distance away from the centerline of the transmission line.
As shown in Fig. X-3, the peak voltage of a 500 kV line is
about 8 kV/m at a distance of 50 feet from the centerline, and
decreases to a level of less than 0.1 kV/m 300 feet from the
centerline. The density of a field is measured in units
called the "Gauss;" normal field densities are 1-2 Gauss.

The current "induced" in a person or object near the line is
measured in milliamperes (mA). As seen in Fig. X-4 the peak
current induced in an automobile at a distance of 20 meters
(about 65 feet) from the cen@erline is approximately 0.12 mA.
This is an extremely small current, well below the threshold
for human perception, which begins at 0.5 mA. Still, this
current is large enough to produce a spark at times, and some
utilities warn residents that automobiles or mobile equipment
such as a tractor should not be refueled under an EHV power-
line. This level of current is far below the "release"
current--the current at which an individual may be unable to
let go of a wire. (See Fig. X-4).

The current level in the vicinity of a power line can be
compared with current and voltages from other sources. As
seen in Table X-1, a portable household appliance exposes the
operator to a field of 33 kV/m and a current of 500 uA (i.e.,
.5 mA). An electric blanket is rated at 0.5 to 1.7 kV/m and
from 7-25 uA.

X-9

Siting Handbook Chapter 10, Part B Draft 2

Fig. X-3: Electric Field Profile for 500 kV Horizontal
Configuration with Three Sub-Conductors. Source: Maryland
PPCUEIP (1978).

Edge of R.O.W.

10.0
8.0 h 38'
42.5'
6.0
47.5 Measurement height= 1 m
h minimum conductor height
4.0
h 55'

h 65'
@E 2.0
>

1.0
0.8

0'. 6

0.4
N"", 65'
55'
CC 47.5'
0.2 42.5' 38t

0.1
0.08
0.06 0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Distance from center of R.O.W. (feet)
X-10 15
4

Fig. X-4: Observed Current Under an EHV Power Line and Thresholds of Perception.
Source: EPRI (1982).

OBSERVED CURRENT

0.12

IMPORTANT THRESHOLDS
0.10 kbool
CUh, RENT JmA)
0.5-2.0 PEACEPTION
1.5 STARTLE REACTION 0.08
>4 2.0 "OBJECTIONABLE"
RELEASE CURRENTS
5 SUSPECTED FOR CHILD 0.06 - .ooixrotfooo
10.5 AVE-RAGE FOR ADULT FEMALES
18 AVERAGE FOR ADULT MALES N SI(yW6RKEfl 120001
10-22 RESPIRATORY PARALYSIS 0.04 - P11M),
50-100'- VEN rnICULAR FIBRILLATION
REACTION OF CHILDREN IMPORTANT - COMBINE (11001

0.02 -

0 to 20 30 40
DISTANCE FROM CENTEOLINE METERS

A CLMENT - mA

Siting Handbook Chapter 10, Part A Draft 2

Table X-1: Comparison of Body Current and Related Current
Densities in Terms of Equivalent Electric Fields. Source: EPRI
(1979).

Equivalent or
actual electric
2 field exposure
Current VA 11A/cm kV/m
Electric Anesthesia 10,000 >1,(,)0(1) 670
(100 Hz Square-Wave)
Pacemaker Output Electrode 6,000 (4)' 20,000 (4) 400

Fixed Household Appliance 750 18 (2) 40
Portable Household Appliance 500 12 (2) 33
Man in 8 kV/m Field 120 3(2) 8
Man in 4 kV/m Field 60 1.5 (2) 4
Electric Blanket 7-25 2-40 (3) 0.5 to 1.7
Man in 0.15 kV/m Field 2.2 0.05 (2) 0.150
(1) Next to electrode 2
(2) Passing through 40 cm ankle
(3) It" from electricwire in blanket
(4) Peak pulse current (2 ms pulse every 0.8 second)

X-12

Siting Handbook Chapter 10, Part A Draft 2

The magnitude of the electric fields near a power line small,
but even this level of current,can induce charges on metallic
surfaces such as vehicles, gutters on adjacent structures,
fences, and masts of sailboats. People touching these objects
may draw a steady current through their body or may be
startled by a spark discharge when approaching these objects.
The magnitude. of the electric field varies with location,
conductor height, and the configuration of the line.

2. Biological Effects

Thousands of studies have been con ducted to study the bio-
logical effects of electric field.s. It is evident from this
research that electrical fields do have effects which can be
demonstrated, but the possible impact on human health is not
clear.

The results of f 'our studies reviewing the research on this
subject are presented below. These studies were prepared by
the states of Minnesota Maryland and Montana, and by the
Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI).

Although direct health effects of transmission lines are not
clearly established, some states have set limits on the
strength of fields permitted. Oregon has adopted a maximum
field strength of 9 kV/m, and Minnesota has adopted a standard
of 8 kV/m. New York has effectively limited field strengths
to 1.6 kV/m at the edge of the right-of-way, and a Montana
study recommended a maximum of 1 kV/m at the ROW edge. To
date, Florida has not adopted such a standard.

X-13

Siting Handbook Chapter 10, Part A Draft 2

a. Minnesota Study -- A 1980 study conducted by Dow Associates
for the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board highlighted a
number of studies which showed biological effects of transmis-
sion line fields. Among the effects the study called attention
to were the following:

Cell Growth and Division--Altered amoeba shape and motility
=ear a__1_kV7_m 7-ource

Plants--Leaf tip damage and threshold for many plant species
at 20-25 kV/m, perhaps down to 10 kV/m for plants taller
than 15 cm.

Blood Chemistry--Increased levels of "serum triglycerides" in
female monkeys at 0.02 kV/m and 2 Gauss. (Triglycerides are
fatty substances in blood which, in increased amounts, are
associated with plaque and heart attacks.)

Circadian
.E@hms--Altered circa.dian period in human's due to
0.0025 kV/m, 10 Hz field, dependent On frequency (Circadian
rhythms refers to daily biological cycles).

Mammalian Neurophysiology and Behavior--Increased neuronal
excitability in rats at 100 kV/m

Epidemiology--Contradictory reports of links between child-
hood leukemia and 60 Hz-fields

b. EPRI Research Review --A 1979 review of research on
electrical fields conducted by IIT Research for EPRI, the
research organization of the electric utility industry, came
to the following conclusions, summarized here:

Genetics--ELF [Extremely Low Frequency] radiation [ie. 30
300 Hz] as normally experie-nced was found to be incapable of
producing genetic effects. . . Available evidence suggests
that no genetic effects will occur in the.powerline environ-
ment.

Reproduction, Growth and Development--Fertility growth and
development would not be-adversely affected by either the
electric or magnetic field environment.

X-14

Siting Handbook Chapter 10, Part A Draft 2

Nervous System and, Behavior--No behavioral, neurophysio-
logical, or neurological effects can be expected to occur.

Cardiovascular Functioning--Present-evidence is insufficient
to conclude that field strengths within the ELF range result
in hazardous changes in cardiovascular function. However,
neither does the evidence allow the conclusion that these
functions are not disturbed by ELF field exposures.

Hematology and Blood Biochemistry--Available data on hemato-
Jogical and blood biochemical parameters are not sufficient-
ly convincing to conclude that ELF field exposures evoke a
stress response or other significant biological changes in
animals or man.

Triglycerides--An. early preliminary study conducted on a
very small number of human subjects exposed to magnetic
fields in the order of I Gauss at 45 Hz produced results
which caused concern that the exposure to magnetic fields
could increase-triglyceride levels in humans. However, the
review of seven subsequent studies establishes the absence
of such an effect.

C. Montana Study--After an ex:tensive review of the literature
on transmission line effects, the state of Montana concluded:

Research in laboratory animals and the few studies of humans
leads to the conclusion that pathological effects in human
beings exposed to 60 Hz electric fields at any field
strength are unproven and speculative. Similarly, subtle
effects on the nervous system that may alter mental state,
disrupt normal body rhythms, alter libido, increase the
frequency or severity of headaches, or lead to effects of
digestion or other functions influenced by the central
nervous system, are not demonstrated by the scientific
research to dat 6. The existing data do not permit the
prediction that effects such as those just listed would
occur as the result of chronic exposure to electric fields.

The field effects that have been demonstrated in several
animal studies suggest it is reasonable to expect that
humans exposed to appropriately scaled electric fields may

X-15

Siting Handbook Chapter 10, Part A Draft 2

show physiological or behavioral alterations related to
those observed in animals. The pathological or behavioral
alterations cannot be foreseen.

Negative impacts on human health have not been established
by the few studies of humans. These however are limited in
scope and are often methodologically flawed. They do not
form the basis for a conclusion that chronic exposure to 60
Hz electric fields at arbitrary field strength is without
effect for the general population." (See Biological Effects
of High Voltage Transmission Lines in the Bibliography
below.)

F
Based on these conclusions, the Montana study-recommended a
limit of 1 kV/m at the edge of the transmission line right-of-
way. The study indicated that little additional cost to a
utility would be required for meeting this regulatory standard F
for a 500 kV line.

The 1kV/m limit was recommended because most laboratory
studies suggesting possible chronic effects for subjects
having continual exposure (such as those living or working
adjacent to a transmission line) involved electric fields in
excess of 1 kV/m.

d. Maryland Studies--A 1979 report by Dr. Randy Roig, an
official of the Maryland Power Plant Siting Program, concluded:

Effects on humans depend on the distance to the
transmission line and the size and orientation of the
object causing the effect. The magnitude of these effects
has been modeled assuming a typical 500-kV power line
configuration. In field tests, actual observed effects
have varied from 10 to 100 percent of the calculated
tworst-case' results, reflecting the fact that many unknown
and uncontrollable factors (such as insulation and moisture
content, and capacitance of irregular objects) are of
central significance.

X-16

Siting Handbook Chapter 10, Part A Draft 2

Questions have been raised concerning the long-range health
effects of chronic exposure to oscillating electric fields
at magnitudes found within (or possibly adjacent to) trans-
mission line rights-of-way. Soviet literature contains
reports of medical evaluation of personnel working in 400-
kV to 765-kV switchyards. A majority of those studied
developed pathological reactions attributed to their
exposure to the electric fields. As a result, Soviet work
regulations limit the time a worker may be exposed to
fields equal to or in excess of 5 kV/m. . . to 3 hours per
day. In contrast to the Russian reports, a major U. S.
medical study of 10 linemen, who worked with 138-kV and
345-kV equipment over a 9-year period, concluded that the
health of these men had not been affected by their exposure
to the high-voltage lines.

At the present time, safe limits for exposure to electric
fields from transmission lines have not been established in
the U.S. Several factors should be appreciated in evalua-
tions of available literature on transmission line health
effects: Neither Soviet nor U.S. reports on health of
linemen and switchyard workers present adequate test data
or discuss control procedures. Linemen and switchyard
workers may be exposed to higher fields (up to 25 kV/m)
than would be experienced by other people under the
transmission lines.

e. Other Studies--The Bibliography, Section 4, lists
additional studies which planners may wish to consult. Of
particular interest are the studied being conducted by the New
York State Overhead Power Project, a project in which research
has demonstrated that exposure of human cells to abnormally
high voltage levels can cause increased rate of cancer cell
production. Also, the testimony of Dr. Andrew Marino, testi-
fying in a recent 500 kV transmission line siting case, and
the testimony of Dr. Edwin Carstenson in a 240-kV case, are
useful.

X-17

Siting Handbook Chapter 10, Part A Draft 2

3. Other Effects of Transmission Lines

Corona discharge from hi.gh voltage transmission lines can
cause television and radio transmission, audible noise, and
the production of ozone. The term..' -'corona" refers to an
electrical discharge produced when the electric field intensi-
ty at a conductor surface exceeds the electric breakdown
potential of the surrounding- air.

In a corona, an avalanche of electrons collides with molecules
of air, causing energy to be released in the form of visible
light, electromagnetic energy, and audible noise. This means
that the effects of corona discharges can be heard, can
produce radio and television interference, and can glow at
night. Corona discharge usually occurs where there are
irregularities on the conductor, such as nicks, scratches,
insects, and water drops, and is usually most noticeable in
wet weather.

a. Noise--Audible noise due to corona discharge consists of a
11sizzling" sound in wet weather and a barely audible crackling
noise in dry weather. In one study noise from a 500-kV
double circuit Line in wet weather re;ched a level of 43 dBA
near the transmission line right-of-way (ROW), and 30 dBA at a
distance of 20 feet from the ROW, the level of background
noise in a very quiet rural area at night.

As seen in Fig. X-5, at this noise level, the possibility of
annoyance cannot be ruled out. Ambient noise levels (i.e.,
those found in nature) may be exceeded at high frequencies
(above 50 Hz); fortunately, the higher frequencies character-
istic of transmission line noise are more rapidly attenuated
with distance.

b. TV and Radio Interference--Radio interference caused by
T_
corona discharge is evident, especially in rainy weather in AM
reception near the power line. It is usually negligible for
FM and TV reception.

X-18

Fig. X-5: Reactions of People in Different Income Neighborhoods to Environmental Noise.
Note that at the edge of the ROW for a 500 kV line, the noise level can reach 43 dBA.
Source: EPRI (1982).

REACTIONS TO
NOISE IN EACH
ECONOMIC
NEIGHBOR"000

ESTIMATED PROBABLE AVERAGE doo
LEGAL ACTION AND RANGE 006 a* *0 40 to
OF REACTIONS OF
TYPICAL PERSONS TO 00b 00
A GIVEN NOISE
GROUP APPEALS ENVIRONMENT -too ago*** *,P" *,*a 0
TO STOP NOISE 00 00
00
HIGH INCOME
SOME COMPLAINTS
TO AUTHORITIES NEIGHBORHOODS
LOWINCOME
00 do 60 NEIGHBORHOODS
NO COMPLAINTS 00 op I
TO AUTHORITIES 00 7WkV TRANSMISSION LINE NOISE
0 0 00 THE EDGE OF THE RIGHT OF WAY
THRESHOLD OF Af
ANNOYANCE 35 46 55 66 a 76 85
'op

0
.01
0
0
7-t-1-9 a" It
0., 0
0 @0'

LON

Soume: KfViw. 1970

Siting Handbook Chapter 10, Part A Draft 2

During fair weather, residents near a right-of-way experience
minimal interference. Investigations for one proposed 500-kV
line indicated that at least 18 AM radio stations would
maintain an acceptable signal-to-noise ratio (21 dB) along the
transmission line corridor. During light rain or dense fog,
however, residents extremely,close (less than 100 feet) from
the right-of-way might notice some degradation in signal
quality, although the signals of 5 to 10 AM stations could
still be received. During heavy rain (a condition that often
bring@ its own radio interference), interference extends to
greater distances; in that study, residents located closer
than 100 feet from the right-of-way would be able to receive
only 2 to 7 stations.

C. Ozone--Corona discharge from high-voltage transmission
lines, especially during period of heavy rain produces ozone
by a method analogous to that occurring during lightning
discharges. Although the ozone can be detected in a labora-
tory, field studies have either failed to detect ozone
produced by transmission lines or have, under worst-case
conditions, found an average of less than one part-ber-billion
(ppb) above peak background fluctuation. From this research,
it is reasonable to conclude that ozone production from
transmission lines would not have any significant effect on
the local or regional environment.

4. Bibliography

Carstenson, Edwin. Testimony of Edwin Carstenson. In Re:
Certification of the City-of Tallah@_ssee Hopkins-to-Baij@`bridge
Transmission Line Siting.Proceedings. (Tallahassee, FL: Div. of
Administrative Hearings, July 13, 1981).

Dow Associates, Inc. Biological Effects and Physical Char-
acteristics of Fields, Ions and Shock. (St. Paul, MN:
Minnesota Environmental Quality Board, Oct., 1977).

X-20

Siting Handbook Chapter 10, Part A Draft 2

Minnesota Environmental Quality Board, Oct., 1977).
EPRI et al. Seminar on Environmental Issues in the..Sitinp, of
Transmission Lines. (Palo Alto, CA: EPRI, Jan., 1982).

IIT Research Institutei Biological Effects of High-Voltage
Fields: An Update. (Palo Alto, CA: EPRI, July, 1979). EPRI
Rpt.. Nr. EA-1123. 2 vols.

Marino, Andrew. 'Testimony In re: Florida Power and, Light
Company Duval-to-Poinsett Transmission Line Corridor, Case No.
81-1938. (Tallahassee, FL: Div. of Admin. Hearings, Jan.,
1982).

Maryland Dept. of Natural Resources. Power Plant Cumulati.ve
Environmental Impact Report. (Annapolis, MD: Maryland Dept.
of Natural Resources, February, 1982).

Miller, Morton and Kaufman, Gary. "High Voltage Overhead."
Environment, Vol. 20, Nr. 1 (Feb.,. 1978), pp. 6-36.

Montana Dept. of Natural Resources and Conservation. Bio-.
logical Effects of High Voltage AC Transmission Limes.
(MDNR&C: February, 1983).

Roig, Randy. "The Effects of Transmission Lines," Record of
the Maryland Power Plant Siting Act (Annapolis, MD: Maryland
Dept. of Natural Resources, April, 1979). Vol 7, No. 1.

X-21

Siting Handbook Chapter 10, Part B Draft 2

B. CONSTRUCTION AND LAND USE IMPACTS

During the construction of a major power line, there are
likely to be impacts of some degree on water quality, water
quantity, vegetation and wildlife. In addition, once the line
is in place, there may be increased public access to a once
isolated area, and there may be impacts on property values
near the line. Each of these impacts is d'iscussed in this
section.

1. Construction Impacts

Construction involves clearing the right-of-way (ROW) for the
line, constructing access roads, erecting the towers and
stringing the conductors and shield wires. The main environ-
mental impact expected during construction (or during a period
of extensive maintenance) is on water quality. Using heavy
construction equipment to place towers in rivers, dredging for
culverts, dumping fill for access road foundations in wet-
lands, and clearing trees and other vegetation can cause or
increase soil erosion and turbidity of adjacent waters.

O'he of the chief causes of water quality problems that may
arise from the construction of transmission lines comes from
the placement of access roads along the transmis-sion corri-
dor. Access roads are needed for maintenance work on the
transmission lines Access to lines in upland areas typical-
ly requires only some clearing and usually has negligible
impact on water quality. But in wetlands or aquatic areas,
access roads must be constructed to support heavy equipment in
wet conditions.

X-22

Siting Handb ook Chapter 10, Part B Draft 2

Access roads in wetlands, if constructed across the direction
of water flow or sheet flow of surface water can block the
Itsheetflow" of surface water. This can result in damming the
water on one side of the road, thereby increasing the possi-
bility of the road washing out (called a "blow out"). Oathe
other side of the road, the land can dry out, leaving it more
susceptible to fire, halting water recharge, and altering the
habitat of wildlife.

To reduce this problem, numerous culverts can be installed
beneath the road; however, this may not be adequate in open
water areas where towers stand on fill "islands." Access in
that case must be on foot, or by boat or helicopter. Planners,
such as those in Water Management Districts, must give close
attention to a planned road to ensure that its placement will
avoid problems to the extent possible, and that its culverts
are large enough to ensure that water flow is not obstructed.

Towers are usually placed in rivers by using barges. Steel
tubes are driven into the river bottom, then filled with an
flanchor cage" and concrete; some turbidity may occur during
when the tubes are driven into the sediments.

Construction-related water quality impacts can be reduced by
several means. First, the route of the proposed line can be
laid out to avoid as.many sensitive areas as possible. The use
of "vegetational buffers" to screen water runoff before it
enters creeks and streams can also help. Using turbidity
screens and erosion controls such as hay bales and mulching
also reduces siltation problems. Manually clearing vegetation
near water bodies manually reduces the need for large clearing
equipment. In some instances, leaving the trees where they
fall can mitigate damage caused by hauling trees off, although
removing the cut trees can prexent log jams downstream. Using
moveable pads for heavy equipment can reduce damage to
vegetation.

X-23

Siting Handbook Chapter 10, Part B Draft 2

2. Impacts from Increased Access

Access roads needed for the construction and maintenance of
transmission lines can also provide access for persons other
than utility workers. Transmission line access roads can open
previously remote areas to hunters, motorists, sight-seers,
and indiscriminate trash dumpers. This can disturb wildlife
and increase the risk of forest fires; however, access roads
can be beneficial in that they serve as fire breaks. Use of an
access road is controlled by both the utility and the
property owner, and the utility will usually provide a double
lock at the fenceline to prevent unauthorized trespassing.

3. Impacts on Land Use and Vegetation

The impact of a transmission line on land use and vegetation
depends on the region through which it runs. For this reason,
impacts in two distinctively different types of areas are
considered here: (1) impacts in agricultural land and rural
areas; and (2) impacts in woodlands and wetlands.

a. Agricultural and Rural Areas--Transmission lines generally
have little impact on pasturelands and agricultural lands.
Cattle and other forage animals do not interfere with the
safety of the transmission line, and many crops can be grown
under transmission lines with little interference. On the
other hand, a transmission line can limit the use of property
of limitations regarding the height of machinery that
can be used near the line and the height of crops which can be
grown under the line.

When possible, rights-of-way are selected to avoid dense land
uses such as commercial parcels, residential areas, highways
and railroads.

X-24

Siting Handbook Chapter 10, Part B Draft 2

b. Woodlands and Wetlands--In woodlands, it is necessary to
clear the "over'story" (the high trees) in the right-of-way to
protect the line. Clearing the overstory means that numerous
trees have to be removed; however, on the positive side, this
produces an ecological "edge," a transition area usually
beneficial to wildlife.

Wetlands include hydric hammocks, hardwood swamps, cypress
domes and riverine cypress, wet prairies, and freshwater
marshes. Wetland vegetational communities can be impacted by
construction in a number of ways. In "cypress heads," for
example, the construction of a transmission line can rupture
the "hard pan" soil layer under the cypress tress, causing the
water table to drain. The cypress head can then dry out,
making it highly susceptible to fire.

In other wetland vegetational communities--such as the hydric
hammocks, riverine cypress and hardwood swamps--clearing the
Itcanopy" (i.e., the crowns of trees) for a transmission line
can alter the entire'habitat, even if the roots of the trees
are left intact. Canopy provides sunlight control and helps
stabilize temperature and humidity. If the roots are removed
along with the understory vegetation, erosion and turbidity
can also become a problem.

4. Impact on Land Values

One question which commonly arises in a transmission line
siting case is the impact of the proposed line on the land
value__0_f adjacent property. This is a complex question which
depends on the typd of property, the size of the line, the
distance from the line to adjoining property, and the land use
of the adjacent property. Because of these variables, it is
impossible to predict with certainty the impact a line may
have on a particular parcel of land. Ultimately, the value of
adjacent property will be established either by a court of law
in a "condemnation" proceeding, or by the market place.

X-25

Siting Handbook Chapter 10, Part B Draft 2

Planners involved with the question of the impact of a
transmission line on land values may wish to consult the
studies listed in the Bibliography, Section 6. The study by
Clark- and Treadway examined the impacts of transmission lines
in five case studies, and the Berkshire County Regional
Planning Commission handbook, also reviewed five case studies.

While generalizations are not easy to make, it should be noted
that in both of these reports, transmission lines were found
to have relatively little impact on the value of adjoining
property, except when the line actually reduced the amount of
land under control of the owner, or when the line prevented
the property from being used for commercial purposes.

X-26

Siting Handbook Chapter 10, Part B Draft

Bibliography

CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS
(For case studies in Florida, see Bibliography, Chapter 9)

Darnell, J. N. and Rezneat, D. "R. Impact of Construction
Activities in Wetlands of the United States. (Corvallis, OR:
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1976). EPA Nr. 600.3-
76-045.

U. S. Dept. of Interior. Environmental Criteria for Electri-
cal Systems., (Washington, D. C.: U. S. DOI, 1978).

IMPACTS ON LAND VALUES

Clark, Louis. Analysis of Selling Price of Residences
Traversed by Electric Power Transmission Line Easements in
Autumn Woods and Autumn Estates Subdivision, Leon County,
Florida. (Tallahassee, FL: Louis Clark, 1981).

Clark, Louis and Treadway, F. H. Impact of Electric Power
Transmission Line Easements on Real Estate VAlues. (Chicago,
IL: American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers, 1972).

Hekler, Karl (ed.) Evaluation of Power Facilities: A
Reviewer's Handbook. (Pittsfiel-d, -MA. Berkshire County
Regional Planning Commission, April, 1974).

X-27

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I PART IV
ATTACHMENTS
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

ATTACHMENT I

THE POWER PLANT SITING ACT

Siting Handbook Attachment I Power Plant Sitin g Act

403.514 Enforcement of compliance.-Failure 6. Final disposition by the board within 7 months
to obtain a certification, or to comply with the condi. of the riling of a complete supplemental application.
tions thereof, or to comply with this part shall consti- (b) The time limits shall not exceed any time lim-
tute a violation of chapter 403. itation governing the review of initial applications for
History-s. 1, ch. 73-33; a. 17, ch. 76.7r*. site certification pursuant to this part, it being the
legislative intent to provide shorter time limitations
403.515 Availability of inform ation.-The for the processing of supplemental applications for
department shall make available for public inspec. electrical power plants to be constructed and operat-
tion and copying during regular office hours, at the ed at sites which have been previously certified for an
expense of any person requesting copies, any infor- ultimate site capacity.
mation riled or submitted pursuant to this act. (c) Any time limitation in this section or in rules
History-S. 1, ch. 73-3& adopted pursuant to this section may be altered by
the designated hearing officer upon stipulation be-
403.516 Modification of certification.-A cer- tween the department and the applicant or for good
tification may be modified after issuance in any one cause shown by any party. The parties to the pro-
ceeding shall adhere to the provisions of chapter 120
of the following ways: in considering and processing such supplemental ap-
(1) The board may delegate to the department plications. The department may charge a supplemen-
the authority to modify specific conditions in the cer- tal application fee not to exceed $25,000 to cover all
tification. reasonable expenses and costs of the review, process-
__(2) The parties to the certification proceeding ing, and proceedings of a supplemental application
may modify the terms and conditions of the certifica- incurred by the department, the Division of Adminis-
tion by mutual written agreement. Upon execution Of--- tiati,4 Heaxings, the Public Service Commission, the
the agreement by the parties, the provisions Of s- Department of Community Affairs, the water man-
120.57 shall apply to the proceedings for approval or agement district, or any other agency from which the
denial of the agreement by the board. department requests special studies pursuant to s.
(3) If the parties to the certification proceeding 403.507(l)(d). Any unused portion of the fee shall be
are unable to reach a mutual written agreement on refunded pursuant to s. 403.504.
modification of the terms and conditions of the certi- (2) Supplemental applications shall be reviewed
fication, a petition for modification setting forth: in accordance with the criteria and considerations of
(a) The proposed rn@dification, s.403.507.
(b) The factual reasons asserted for the modifica- (3) The land use hearing requirements of s.
tion, and 403.508(l) and (2) shall not be applicable to the pro-
(c) The anticipated effects of the proposed modi- cessing of supplemental applications pursuant to this
fication on the applicant, the public, and the environ- section so long as:
ment (a) The previously certified ultimate site capacity
is not exceeded; and
shall be filed with the Division of Administrative (b) The lands required for the construction or op-
Hearings. The provisions of s. 120.57 shall apply to eration of the electrical power plant which is the sub-
the proceedings for approval or denial of-the petition ject of the supplemental application are within the
by the board. boundaries of the previously certified site.
(4) As required by s. 403.511(5). (4) For the purposes of this part, the term "ulti-
History-s. 13, ch. 76-76; a. 10, ch. 81-131. mate site capacity" means the maximum generating
capacity for a site as certified by the boar
403.517 Supplemental applications for sites History-s. 14. ch. 76-76-.3. 11. ch. 81-131; a. 34, ch. 81-169. a. 38, ch. 83-55.
certified for ultimate site capacity.- 403.519 Exclusive forum for determination
(1)(a) The department shall adopt rules govern- of need.-On request by a utility or on its own mo-
ing the processing of supplemental applications for tion, the commission ihall begin a proceeding to de-
certification of the construction and operation of .
electrical power plants to be located at sites which termine the need for an electrical power.plant subject
ied for an ultimate site ca-
have been previously certifi to the Florida Electrical Power Plant Siting Act. The
commission shall be the sole forum for the determi-
pacity pursuant to this part. Supplemental applica- nation of this matter, which accordingly shall not be
tions shall be limited to electrical power plants using raised in any other forum or in the review of proceed-
the fuel type previously certified for that site' The ings in such other forum. In making its determina-
rules adopted pursuant to this section shall include tion, the commission shall take into account the need
provisions for- for electric system reliability and integrity, the need
1. Prompt appointment of a designated hearing for adequate electricity at a reasonable cost, and
off icer. whether the proposed plant is the most cost-effective
2. The contents of the supplemental application. alternative available. The commission shall also ex-
3. Resolution of disputes as to the completeness pressly consider the conservation measures taken by
of supplemental applications by the designated hear- or reasonably available to the applicant or its mem-
ing officer. bers which might mitigate the need for the proposed
4. Public notice of the filing of the supplemental plant and other matters within its jurisdiction which
applications. it deems relevant. The commission's determination
5. Time limits for prompt processing of supple- of need for an electrical power plant shall create a
mental applications. presumption of public need and necessity and shall
serve as the commission's report required by s.
A-6 403.507(l)(b).
History-s. S. ch. 80-65.
cf.-ss. 366.80-366.85 norida Energy Efficiency and ConservaLiun Act.

Siting Handbook Attachment I Power Plant Siting Act

board shall deem appropriate, or denying the issu- otherwise would be applicable to the construction
ance of a certificate and stating the reasons for ssu- and operation of the proposed electrical power plant.
ance or denial. If the certificate is denied, the board (3) The certification shall be in lieu of any li-
shall set forth in writing the action the applicant cense, permit, certificate. or similar document re-
Would have to take to secure the board's approval of quired by any agency purstiant to, but not limited to.
the application. chapter 161, chapter 253, chapter 298, chapter 370,
(2) In regard to the properties and works of any chapter 373, chapter 380, chapter 381. chapter 387,
agency which is a party to the certification hearing, chapter 404, the Florida Transportation Code, or 33
the board shall have the authority to decide issues re- U.S.C. s. 1341.
lating to the use, the connee'tion thereto, or the cross- (4) This part shall not affect in any way the rate-
ing thereof, for the electrical power plant and site making powers of the Public Service Commission un-
and to direct any such agency to execute, within 30 der chapter 366: nor shall this part in any way affect
days of the entry of certification, the necessary li- the right of any local government to charge appropri-
cense or easement for such use, connection, or cross- ate fees or require that construction be in compliance
ing, subject only to. the conditions set forth in such with local building codes, standards, and regulations.
certification. (5)(a) An electrical power plant certified pursu-
(3) The issuance or denial of the certification by ant to this act shall comply with rules adopted by the r
the board shall he the final administrative action re- department subsequent to the issuance of the certifi-
quired as to that application. cation which prescribe new or stricter criteria. to the
Ifistory-4. 1, ch. 73-: U; x. i. ch. 76-7.6; s. 141. ch. 7. 104. extent that the rules are applicable to electrical pow-
er plants. Except when express variances have been
403.5095 Alteration of time limits.-Any time granted, subsequently adopted rules which prescribe
limitation in this part may be altered by the desig- new o ir stricter criteria shall operate as automatic
nated hearing officer upon stipulation between the modifications to certifications.
department and the applicant or for good cause (b) Any holder of a certification issued pursuant
shown by any party. to this act may choose to operate the certified electri-
11islory-s. .14, ch. 76-76. cal power plant in compliance.with any rule subse-
quently adopted by the department which prescribes
403.510 Superseded laws, regulations, and criteria more lenient than the criteria required by the
certification power.- terms and conditions in the certification whic@ are
(1) If any provision of this act is in conflict with not site-specific.
any other provision, limitation, or restriction which is (c) No term or condition of certification shall be
now in effect under any law or ordinance of this state interpreted to preclude the postcertification exercise
or any political subdivision or municipality, or any by any party of whatever procedural rights it rnay
rule or regulation promulgated thereunder, this act have under chapter 120, including those related to
shall govern and control, and such other law or ordi- rulemaking proceedings. This subsection shall apply
nance or rule or regulation promulgated 'thereunder to previously issued certifications. 1 77 1,
shall be deemed superseded for the purposes of this History.-s. 1. ch. M-M: s. 2. ch. 4-1.11: s. 10. ch. 7.6-76: s. . ch. - -4
8:3. ch. 79-65.
act.
(2) The state hereby preempts the regulation and 403.5111 County and municipal authority
certification of electrical power plant sites and elec- unaffected by chapter 75-22, Laws of Florida.
trical power plants as defined in this act. -Except as provided in ss. 403.510 and 403.511,
(3) The board shall have the power to adopt rea- nothing in chapter 75-22, Laws of Florida. shall be
sonable procedural rules to carry out its duties under construed to have altered the authoritv of countv and
this act and to give effect to the legislative intent that municipal governments as provided b'Y law.
this act is to provide an efficient, simplified, centrally History-s. 22. ch. 75-2-1.
coordinated, one-stop permitting process.
History. s. 1. , h. 73-33; s. it, ch. 76-76. 403.512 Revocation or suspension of certifi-
403.511 Effect of certification.- cation.-Any certification may be revoked or sus-
pended:
(1) Subject to the conditions set forth therein, (1) For any material false statement in the appli-
any certification signed by the Governor shall consti- cation or in the supplemental or additional state-
tute the sole license of the state and any agency as to ments of fact or studies required of the applicant
the approval of the site and the construction and op- when a true answer would have w arranted the
eration of the proposed electrical power plant, except board's refusal to recommend a certification in* the
as otherwise provided in subsection (4). first instance.
(2) The certification shall authorize the electric (2) For failure to comply with the terms or condi-
utility named therein to construct and operate the tions of the certification.
proposed electrical power plant, subject only.to the (3) For violation of the provisions of this chapter
conditions of certification set forth in such certifica- or regulations or orders issued hereunder.
tion. Except as provided in subsection (4), the certifi- History-s. 1. ch. 73-33: s. It. ch. 7, 6.76.
cation agreement may include conditions which con-
stitute variances from nonprocedural standards or 403.513 Review.-Proceedings under this part
regulations of the department or any other standards shall be subject to judicial review as provided in
or regulations of any other agency which were ex- chapter 120.
pressly considered during the proceeding and which History-s. 1. ch. 73-33; s. I "I ch.

k- 5

Siting Handbook Attachment I Power Plant Siting Act

(3) The department shall initiate the activities 2.' The Public Service Commission
required by this section no later than 30 days after 3. The Department of Community Affairs.
the complete application is filed. The department 4. The water management district, as defined in
shall keep the applicant informed as to the progress chapter 373, in the jurisdiction of which the proposed
of the studies and any issues raised thereby. electrical power plant is to be located.
(4) The studies required by subsection (2) shall 5. The department.
be completed no later than 7 months after the com- (b) Upon the filing with the department of a no-
plete application is filed with the department. tice of intent to be a party at least 15 days prior to
History. -@- 1. ch. ,. 5. ch. 76-76;s. 133. ch. 79-lfts. S. ch. 81-131; &the date set for the land use hearing, the following
.33. ch. 61-169: j. 36. ch.. &,.55. shall also be parties to the proceeding:
1. Any county or municipality in whose jurisdic-
403.508 Proceedings, parties, participants. tion the proposed electrical power plant is to be lo-
cated.
(1) The designated hearing officer shall conduct a 2. Any state agency not listed in paragraph (a) as
land use hearing in the county of the pr6posed site to matters within its jurisdiction.
within 90 days of receipt of a complete application 3. Any domestic nonprofit corporation or associa-
for electrical power plant site certification by the de- tion formed, in whole or in part, to promote conser-
partment. The place of such hearing shall be as close vation or natural beauty; to protect the environment,
as possible to the proposed site. The department personal health, or other biological values; to pre-
shall arrange for publication of notice of the land use serve historical sites; to promote consumer interests;
hearin-, and of the deadline for filin- of notice of in- to represent labor, commercial, or industrial groups;
tent t@be a party at least 45 days be'f'ore the date set or to promote orderly development of the area in
for the land use hearing- which the proposed electrical power plant is to be lo-
(2) The sole issue for determination at the land cated.
use hearing shall be whether or not the proposed site (c) Notwithstanding paragraph (4)(d), failure of
is consistent and in compliance with existing land use an agency described in subparagraphs (4)(b)l. or
plans and zoning ordinances. The designated hearing (4)(b)2. to file a notice of intent to be a party within
officer's recommended order shall be -issued within 30 the time provided herein shall constitute a waiver of
days of completion of the hearing and shall be re- the right of that agency to participate as a party in
viewed by the board within 45 days of receipt of the the proceeding.
recommended order by the board. If it is determined (d) Other parties may include any person, includ-
by the board that the proposed site does conform ing those persons enumerated in paragraph (4)(b)
with existing land use plans and zoning ordinances in who have failed to timely file a notice of intent to be
effect as of the date of the application, the responsi- a party, whose substantial interests are affected and
ble zoning or planning authority shall not thereafter being determined by the proceeding and who timely
change such land use plans or zoning ordinances so as file a motion to intervene pursuant to chapter 120
to affect the proposed site unless certification is sub- and applicable rules. Intervention pursuant to this
sequently denied. If it is determined by the board paragraph may be granted at the discretion of the
that the proposed site does not conform, it shall be designated hearing officer and upon such conditions
the responsibility of the applicant to make the neces- as he may prescribe any time prior to 15 days before
sary application'for rezoning. Should the application the commencement of the certification hearing.
for rezonin- be denied, the applicant may appeal this (e) Any agency whose properties or works are be-
t' ing affected pursuant to s. 403.509(2) shall be made a
decision to the board, which may, if it determines af- party upon the request of the department or the ap-
ter notice and hearing that it is in the public interest plicant.
to authorize a nonconforming use of the land as a site (5) When appropriate, any person may be given
for an electrical power plant, authorize a variance to an opportunity to present oral or written communi-
the existin- land use plan and zoning ordinances. In cations to the designated hearing officer. If the desig-
the event @variance is denied, no further action may nated hearing officer proposes i7l consider such com-
be taken on the complete application by the depart- munications, then all parties shall be given an oppor-
ment until the proposed site conforms to existing tunity to cross-examine or challenge or rebut such
land use plams or zoning ordinances. communications.
(3) A certification hearing shall be held by the (6) The designated hearing officer shall have all
designated hearing officer no later than 10 months powers and duties granted to hearing officers by
after the complete application is filed with the de- chapters 120 and 403 and by the rules of the deparf-
partment; however, an affirmative determination of ment and the Administration Commission, including
need bv the Public Service Commission pursuant to the authority to resolve disputes over the complete-
s. 403.0-19 shall be a condition precedent to the con- ness of an application for certification.
duct of the certification hearing. At the conclusion of 11istarv. 1. ch. 73-33; ,. 6. di. 76-76@ s. 1. ch, 77 .174; s. 134. ch. 941h); s.
the certification hearin-, the desianated hearing offi- !I. ch. 81 - j:11; :ti;. di. ,41 167,; s. :;-,. ch. M.55.
m F
cer shall. after consideration of all evidence of record.
submit to the board a recommended order no later 403.509 Final disposition of application.-
than 12 months after receipt of the complete applica- M Within 60 days of' receipt of the designated
tion by the department. hearing officer's recommended order. -the board shall
(0a) Parties it) the proceeding shall include: act upon the application by written order, approving
1. The applicant. in whole, approving with such modification as the

A-4

Siting Handbook Attachment I Power Plant Siting Act

unit to no greater capacity than the maximum oper- shall run from the date of the filing of such applica-
ating capacity of the existing generator shall not con- tion.
stitute an alteration or addition to generating capaci- (3) Any amendment made to the application af.
ty which requires certification pursuant to this act. ter filing shall be served on all parties and agencies
History.-. 1. ch. 73-33; s. 3, ch. 76-76; s. 2. ch. 7946; & S. ch. 81-M. that have received the initial application.
HistarY.-L 4. ch. 76-7. 6; s. 1. ch. T. 7.174; s. 7. ch. 61 - 13 1.
403.5063 Notice of intent to rile application.
403.507 Reports and studies.-
(1) To expedite the processing of the application (1) It shall be the duty of the department to pro-
which may be filed subsequently, the applicant for a vide copies of the application as riled, within 15 days
proposed power plant may file a notice of intent to of its receipt by the department, to the Department
rile an application with the department. of Community Affairs, the Public Service Commis-
(2) The department shall establish, by rule, a sion, and the water management district. created by
procedure by which an applicant, after public notice, chapter 373, in the jurisdiction of which the facility is
may enter into binding written agreements with the to be located. The applicant, at its cost, shall furnish
department and otlMr affected agencies as to the such information, studies, and data as the depart-
scope, quantity, and level of information to be pro- ment may direct.
vided in the application, as well as the methods to be
used in providing such information and the nature of (a) - Within 5 months of receipt of a copy of the
complete application, the Department of Community
the supporting documents to be included in the aP_ Affairs shall present a report as to the compatibility
plication.
History-s. 6. ch. 81-131. of the proposed electrical power plant with the state
comprehensive plan to the department. The Depart-
403.5065 Appointment of hearing officer; ment of Community Affairs shall submit a prelimi-
determination of completeness; amendment to nary report within 60 days of receipt of a copy of the
the application.- complete application.
. (1) Within 7 days of receipt of an application, (b) The Public Service Commission shall prepare
whether complete or not, the department shall re- a report as to the present and future need for the
quest the Division of Administrative Hearings to des- electrical generating capacity to be supplied by the
ignate. a hearing officer to conduct the hearings re- Proposed electrical power plant. The report may in.
quired by this act. The division director shall desig- clude the comments of the commission with respect
nate a hearing officer within 7 days of receipt of the to any matters within its jurisdiction. It shall submit
request from the department. In designating a hear- its report to the department within 5 months of re-
ing officer for this purpose, the division director ceipt of a @opy of the complete application. The corn-
.shall, whenever practicable, assign a hearing officer mission shall submit a preliminary report within 60
who has had prior experience or training in electric days of receipt of a copy of the complete application.
power plant site certification proceedings. Upon be- (c) Within 5 months of receipt of a copy of the
ing advised that a hearing officer has been appointed, complete application, the water management district,
the department shall immediately file a copy of the as defined in chapter 373, in the jurisdiction of which
application and all supporting documents with the the proposed electrical power plant is to be located
designated hearing officer, who shall docket the ap- shall prepare a report as to matters within its juris-
plication. - diction. The water management district shall submit
(2) Within 10 working days of receipt of an appli- a preliminary report within 60 days of receipt of a
cation, the department shall file a statement with the copy of the complete application.
Division of Administrative Hearings and with.the ap- (d) The department may request that any other
plicant declaring its position with regard to the com- agency perform studies and prepare reports as to
pleteness, not the sufficiency, of the application. If matters within the jurisdiction of that agency which
the department declares the application to be incom- may be potentially affected by the proposed electri-
plete, then, within 15 working days of the receipt by cal power plant. Such studies or reports shall be sub-
the department of the application, the applicant shall mitted to the department within 5 months of receipt
file with the Division of Administrative Hearings and of a copy of the complete application by that agency.
with the department a statement agreeing with the (2) As needed to verify or supplement the studies
statement of the department and withdrawing the made by the applicant in support of the application,
application or contesting the statement of the de- it shall be the duty of the department to conduct, or
partment. If the application is not withdrawn, the contract for, studies of the proposed electrical power
hearing officer shall schedule a hearing on the state- plant and site, including, but not limited to. the fol-
ment of completeness. The. hearing shall be sched- lowing:
uled as expeditiously as possible, but no later than 30 (a) Cooling system requirements.
days after the receipt of the application by the de- (b) Construction and operational safeguards.
partment. The designated hearing officer shall make (c) Proximity to transportation systems.
his decision within 10 days of the hearing. If the des- (d) Soil and foundation conditions.
ignated hearing officer determines that the applica- (e) Impact on suitable present and projected wa-
tion was not complete as filed, then the applicant ter supplies for this and other competing uses.
shall withdraw the application. If the hearing officer (f) Impact on surrounding land uses.
determines that the application was complete at the (g) Accessibility to transmission corridors.
time it was riled, then the times provided in this act (h) Environmental impacts.

A-3

Siting Handbook Attachment I Power Plant Siting Act

ulation; powers and duties enumerated.-The pacity will be in compliance with the rules of the de-
Department of Environmental Regulation shall have partment.
the following powers and duties in relation to this (b) The report from the Public Service Commis-
act: sion as required by ss. 403.507 and 403.519.
(1) To adopt, promulgate, or amend reasonable (c) The report of the Department of Community
rules to implement the provisions of this act, includ- Affairs as required by s. 403.507.
ing rules setting forth environmental precautions to (d) The report from the water management dis-
be followed in relation to the location and operation trict as required by s. 403.507.
of electrical power plants. (e) The studies conducted pursuant to s. 403.507.
(2) To prescribe the form and content of the no- (f) The comments received by the department
tice of intent and the form, content, and necessary from any other agency.
supporting documentation and studies to be pre- (g) The recommendation of the department as to
pared by the applicant for electric power plant site the disposition of the application and any proposed
certification applications. conditions of certification which the department be-
(3) To receive applications for electrical power lieves should be imposed.
plant site certifications and to determine the com- .(9) To provide adequate public notice of the fil-
pleteness and sufficiency thereof. ing of the application and of the proceedings con-
(4) To make, or contract for, studies of electrical ducted pursuant to this part.
power plant site certification applications. (10) To prescribe the means for monitoring the
(5) To administer the processing of applications effects arising from the construction and operation of
for electric power plant site certifications and to en- electrical power plants to assure continued compli-
sure that the applications'-are --process*ed* as expedi- ance with terms of the certification.
tiously as possible. (11) To notify all agencies affected of the filing of
(6) To notify 0 affected agencies of the filing, of a notice of intent within 15 days of receipt of the no-
an application within 15 days of receiving the com- tice and to publish public notice that the department
plete application. has received such notice of intent.
. (7)(a) To require an application fee for certifica- (12) To require a certification modification fee,
tion not to exceed $50,000. The application fee shall not to exceed $5,000, from the party petitioning for
be paid to the department upon the filing of each a the modification, which fee shall be submitted to the
p- department with a formal petition for modification to
plication for site certification. The fee shall be fixed the department pursuant to s. 403.516(3). Any sums
by rule on a sliding scale related to the size, type, ul-
timate site capacity, or increase in generating capaci, remaining after the proceeding shall be refunded to
ty proposed by the application. A minimum fee of the petitioner within 90 days after approval or denial
$5,000 shall be required for each application. All rea- of the modification.
sonable expenses and costs of the proceeding in- (13) To withhold from the application fee estab-
curred by the department, the Division of Adminis- lished by this section a reasonable sum sufficient to
trative Hearings, the Public Service Commission, the cover costs associated with postcertification review of
Department of Community Affairs, the water man- activities required by any condition of certification.
agement district, created pursuant to chapter 373 in Such sums shall be specified as a part of each condi-
tion. Upon completion of any such reviews, any sums
the jurisdiction of which the facility is to be located, remaining shall be refunded to the applicant.
or any other agency from which the department re- History-s. 1, ch. 73-38: s. 1, ch. 76-76; s. 1, ch. 77-174; & 132, ch. 79-190; s.
quests special studies pursuant to s. 403.507(l)(d), 4. ch. 81-131: s. 35, ch. 81-167i s. 35, ch. 83-55.
including those expenses and costs which are associ-
ated with the cost of publication of public notices, 403.506 Applicability and certification.-
the preparation and conduct of the hearings, the re- (1) The provisions of this chapter shall apply to
cording and transcription of the proceedings, and the any electrical power plant as defined herein, except
studies required of the agencies by this act, shall be that the provisions of the Power Plant Siting Act
paid from the application fee. Any sums remaining shall not apply. to any electrical power plant or steam
after the payment of authorized. costs shall be re- generating plant of less than 50 megawatts in capaci-
funded to the applicant within 90 days of the issu- ty unless the applicant has elected to apply for certi-
ance or denial of certification or withdrawal of the fication under this act. No construction of any new
application. The applicant shall be provided with an electrical power plant or expansion in steam generat-
itemized accounting of the expenditures. ing capacity of any existing electrical power plant
(b) To require a fee of $2,500 to be submitted to may be undertaken after October 1, 1973, without
the department with a notice of intent. The no- first obtaining certification in the manner as herein
tice-of-intent fee shall be used, disbursed, and re- provided, except that this act shall not apply to any
funded in the same manner as the application fee and such electrical power plant which is presently operat-
shall be a credit toward the application fee. ing or under construction or which has, upon the ef-
(8) To prepare a written analysis which shall be fective date of chapter 73-33, Laws of Florida, ap-
filed with the designated hearing officer and served plied for a permit or certification under requirements
on all parties no later than 8 months after the com- in force prior to the effective date of such act.
Plete application is riled with the department, and (2) Except as provided in the certification, modi-
which shall include: fication of nonnuclear fuels, internal related hard-
(a) A statement indicating whether the proposed ware, or operating conditions not in conflict with cer-
electrical power plant and proposed ultimate site ca- tification which increase the electrical output of a

A-2

Siting Handbook Attachment I Power Plant Siting AO

43.501 Short dtle.
103.502 Legislative intent.
103.503 Definitions.
403.504 Department of Environmental Regula- joint venture, private or public corporation, associa-
tion; powers and duties enumerated. tion, firm, public service company, political subdivi-
403.506 Applicability and certification. sion, municipal corporation, government agency,
403.5063 Notice of intent to file application. public utility district, or any other entity, public or
403.5065 Appointment of hearing officer, determi- private, however organized.
nation of completeneW amendment to (4) "Electric utility" means cities and towns,
the application. counties, public utility districts, regulated electric'
403.507 Reports and studies. companies, electric cooperatives, and joint operating
4W.5W Proceedings, parties, participants. agencies, or combinations thereof, engaged in, or au-
4W.509 Final disposition of application. thorized to engage in, the business of generating,,
403.5W6 Alteration of time la"i transmitting, or distributing electric energy.
403.510 Superseded laws, regulations, and certifl- (5) "Site" means any proposed location wherein
cation power. an electrical power plant, or an electrical power plant
403.511 Effect of certification. alteration or addition resulting in an increase in gen-
erating capacity, will be located-, including offshore,
403.502 Legislative intent.-The Legislature sites within state jurisdiction.
finds that the present and predicted growth in elec- (6) "Certification" means the written order of the
.-tric_pqwer demands in this state requires the devel-
board approving an application in whole or with such
opment of a procedure for the selection and utiliza- modifications or conditions as the board may deemp,
tion of sites for electrical generating facilities and the appropriate.
identification of a state position with respect to each (7) "Electrical power plant" means, for the pur-
proposed site. The Legislature recognizes that the se- pose of certification, any steam or solar electrical
lection of sites and the routing of associated trans- generating facility using any process or fuel, includ--
mission lines will have a significant impact upon the ing nuclear materials, and includes associated facili-
welfare of the population, the location and growth of ties and those directly associated transmission line.,
industry, and the use of the natural resources of the required to connect the electrical power plant to an
state. The Legislature finds that the efficiency of the existing transmission network or rights-of-way to
permit application and review process at both the which the applicant intends to connect, except tha'
state and local level would be improved with the im- this term does not include any steam or solar electri-
plementation of a process whereby a permit applica- cal generating facility of less than 50 megawatts in
tion @Vould be centrally coordinated and all permit capacity unless the applicant for such a facility elects
decisions could be reviewed on the basis of standards to apply for certification under this act.
and recommendations of the deciding agencies. It is (8) "Department" means the Department of En-
the policy of this state that, while recognizing the vironmental Regulation. k,
pressing need for increased power generation facili- (9) "Board" means the Governor and Cabinet sit-
ties, the state shall ensure through available and rea- ting as the Siting Board.
sonable methods that the location and operation of (10) "Agency," as the context requires, means ar
electrical power plants will produce minimal adverse official, officer, commission, authority, council, com-
effects on human health, the environment, the ecolo- mittee, department, division, bureau, board, section,
gy of the land and its wildlife, and the ecology of or other unit or entity of government, including a re
state waters and their aquatic life. It is the intent to gional or local governmental entity.
seek courses of action that will fully balance the in- (11) "State comprehensive plan" means that plan-
creasing demands for electrical power plant location prepared in accordance with the provisions of part I
and operation with the broad interests of the public. of chapter 23.
Such action will be based on these premises: (12) "License" means a franchise, permit, certifi
(1) To assure the citizens of Florida that opera- cation, registration, charter, or similar form of autho-
tion safeguards are technically sufficient for their rization required by law,-but it does not include a li-
welfare and protection. cense required primarily for revenue purposes wher-
(2) To effect a reasonable balance between the issuance of the license is merely a ministerial act.
need for the facility and the environmental impact (13) "Designated hearing officer" means the hear@
resulting from construction and operation of the fa- ing officer assigned by the Division of Administrative
cility, including air and water quality, fish and wild- Hearings pursuant to chapter 120 to conduct th-
life, and the water resources and other natural re- hearings required by this part.
sources of the state. (14) "Notice of intent" means that notice which i
(3) To provide abundant, low-cost electrical ener- riled with the department on behalf of an electric
gy. utility prior to submission of an application pursuant
History.-s. 1. ch. 73-33. to this act and which notifies the department of a.
intent to file an application.
403.503 Definitions.- (15) "Modification" means any change in the cer'-
(1) "Applicant" means any electric utility which tification order after issuance, including a change in
makes application for an electric power plant site cer- the conditions of certification.
tification pursuant to the provisions of this act. (16) "Amendment" means any change in the ap
1 (2) "Application" means the documents required plication for certification made after the initial filing.
by the department to be filed to initiate a certifica- History.-s. 1, ch. 7.3-3.1; s. t. ch. 76-76; s. L, ch. 79-76; s. 3. ch. 81-131.
tion proceeding.
(3) "Person" means an individual, partnership, 403.504 Department of Environmental Reg

i
I
I
I
I

i
i
i
I
I ATTACHMENT II
THE TEN-YEAR SITE PLAN ACT
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

Siting Handbook Attachment Il Ten-Year Site Plan Act

23.0191 Ten-year site plans.-
(1) Beginning January 1. 1974. each electric util-
itv shall submit to the Department of Community
Affairs a 10 year site plan which shall estimate its
power-generating, needs and the general location of
its proposed power plant sites. The 10-year plan shall
be reviewed and submitted not less frequently than
every 2 years.
(2) Within 9 months of the receipt of the pro-
posed plan, the department shall make a prelimi-
nary study of such plan and classify it as "suitable*'
or "unsuitable." The department may suggest alter,
natives to the plan. All finding of the department
shall be made available to the Department of Envi-
ronmental Regulation for its consideration at any
subsequent electrical power plant site certification
proceedings. It is recognized that 10-year site plans
submitted by an electric utility are tentative infor-
mation for planning purposes only and may be
amended at any time at the discretion of the utility
upon written notification to the department. A cum-
plete application for certification of an electrical
power plant site under chapter 403. when such site
is not designated in the current 10-year site plan of
the applicant, shall constitute an amendment to the
10-year site plan. In its preliminary study of each
10-yearsite plan. the department: shall consider such
plan as a planning document and shall review:
(a) The need, includihg the need as determined
by the Public Service Commission, for electrical pow-
er in the area to be served.
(b) The anticipated environmental impact of
each proposed electrical power plant site.
(c) Possible alternatives to the proposed plan.
(d) The views of appropriate local, state, and fed-
eral agencies, including the views of the appropriate
water management district as to the availability of
water and its recommendation as to the use by the
proposed plant of saltwater or Freshwater for cooling
purposes.
(e) The extent to which the plan is consistent
with the state comprehensive plan.
(f) The plan with respect to the information of
the state on energy availability and consumption.
(3) In order to enable it to carry out its duties
under this section. the department may, after hear-
ing establish a study fee which shall not exceed $1.-
000 for each proposed plan studied.
(4) The department may adopt rules governing
the method of submitting, processing, and studying
the 10-year plans as required by this section.
History-s. 1. ch 73-33, s. 2. ch.76-74; s. 77. ch. 79-190.
A-9

ATTACHMENT III

THE TRANSMISSION LINE SITING ACT

Siting Handbook Att. III Transmission Line Siting Act

nance of transmission lines within such corridor with
such modifications of conditions as the board deems
a@propriate. Certification shall be evidenced by a
written order of the board.
(7) "Commission" means the Florida Public Ser-
403.52 Short title.-Sections* 403.52-403.536 vice Commission.
may be cited as the "Transmission Line Siting Act." (8) "Completeness" means that the application
History-& 1. & 80-65. has addressed all applicable sections of the pre-
scribed application format, but does not mean that
403.521 Legislative intent.-The legislative those sections are sufficient in comprehensiveness of
intent of this act is to establish a centralized and CO- data or in quality of information provided.
ordinated permitting process for the location of (9) "Corridor" means the proposed area within
transmission line corridors and the construction and which a transmission line right-of-way is to be locat-
maintenance of transmission lines, which necessarily ed. The width of the corridor proposed for certifica-
involves several broad interests of the public ad- tion by an applicant or other party, at the.option of
dressed through the subject matter jurisdiction of the applicant, may be the width of the transmission
several agencies. The Legislature recognizes that line right-of-way or wider, not to exceed a width of I
transmission lines will have an effect upon the wel- mile. After all property interests required for the
fare of the population. Recognizing the need to en- transmission line right-of-way have been acquired by
sure electric power system reliability and integrity, the applicant, the boundaries of the area certified
and in order to meet electrical energy needs in an or- shall narrow to only that land within the boundaries
derly and timely fashion, the centralized and coordi- of the transmission line right-of-way. The corridors
nated permitting process established by this act is in- proper for certification shall be those addressed in
tended to further the legislative goal of ensuring the -application, in amendments to the application
through available and reasonable methods that the riled pursuant to s. 403.5275, and in notices of accep-
location of transmission line corridors and the con- tance of proposed alternate corridors filed by an ap-
struction and maintenance of transmission lines pro- plicant and the department pursuant to s. 403.527(5).
duce minimal adverse effects on the environment and (10) "Department" means the Department of En-
public health, safety, and welfare. It is the intent of vironmental Regulation.
this act to fully balance the need for transmission (11) "Local government" means a municipality or
lines with the broad'interests of the public in order to county in the jurisdiction of which the project is pro-
effect a reasonable balance between the need for the posed to be located.
facility as a means of providing abundant low-cost (12) "Modification" means any change in the cer-
electrical energy and the impact on the public and tification order after issuance, including a change in
the environment resulting from the location of the the conditions of certification.
transmission line corridor and the construction and (13) "Regional planning council" means a regional
maintenance of the transmission lines. The Legisla- planning council as defined in s. 160.003(4) in the ju-
ture intends that the provisions of chapter 120 apply risdiction of which the project is proposed 'to be lo-
to this act and to proceedings pursuant to it except as cated.
otherwise expressly exempted by other provisions of (14) "Sufficiency" means that the application is
this part. not only complete but that all sections are sufficient
HistOrY.-L 1. CIL 80-65; L 4 ch. 83-2M in comprehensiveness of data or in quality of infor-
mation provided.
403.522 Derinitions.-As used in this act: (15) "Transmission line" means any electrical
(1) "Agency," as the context requires, means an transmission line extending from, but not including,
official, officer, commission, authority, council, com- an existing or proposed substation or power plant to,
mittee, department, division, bureau, board, section, but not including, an existing or proposed transmis-
or other unit or entity of government within the sion network or rights-of-way or substation to which
state, including a county, municipality, or other re- the applicant intends to connect which defines the
gional or local governmental entity. end of the proposed project and which is designed to
(2) "Amendment" means a material change in in- operate at 230 kilovolts or more and which crosses a
formation provided in the application for certifica- county line. The starting point and ending point of a
tion made after the initial application riling. transmission line must be specifically defined by the
(3) "Applicant" means any electric utility which applicant and must be verified by the commission in
applies for certification pursuant to the provisions of its determination of need. A transmission line in-
this act. cludes structures and maintenance and access roads
(4) "Application" means the documents required that need to be constructed for the project to become
by the department to be riled to initiate a certifica- operational. If the proposed location of a corridor is
tion proceeding. An electric utility may file a compre- affected by the applicant's proposed intermediate
hensive application encompassing all or a part of one substations, then the general location of the proposed
or more proposed transmission lines. intermediate substation, and not the permitting of
(5) "Board" means the Governor and Cabinet sit- such substation, shall be considered in the certifica-
ting as the siting board. tion proceedings.
(6) "Certification" means the approval by the (16) "Transmission line right-of-way" means land
board of a corridor proper for certification pursuant necessary for the construction and maintenance of a
to subsection (9) and the construction and mainte- transmission line. The typical width of the

A 1

Siting Handbook Att. III Transmission Line Siting Act

right-of-way shall be identified in the application. The applicant shall be provided with an itemized ac
The right-of-way shall be located within the certified counting of the expenditures.
corridor and shall be identified by the applicant sub- (8) To prepare a compilation of agency reports
sequent to certification in documents filed with the and summaries of the material contained therein
department prior to construction. which shall be filed with the hearing officer and
(17) "Water management district" means a water served on all parties no later than 4 months after the
!nanagement district created pursuant to chapter 373 complete application is filed with the department,
in the jurisdiction of which the project is proposed 'to and which shall include:
be located. (a) The studies and reports required by ss.
(18) The following words have the same meaning 403.526 and 403.537, including the recommendations
as appears in s. 403.503: of the department relating to the disposition of the
(a) "Electric utility." application. P
(b) "License." (b) Comments received from any other agency.
(c) "Person." (9) To provide public notice of the filing of the
History-s. 1. ch. 80-65; a. 3, ch. 83-222.
'Note.-The words to be tomtee were inierted by the editors. application and of the proceedings conducted pursu-
ant to this act.
403.523 Department of Environmental Reg- (10) To prescribe the means for monitoring the
ulation; powers and duties.-The department effects arising from the location of the transmission
shall have the following powers and duties: line corridor and the construction and maintenance
(1) To adopt or amend reasonable procedural of the transmission lines to assure continued compli-
rules to implement the provisions of this act and to ance with the terms of the certification.
adopt or amend rules to implement the provisions of (11) To require a certification modification fee. If
subsection (14). no corridor alignment change is proposed by the- ap-
(2) To prescribe the form, content, and necessary plicant, the modification fee shall be $2,000. If a cor-
supporting documentation, and any required studies, ridor alignment change is proposed by the applicant,
for certification applications. All such data and the fee shall be $2,000 plus $750 for each mile of re-
studies shall be related to the jurisdiction of the alignment. Such fee shall be submitted to the depart-
agencies relevant to the application. ment upon notification by an applicant that modifi-
(3) To receive applications for transmission line cation pursuant to s. 403.5315(2) or (3) is sought, and
and corridor certifications and initially determine the which shall be used, disbursed, and accounted for in
completeness and sufficiency thereof. the same manner as the application fee.
(4) To make or contract for studies of certifica- (12i . To make a determination of acceptability of
tion applications. All such studies shall be related to any alternate corridor proposed for consideration
the jurisdiction of the agencies relevant to the appli- pursuant to s. 403.527(5).
cation. For studies in areas outside the jurisdiction of (13) To withhold from the fees established by
the department and in the jurisdiction of another this section a reasonable sum sufficient to cover the
agency, the department may initiate such studies, costs associated with postcertification review of ac-
but only with the consent of such agency. tivities required by any condition of certification.
(5) To administer the processing of applications Such sums shall be specified as part of each condi-
for certification and ensure that the applications are tion.
processed as expeditiously as possible. (14) To set requirements that reasonably protect
(6) To notify all affected agencies of the filing of the public health, safety, and welfare from the elec-
an application and of the filing of subsequent amend- tric and magnetic fields of transmission lines for
ments within 15 days after receiving the complete ap- which an application is filed after the effective date
plication or subsequent amendments. of this act.
(7) To require an application fee, which shall be (15) To present rebuttal evidence on any issue
paid to the department upon the filing of each appli- properly raised at the certification hearing.
cation for corridor certification. The application fee History-a. 1. ch. 80-65; a. 37. ch. 81-167; a. 265, ch. 81-259; a. 39. ch. 83-55;
shall be $750 for each mile of the proposed transmis- a. 4, ch. a3-222-
sion line corridor. A minimum fee of $20,000 shall be
required for each application. The application fee 403.524 Applicability and certification.-
shall be used to pay those expenses associated with (1) The provisions of this act apply to each trans-
the cost of the preparation and conduct of the hear- mission line, except a transmission line certified pur-
ings, the recording and transcription of the proceed- suant to the Florida Electrical Power Plant Siting
ings, the studies required by ihis act, and agency Act.
travel and per diem. Salaries for full-time state agen- (2) Except as provided in subsection (1), no con-
cy employees, excluding other personal services em- struction of any transmission line may be undertaken
ployees, may not be charged against the fee. If any without first obtaining certification under this act,
sums remain after payment of such expenses, the ap- but the provisions of this act do not apply to:
plication fee shall be applied pro rata to reimburse all (a) Transmission lines for which development ap-
reasonable expenses pursuant to this act incurred by proval has been obtained pursuant to chapter 380.
the agencies. Any sums remaining after the payment (b) Transmission lines which have been exempt-
of all authorized costs shall be refunded to the appli- ed by a binding letter of interpretation issued under
cant within 90 days after the issuance or denial of s. 380.06(4), or in which the Department of Commu-
certification or the withdrawal of the application. nity Affairs or its predecessor agency has determined

A-12

Siting-Handbook Att. III Transmission Line Siting Act

the utility to have vested development rights within hearing shall be held as expeditiously as possible, but
the meaning of a. 380.05(18) or s. 380-06(17). no later than 14 days from the filing of the statement
(c) Transmission line development in which all contesting the determination of the department. The
construction is limited to established rights-of-way. hearing officer shall make a decision within 10 days
Established rights-of-way include such rights-of-way after the hearing. If the hearing officer determines
for roads, highways, railroads, gas, water, oil, electric- that the application or amendment was not complete
ity, or sewage and any other public purpose as filed, then the applicant shall withdraw the appli-
rights-of-way. Except for transmission line cation or amendment or make such additional sub-
rights-of-way, established rights-of-way include mittals so as to complete it. If the hearing officer de-
rights-of-way created before or after October 1, 1983. termines that the application was complete at the
For transmission line rights-of-way, established time it was filed, then the time provided in this act
rights-of-way include rights-of-way created before shall run from the date of the filing of such applica-
October 1, 1983. tion.
(d) Transmission lines less than 15 miles in. - - - (3) The department may by rule adopt proce-
length which cross a county line, unless the applicant dures similar to those set forth in subsection (2) for
has elected to apply for certification under the act. the determination of the sufficiency of an application
(3) The exemption of a transmission line under by the department, based on the recommendations of
this act does not constitute an exemption for the the agencies required to submit reports pursuant to s.
transmission line from other applicable permitting 403.526. If contested by the applicant, the final deci-
processes under other provisions of law or local gov- sion on sufficiency shall be made by the hearing offi-
ernment ordinances. - cer.
(4) A utility shall notify the department in writ- History-s. 1, c1L_ W-65; s, 6, ch.'83_-Z2r--
ing, prior to the start of construction, of its intent to
construct a transmission line exempted pursuant to 403.526 Reports and studies.-
this section. Such notice shall be only for information (1) It shall be the duty of the department to pro-
purposes, and no action by the department shall be vide copies of each application, within 7 days after
required pursuant to such notice. filing, to the commission, the Department of Natural
History.-s. 1, ch. 80-9; s. 14. ch. 81-131; s. 38, ch. 81-167; s. 40, c1L 83-55; Resources, the Department of Community Affairs,
S. 5. ch. 83-= the Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, each
water management district, each regional planning
403.525 Appointment of hearing officer; de- council, and each local government in the jurisdiction
termination of completeness or sufficiency.- of which the proposed transmission line or corridor is
(1) Within 7 days after receipt of an application, to be located.
whether complete or not, the department shall re- (2) The department shall prepare a report as to
quest the Division of Administrative Hearings to des- the impact of each proposed transmission line or cor-
ignate a hearing officer to conduct the hearings re- ridor as it relates to matters within its jurisdiction.
quired by this act. The division director shall desig- (3) The Department of Natural Resources shall
nate a hearing officer to conduct the hearings re- prepare a report as to the impact of each proposed
quired by this act within 7 days after receipt of the transmission line of corridor on matters within its ju-
request from the department. Whenever practicable, risdiction and shall submit its report to, the depart-
the division director shall assign a hearing officer ment within 90 days after receipt of a copy of the
who has had prior experience or training in this type complete application.
.of certification proceeding. Upon being advised that (4) Each.water management district in the juris-
a hearing officer has been designated, the depart- diction of which a proposed transmission line or cor-
ment shall immediately filea copy of the application ridor is to be located shall prepare a report as to the
and all supporting documents with the hearing offi- impact on water resources and other matters within
cer, who shall docket the application. its jurisdiction and shall submit its report to the de-
(2) Within 20 working days after receipt of an ap- partment within 90 days after receipt of a copy of the
plication or an amendment, the department shall file complete application.
a statement with the Division of Administrative (5) The Department of Community Affairs shall
Hearings and with the applicant, declaring its Posi- prepare a report as to the impact of each proposed
tion with regard to the completeness, not the suffi- transmission line or corridor on land use and other
ciency, of the application or amendment. If the de- matters within its jurisdiction and shall submit its re-
partment declares the application or amendment to port to the department within 90 days after receipt of
be incomplete, then, within 15 days after the filing of the completed application.
the statement by the department, the applicant shall (6) The Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission
file with the Division of Administrative Hearings and shall prepare a report as to the impact of each pro-
with the department a statement agreeing with the posed transmission line or corridor on fish and wild-
statement of the department and withdrawing the life resources and other matters within its jurisdic-
application or amendment, a statement contesting tion and shall submit its report to the department
the statement of the department, or supplemental in- within 90 days after receipt of the completed applica-
formation which makes the application or amend- tion.
ment complete. If the determination by the depart- (7) Each local government shall prepare a report
ment that an application or amendment is incom- as to the impact of each proposed transmission line
plete and is contested, the hearing officer shall sched- or corridor on matters within its jurisdiction, or shall
ule a hearing on the statement of completeness. The by resolution adopt the report prepared by the ap-

A-13

Siting Handbook Att. III Transmission Line Siting Act

propriate regional planning council as required by county crossed by a transmission line corridor proper
subsection (8). It shall submit its report or resolution for certification which newspaper has the largest dai-
to the department within 90 days after its receipt of ly circulation in that county and has its principal of-
the complete application. fice in that county. If the newspaper with the largest
(8) Each regional planning council shall prepare a daily circulation has its principal office outside the
report on the impacts of each proposed transmission county, then the notices shall appear in both the
line or corridor on matters within its jurisdiction- It newspaper having the largest circulation in that
shall submit its report within 90 days after its receipt county and in a newspaper authorized to publish le-
of the complete application. gal notices in that county;
(9) The report shall contain the information on 2. In the Florida Administrative Weekly; and
variances required by s. 403.531(2) and proposed con- 3. By giving notice to any persons who have re-
ditions of certification on matters within the jurisdic- quested to be placed on the departmental mailing list
tion of each agency. For each condition proposed by for this purpose.
an agency, the agency shall list the specific statute, (e) The department shall adopt rules specifying
rule, or ordinance, as applicable, which authorizes the the content of notices required by this section. All
proposed condition. published notices shall be paid for by the applicant
(10) Each reviewing agency shall initiate the ac- and shall be in addition to the application fee. The
tivities required by this section no later than 15 days department shall arrange for publication of notices
after the complete application is filed. Preliminary required by this section.
reports shall be submitted to the department no later (2) No later than 150 days after receipt of a com-
than 60 days after the receipt of a completed applica- plete application by the department, the hearing offi-
tion by the department. Such reports shall be made cer shall conduct a certification hearing pursuant to
available to each local government for use as infor- s. 120.57 at a central location in proximity to the pro-
mation for public meetings pursuant to s. 403.5272. posed transmission line or corridor. One public hear-
Each agency shall keep the applicant informed as to ing where members of the public who are not parties
the progress of its studies and any issues raised there- to the certification hearing may testify shall be held
by (11) The failure of any agency to submit a pre- within the boundaries of each county, at the option of
liminary report or a report, or to submit its prelimi- any local government. The local government shall no-
nary report or report within the allrwed time, shall tify the hearing officer and all parties not later than
not be grounds for the alteration of any time limita- 50 days after the receipt of a complete application as
tion in this act pursuant to a. 403.528. Neither the to whether-the local government wishes to have such
failure to submit a preliminary report or a report nor a public hearing. The local government shall be re-
the inadequacy of the preliminary report or report sponsible for 'determining the location of the public
shall be grounds to deny or condition certification. hearing. Within 5 days of such notification, the hear-
History.-s. 1. ch. 80-65; s. 39, ch. St-167; s. 41, ch. 83-55; s. 7, ch. 83-222. ing officer shall determine the date of such public
hearing, which shall be held before or during the cer-
403.527 Notice, proceedings, parties, partic- tification hearing. In the event two or more local gov-
ipants.- ernments within one county request such a public
(1)(a) No later than 15 days after the receipt of hearing, the hearing shall be consolidated so'that
an application, the department shall arrange for pub- only one such public hearing is held in any county.
lication of a notice of the application and of the pro- The location of a consolidated hearing shall be deter-
ceedings required by this act.. mined by the hearing officer. If a local government
(b) The department shall arrange for publication does not request a public hearing within 50 days after
of a notice of the certification hearing and other pub- the receipt of a complete application, persons resid-
lic hearings provided for in this section and notice of ing within "the jurisdiction of such local government
the deadline for filing of notice of intent to be a par- may testify at the public hearing portion of the certi-
ty. Such notices shall be published at least 80 days fication hearing.
before the date set for the hearing. (3)(a) At the conclusion of the certification hear-
(c) The department shall arrange for publication ing, the hearing officer shall, after consideration of all
of a reminder notice in the newspapers specified in evidence of record, issue a recommended order dis-
paragraph (d) no more than 2 weeks prior to the cer- posing of the application no later than 50 days after
tification hearing, reminding the public of the date the transcript of the certification hearing and the
and location of the hearing. This notice shall not con- public hearings is filed with the Division of Adminis-
stitute a point of entry for intervention in the pro- trative Hearings.
ceeding. (b) In the event the hearing officer fails to issue a
(d) Notices shall be published: recommended order within 50 days after the filing of
1. In newspapers of general circulation within the hearing transcript, the hearing officer shall sub-
counties crossed by the transmission line corridors mit a report to the board with a copy to all parties
proper for certification. The required newspaper no- within 50 days after the filing of the hearing tran-
tices, other than the reminder notice, shall be script to advise the board of the reason for the delay
one-half page in size in a standard-size newspaper or in the issuance of the recommended order and of the
a full page in a tabloid-Si2e newspaper. These notices date by which the recommended order will be issued.
shall include a map generally depicting all transmis- (4)(a) Parties to the proceeding shall be:
sion corridors proper for certification. A newspaper 1. The applicant.
pf general circulation shall be the newspaper within a 2. The department.
A-14

33iting Handbook Att. III Transmission Line Siting Act

3. The commission. (c) If rescheduled, the certification hearing shall
4. The Department of Community Affairs. be held no more than 80 days from the previously
5. The Department of Natural Resources. scheduled certification hearing, to provide sufficient
6. The Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission. time:
7. Each water management district in the juris- 1. For the publication of notice pursuant to para-
diction of which the proposed transmission line or graphs (1)(b) and (c);
corridor is to be located. 2. For the agencies listed in s. 403.526 to rile sup-
8. Any local government. plementary reports addressing the proposed alter-
9. Regional planning councils. nate corridors at least 30 days prior to the certifica-
(b) Any party listed in paragraph (a) may waive tion hearing; and
its right to participate in these proceedings. If any 3. For agencies to submit supplementary notice
listed party fails to rile a notice of its intent to be a Pursuant to a. 403.531(2) at least 30 days prior to the
party on or before the 30th day prior to the certifica- certification hearing.
tion hearing, such party shall be deemed to have (d) Each party proposing an alternate corridor
waived its right to be a party unless its participation shall have the burden of providing data to the agen-
would not prejudice the rights of any party to the cies listed in s. 403-526 necessary for the preparation
proceeding. of a supplementary report on the proposed alternate
(c) Notwithstanding the provisions of chapter corridor within a time period established by the de-
120 to the contrary, upon the filing with the hearing partment and shall have the burden of proof on the
officer of a notice of intent to be a party by an agency certifiability of the alternate corridor at the certifica-
or corporation or association described in subpara- tion hearing pursuant to s. 403.529(3). Nothing in
graphs 1. and 2. or a petition for intervention by a this act shall be construed as requiring the applicant
person described in subparagraph 3. no later than 30 or agencies not proposing the alternate to submit
days prior to the date set for the certification hear- data in support of such alternate corridor.
!ng, the following shall also be parties to the proceed- (e) Notwithstanding the rejection of a proposed
Mg. alternate corridor'by the applicant or the depart-
I. Any state agency not listed in paragraph (a) as ment, any party may present evidence at the certifi-
to matters within its jurisdiction. cation hearing to show that a corridor proper for cer-
2. Any domestic nonprofit corporation or associa- tification does not satisfy the criteria listed in s.
tion formed, in whole or in part, to promote conserva- 403.529 or that a rejected alternate corridor would
tion of natural beauty; to protect the environment, meet the criteria set forth in s. 403.529. No evidence
personal health, or other biological values; to pre- shall be admitted at the certification hearing on any
serve historical sites; to promote consumer interests; alternate corridor, unless the alternate corridor was
to represent labor, commercial, or industrial groups; proposed by the filing of a notice at least 50 days pri-
or to promote orderly development of the area in or to the certification hearing pursuant to this sub-
which the proposed transmission line or corridor is to section. Rejected alternate corridors shall be consid-
be located. ered by the board as provided in s. 403.529(3) and
3. Any person whose substantial interests are af- (4),
fected and being determined by the proceeding. M If an alternate corridor is accepted by the ap-
(d) Any agency whose properties or works may be Plicant and the department pursuant to a notice of
affected shall be made a party upon the request of acceptance as provided in this subsection and such
the agency or any party to this proceeding. corridor is ultimateiy determined to be the corridor
(5)(a) No later than 50 days prior to the certifica- that would meet the criteria set forth in s. 403.529(3)
tion hearing, any party may propose alternate trans- and (4), the board shall certify that corridor.
mission line corridor routes for consideration pursu- (6) When appropriate, any person may be given
ant to the provisions of this act by riling a notice of a an opportunity to present oral or written communi-
proposed alternate corridor with the hearing officer, cations to the hearing officer. If the hearing officer
all parties, and any local governments in whose juris- proposes to consider such communications, all par-
diction the alternate is proposed. Such filing shall in- ties shall be given an opportunity to cross-examine or
clude the most recent United States Geological Sur- challenge or rebut such communications.
vey 1:24000 quadrangle maps specifically delineating (7) The hearing officer shall have all powers and
the corridor boundaries, a description of the pro- duties granted to hearing offic'ers by chapter 120 and
posed corridor, and a-statement of the reasons the by the laws and rules of the department, including
proposed alternate should be certified. the authority to resolve disputes over the complete-
(b) Within 5 working days of receipt of such no- ness or sufficiency of an application for certification.
History-9. 1. ch. 80-65; s. 40, ch. 81-167; s. 42, ch. S3-55: s. 8, ch. 83-2=
tice, the applicant and the department shall file with 'Note.-The word "determining" was inserted by the editors.
the hearing officer and all parties a notice of accep- 'Note.-The words "the jurisdiction or were inserted by the editors.
tance or rejection of a proposed alternate corridor for
consideration. If the alternate corridor is rejected ei- 403.5272 Local governments; informational
ther by the applicant or the department, the certifi- public meetings.-
cation hearing and the public hearings shall be held (1) Local governments may hold informational
as scheduled. If both the applicant and the depart- public meetings in addition to the hearings specifical-
ment accept a proposed alternate corridor for consid- ly authorized by this act on any matter associated
@ration, the certification hearing and the public hear- with the transmission line proceeding. Such informa-
ings shall be rescheduled, if necessary. tional public meetings should be held no later than

A-15

Siting Handbook Att. III Transmission Line Siting Act

80 days after the application is filed. The purpose of (a) Ensure electric power system reliability and
an informational public meeting is for the local gov- integrity;
ernment to further inform the general public about (b) Meet the electrical energy needs of the state
the transmission line proposed, obtain comments in an orderly and timely fashion;
from the public, and formulate its recommendation (c) Comply with nonprocedural requirements of
with respect to the proposed transmission Imie. agencies;
(2) Informational public meetings shall be held (d) Be consistent with applicable local govern-
solely at the option of each local government. It is the ment comprehensive plans; and
legislative intent that local governments attempt to (e) Effect a reasonable balance between the need
hold such public meetings. Parties to the proceedings for the transmission line as a means of providing
under this act shall be encouraged to attend; howev- abundant low-cost electrical energy and the impact
er, no party shall be required to attend such informa- upon the public and the environment resulting from
tional public hearings. the location of the transmission line corridor and
(3) The failure to hold an informational public maintenance of the transmission lines.
meeting or the procedure used for the informational (4)(a) Any transmission line corridor certified by
public meeting shall not be grounds for the alteration the board shall meet the criteria of this section.
of any time limitation in this act pursuant to s. When more than one transmission line corridor is
403.528 or grounds to deny or condition certification. proper for certification pursuant to s. 403.522(9) and
History-s. 9, ch. 83-2= meets the criteria of this section, the board shall cer-
tify the transmission line corridor that has the least
403.5275 Amendment to the application.- adverse impact regarding the criteria in subsection
(1) Any amendment made to the application shall (3), including costs.
be sent by the applicant to the hearing officer and to (b) If the board finds that an alternate corridor
all parties to the proceeding. No additional fee shall rejected pursuant to s. 403-527(5) meets the criteria
be required for the submittal of an amendment to the of subsection (3) and has the least adverse impact re-
application if no corridor alignment change is pro- garding the criteria in subsection (3), including cost,
posed by the amendment. However, if a corridor of all corridors that meet the criteria of subsection
alignment change is proposed by the applicant, an (3), then the board shall deny certification or shall al-
additional fee of a minimum of $2,000 and $750 per low the applicant to submit an amended application
mile shall be submitted to the department for use in to include such corridor.
accordance with s. 403.523. Amendments that are re- (c) If the board finds that two or more of the cor-
quired to address issues, including alternate corridors ridors that comply with the provisions of subsection
pursuant to s. 403.527(5), raised by the department (3) have the least adverse impacts regarding the
or other parties do not require additional fees. criteria in subsection (3), including costs, and that
(2) Any amendment to the application made pri- such corridors are substantially equal in adverse im-
or to certification shall be disposed of as part of the pacts regarding the criteria in subsection (3), includ-
original certification proceeding. Amendment of the ing costs, then the board shall certify the corridor
application may be considered "good cause" for alter- preferred by the applicant if the corridor is one prop-
ation of time Umits pursuant to s. 403.528. er for certification pursuant to s. 403.522(9).
History-s. 1, cii. 80-65; s. 10, ch. 83-= (5) The issuance or denial of the certification by
the board shall be the final administrative action re-
403.528 Alteration of time limits.-Any time quired as to that application.
limitation in this act may be altered by the hearing History-s. 1, ch. 80-65; 9. 12. ch. 83-999
officer upon stipulation between the department and
the applicant unless objected to by any party within 403.531 Effect of certification.-
5 days after notice or for good cause shown by any (1) Subject to the conditions set forth therein,
party. certification shall constitute the sole license of the
History-& 1. ch. 80-65; L 11 clL 93-222. state and any agency as to the approval of the loca-
tion of transmission line corridors and the construc-
403.529 Final disposition of application.- tion and maintenance of transmission lines. The cer-
(1) Within 30 days after receipt of the hearing of- tification shall be valid for the life of the transmis-
ficer's recommended order, the board shall act upon sion line, provided that construction on, or condem-
the application by written order, approving in whole, nation or acquisition of, the right-of-way is com-
approving with such modification and conditions as menced within 5 years of the date of certification or
the board deems appropriate, or denying the certifi- such later date as may be authorized by the board.
cation and stating the reasons for issuance or denial. (2) The certification shall authorize the applicant
(2) If certification is &nied, the board shall set to locate the transmission line corridor and to con-
forth in writing the action the applicant would have struct and maintain the transmission lines subject
to take to secure the approval of the application by only to the conditions of certification set forth in
the board. such certification. The certification may include con-
(3) In determining whether an application should ditions which constitute variances and exemptions,
be approved in whole, approved with modifications otherwise allowed by law, from nonprocedural stan-
or conditions, or denied, the board shall consider dards or regulations of the department or any other
whether, and the extent to which, the location of the agency, which were expressly considered during the
transmission line corridor and the construction and proceeding unless waived by the agency as provided
maintenance of the transmission line will: below and which otherwise would be applicable to

A-16

Siting Handbook Att. III Transmission Line Siting Act

the location of the proposed transmission line corri- rights-of-way within the corridor. Each clerk shall re-
dor or the construction and maintenance of the cord the filing in the official record of the county for
transmission lines. Each party shall notify the appli- the duration of the certification or until such time as
cant and other parties at least 60 days prior to the the applicant certifies to the clerk that all lands re-
certification hearing of any nonprocedural require- quired for the transmission line rights-of-way within
ments not specifically listed in the application from the corridor have been acquired within such county,
which a variance or exception is necessary in order whichever is sooner. The recording of this notice shall
for the board to certify any corridor proposed for cer- not constitute a Hen, cloud, or encumbrance on real
tification. Failure of such notification shall be treated property.
as a waiver, variance, or exception, otherwise allowed History-L 12, ch, 81-131.
by law, from nonprocedural standards or regulations
of the department or any other agency. 403.5315 Modification of certification.-A
(3) The certification shall be in lieu of any H. certification may be modified after issuance in any
cense, permit, certificate, or similar document re- one of the following ways:
quired by any agency pursuant to, but not limited to, (1) The board may delegate to the department
chapter 125, chapter 161, chapter 163, chapter 253, the authority to modify specific conditions in the cer-
chapter 258, chapter 298, chapter 370, chapter 373, tification.
chapter 380, chapter 381, chapter 387, chapter 403, (2) The department may modify the terms and
chapter 404, the Florida Transportation Code, or 33 conditions of the certification if no party objects in
U.S.C. s. 1341. On certification, any license, ease- writing to such modification within 45 days after no-
ment, or other interest in state lands, except those tice by mail to the last address of record in the certi-
the title of which is vested in the Board of Trustees fication proceeding, and if no other person whose
of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund, shall be is- substantial interests will be affected by the modifica-
sued by the appropriate agency as a ministerial act. tion objects in writing within 30 days after issuance
The applicant shall be required to seek any necessary of public notice.
interest in state lands the title to which is vested in
the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement (3) If the parties to the certification proceeding
Trust Fund from the board of trustees before, during, are unable to reach a mutual written agreement on
or after the certification proceeding, and certification modification of the terms and conditions of the certi-
may be made contingent upon issuance of the appro- fication, the applicant may file a petition for modifi-
priate interest in realty. However, neither the appli- cation with the department setting forth:
cant nor any party to the certification proceeding (a) The proposed modification;
may directly or indirectly raise or relitigate any mat- (b) The factual reasons asserted for the modifica-
ter which was or could have been an issue in the cer- tion; and
tification proceeding in any proceeding before the (c) The anticipated additional environmental ef.
Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement fects of the proposed modification.
Trust Fund wherein the applicant is seeking a neces- (4) Petitions filed pursuant to subsection (3)
sary interest in state lands, but the information pres- shall be disposed of in the same manner as an appli-
ented in the certification proceeding shall be avail- cation but with shortened time periods commensu-
able for review by the board of trustees and its staff. rate with the significance of the modification re-
(4) This part shall not in any way affect the rate- quested.
making powers of the commission under chapter 366. History-s. 1. ch. 80-65; s. LS, ch. 83-M
This part shall also not in any way affect the right of
any local government to charge appropriate fees or 403.532 Revocation or suspension of certifl-
require that construction be in compliance with the cation.-Any certification may be revoked or sus-
National Electrical Safety Code, as prescribed by the pended:
commission. (1) For any material false statement in the appli-
(5) No term or condition. of certification shall be cation or in the supplemental or additional state-
interpreted to preclude the postcertification exercise ments of fact or studies required of the applicant
by any party, of whatever procedural rights it may when a true answer would have warranted the
have under chapter 120, including those related to board's refusal to recommend a certification in the
rulemaking proceedings. first instance.
History-s. 1, ch. 80-66; s. N6. ch. 81-259-, s. 13, ch. 83-222. (2) For failure to comply with the terms or condi-
tions of the certification.
403.5312 Recording of notice of certified (3) For violation of the provisions of this act or
corridor route.-Within 60 days after certification rules or orders issued hereunder.
of a directly associated transmission line pursuant to History-s. 1, ch. 80-0.
ss. 403-501-403.517 or a transmission line corridor
pursuant to ss. 403.52-403.536, the applicant shall 403.533 Enforcement of compliance.-Failure
file, in accordance with s. 28.222, with the clerk of the to obtain a certification, or to comply with the condi-
circuit court for each county through which the corri- tions thereof, or to comply with this part shall consti-
dor will pass, a notice of the certified route. The no- tute a violation of chapter 403.
tice shall consist of maps or aerial photographs in the History-9, 1, ch. 80-65.
scale of 1:24,000 which clearly show the location of
the certified route and shall state that the certifica- 403.536 Superseded laws, regulations, and
tion of the corridor will result in the acquisition of certification power.-

A-17

Siting Handbook Att. III Transmission Line Siting Act

(1) if any provision of this act is in conflict with domain proceedings; attorney's fees and costs.
any other provision, limitation, or restriction which is -
now in effect under any law of this state or any ordi- (1) Certification pursuant to ss. 403.52-403.536
nance of a local government, political subdivision, or shall be admissible as evidence of public need and
municipality, or any rule or regulation adopted there- necessity in proceedings under chapter 73 or chapter
under, this act shall control. 74.
(2) The state hereby preempts the certification of (2) No party may rely on this section or any pro-
transmission lines and transmission line corridors. vision of chapter 73 or chapter 74 to request the
(3) The board shall have the power to adopt rea- award of attorney's fees or costs incurred as a result
sonable procedural rules to carry out its duties under of participation in the certification proceeding.
this act and to give effect to the legislative intent that History.--a. 2, ch. 80-65; L 20. ch. 83.=
this act provide an efficient, centrally coordinated,
one-stop permitting process.
Hi3tory.-s. 1, ch. 80-65.

403.537 Determination of need for transmis-
sion line; powers and duties.-
(1)(a) Upon request by an electric utility or upon
its own motion, the Florida Public Service Commis-
sion shall schedule a public hearing, after notice, to
determine the need for a transmission line regulated
by the Transmission Line Siting Act, ss.
403.52-403.536. Such notice shall be published at
least 20 days before the date set for the hearing and
shall be published in newspapers of general circula-
tion, in the Florida Administrative Weekly, by giving
notice to counties and regional planning councils in
whose jurisdiction the transmission line could be
placed, and by giving notice to any persons who have
requested to be placed on the mailing list of the com-
mission for this purpose. Within 21 days after receipt
of a request for determination by an applicant, the
commission shall set a date for the hearing. The hear-
ing shall be held pursuant to s. 350.01 within 45 days
after the filing of the request, and a decision shall be
rendered within 60 days after such filing.
(b) In the determination of need, the commission
shall take into account the need for electric system
reliability and integrity, the need for abundant,
low-cost electrical energy to assure the economic
well-being of the citizens of this state, the appropri-
ate starting and ending point of the line, and other
matters within its jurisdiction deemed relevant to the
determination of need.
(c) The determination by the commission of the
need for the transmission line, as defined in s.
403-522(15), is binding on all parties to any certifica-
tion proceeding pursuant to the Transmission Line
Siting Act and is a condition precedent to the con-
duct of the certification hearing prescribed therein.
An order entered pursuant to this section constitutes
final agency action.
(2) The commission shall have the following pow-
ers and duties:
(a) To adopt or amend reasonable procedural
rules to implement the provisions of this section.
(b) To prescribe the form, content, and necessary
supporting documentation -and the required studies
for the determination of need.
(3) Any time limitation in this section may be al-
tered by the commission upon stipulation between
the commission and the applicant or for good cause
shown by any party.
History.-s. 3. ch. 80-66; a. 13, ch. 81-131: a. 19, ch. 93-22Z

403.539 Certification admissible in eminent

A-18

ATTACHMENT IV

CHAPTER 17-17, FLORIDA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE

Siting Handbook Attachment IV Ch. 17-17, FAC

----------
PART 1 17-17.13 Post Certification Monit6_r_-____.
17-17.01 General. ing.
17-17.011 General. 17-17.131 Appeal from Denial of Rezon-
17-17-02 Definitions. ing or Variance from Local
17-17-021 Definitions. Zoning or Amendment of
17-17.03 Prohibitions and Exceptions. Land Use Plans, Notice,
17-17.031 Prohibitions and Exceptions. Hearing, Board Action.
17-17.04 Application for Site Certl- 17-17.14 Analysis by the Department,
fication, Request for Sup- Abandonment.
plementary Information, Fee. 17-17.141 Certification Hearings -
17-17.041 Notice of Intent. Subject Matter, Procedure,
17-17.05 Conduct of Studies. Participants.
1.7-17.051 Application for Site Certi- 17-17.15 Retention and Availability
I fication, Fee. of Certification and Appli-
17-17.06 Public Notice. cation, Copying Fees.
17-17.061 Hearing Officer Appointment, 17-17.151 Public Notice.
Duties and Powers. 17-17.16 Review and Evaluation.
17-17.07 Evidence of Notice, Addi- 17-17.161 Evidence of Notice, Addi-
'tional Notice. tional Notice.
17-17.071 Completeness of Application. 17-17.17 Modification of Certifica-
17-17.08 Hearings General ly-Conduct. tion.
17-17.081 Request for Supplementary 17-17.171 Conditions of Certification.
Information, Determination 17-17.18 Revocation or Suspension of
of Sufficiency of Appli- Certification.
cation - Consultation with 17-17.181 Retention and Availability
Applicant, Procedures. of Certification and Appli-
17-17.09 Land Use Hearings-Subject cation, Copying Fees.
Matter, Effect of Findings. 17-17.19 Completeness of Application.
17-17.091 Conduct of Studies. 17-17.191 Post-Certification Monitor-
17-17.10 Appeal from Denial of Rezon- ing.
Ing or Variance from Local 17-17.20 D;etermination of Insuffi-
Zoning or Land Use Plans, ciency of Application, Con-
Hearing, Board Action. sultation with Applicant,
17-17.101 Analysis by Dep@rtment. Procedures.
17-17.11 Certification Hearings- 17-17.201 Review and Evaluation.
Subject Matter, Procedure, 17-17.21 Processing of Supplemental
Particip@nts. Application.
17-17.111 Hearings Generally - 17-17.211 Modification of Certifica-
Conduct. tion, Fee.
17-17.12 Hearing Officer Appointment, 17-17.221 Revocation or Suspension of
Duties and Powers. Certification.
17-17.121 Land Use and Zoning 17-17.231 Processing of Supplemental
Hearings - Subject Matter, Application.
Effect of Findings. 17-17.241 Abandonment.

A-21

Siting Handbook Attachment IV Ch. 17-17, FAC

PART 11 PART I
17-17.51 General.
17-17.52 Definitions. 17-17.01 General.
17-17.53 Prohibitions. Specific Authority: 403.502,
17-17.5.4 'Application for Corridor 403.509(l), F.S. Law Implemented:
Certification, Amendments, 403.502, F.S. History: New 5-7-74,
Fee, Disbursement of Amended 12-27-77, Transferred to
Funds. 17-17.011, 5-9-83.
17-17.55 Hoaring Officer Appoint-
ment, Duties and Powers. 17-17.011 General.
17-17.56 Completeness of Appli- (1) The purpose of this chapter
cation, Resolution Pro- is to implement the provisions of
cedures. the Florida Electrical Power Plant
17-17.57 Insufficiency of Appli- Siting Act, as amended.
cation-Consultation with (2) The department promulgates
Applicant, Resolution this chapter pursuant to the charge
Procedures. of the legislature to provide effi-
17-17,58 Conduct of Studies, cient, centralized review of the r
Supplementary Information. needs for increased electrical power
17-17.59 Analysis by the Depart- generation and the effects of gen-
ment, Agency Reports. eration-related activities on human
17-17.60 Conditions of Certifi- health and the environment and ecol- r
cation; Delegated Modi- ogy of the lands and waters within
fications. the state.
17-17.61 Public Notice. (3) Upon application, the Board
17-17.62 Evidence of Notice, is authorized to certify a site for
"Additional Notice. maximum predicted steam or solar
17-17.63 Hearings Generally, generation pursuant to Chapter
Conduct, Public Service 17-17, Part 1, FAC. The applicant
Commission's Determination shall submit a supplemental appli-
of Need. cation for certification of the
17-17.64 Certification Hearings- construction and operation of addi-
Subject Matter, Procedure, tional electrical power plants to be
Participants. located at sites which have been
17-17.65 Retention and Availabil- previously certified for an ultimate
ity of Certification site capacity. The supplemental
and Application, Copying application shall show that the
Fees. additional unit or units conform to
17-17.66 Pos t-Cert i fi cation Moni- the environmental standards being
toring and Reporting. enforced by federal or state govern-
17-17.67 Review and Evaluation. ments having jurisdiction at the
17-17.68 Modification of Certifica- time of the supplemental applica-
tion, Fee. tion and shall be subject to this
17-17.69 Processing of Modification chapter.
Petition Pursuant to Sec- Specific Authority: 403.502,
tion 403.535(3), F.S. 403.504(l), 403.509(1), F.S. Law
17-17.70 Revocation or Suspension Implemented: 403.502, 403.504(2)(3)
of Certification. (5), F.S. History: New 5-7-74,
17-17.71 Termination of Certifica- Amended 12-27-77, Formerly 17-17.01,
tion. Amended 5-9-83.

17-17.01 -- 17-17.011 (History)
5-9-83

Siting Handbook Attachment IV Ch. 17-17, FAC

17-17.02 Definitions. comprehensiveness of data or in
Specific Authority: 403.502, quality of information provided.
403.503, F.S. Law Implemented: (7) "Secretary" means the
403.504(l), 403.517, F.S. History: Secretary of the Department of
New 5-7-74, Amended 12-27-77, Environmental Regulation.
Transferred to 17-17.021, 5-9-83., . (8) "Sufficiency" means that
the sections of the application are
17-17.021 Definitions. sufficient in comprehensiveness of
Words, terms and phrases used data or in the quality of informa-
in this chapter, unless otherwise tion provided for the agencies to
indicated, shall have the meaning conduct their required studies in
set forth in Section 403.031 and order to assess the impacts of the
403.503, Florida Statutes. I n ad- proposed electrical power plant.
dition, the following words when (9) "Clerk of the Siting Board"
used in this chapter shall have the means the person designated as the
indicated meanings: clerk of the department for purposes
(1) "Act" means the Florida of Florida Rules of Appellate Pro-
Electrical Power Plant Siting Act, cedure 9.020(g).
Section 403.SO1 through 403.517, (10) "Major Amendments" means
F.S., as amended. any change in plant design or loca-
(2) "Construction" means any tion of facilities likely to have a
clearing of land, excavation or significant adverse effect on the
other action which would alter the environment. -
physical environment or ecology of a Specific Authority: 403.502,
site, but does not include those 403.503, F.S. Law Implemented:
activities essential for surveying, 403.504(l), 403.517, F.S. History:
preliminary site evaluation or envi- New 5-7-74,, Amended 12-27-77,
ronmental studies. Formerly 17-17.02, Amended 5-9-83.
(3) "Abandonment" means the
procedure by which the Board re- 17-17.03 Prohibitions and
leases all or part of a site from Exceptions.
the terms and conditions of a certi- Specific Authority: 403.504(l), F.S.
fication previously granted. Law Implemented: 403.506, F.S. His-
(4) "Board" means the Governor tory: New 5-7-74, Amended 12-27-77,
and Cabinet sitting as the Siting Transferred to 17-17.031, 5-9-83.
Board *
(5) "Supplemental Application" 17-17.031 Prohibitions and
means an application for certifi- Exceptions.
cation for the construction and No applicant shall construct,
operation of an additional steam or suffer, allow or permit construction
solar electrical power plant to be on any site, requiring certification
located at a site which has been under this Part without an appro-
previously certified for an ultimate priate and currently valid certifi-
site capacity. cation issued by the Board pursuant
(6) "Completeness" means the to the requirements of this Part.
application has addressed all appli- This section shall not be construed
cable sections of the prescribed ap- to prohibit the use of the site for
plication format, but does not mean agriculture, forestry, mariculture,
that said sections are sufficient in oil or mineral exploration, or

17-17.02 17-17.031
S-9-83

A-23

Siting Handbook Attachment IV Ch. 17-17, FAC

recreation, which shall be excep- plan for the areas listed in (b);
tions to the definitions of con- (d) a list of all state envi-
struction in Section 17-17.021(2) ronmental licenses currently held
above. Other land uses may be autho- for preapplication work at the site,
rized upon a finding by the Board or such as for monitoring facilities;
the Secretary that such uses are not (e) the anticipated date of
inconsistent with the purposes of filing of the application.
the Act. This section shall not (3) A $2,500 Notice of Intent
obviate the necessity of obtaining Fee shall be submitted to the
appropriate state, regional or local department along with the Notice,
permits, certifications, or similar for use by the department and other
licenses -prior to any use of the affected agencies in all matters
site under the above exceptions. pertaining to the Notice and appli-
Specific Authority: 403.504(l), F.S. cation. The fee shall be a credit
Law Implemented: 403.506, F.S. toward the application fee and shall
History: New 5-7-74, Amended be used, disbursed and refunded in
12-27-77, Formerly 17-17.03, the same manner as the application
Amended 5-9-83. fee
(4) Within fifteen days of
17-17.04 Application for Site receipt of a Notice of Intent,
Certification, Request for Supple- the department shall notify all
mentary Information, Fee. affected agencies and shall publish
Specific Authority: 403.502, F.S. notice in accordance with Subsection
Law Implemented: 403.504, 403.517, 17-17.151(2).
F.S. History: New 5-7-74, Amended (5) After publication of notice
12-27-77, Transferred to 17-17.051, of the department's receipt of a
5-9-83. Notice of Intent from an applicant,
the department, other affected agen-
17-17.041 Notice of Intent. cies, and the applicant may enter
(1) Any person intending to into binding written agreements as
submit an application for certifi- to the scope, quantity, and specifi-
cation may file a Notice of Intent city of information to be provided
with -the-Department. If this in the application, as further
is exercised, the Notice shall be described in DER Form 17-1.211(l)
filed with the department at least FAC. Copies of any public comments
six months prior to the expected concerning the proposed binding
date of application in order for the agreement*shall be forwarded to the
information to be useful. appropriate affected agencies and
(2) The Notice of Intent should the applicant by the department.
detail at a minimum: (6) A written agreement pro-
(a) the type of power plant and posed by the applicant as to the
proposed size; scope, quantity, and specificity of
(b) the proposed site location information to be provided in the
together with a general map of the application, shall be deemed binding
site including the location if known except to the extent an affected
of any proposed associated facili- agency specifically disagrees within
ties or transmission line corridors; forty-five days of the publication
(c) a general description of of notice of such a proposal and
the designated zoning and land use indicates all changes which are
S-9-83 17-17.031 17-17.041(6)

A-24

Siting Handbook Attachment IV Ch. 17-17, FAC

necessary for the proposed agreement 10 CFR, 'Part 50 and 10 CFR, Part 51,
to become acceptable to the agency. as amended, or any substantially
All such changes which the applicant similar federal format approved by
agrees to shall be deemed part of the department, in lieu of the de-
the agreement. Any affected agen- partment's format for a new applica-
cies' disagreements must be in writ- tion or a supplemental application.
ing and include the reasons for such (b) A separate application
disagreements. The Notice of a Pro- shall be made for each expansion in
posed Binding Written Agreement may steam or solar electrical generating
be combined with a Notice of Intent capacity or new electrical power
if an applicant has furnished such plant site.
an agreement to the department with (c) Any supplemental applica-
the Notice of Intent. tion for -certification shall follow
Specific Authority: 403.504, F.S. the format of and be supported by
Law Implemented: 403.504, 403.5063, information and technical studies
-History: New 5-9-83. prescribed by DER Form 17-1.211(l),
FAC, or the format described in
17-17.05 Conduct of Studies. (1) (a) above. The applicant for
Specific Authority: 403.504(2), F.S. supplemental certification should
Law Implemented: 403.507(2) (3), F.S. meet with the department to deter-
History: New 5-7-74, Amended mine what previously filed informa-
1.2-27-77, Transferred to 17-17.091, tion is still sufficient for agency
5-9-83. use, and what new data must be
filed.
17-17.051 Application for Site (d) Forty-five (45) copies of
Certification, Fee. the certification application or
(1) Applications for certifi- supplemental application and any
cation shall follow the format and supplements thereto shall be sub-
shall 6e supported by applicable mitted by the applicant to the
information and technical studies, department.
as prescribed by DER Form 17-1.211 (2) The appropriate application
(1), FAC, Instruction Guide for fee shall accompany any application
Certification Applications: Elec- and shall be a condition precedent
trical Power Plant Site, Associated to any further consideration or
Facilities, and Associated Trans- action on the application by the
mission Lines, as amended. department beyond that agreed upon
(a) The applicant may substi- as a result of filing a Notice of
tute the United States Nuidear Regu- Intehte
latory Commission's or ifs succes- (a) The initial and supple-
sorts format for an application for mental application fees shall be in
a nuclear power plant as outlined in accord with the following:

Type Initial Fee, $ Supplemental Fee, $
Nuclear 50,000 2S,000
Coal fired, 500 MW or larger 40,000 20,000
Coal fired, less than 500 MW 35,000 17,000
Oil fired, 250 MW or larger 30,000 15,000
Oil fired, less than 250 MW 25,000 13,000
Oil fired, 50 MW or less 10,000 S,000
Solar or Solid Waste 25,000 13,000
Gas fired, any size 15,000 8,000

17-17.041(6) -- 17-17.051(2)(a)
5-9-83
A-25

Siting Handbook Attachment IV Ch. 17-17, FAC

(b) For the purposes of the fee amounts remaining, and to notify the
schedule in (2) (a) the fee for a agencies that agencies shall be re-
combined cycle unit shall be based sponsible for any portions of costs
on the type of fuel used in the which exceed the amount available
combustion turbine and the total from the application fee after all
megawattage 'of the combined cycle costs of the certification proceed-
units. The fee for modifying a com- ings are tabulated.
bustion turbine unit to a combined (d) Expenses for the department
cycle unit shall be calculated on and affected agencies shall be reim-
the basis of the additional mega- bursed only at the conclusion of the
wattage, and the type of fuel used. certification proceedings. Invoices
(3) All fees required of the for reimbursement must be submitted
applicant under this chapter are to within 30 days of the date of cer-
be paid into the department's Indus- tification and must be accompanied
trial Siting Trust Fund, and there- by an itemization of the time and
after drawn upon by the department expenses incurred. Reimbursement
for costs incurred in processing the shall occur no sooner than 45 days
application pursuant to Subsection after certification.
403.504(7), F.S. All such funds so (5) Pursuant to the provisions
deposited shall be subject to state of Subsection 403.504(13), F.S., the
auditing procedures. department may withhold from the
(4)(a) If, at the conclusion of application fee a reasonable sum
the certification proceedings, it sufficient to cover costs associated
is found that the expenses of the with postcertification review of
proceedings have exceeded the appli- activities required by any condition
cation fee, the expenses of the of certification. Such sums shall
department and affected agencies be specified as part of each condl-
shall be paid from the fee on an tion. Upon completion of any such
equitable basis until the fee is reviews, any sums remaining shall be
exhausted. Any expenses remaining refunded to the applicant.
shall be the responsibility of the Specific Authority: 403.502, F.S.
agency incurring them. Law Implemented: 403.504, 403.517,
(b) Any agency intending to F.S. History: New 5-7-74, Amended
incur an expense for a contract for 12-27-77, Formerly 17-17.04,
studies under the Act shall first Amended 5-9-83.
obtain approval from the department
for the amount and purpose of such 17-17.06 Public Notice.
expenditure. The applicant shall be Specific Authority: 403.504(l), F.S.
furnished with a copy of an y re- Law Implemented: 403.504(2)(3)(5),
quests for approval of a contract 403.508, 403.517, 403.5065, F.S.
for studies, as submitted by the History: New 5-7-74, Amended
requesting agency, within 10 days of 12-27-77, Transferred to 17-17.151,
submission. 5-9-83.
(c) It shall be the responsi-
bility of the department to notify 17-17.061 Hearing Officer
the agencies in a timely manner of Appointment, Duties and Powers.
the total fee charged for the ap- (1) The department shall re-
plication, amounts committed, and quest the Division of Administrative

17-17.051(2)(b) -- 17-17.061(l)

A-26

Siting Handbook Attachment IV Ch. 17-17, FAC

Hear.ings to appoint a hearing offi- by which the information will be
cer to conduct the hearings required supplied, withdrawing the applica-
by this chapter. tion or contesting the statement of
(2) The hearing officer shall the department and providing infor-
"have all duties and powers granted mation in support of its position.
to hearing officers by Chapters 120 (4) If the applicant contests
and 403, Florida Statutes. the statement of the department and
(3) The hearing officer may the application is not withdrawn,
alter any time limitation upon the hearing officer shall schedule a
stipulation between the department hearing between the department and
and the applicant or for good cause the applicant on the statement of
shown by any party. . completeness as expeditiously as
Specific Authority: 403.504(l), possible, but no later than 30
F.S. Law Implemented: 403.504(5), calendar days after the receipt of
403.508(6), 403.5065, 403.5095, F.S. the application by the department.
History: New 5-7-74, Amended (a) The designated hearing of-
12-27-77, Formerly 17-17.12, ficer shall Make his decision within
Amended 5-9-83. 10 calendar days after the hearing.
(b) The applicant shall with-
17-17.07 Evidence of Notice, draw the application if the hearing
Additional Notice. officer finds it is not complete.
Specific Authority: 403.504(l), F.S. (c) If the hearing officer
Law Implemented: 403.504(5) (9), finds the application was complete.
403.508, F.S. History: New 5-7-74, at the time it was filed, the times
Amended 12-27-77, Transferred to provided in the Act shall run from
17-17.161, 5-9-83. the date of filing of said appli-
cation.
17-17.071 Completeness of Specific Authority: 403.504(l), F.S.
Application. Law Implemented: 403.504(3)(5),
(1) The department shall file, 403.5065(2), F.S. - History: New
within 10 working days of receipt of 10-1-76, Amended 12-27-77, For-
an application-0 a statement with the merly 17-17.19, Amended 5-9-83.
Division ' of Administrative Hearings
and with the applicant declaring its 17-17.08 Hearings Generally-
position with regard to the com- Conduct.
pleteness of the application. Specific Authority: 403.506, F.S.
(2) The department', shall iden- Law -Implemented: 403.504(2)(5),
tify the sections of the 'application F.S. H-istory: New 5-31-77,
considered to be incomplete and Amended 12-27-77, Transferred
shall present a brief statement as to 17-17.111, 5-9-83.
to the ,reasons for it 's position.
(3) Within 15 working days of 17-17.081 Request For Supple-
receipt by the department of the ap- mentary Information, Determination
plication, the applicant shall file of Sufficiency of Application - Con-
with the Division of Administrative sultation with Applicant, Procedures.
Hearings and the department a state- (1) The applicant shall furnish,
ment agreeing with the statement of at its cost, such information,
the department and proposing a date studies and data as the department,

17-17.061(l) 17-17.081(l)
S-9-83

A-27

Siting Handbook Attachment IV Ch. 17-17, FAC

wepartment of Community Affairs, department, and , other parties, a
Public Service Commission or Water statement accepting the statement of
management district as defined in the department and proposing a date
Chapter 373, F.S., in whose juris- by which the information will be
diction the proposed electrical supplied. If the proposed date indi-
power plant is to be located, or cates that the insufficiency cannot
their successor agencies, may direct be rectified according to the fol-
@p enable said agencies to conduct lowing time limitations, within 15
their 'required studies in order to days of being so advised, the hear-
assess the impacts of Ahe proposed ing officer shall schedule a hearing
electrical power plant and to enable on this issue. The hearing shall be
the department to prepare the writ- no later than 30 days after the
ten analysis provided for in Sec- receipt of the department's position
tions 403.504(8) and 403.507, F.S, on sufficiency. The hearing officer
subject to the provisions of any shall make a decision on this issue
binding agreements pursuant to within 10 days after the hearing.
Subsection 17-17.041(6), F.A.C. a. If the insufficiency cannot
(2)(a) Within 45 calendar days be corrected at least 30 days prior
after its receipt of an application to the filing of a final agency re-
or within 15 days after its receipt port.for those matters pertaining to
of a major arbendment, each agency an agency other than the department,
required to file a report pursuant subject to Subsection (4) below, the
to Section 403.507, F.S., shall insufficiency shall be considered
inform the department of its posi- good cause for alteration of the
tion regarding sufficiency of the date for filing that agency's final
application, and what additional report. The date for filing the de-.-
information may be necessary to make pcirtment's report shall be adjusted
it sufficient. to allow receipt of another agency's
(b) Should the department, in final report at least 21 days prior
consultation with the agencies to the issuance of the department's
required to file a report pursuant report.
to Section 403.507, F.S., determine b. If the insufficiency cannot
that an application is not suffi- be corrected at least 60 days prior
cient within 45 days after initia- to the filing of the department's
tion of the Studies required by Sec- report, subject to Subsection (4)
tioh 403.507(3), F.S., or within 15 below, the insufficiency shall be
days after the filing of any major considered good cause for adjustment
amendments, the department shall so of the date for filing the depart-
inform the applicant and the hearing ment's report.
officer. Within 15 days of being so 2. If the applicant contests
informed the applicant shall consult the statement of the department on
with the department to determine if sufficiency, the applicant shall
the insufficiency can or will be advise the hearing officier and other
timely rectified. parties. Within 15 days of being so
1. Where the applicant intends advised the hearing officer shall
to correct the insufficiency, the schedule a hearing on this issue.
applicant shall file with the Divi- The hearing shall be no later than
sion of Administrative Hearings, the 30 days after the receipt of the

A-28

Siting Handbook Attachment IV Ch. 17-17, FAC

department's position. The hear- 12-27-77, Formerly 17-17.04(2)
ing officer shall make a decision and 17-17.20, Amended 5-9-83.
on this issue within 10 days of
the hearing. If the hearing offi- 17-17.09 Land Use Hearings-
cer determines that the application Subject Matter, Effect of Findings.
is insufficient, then the appli- Specific Authority: 403.504(l)(2),
cant shall correct this deficiency, F.S. Law Implemented: 403.504(5),
and subject to Subsection (4) be- F.S. History: New 5-7-74,
low, the time limits shall be ad- Amended 12-27-77, Transferred to
justed accordingly. If the hearing -17-17.121, 5-9-83.
officer determines that the appli-
cation* is sufficient, then the times 17-17.091 Conduct of Studies.
provided in this Part shall run (1) As needed to verify or
from the date of filing the appli- supplement the studies made by the
cation. applicant in support of the applica-@
3. Within 15 days after receipt tion, the department within 30 days
of any additional information re- of the filing of a complete applica-
quired to correct an insufficiency, tion shall commence or contract for
the affected agencies shall review joint or independent studies to aid
it and may request only that infor- in the evaluation of the site or may
mation needed to clarify such addi- request that other agencies prepare
tional information or to answer new a report on the matters listed in
questions raised by or directly Subsection (2) below as they may
related to such additional informa- pertain to that agency's jurisdic-
tion. If the applicant believes the- tion. The department shall give
request of the affected agencies for written notice of all such studies
such additional information is not to the applicant before they are
authorized by law or rule, the pro- commenced.
visions of Section 17-17.081(2)(b)2. . (2) Such studies shall include,
shall apply. but shall not be limited to, the
(3) Information required to consideration of the following cri-
make the application sufficient must teria:
be submitted and found sufficient at (a) Cooling system requirements
least 120 days prior to the certifi- for maximum proposed steam or solar
cation hearing, unless otherwise electrical generating capacity;
provided for by agreement. , (b) Technical sufficiency of
(4) Late or insuffkient sub- proposed construction and operation-
mittals of information - required al safeguards for the protection of
pursuant to the other provisions of human health, wildlife, and aquatic
this Section shall be good-cause for life;
continuance of 'the hearing unless (c) Proximity to navigable
the hearing officer makes specific water and other transportation sys-
findings entered in the record of tems and the expected impact on such
the proceeding that a continuance is systems;
unnecessary. (d) Soil and foundation condi-
Specific Authority: 403.504(l), F.S. tions;
Law Implemented: 403.504(2) (3), F.S. (e) Impact on suitable present
History: New 5-7-74, Amended and projected water supplies for

17-17.081(2)(b).2. -- 17-17.091(2)(e)
5-9-83

A-29

Siting Handbook Attachment'IV Ch. 17-17, FAC

this and other competing uses; 17-17.101 Analysis by the
(f) Impact on surrounding land Department.
uses and population density; Upon satisfactory compliance by
(g) Accessibility to transmis- the applicant with the Act and this
sion corridors, both existing and chapter and completion of processing
proposed, and impacts from construc- by the department, the department
tion and maintenance of any new shall file the written analysis re-
transmission lines, access roads, quired by 403.504(8), F.S., with the
and rights-of '-way; hearing officer and shall serve it
(h) Environmental impacts of on all parties no later than eight
maximum proposed steam or solar (8) months after the complete appli-
electrical generating capacity; cation is filed with the department,
(i) Impact on air quality and and no later than 30 days prior to
water quality of maximum proposed the certification hearing.
steam or solar electrical generating Specific Authority: 403.504(l)(8),
capacity; F.S. Law Implemented: 403.509,
(j) Site specific studies due F.S. History: New 5-7-74, Amended
to the particular nature of the 12-27-77, Formerly 17-17.14(l),
site; Amended 5-9-83.
(k) Impact on public lands, and
submerged lands; 17-17.11 Certification Hearings-
(1) Impact on terrestrial and Subject Matter, Procedure, Partici-
aquatic plant and animal life, with pants.
special emphasis on endangered or Specific Authority: 403.504(l),
threatened species; F.S. Law Implemented: 403.504(5),
(m) Impact on known archaeolog- 403.508(3)(4)(5), F.S. History:
ical sites and historic preservation New 10-1-76, Amended 12-27-77,
areas. Transferred to 17-17.141, 5-9-83.
(3) Additional studies shall be
approved by the Secretary and shall 17-17.111 Hearings Generally
be in conformance with all provi- Conduct.
sions of this chapter. All hearings pursuant to the
Specific Authority: 403.504(2), Act and this chapter shall be con-
F. S. Law I mplemented: 403. 507 (2) (3), ducted according to the procedural
F.S. History: New 5-7-74, Amended provisions of Chapter 17-1, Part 11,
12-27-77, Formerly 17-17.05, FAC, and Chapter 120, Florida Stat-
Amended 5-9-83. utes. If there is any conflict or
question of applicability between
17-17.10 Appeal from Denial Chapter 17-1, Part 11, FAC, and
of Rezoning or Variance from Local Chapter 17-17, FAC, or Chapter 120,
Zoning or Land Use Plans, Hearing, F.S., and Chapter 403, Part 11,
Board Action. F.S., then the latter statutes or
Specific Authority: 403.504(l), rule shall govern the proceedings.
F.S. Law Implemented: 403.504(5) (7), Specific Authority: 403.506, F.S.
403.508(2), F.S. History: New Law Implemented: 403.504(2)(5), F.S.
5-7-74, Amended 12-27-77, Trans- History: New 5-31-77, Amended
ferred to 17-17.131, 5-9-83. 12-27-77, Formerly 17-17.08,
Amended 5-9-83.

17-17.091(2)(e) -- 17-17.111(History)
5-9-83

A-30

Siting Handbook Attachment IV Ch. 17-17, FAC

17-17.12 Hearing Officer hours at the main and local business
Appointment, Duties and Powers. offices of' the applicant and at the
Specific Authority: 403.504(l), appropriate offices of the depart-
F.S. ' Law* Implemented: 403.504(5), ment.
403.508(6), 403.5065, 403.5095, (4) The hearing officer shall
F.S. History: New 5-7-74, Amended submit a recommended order on the
12-27-77, Transferred to 17-17.061, land use and zoning hearing to the
5-9-83. Board no later than thirty (30)
days after completion of the hear-
17-17.121 Land Use and Zoning ing.
Hearings - Subject Matter, Effect of (5) Upon a finding by the Board
Findings. that the site is consistent and in
(1) A land use and zoning hear- compliance with land use plans and
ing shall be held within ninety zoning ordinances in effect at the
(90) days of receipt of a complete date of application filing, the
application in a convenient public responsible zoning or planning agen-
location as close as possible to the cy shall not thereafter change or
s ite. apply such land use plans and zoning
(2) The sole issue of the land ordinances so as to impair or pre-
use and zoning hearing shall be to vent the proposed use of the site
determi'ne whether or not the use of unless certification of the site is
the site is consistent with and in subsequently denied or revoked, or
compliance with applicable land use the site is abandoned.
plans and zoning ordinances. (6) Upon a finding by the Board
(3) (a) At the time the appli- that the site is inconsistent or not
cation is filed, the applicant shall in compliance with existing land use
submit to the department three plans and zoning ordinances, the
copies of a compilation of Infor- Board may continue the land use and
mation specifying the procedures zoning hearing to a future date in
taken to accomplish compliance of order to allow the applicant to
the s ite, including associated apply to the responsible zoning or
facilities and directly associated planning authority for rezoning or
transmission lines, with existing change in land use.
land use plans and zoning ordi- Specific Authority: 403.504(l)(2),
nances* Such compilation shall F.S. Law Implemented: 403.504(5),
include copies of the applicable 403.508, F.S. History: New 5-7-74,
'portions of ordinances, regulations, Amended 12-27-77, Formerly 17-17.09.
or land use plans involv4d. Within Amended S-9-83.
15 days of receipt, the department
shall file one copy with the hearing 17-17.13 Post Certification
officer and one copy with the De- Monitoring.
partment of Comm@unity Affairs. Specific Authority: 403.504(l),
(b) Copies of the compilation F.S. Law Implemented: 403.504(10),
required under (a) above shall be F.S. History: New 5-7-74, Amended
made available for public inspection 12-27-77, Transferred to 17-17.191,
and copying during normal business 5-9-83.

17-17.12 17-17.13 (History)
S-9-83

A-31

Siting Handbook Attachment IV Ch. 17-17, FAC

17-17.131 Appeal from Denial 17-17.141 Certification near
of Rezoning or Variance from Local ings - Subject Matter, Procedureff
Zoning or Amendment of Land Use Participants.
Plans, Hearing, Board Action. (1) Subsequent to the land use
(1) Upon denial of an applica- and zoning hearing, the department
tion for rezoning or variance from shall arrange with the hearing
an existing zoning ordinance or from officer for a certification hearing
denial of an amendment to a land use to be held no later than 10 months
plan by a local agency, the appli- after the filing of a complete
cant may make a written appeal to -application with the department.
the Board which shall include: (2) The certification hearing
(a) The record of any land use shall include recognition of the
and zoning hearings before the hear- Public Service Commission's determi-
ing officer dealing with the matter; nation of the necessity of expanded
(b) The record of applicant's electrical generation pursuant to
hearing(s) before the local zoning Section 403.519, F.S., an examina-
or land use agency; tion of the expected environmental
(c) A statement of steps taken impact resulting from the construc-
by the applicant in seeking the tion and operation of the facili-
rezoning or change in or amendment ties, the standards of the agencies,
of a land use plan and the results operational safeguards, other public
theref rom. interests and any issues made appli-
(2) Upon the issuance by the cable by law in consideration of the
Board of a final order denying a s ite.
variance, no further action may be (a) The applicant for certifi-
taken on the complete application by cation shall make formal presenta-
the department until the proposed tion of its proposal at the certifi-
site conforms to existing land use cation hearing and shall address
plans or zoning ordinances and the each of the topics listed in (2)
department shall stop - all studies above.
and reports in progress and notify (b) All parties may present
all parties that action on the their respect ive-cases -i-n---accordance
application is stopped. with the rules of evidence in admin-
Specific Authority: 403.504(l), istrative proceedings at the hear-
F.S. Law Implemented: 403.504(5) (7), ing. These presentations may include
403.508(2), F.S. History: New the application and all studies,
5-7-74, Amended 12-27-77, Formerly reports, and analyses prepared in
17-17.10, Amended 5-9-83. accordance with the Act and this
chapter. Except,for the determina-
17-17.14 Analysis by the tion of need pursuant to Section
Department, Abandonment. 403.519, F.S., the introduction of
Specific Authority: 403.504(l)(8), such applications, studies, reports
F.S. Law Implemented: 403.509, and analyses shall not go to the
F.S. History: New 5-7-74, Amended truth or veracity of the statements
12-27-77, Transferred to 17-17.101 therein.
and 17-17.241, 5-9-83. (c) The parties are encouraged

17-17.131(l) -- 17-17.141(2)(c)
5-9-83

A-32

Siting Handbook Attachment IV Ch. 17-17, FAC

to design their presentations to parties and the hearing officer of
inform the public of the details of this issue at least 120 days prior
the proposed power plant, but the to the certification hearing. This
question of compliance with this activity shall be an issue addressed
paragraph shall not be the basis for in the certification hearing unless
review* waived in writing by the agency
(d) Each party shall make involved.
available for public inspection at (g) Parties who are granted
least five days prior to the hearing permission for untimely intervention
at a place specified in the public pursuant to Subsection 403.508
notice any written direct testimony (4)(c), F.S., shall be bound by the
which it intends to submit * at the status of the proceedings as they
hearing. Failure to comply with find them as of the date interven-
this requirement shall preclude the tion is granted, unless otherwise
use of such written testimony at the ordered by the hearing officer in
hearing and shall not delay the his discretion.
hearing. Any persons not a party (h) The parties may address in
may present testimony, reports or any proposed recommended order and
evidence in accordance with Chapter the recommended order of the hearing
120, F.S., and this chapter, but officer shall address the balance
such direct testimony, if written, between the need for the power plant
must be furnished to all parties at as determined pursuant to Section
least five days prior to the hearing F.S., and the environmental
in order to be used. If the hearing impact of the facilities.
officer proposes to consider testi- Specific Authority, 403.504(l),
mony of a non-party, @ the parties F.S. Law Implemented: 403.504(5),
shall be given an opportunity for 403.508(3)(4)(5), F.S. History:
cross-examination and rebuttal. New 10-1-76, Amended 12-27-77,
(e) Where the applicant seeks a Formerly 17-17.11, Amended
condition . in its certification which 5-9-83.
constitutes a variance from the non-
procedural standards or regulations 17-17.11S Retention and
of the department or from the stan- Availability of Certification and
dards or regulations of any other Application, Copying Fees.
agency, the applicant shall notify Specific Authority: 403.SO4(l), F.S.
all parties and the hea 'ring officer Law Implemented: 403.515, F.S. His-
at least 120 days prior to the cer- tory: New 5-7-74, Amended 12-27-77,
tification hearing of the 'standards Transferred to 17-17.181, 5-9-83.
or regulations it seeks a variance
from, the-reasons for such variance, 17-17.151 Public Notice.
the notice given to the agency whose (1) - The department shall pro-
rules are involved, and the condi- vide for publication of any public'
tion which it seeks to have included notice. Each notice should clearly
in the certification on this issue. describe a point of entry for per-
(f) Where the applicant seeks sons whose substantial interests are
to use, connect to, or cross over affected or determined by the pro-
any properties or works of any agen- ceeding by providing:
cy, the applicant shall notify all (a) The time frame in which the

17-17.141(2)(c) 17-17.151(i)(a)
S-9-83

A-33

Siting Handbook Attachment IV Ch. 17-17. FAC

person must petition or file a received by the Department of Envi-
notice of intent to become a party; ronmental Regulation pursuant to
(b) Reference to the particular the Florida Electrical Power Plant
rules applicable to becoming a par- Siting Act, Chapter 403, Part 11,
ty; and Florida Statutes;
(c) A statement advising that 5. The statement "The depart-
failure to act within the time frame ment and other affected agencies are
constitutes a waiver of the right to authorized by Section 403.5063(2),
become a party. F.S., to enter into binding written
(2) Notice of Intent to File an agreements with (name of the util-
Application. ity) regarding the scope, quantity,
(a) Within fifteen days of and level of information to be pro-
receipt of a Notice of Intent, the vided in the application for certi-
department shall publish a public fication which will be subsequently
notice in a newspaper(s) of general filed. The public may provide
circulation in the county or coun- comments regarding the substance of
ties in which the site is to be such agreements. These comments
located. The public notice shall should be addressed to the Adminis-
bear a two-column heading in bold trator, Power Plant Siting, Depart-
letters: "Notice of Intent to File ment of Environmental Regulation";
Application for Power Plant Site 6. Where the application for
Certification". certification will be accompanied
(b) The public notice shall by an applicant's federal coastal
contain at least the following zone consistency determination as
information: required by the Coastal Zone Manage-
1. The name and a brief de- ment Act, the following statement
scription of the site, including shall be included: "This Public
type and capacity of the power Notice is also provided in compli-
plant; ance with the federal Coastal Zone
2. A map showing the location Management Act, as specified in 15
of the proposed site; CFR Part 930, Subpart D. Public
3. A list of readily accessible comments on the applicant's federal
public places where copies of the consistency certification should be
Notice of Intent are available for directed to the Federal Consistency
public inspection and copying at Coordinator, Division of Environ-
cost. The list shall include the mental Permitting, Department of
addresses of the Tallahassee office Environmental Regulation."
of the department and the depart- (c) The'department shall pub-
ment's district office serving the lish an appropriate notice of re-
site for the proposed power plant ceipt in the Florida Administrative
together with any other appropriate Weekly.
public office(s) near the proposed (d) This notice may be combined
site as selected by the department; with the Notice of Binding Agree-
4. A statement that a Notice ment, where appropriate.
of Intent to seek certification to (3) Notice of Binding Agree-
authorize construction and opera- ment.
tion of an electrical power plant Within 15 days of receipt of a
near (location), Florida, has been proposed written agreement on the

17-17.151(l)(a) -- 17-17.151(3)
5-4-83
A-34

Siting Handbook Attachment IV Ch. 17-17, FAC.

scope, quantity, and specificity of located and in a newspaper or news-
the information to be provided in papers of general circulation, as
the application, public notice shall selected by the department, of a
be provided to the affected agencies public notice which shall occupy not
and in a newspaper(s) of general less than one-half (1/2) of the
circulation in the county or coun- newspaper page, bearing the heading
ties in which the site is to be "Notice of Land Use and Zoning
located, and shall consist of the Hearing on Proposed Power Plant
following: Facility", in bold letters not less
(a) The name and a brief de- than three fourths (3/4) inches
scription of the site, including high. The public notice shall con-
type and capacity of the power tain the following information:
plant; 1. The name and brief descrip-
(b) A list of places where the tion of the site, including type and
proposed agreements are available capacity.
for public inspection; 2. A map showing the location
(c) The statement "The depart- of the site, and of any associated
ment and other affected agencies are facilities or transmission line
authorized by Section 403.5063(2), corridor study areas.
F.S., to enter into binding written 3. A list of readily accessible
agreements with (name of the util- public places. where copies of the
ity) regarding the scope, quantity, application are available for public
and level of information to be inspection and copying. The list
provided in the application for cer- shall include the addresses of the
tification which will subsequently main and local regional offices of
be filed. The public may provide the department serving the site,
comments, regarding the substance of general business off ice of the
such an agreement to the Administra- applicant, and the local business
tor of Power Plant Siting, Depart- office of the applicant serving the
ment of Environmental Regulation, site.
2600 Blair Stone Road, Tallahassee, 4. A statement that: "Applica-
Florida, 32301, within 45 days of tion Number for certification
the publication of the notice"; to authorize construction and opera-
(d) A statement that any dis- tion of an electrical power plant
agreements must be submitted by an near , Florida, is now pending
affected agency- to the department before the Department of Environ-
and the applicant within `45 days of mental Regulation, pursuant to the
the publication of the notil:e. Florida Electrical Power Plant
(4) Notice of Land Use and Zon- Siting Act, Chapter 403, Part 11,
ing Hearing. Florida Statutes".
At least forty-five (45) days 5.-A statement that: "Pursuant
prior to the public hearing on the to Section 403.508, Florida Stat-
land use and zoning, public notice utes, the land use and zoning public
shall be provided which shall con- hearing will be held by the Division
sist of the following: I of Administrative Hearings on _F1 1P
(a) Publication in a newspaper 19 -, at _, i n County, -Or -
of general circulation in the county ida, at m. to determine whether
or counties in which the site is or not the site is consistent and in

17-17.151(3) 17-17.151(4)(a)S.

A-35

Siting Handbook Attachm e*nt IV Ch. 17-17, FAC

compliance with existing lancl use that:
plans and zoning ordinances. No 1. The notice shall be pub-
other issues will be heard at this lished at least 30 days prior to the
land use and zoning hearing. A zoning or land use plan appeal hear-
subsequent public hearing upon the ing before the Board;
application will be held to consider 2. The heading of the notice
environmental and other impacts shall read:
prior to final action by the Gover- "Notice of Hearing Before the
nor and Cabinet". Governor and Cabinet to Determine
6. Sections 403.508(4) and Whether it is in the Public Interest
403.508(5), Florida Statutes, in to Authorize a Nonconforming Use of
their entirety. Land in County (or city) as a
(b) The department mailing by Site for an Electrical Power Plant."
certified mail, return receipt 3. The following statement
requested within ten (10) days of shall be included in lieu of M(a)
publication of the notice required 5. and 6.:
by (4) (a), a copy of said public "Pursuant to Section 403.508,
notice to the chief executive of any F.S., a zoning appeal or land use
local or regional authority having plan appeal hearing will be held
responsibility for zoning or land before the Board on 0 19 , at
use planning whose jurisdiction in County, Florida at
includes the site m. An Application for rezoning
(c) The a@plicant posting a or J@ange or amendment of the exist-
copy of the public notice required ing land use plan has been denied
by (4) (a) at the site. and, upon a finding that it is in
(d) A news release shall be the public interest to authorize a
sent by the department to appropri- nonconforming use of the land as a
ate media as selected by the depart- site for an electrical power plant
ment. at this hearing, the Governor and
(e) Publication of an appro- Cabinet are empowered to authorize a
priate notice of the hearing in the nonconforming use or variance. If
Florida Administrative Weekly. such a change in land use is granted
(5) Notice of Zoning and Land the responsible zoning or planning
Use Plan Appeal Hearing. authority shall not thereafter
.'If the applicant intends to change or apply such land use plans
appeal to the Board for a variance, or zoning ordinances so as to impair
pursuant to Section 403.508(2), or prevent the proposed use of the
F.S., because the proposed site is site unless certification of the
not in compliance with existing land site is subsequently denied."
use plans *or zoning ordinances and 4. Identification of the land
the application for rezoning or for use plans or zoning ordinance which
change or amendment of the land use are the subject of the appeal.
plan has been denied, public notice (b) The department mailing by
shall be provided which shall con- certified mail, return receipt
sist of the following: requested within ten (10) days of
(a) Publication of Notice which publication, a copy of the public
complies with all the requirements notice required by (5)(a) to the
of subsection (4)(a) above, except chief executive of any local or

5-9-83 17-.17.151(4)(a) 15. -- 17-17.151(5)(b)

A-36

Siting Handbook Attachment IV Ch. 17-17, FAC

regional authority having, responsi- office of the applicant nearest to
bility for zoning or land use plan- the site;
ning, whose jurisdiction includes 4. A statement that: "Applica-
the site. tion Number for certification
(c) Publication of an appropri- to authorize construction and opera-
ate notice in the Florida Adminis- tion of an electrical power plant
trative Weekly. near , Florida," (and where
(6) Notice of Certification applicable: "and associated trans-
Hearing. mission lines from to *_ 11)
At least thirty (30) days prior "is now pending before the Depart-
to any certification hearing, public ment of Environmental Regulation
notice shall be provided consisting pursuant to the Florida Electrical
of the following: - Power Plant Siting Act, Chapter 403,
(a) Publication in a newspaper Part ll., F.S.";
of general circulation in the county S. A statement that: "Pursuant
or counties in which the site is to Section 403.508, Florida Stat-
located and in. a newspaper or news- utes, the certification hearing will
-----papers of general circulation, as be held by the Division of Adminis-
selected by the department, of a trative Hearings on # 19
public notice which shall occupy not at . , in (county), Florida-,
less than one-half (1/2) of the at m. in order to take written
newspaper page,. bearing the heading, or oral testimony on the effects of
"Notice of Certification Hearing on the proposed electrical power plant
an Application to Construct and or any other matter appropriate to
Operate an Electrical Power Plant on the consideration of the site. Need
a Site to be located near ---------- 0 for the facility has been predeter-
Florida". The heading shall be in mined by the Public Service Commis-
bold letters not less than three- sion at a separate hearing. Written
fourths (3/4) inches high. The pub- comments may be sent to (Hear-
lic notice shall contain the follow- ing Officer) at _ (Address) on or
ing information: before (date) . 11;
1. The name and brief descrip- 6. Section 403.508(4) and (5),
tion of the site including type and F.S., in their entirety;
capacity; 7. A statement that: "Those
2. A map showing the location wishing to intervene in these pro-
of the site and of any,, associated ceedings must be represented by an'
facilities or transmission. line attorney or other person who can brii
corridor study areas; determined to be qualified to appeai@
3. A list of -readily accessible in administrative proceedings pqrs.u-
public places where copies of the ant to Chapter 120, F.S., or. Chi@ieif
application are available for public 17-1.21, FAC.'-;
inspection and copying, including 8. A statement indicating wheri@"
the nearest office of the department the written reports and testimon-y
to the site. The list shall include will be available for public inspec-
the addresses of the main and the tion at least five days prior to th(-
local regional offices of the de- hearing;
partment, general business office of 9. Where applicable, tht
the applicant and the local business department. shall advertise thr

17-17.151(5)(b) 17-17.151(6)(a)9.
5-9-83

3-7

Siting Handbook Attachment IV Ch. 17-17, FAC

applicant's intention to use, con- required by the Coastal Zone Manage-
nect to or cross over properties and ment Act, the following statement
works of governmental agencies. The shall be included: "This Public
following statement shall be in- Notice is also provided in compli-
cluded in notices published pursuant ance with the federal Coastal Zone
to (6) (a), "Pursuant to Section Management Act, as specified in 15
403.509(2), F.S., (Name of Utility) CFR Part 930, Subpart D. Public
intends to use, connect to, or cross comments on the applicant's federal
over properties and works of the consistency certification should be
following agencies: directed to the Federal Consistency
Coordinator, Division of Environ-
"The hearing officer will re- mental Permitting, Department of
ceive comments and testimony from Environmental Regulation."
the parties, the public and the af- (b) A news release of the in-
fected agencies at the certification formation described by (6)(a) shall
hearing. 11; be sent to appropriate media by the
10. Where applicable, the department.
department shall advertise the (c) Publication of appropriate
applicant's desire to obtain a notice in the Florida Administrative
condition of certification that Weekly.
would constitute a variance from a (7) Notice on Completeness
non-procedural standard or regula- Hearing.
tion of the department or a standard Notice of a hearing on the
or regulation of any other agency. completeness of an application shall
The department shall include an ap- be provided by the department in the
propriate statement in notices pub- Florida Administrative Weekly.
lished pursuant to (6)(a) such as: (8) Notice of Receipt of a Sup-
"Pursuant to Section 403.511(2), plemental Application.
F.S., (Name of Utility) seeks a. The Department shall provide
variance from (Rule, Agency) for the notice of the receipt of a supple-
purpose of mental application consisting of:
The hearing officer will re- (a) Publication in a newspaper
ceive comments and testimony on the of general circulation in the county
variance request from the parties, or counties in which the site is
the public and the affected agencies located and in a newspaper or news-
at the certification hearing."; papers of general circulation, as
11. Where applicable, the selected by the department, of a
department shall include a statement public notice shall occupy not less
indicating that the proposed trans- than one-half (1/2) of the newspaper
mission line corridor may be certi- page, bearing the heading, "Notice
fied anywhere within the study area of Application for Construction and
shown on the map and not necessarily Operation of an Addition to the
in the locations shown as the pro- Power Plant Facility Located Near
posed route; . Florida", in bold letters not
12. Where the application for less Than three fourths (3/4) inches
certification will be accompanied high.
by an applicant's federal coastal (b) The public notice shall
zone consistency determination as contain the following information:

17-17.151(6)(a)9. -- 17-17.151(8)(b)
S-9-83

Siting Handbook Attachment IV Ch. 17-17, FAC

1. The name and brief descrip- follow the procedure prescribed by
tion of the site, including type and either Subsection (6) or (7) above,
capac-ity; as applicable, and said notice shall
2 * A map showing the location be modified by the department to
of the site; clearly indicate the purpose of the
3. A list of readily accessible hearing.
public places where copies of the (10) Notice of Modification
application are available for public Request.
inspection and copying, including The department shall provide
the nearest office of the department notice of receipt of a modification
to the site. The list shall include request by publishing notice in the
the addresses of the main and the Administrative Weekly and by sending
local regional offices of the de- notice to the last address of each
partment, general business office of party to the original certification
the applicant, and the local busi- proceedings as shown in the record
ness office of the applicant nearest of that proceeding. At its dis-
to the site; cretion, the department may also
. 4. A statement that: "A supple- publish notice in newspaper(s) of
mental application numbered for general circulation in the county
certification to authorize construc- or counties in which the site is
tion and operation of an additional located dependent upon the scope or
electrical power plant near P type of modification requested.
Florida, is now pending before the (11) Notice of Hearing on a
Department of Environmental Regu- Modification Petition Pursuant to
lation, pursuant to the Florida Subsection 403.516(3), F.S.
Electrical Power Plant Siting Act, The department shall provide
Chapter 403, Part 11, F.'S.11 notice of the hearing scheduled on a
5. A statement that: "The modification petition filed pursuant
department expects,to hold a public to Subsection 403.516(3), F.S.,,
hearing on the effect 's of the con- consisting of publication of the
struction and operation of an addi- appropriate notice in the Florida
tional electrical . power generating Administrative Weekly and by filing
unit that would be located on the a copy of such notice with all
previously certified site, within parties.
150 days. All persons wishing to Specific Authority: 403.504(l), F.S.
-become parties to the proceedings Law Implemented- 403.504(2)(3)(5),
should file a notice of,, intent to 403.508, 403.517, 403.5065, F.S.
become a party with the department History: New 5-7-74, Amended
by (insert date).11 12-27-77, -Formerly 17-17.06,
(c) By a news release sent to Amended 5-9-83.
the news media by the department.
(d) By publication of appropri- 17-17.16 Review and Evaluation.
ate notice in the Florida Adminis- Specific Authority: 403.SO4(l), F.S.
trative Weekly. Law Implemented: 403.512, 403.514,
(9) Notice of Hearing on Sup- F.S. History: New 5-7-74, Amended
plemental Application. 12-27-77, Transferred to 17-17.201,
A notice of hearing on the 5-9-83.
supplemental application shall

17-17.151(8)(b)l. 17-17.16 (History)
S-9-83

Siting,Handbook Attachment IV Ch. 17-17, FAC

17-17.161 Evidence of Notice, conditions in the certification
Additional Notice. which result from the direct appli-
(1) Evidence of any notice made cation of general agency standards
pursuant to this chapter, together to the facts shall not be deemed
with a copy of the notice, shall be site-specific unless the applicabil-
filed with the hearing officer and ity of such standard is a matter of
all parties within ten (10) days of administrative discretion.
issuance or publication of said Specific Authority: 403.504(l), F.S.
notice. Law I mplemented: 403. 511 (5) (b), F. S.
(2) Inadvertent failure of History: New 5-9-83.
service on, or notice to the public
or any of the persons entitled to 17-17.18 Revocation or Susperi-
receive such service pursuant to sion of Certification
provisions of this chapter may be Specific Authority: 403.504(1), F.S.
cured by an order of the hearing of- Law Implemented: 403.512, F.S. His-
ficer designed to afford the public tory: New 5-7-74, Amended 12-27-77,
or such persons adequate notice to Transferred to 17-17.221, 5-9-83.
enable their effective participation
in the proceeding. 17-17.181 Retention and
(3) The hearing officer may, Availability of Certification and
at any time, require the department Application, Copying Fees.
to , serve or publish additional (1) The applicant shall at all
notices of hearing and file evidence times retain complete copies of the
thereof. application and certification at the
Specific Authority: 403.504(l), F.S. central business office and the
Law Implemented: 403.504(5) (9), business office serving the site.
403.508, F.S. History: New 5-7-74, Applicant's copies of the applica-
Amended 12-27-77, Formerly 17-17.07, tion and certification shall be open
Amended 5-9-83. for public inspection and copying
during normal business hours.
17-17.17 Modification of (2) The department shall retain
Certification. complete copies of the application
Specific Authority: 403.504(l), and certification at the main office
F.S. Law Implemented: 403.516, and the local district office for
403.511(5), F.S. History: New the district in which the certified
5-7-74, Amended 12-27-77, Trans- facility is located, which shall be
ferred to 17-17.211, 5-9-83. open for public inspection and copy-
ing during normal business hours.
17-17.171 Conditions of . (3) A reasonable fee may be
Certification. charged for providing copies pursu-
In order to facilitate com- ant to this chapter.
pliance with Section 403.511(5)(b), Specific Authority: 403.504(l), F.S.
F.S., all criteria required by the Law Implemented: 403.515, F.S. His-
terms and conditions of the certifi- tory: New 5-7-74, Amended 12-27-77,
cation which are site-specific shall Formerly 17-17.15, Transferred
be identified. Those terms and 5-9-83.

5-4-83 17-17.161(l) 17-17.181(History)

Pt -41

Siting-Handbook Attachment IV Ch. 17-17, FAC

17-17.19 Completeness of Specific Authority: 403.504(1), F.S.
Application. Law Implemented: 403.504(10), F.S.
Specific Authority: 403.504(l), F.S. History: New 5-7-74, Amended
Law Implemented: 403.SO4(3)(5), 12-27-77, Formerly 17-17.13,
403.5065(2), F.S. History: New Amended 5-9-83.
10-1-76, Amended 12-27-77, Trans-
ferred to 17-17.071, 5-9-83. 17-17.20 Determination of Insuf-
ficiency of Application, Consultation
17-17.191 Post@ Certification with Applicant, Procedures.
Monitoring. Specific Authority: 403.504(1-),-
(1). The applicant shall conduct F.S. Law Implemented: 403.504(2)(3),
at no expense to the department F.S. History: New 5-7-74, Amended
post-certif ication monitoring, as 12-27-77, Transferred to 17-17.081,
deemed reasonable by the Board, of 5-9-83.
the environmental effects arising
from construction and operation of 17-17.201 Review and Evaluation.
the applicant's electrical power The department may, at any time,
plant, in order to assure continued review the certification and evalu-
compliance with the terms and con- ate the compliance of the applicant
ditions of certification. The moni- with the terms and conditions con-
toring shall be carried out in the tained therein and act upon such
manner prescribed in the conditions review and evaluation as it deems
of certification and may include an appropriate, in accordance with
evaluation of: the provisions of the Act and this
(a) 'Geological information de- chapter.
veloped during construction. Specific Authority: 403.504(l), F.S.
(b) Environmental effects of Law Implemented: 403.512, 403.514,
air and water contamination. F.S. History: New 5-7-74, Amended
(c) Radiation hazards and con- 12-27-77, Formerly 17-17-16, Trans-
tamination from nuclear or other ferred 5-9-83.
power plants.
(d) Meteorological conditions. 17-17.21 Processing of Supple-
(e) Hydrology, including sur- mental Application.
face runoff, water use and consump- Specific Authority: 403.504(l)(6)
tion. (9), F.S. Law Implemented: 403.5065,
(f) Ecological effects of con- 403.507, 403.517, F.S. History:
struction and operation. ', New 5-7-77, Amended 12-27-77, Trans-
(g) Impact of the c6nstruction ferred to 17-17.231, 5-9-83.
and operation of the plant. on animal
and plant life, fish and other 17-17.211 Modification of
aquatic life. I Certification, Fee.
(h) Archaeological or histor- (1) A certification and con-
ical site deposits invaded or dis- ditions of certification can be
turbed during construction excava- modified only in accordance with
tion. Section 403.516, F.S., and this
(i) Noise levels at the site rule. Any request for modification
boundary or within adjacent residen- shall be accompanied by 14 copies of
tial areas. the appropriate alterations of the

17-17.19 -- 17-17.211(l)
S-9-83

Lting Handbook Attachment IV Ch. 17-17, FAC

original application. party to the original certification
(2) A request for modification proceedings at its last address as
is made and a modification proceed- shown on the record of such proceed-
ing initiated by the filing of ' a ing a proposed agreement to modify
petition pursuant to Subsection the terms and conditions of certifi-
17-17.211(3), F.A.C, or by the fil- cation in accordance with Subsection
ing of a proposed agreement pursuant 403.516(2), F.S.
to Subsection 17-17.211(4), F.A.C. (a) Parties shall respond to
Petitions for modification pursuant the proposed agreement within forty-
to Subsection 403.516(3), F.S., five days of the filing of the pro-
shall be filed with the Division of posed agreement. Failure'-to- file a
Administrative Hearings. Proposed timely response shall be deemed ac-
agreements and other petitions shall ceptance of the proposed agreement.
be filed with the department in (b) If any dispute arises con-
accordance with Section 17-1.25, cerning the proposed agreement, the
F.A.C. proposed agreement may be treated as
(3) Modification of a certifi- a petition pursuant to Subsection
cation or a condition of certifica- 17-17.211(3), F.A.C.
tion may be requested by filing a (5) Unless the department has
petition. The petition shall contain been delegated the authority to is-
the following information: sue the modification, a modification
(a) A description of the Peti- shall not become effective until
tioner; approved by the Board.
(b) A concise statement of the (6) Administrative Res Judicata
ultimate facts, including changes in applies to petitions for modifica-
circumstance which justify the modi- tion.
fication, as well as the rules and (7) If a modification becomes
statutes which entitle the petition- subject to the provisions of Subsec-
er to relief; tion 403.516(3), F.S., the petition-
(c) A brief statement of er for the -modification shall submit
whether, and if so, how so, a pro- a $5000 modification fee to the
posed modification if granted would department, unless waived---for good
affect the Application as modified cause or reduced by the department.
by the final order of certification, Any sums remaining after payment of
the conditions of certification, authorized costs shall be refunded
Findings of Fact or Conclusions of to the petitioner within 90 days of
Law, and studies conducted pursuant approval or denial of modification
to Section 17-17.05, F.A.C., upon by the board, or withdrawal of the
which the certification or condi- modification.
tions of certification were based; (8) -Upon receipt of a request
(d) A demand for relief to to modify certification, the depart-
which the petitioner deems himself ment shall issue notice as prescrib-
entitled; and ed in Section 17-17.151, F.A.C.
(e) Other information which the (9) If any holder of a certifi-
petitioner contends is material. cation pursuant to this Part chooses
(4) A modification may be to operate the certified electrical
requested by filing with the depart- power plant in compliance with any
ment and by sending notice to each rules subsequently adopted by the

5-9-83 17-17.211(l) 17-17.211(9)

Siting Handbook Attachment IV Ch. 17-17, FAC

department which prescribe criteria (5) The department may, at its
more lenient than the criteria re- discretion, cause, to be conducted
quired by the terms and conditions any investigations, monitoring or
in the certification which are not studies deemed appropriate in con-
site specific, the certification templation or in pursuance of sus-
holder shall notify the department pension or revocation proceedings.
prior to modifying its method of Specific Authority: 403.504(l), F.S.
operation. Law Implemented: 403.512, F.S.
Specific Authority: 403.504(l), -History: New 5-7-74, Amended
F.S. Law Implemented: 403.516, 12-27-77, Formerly 17-17018,
403.511(5), F.S. History: New Transferred 5-9-83.
5-7-74, Amended 12-27-77, Formerly
17-17.17, Amended 5-9-83. 17-17.231 Processing of Suppk-
mental Application,-
17-17.221 Revocation or Suspen- (1) A supplemental application
.sion of Certification. shall be submitted in the format
(1) Any material false state- provided for by Section 17-17.051.
ment, noncompliance with terms or (2) The department shall issue
conditions of a certification or notice of the filing of a supplemen-
violation of Chapter 403 or regula- tal application in accordance with
tions or orders issued thereunder Subsection 17-17.151(8),. to the
shall be grounds for revocation or public and affected agencies and all
suspension of certification. parties to the original certifica-
(2) The department shall initi- tion proceedings by certified mail
ate a public hearing for revocation within 15 days of receipt of the
or suspension of certification and supplemental application by the
notify the applicant, pursuant to department. The parties to a sup-
the provisions of Chapter 120, F.S. plemental proceeding shall include
(3) The applicant, upon receiv- as a minimum those parties specified
ing such notification, and after in Section 403.508(4) (a), F.S.
preliminary hearing shall immediate- (3) Parties to the original
ly terminate all activities that certification proceedi ngs may become
were alleged to be in violation of parties to the supplemental certi-
the certification under this chapter fication proceedings by. filing a
and the Act, if so ordered by the notice of intent to become a party
hearing officer, pending final reso- with the department within thirty
lution of the revocation or suspen- (30) days of the publication of the
sion proceedings. notice required by (2) of this sec-
(4) The above sections shall tion. Subsection 403.508(4) shall
not be interpreted as, requiring the act as a guide for any other ageiic .
y
termination of environmental studies or person in becoming a larty
or monitoring by the department or (4) The department shall i-6-
the applicant. The department may quest assignment of a hearing offi-
terminate, at its discretion, such cer within 7 days of receipt of a
activities by written notice to the supplemental application by the
persons conducting such activities, department.
and to the parties to the certifica- (5) The department shall file
tion hearing. a statement with the Division of

17-17.211(9) 17-17.231(5)
5-9-83 A-4+ 3

Siting Handbook Attachment IV Ch. 17-17, FAC

Administrative Hearings and the supplemental application by the
applicant as to the completeness of department.
the application within 10 working (12) The department shall file
days of receipt of the supplemental with the hearing officer and serve
application by the department. on all parties a written analysis of
(6) The applicant shall file the supplemental application not
with the Division of Administrative, later than 10 days prior to the
Hearings' and the department a re- certification hearing.
@pqnse to the department's finding (13) The recommended order of
oIn completeness within 15 working the hearing officer shall be submit-
d.ays of receipt of the supplemental ted to the Board no later than 180
application by the department and days after. receipt of the supplemen-
shall request a hearing if desired. tal application by the department.
(7) The hearing on completeness (14) The hearing officer may
shall be held within 30 days of alter any time limitation upon
receipt of the, application by the stipulation between the department
department and a decision rendered and the applicant or for good cause
within 10 days of completion of the shown by any party.
hearing. Specific Authority: 403.504(l)
(8) The Public Service Com- (6)(9), F.S. Law Implemented:
mission, Department of Community 403.5065, 403.507, 403.517, F.S.
Affairs, and the water management History: New 5-7-74, Amended
district as defined in Chapter 373, 12-27-77, Formerly 17-17.21,
F.S., in whose jurisdiction the Amended 5-9-83.
proposed electrical power plant is
to be located, or their successor 17-17.241 Abandonment.
agency, shall each submit a copy of A site, or portion thereof may
its report on the supplemental be released from terms and condi-
application to the department within tions of a certification by order of
7S days of receipt of the complete the Board upon a finding that such
supplemental application by the site or portion thereof has been
department. abandoned by the applicant. Board
(9) The department shall com- action for abandonment may be initi-
plete the studies required by Sec- ated either by:
tion 17-17.091 within 120 days of (1) A petition by an applicant
receipt of the complete supplemen- requesting release of all or part of
tal application by the department. the site from the terms and condi-
(10) The department shall tions of a certification previously
arrange to have a public notice issued. The petition shall specify:
published pursuant to Subsection (a) The site or portions there-
17-17.151(6) within 110 days of of to be abandoned;
receipt of the complete supplemental (b) The electrical power plant
application by the department. or generating capacity to be aban-
(11) The hearing officer shall doned;
hold a certification hearing on the (c) Any changes in environmen-
proposed unit not later than 155 tal impact expected to result from
days after receipt of the complete abandonment;

17-17.231(5) 17-17.241(l)(c)
S-9-83

Siting Handbook Attachment IV Ch. 17-17, FAC

(d) The reasons whyabandonment as to the approval of the location
is desired. of the transmission line corridors,
(2) A petition alleging failure the construction of transmission
of an applicant to commence con- lines, and maintenance of the
struction of an electrical power rights-of-way.
plant which has been certified, Specific Authority: 403.523(l), F.S.
either within 15 years of the date Law Implemented: 403.521, 403.531,
of the issuance of such certifica- F.S. History: New 11-20-80.
tion or within 15 years of the date
construction was scheduled to com- 17-17.S2 DefiniUms.
mence on such plant, as shown in the Words, terms, and phrases used
application,- whichever is the later in this chapter, unless otherwise
date. For good cause shown, which Indicated, shall have the meaning
shall include but not be limited to set forth in Section 403.522, Flor-
permitting delays, the time of aban- ida Statutes. In addition, the fol-
donment under this subsection may be lowing words when used in this Part
waived by the Board. shall have* the indicated meanings-z
Specific Authority: 403.504(l)(8), (1) "Act" means the Transmis-
F.S. Law Implemented: 403.509, sion Line Siiing Act, Sections
F.S. History: New 5-7-74, Amended 403.520 through 403.535, F.S.
12-27-77, Formerly 17-17.14(2), (2) "Construction" means any
Amended 5-9-83. clearing of land, excavation or
other action by the applicant which
PART 11 would alter the physical environment
or ecology of a corridor, but does
17-17. 51 General. not include those activities essen-
(1) The department adopts Part tial for surveying, preliminary
I I of this chapter pursuant to the corridor evaluation or environmental
charge of the legislature to provide studies.
an efficient, centralized, and (3) "Corridor" means the area
coordinated permitting process for proposed by a utility within which
evaluating the location of the one or more transmission lines are
transmission line corridors, the to be located.
construction of transmission lines (4) "Maintenance" means the act
and"maintenance of transmission line of physically maintaining the trans-
rights-of-way, and their effects on mission line right-of-way.
human health, safety ahd welfare, (5) "Right-of-way" (ROW) means
the environment, and eleidtric power that area within the certified cor-.
system reliability and integrity. . ridor within which the transmission
The purpose of Part 11 of this line or lines are to be located.,
chapter is to lr@plement the provi- (6) "Secretary" means the
sions of the Transmission Line Sit- Secretary of the Department of
ing Act, an act relating to environ- Environmental Regulation, or his
mental permitting, and electric duly authorized designee
system reliability and integrity. Specific Authority: 403.S@3(1), F.S.
(2) The certification of a Law Implemented: 403.522, F.S.
project shall constitute the sole History: New 11-20-80.
license of the state and any agency

Siting Handbook Attachment IV Ch. 17-17, FAC

17-17.S3 Prohibitions. (c) Expansions in right-of-way
No applicant shall construct or width will be considered modifica-
permit construction or any transmis- tions pursuant to Section 403.535,
sion line within a right-of-way Florida Statutes, unless otherwise
within any corridor requiring certi- specifically addressed in the origi-
fication under this act without an nal certification proceedings.
appropriate and currently valid (d) Amendments to an applica-
certification issued by the Board tion for certification shall follow
pursuant to the requirements of this the format and shall be supported by
act. Any applicant may at any time information as prescribed by DER
perform construction activities form 17-1.22(118).
otherwise authorized by law in (e) 40 copies of the certifica-
rights-of-way owned or controlled by tion application shall be submitted
the applicant, so long as (1) the by the applicant to the department.
applicant has the authority to The Department may provide in the
perform such activities under the application form, or by written
Transmission Line Siting Act; or (2) agreement with the applicant, that
the transmission line is in any way less than 40 copies be submitted of
exempt from the Transmission Line parts of the certification applica-
Siting Act. tion.
Specific Authority: 403.523(l), F.S. (2) The department shall pro-
Law Implemented: 403.524, F.S. vide a copy of the application to:
History: New 11-20-80. (a) The water management dis-
trict as defined in Chapter 373,
17-17.54 Application for Cor- F.S., in whose jurisdiction the
ridor Certification, Amendments, proposed transmission line corridor
Fee, Disbursement of Funds. is to be located, the Department of
(1) Applications for certifica- Community Affairs, Public Service
tion shall follow the format and Commission, the Department of Natu-
shall be supported by information ral Resources, Game and Fresh Water
and technical studies, as prescribed Fish Commission, and local govern-
by DER form 17-1.122(118) FAC. ments in whose jurisdiction the
(a) After certification, a new proposed transmission line corridor
application shall be made for each is to be located, within 7 days of
major change in transmission line its receipt by the department.
corridor alignment unless such (b) Any other agencies who in
changes were alternatives specifi- its judgement the department feels
cally addressed in the original will be affected such as Regional
certification proceedings or other- Planning Councils, the Department of
wise agreed by the Department. State, Division of Archives, History
(b) A request to modify certi- and Records Management, and Depart-
fication shall be filed for each ment of Transportation, or who have
minor change in transmission line indicated interest in the proceed-
corridor alignment unless such ings, within 15 days of receipt of
changes were alternatives specifi- the application by the department.
cally addressed in the original (c) All other parties to the
certification proceedings or other- certification proceeding within 15
wise agreed to by the Department. days of its receipt or within 7 days

5-9-83 17-17.53 -- 17-17.54(2)(c)

Siting Handbook Attachment IV Ch. 17-17, FAC

of 'their appearance, whichever is ported by information as prescribed
later. by DER form 17-1.122 (118) FAC.
(3) Any amendments made to the 1 (4) The appropriate application
application shall be sent by the fee shall accompany any application
applicant to the hearing officer and and@ shall be a condition precedent
to all parties to the proceeding. to consideration or action on the
At least 14 copies of any amendments application by the department.
shall be sent to the Department. (a) The application fee shall
Amendments to an application shall be in accord with the following
follow the format and shall be sup- schedule:

Length of Corridor or Line Initial Fee
Shorter than 25 miles $ 6,000
25 miles or greater $ 2,500 plus
$ 200 per mile
Maximum Fee $ 15,000

(b) All fees required of the charged against the fee, monies
applicant under this Chapter are to shall be disbursed, 'on a propor-
be paid into the department's Grants tionate basis until the fee is
and Donations Trust Fund and there- exhausted. It shall' be the respon-
after drawn upon by the department sibility of the department to notify
and other authorized agencies upon agencies in a timely manner of the
submittal of an invoice for costs total fee charged for the applica-
incurred in processing the applica- tion,. amounts committed, and amounts
tion. All such funds so deposited remaining available to meet expen-
shall be subject to state auditing sese Expenses in excess of the
procedures. Any sums remaining remaining fee shall be the responsi-
after payment of authorized costs bility of the agency incurring
shall be refunded to the applicant them.
within 90 days after the issuance or (d) Any agency authorized to
denial of certif !cation or with- incur an expense for a contract for
drawal of the application. The studies under this Chapter shall
applicant shall be provided with an obtain prior approval from the
itemized accounting of the expendi- department and give the department
tures. 19 days written notice of the intent
(c) The department',and other to incur an expense for the con-
authorized agencies may seek reim- tract.
bursement from the, fee for travel, Specific Authority: 403.523(l), F.S.
notices, per diem, hearing costs, Law Implemented: 403.523, F.S.
etc., on a quarterly basis. Con- History: New 11-20-80.
tracts may be funded on a monthly
basis. Salary monies billed against 17-17.55 Hearing Officer
the fee shall not be reimbursed Appointment, Duties and Powers.
until all other expenses have been (1) Within 7 days of receipt of
4paid from the fund. In the event an application, the department shall
that the application fee is insuffi- request the Division of Administra-
cient to cover all salary expenses tive Hearings to appoint a hearing

S-9-83 17-17.54(2)(c) 17-17.55(l)

Siting Handbook Attachment IV Ch. 17-17, FAC

officer to conduct all hearings (4) If the statement of the
required by this act. Department is contested, the hearing
(2) The hearing officer shall officer shall schedule a hearing on
have all duties and powers granted the statement of completeness as
to hearing officers by Chapter 120 expeditiously as p ossible, but no
and 403, Florida Statutes, and the later than 30 days after the receipt
rules adopted pursuant thereto. of the application by the depart-
(3) The hearing officer may ment.
alter any time limitation upon (a) The designated hearing
stipulation between the department officer shall make his decision
and the applicant or for good cause within 10 days of the hearing.
shown by any party. (b) I f the hearing of ficer
Specific Authority: 403.5230), F.S. finds that the application is not
Law Implemented: 403.523(5), complete, the applicant shall with-
403.527(5), 403.525, 403.528, F.S. draw the application or supplement
History: New 11-20-80. the application in a timely manner
so as to render it -complete.
17-17.56 Completeness of Ap- (c) If the applicant supple-
plication, Resolution Procedures* ments the application so as to
(1) The department shall file, render it complete, then the times
within 10 days of receipt of an provided in this Chapter shall run
application, a statement with the from the date of the filing of the
Division of Administrative Hearings supplemental information.
and with the applicant declaring its (d) If the hearing officer
position with regard to the com- finds the application was complete
pleteness of the application. at the time it was filed, then the
(2) The department shall iden- times provided in this Chapter shall
tify the sections of the application run from the date of the filing of
considered to be incomplete and said application.
shall present a brief statement as Specific Authority: 403.523(l), F.S.
to the reasons for its position. Law Implemented: 403.523(3)(5),
(3) If the department finds the 403.525(2), F.S. History: New
application to be incomplete, the 11-20-80.
ppl-icant --shall -file within 15 days
of receipt by the department of the 17-17.57 Insufficiency of
application, with the Division of Application-Consultation with
Administrative Hearings and the Applicant, Resolution Procedures.
department: (1) Should the department or
(a) a statement agreeing with -any agency listed in Section
the statement of the 'department and 403.508(8) FS. determine within 30
withdrawing the application, or days after receipt of a complete
(b) a statement 'contesting the application that an application is
statement of the department and so insufficent as to prevent proper
.providing information in support of evaluation of the corridor said
its position; or agency shall so advise the depart-
(c) supplemental information ment and the department shall ar-
which renders the application com- range a meeting with the applicant
plete. and affected agen.cy with 7 days

17-17.55(l) 17-17.57(l)
S-9-83

Siting Handbook. Attachment IV Ch. 17-17, FAC

after making that determination to for delaying the certification hear-
ascertain whether or not the insuf- ing.
ficiency can be timely rectified. Specific Authority: 403.523(l), F.S.
(2) If such meeting indicates Law Implemented: 403.523(3)(5),
that said insufficiency cannot be 403.525(3), F.S. History: New
timely rectified, the department 11-20-80.
shall so advise. the hearing officer
and all parties, at which time the 17-17.58 Conduct of Studies,
department, applicant or any party Supplementary Information.
may request that the hearing officer (1) The department within 15
alter the time limits of the Act days of the filing of a complete
pursuant to Section 403.528, F.S. application shall commence or
(3) If the applicant contests contract for joint or independent
the statement of the department or studies of the. certification appli-
an agency on suf ficlency, the cation.
department shall so advise the (2) Such studies shall include,
hearing officer and other parties. but shall not be limited to, the
Within 15 days of being so advised consideration of the following cri-
the hearing officer shall schedule a teria in regards to corridor loca-
hearing on this issue. The hearing tion impacts, transmission line con-
shall be held no later than 30 days struction impacts, or right-of-way
after the receipt of the depart- maintenance impacts, as applicable:
ment's or agency position. The (a) Proposed location of trans-
hearing officer shall make a deci- mission line crossings of navigable
sion on, this issue within 10 days of waters and transportation systems
the hearing. If the hearing officer and the expected impact of such
determines that the application is crossings;
so insufficent as to prevent proper (b) Impact on surrounding land
evaluation of a corridor, then the uses and neighboring populations;
applicant shall withdraw the appli- (c) Impact on public lands,
cation or correct this deficiency. submerged lands and wetlands;
The time limits may be adjusted (d) Impact on terrestrial and
accordingly. If the hearing officer aquatic plant life and animal life,
determines that the application is including endangered or threatened
sufficient, then the time provided species;
in this Chapter shall run from the (e) Impact on known or poten-
date of filing the application. tial archaeological and historic
(4) A n application * which is sites and historic preservation
determined to be sufficient as to a areas as identified by the Depart-
majority of its sections shall be ment of State, Division of Archivesf
processed . for ' certification on a History and Records Management;
normal schedule so long as the (f) Potential impacts to
schedule provides that a sufficient previously undisturbed or limited
application is available to all access areas due to increased access
parties at least 60 days prior to via the corridor.
the certification hearing. Failure (g) Potential electromagnetic
to provide these materials within effects.
such time shall be deemed good cause (h) Site specific environmental

17-17.57(l) 17-17.58(2)(h)

Siting Handbook Attachment IV Ch. 17-17, FAC

studies due to the particular nature the application form 17-1.122(118)
of the corridor. FAC for transmicsion lines which are
(1) Proposed mitigation mea- not exempt from the Transmission
sures associated with the construc- Line Siting Act, and which will
tion of the transmission lines and require only the expansion of exist-
rights-of way designed to minimize ing rights-of-way. The applicant
adverse effects on the environment; may request, and the department
(1) Impact on air quality; shall grant, a meeting between the
W Impact on water quality and applicant, the department and all
quantity including surface drainage potential statutory parties which
and wetlands; are known, to determine what studies
(1) Impacts related to clearing and reports required by this section
of the right-of-way; and and the application form may be
(m) Impacts related to con- waived or reduced in scope for the
struction of access roads and any particular application.
other construction activities which Specific Authority: 403.523(l), F.S.
may Impact on wildlife and aquatic Law Implemented: 403.523(2),
life. 403.526(2), F.S. History: New
(n) Methods proposed to be used 11-20-80.
for the maintenance of access roads
and the right-of-way. 17-17.59 Analysis by the
(3) Information, studies and Department, Agency Reports.
data as provided herein or in (1) The department shall file
application form 17-1.122(118) shall the written analysis required by F
be furnished at the applicant's cost 403.523(8) F.S., with the hearing
to the department, Department of officer and serve it on all parties-
Community Affairs, Public Service no later than 3 months after the
Commission, Department of Natural complete application is filed with
Resources, Division of Archives, the department, and no later than 30
History and Records Management, Game days prior to the certification
& Fresh Water Fish Commission, those hearing.
Regional Planning Councils and af- (2) The analysis shall , con-
fected local governments who become tain:
parties to the proceeding and each (a) an assessment of the im-
water management district as defined pacts of the project as determined
in Chapter 373, FS., in whose juris- by the studies outlined in 17-17.58,
diction the proposed transmission F.A.C. (Conduct of Studies);
line is to be located. Department (b) expected compliance with
or agency requests for additional state standards and any variance or
information, if contested, shall be exemptions thereto;
resolved by the hearing officer and (c) conclusions and recommen-
shall be in conformance with all dations regarding certification in-
provisions of this Part and the cluding reasons for recommendations
Florida Administrative Procedures of denial, if the Department recom-
Act., mends denial of certification;
(4) The Department may waive or (d) recommendations for Condi-
reduce in scope the studies and tions of Certification if the
reports required by this section and department intends to recommend

17-17.58(2)(h) 17-17.59(2)(d)
-9-83
A

Siting Handbook Attachment IV Ch. 17-17, FAC

certification. by any federal regulatory agency.
(3) The analysis shall contain The applicant shall notify the
in addition to the department's Department at least (30) days prior
evaluation, reports by other govern- to the issuance of the federal
mental agencies as specified by license that would require such a
Section 403.523(8), and 403.526, modification.
F.S. These reports shall be submit- (c) A reconstruction of a
ted to the department no later than right-of-way or transmission line
60 days af ter receipt of the necessary to avoid or mitigate an
complete application by these emergency involving the loss of
agencies. human life or property resulting
Specific Authority: 403.523(2), F.S. from any natural or man-made cause,
Law Implemented: 403.523(8), including hurricane, tornado, fire,
403.526, F.S. History: New flood, explosionj windstorm or other
11-20-80. calamitous accident when new right-
of-way or access facilities are
17-17.60 Conditions of necessary.
Certiflcation, Delegated Modifi- (d) Emergency replacement of
cations. previously existing right-of-way or
(1) The conditions of certifi- transmission lines shall not be
cation shall recognize that the considered a modification pursuant
construction of the proposed trans- to Section 403.535 F.S. A verbal
mission line will take place over a report of the emergency shall be
substantial period of time and that made to the department as - soon as
the exact right-of-way within the possible. Within fourteen (14)
corridor may be subject to change calendar days after correction of
because of land availablility and the emergency a report to the
therefore, portions of the construc- Department shall be made outlining
tion may be subject to further -the details of the emergency and the
review by the department pursuant to steps taken for its temporary
the. conditions - of certification. relief. The report shall be a
The applicant shall notify the written description of all of the
department in writing of any changes work performed and shall set forth
to the project as certified. The any pollution control measures or
Department shall notify the parties mitigative measures which were
of such changes. utilized or are being utilized to
(2) The Department shall prevent pollution of waters, harm to
request that the Board'. delegate sensitive areas or alteration of
authority to the Secretary to review archaeological or historical
and approve or disapprove the resources.
following modifications pursuant to (3) 'The Department shall give
Section 403.535(l), F.S.: notice to the parties to the origi-
(a) A modification of the nal certification processing of any
project that would not cause any requests for modification received
significant adverse environmental pursuant to this section.
impact. Specific Authority: 403.523(l), F.S.
(b) Modifications necessary to Law Implemented: 403.531(2),
meet licensing conditions or re- 403.535(1), F.S. History: New
quirements imposed on the applicant 11-20-80.
S--9-83 17-17.59(2)(d) 17-17.60 (History)

Siting Handbook Attachment IV Ch. 17-17, FAC

17-17.61 Public Notice. pass;
(1) The department shall pro- 4. A statement that: "Applica-
vide for publication of the public tion Number for certification
notices necessary under this to authorize location of a transmis-
Chapter. sion line corridor, construction of
(2) Notice of Certification an electrical transmission line or
Hearing. lines and maintenance of the trans-
At least 60 days prior to the mission line right-of-way from
public hearing on certification, Florida, to . Florida, is now'
public notice shall be provided and pending before the Department of
shall consist of the following: Environmental Regulation pursuant to
(a) Publication in a newspaper the Florida Transmission Line Siting
or general circulation which the Act, Chapter 403, Part 11 F.S. (The
departmental staff has determined to department's assigned application
be adequate to provide general number shall be provided in the
public notice in each county through application number blank.) The cor-
which the transmission line corridor ridor will pass through the follow-
will pass. Such public notice which ing local government jurisdictions:
shall occupy not less than 114 of 11 (Here list cities and counties
the newspaper page, bearing the as appropriate).
heading, "Notice of Certification 5. A statement that: "Pursuant
Hearing on Proposed Electrical to Section 403.527, Florida Stat-
Transmission Line Corridor", in bold utes, the certification hearing will
letters not less than 3/8 inch high. be held by the Division of Adminis-
The public notice shall contain the trative Hearings on r 19 __., at
following information: -01 i n County, Florida, at
1. The name and brief descrip- m. to determine whether or not
tion of the transmission line cor- the location of the transmission
ridor; line corridor, construction of the
2. A map to be supplied by the transmission lines and maintenance
applicant showing the location of of the right-of-way, are consistent
the corridor; with the broad interests of the
3. A list of readily accessible public and will produce minimal
public places where copies -of the adverse effects on the environment
application are available for public and public health, safty and wel-
inspection and copying. The list fare. Consideration of individual
shall include the addresses of the private property rights, equitable
main and the local regional offices compensation for condemnation
of the department serving the area proceedings which may be necessary
of the corridor. The list shall to obtain access and use of the
also indicate that a copy of the corridor, and the electrical need
application is available for public for the transmission line will not
inspection at the general business be heard at this hearing. Need for
office of the applicant, and the the transmission line has been
local business office of the ap- predetermined by the Public Service
plicant, if any, in every county Commission at a separate hearing."
through which the corridor will

6. Section 403.527(3) and notice published pursuant to (2)(a)
(4), Florida Statutes, in their such as: "Pursuant to Section
entirety. 403.531, F.S., (Name of Utility)
(b) By the department mailing seeks a variance from (Rule, Agency)
by certified mail return receipt for the purpose of:
requested within 10 days of publica-
tion of the notice required by The hearing officer will receive
(2)(a) a copy of said public notice comments and testimony on the vari-
to the chief executive of any muni- ance request from the parties, the
cipality or county through which the public and the affected agencies at
corridor will pass. the certification hearing."
(c) By the department mailing (3) Notice on Completeness or
the appropriate notice to any Sufficiency Hearings.
person's who have requested to be Written notice of a hearing on
placed on the department's mailing the completeness or sufficiency of
list for notification of transmis-, an application __ shall be _qiven to all
sion line certification hearings. parties,
(d) Publication of an appro- (4) Notice of Modification
priate notice of the hearing in the Request.
Florida Administrative Weekly. The Department shall provide
(e) Where known, the depart- notice of receipt of a modification
ment shall advertise the applicant's request by publishing notice in the
intention to use, connect to or Administrative Weekly and by sending
cross over properties and works of notice to the address shown on the
governmental agencies. The follow- last certificate of service for each
ing statement shall be included in party to the original certification
notices published pursuant to proceedings. At its discretion, the
(@)(a):' "Pursuant to Section Department may also publish notice
403.527(3)(e), F.S., (Name of in newspaper(s) of general circula-
Utility) intends to use, connect to, tion in each county through which
or cross over properties and vVork of the portion of the corridor proposed
the following agencies: to be modified will.pass, dependent
upon the scope of modification
The hearing of ficer will requested.
receive comments and testimony from (5) Notice of Hearing on a
the parties, the public and the af- Modification Petition Pursuant to
fected agencies at the certification Subsection 403.535(3), F..S.
hearing." The department shall provide
(f) Where known, the department notice of hearing scheduled on a
shall advertise the applicant's modification petition filed pursuant
desire to obtain a condition of to Subsection 403.535(3), F.S.,
certification that would constitute consisting of:
a variance otherwise allowed by law (a) Publication in newspapers
from a non-procedural standard or of general circulation which the
regulation of the department or a department staff has determined to
standard or regulation of any other be adequate to provide general
agency, The department shall public notice in each county in a
include an appropriate statement in newspaper or newspapers of general

17-17.61(2)(a)6. -- 17-17.61(5)(a)
S-9-83

circulation, and through which the through the following local govern-
portion of the tranmission line mental jurisdictions:
corridor being modified will pass.
Such public notice shall occupy not (Here list the Cities and Counties
less than 114 of the newspaper page.. as appropriate) .
bearing the heading, "Notice of 5. A statement that: "Pursuant
.Hearing to consider Modification to to Sections 403.527 and 403.535,
a previously certified Electrical Florida Statutes, a hearing r Iegard-
Transmission Line Corridor located ing modification of a previously
in Counties, Florida," in bold issued certification will be held by
letters not less than 3/8 inch the Division of Administrative
high. Hearings on _, 19 - , at I
(b) The public notice shall in County, Florida, at
contain the following information: m., to determine whether or not the
1. The name of the utility and modification is consistent with the
brief description of the requested broad interests of the public and
modification; will produce minimal adverse effects
2. a map to be supplied by the on the environment and public
applicant showing the location of health, safety and welfare. Con-
the modification; siderations of individual private
3. A list of readily accessible property rights, equitable compensa-
public places where copies of the tion for condemnation proceedings
modification petition are available which may be necessary to accomplish
for public inspection and copying. the modification, and the electrical
This list shall include the addres- need for the transmission line will
ses of the main and the local not be heard at the modification
-regional offices of the department hearing. Need for the transmission
serving the area of the modifica- line has been predetermined by the
tion. This list shall also indicate Public Service Commission at a
that a copy of the modification seperate hearing. All persons
petition is available for. pub I ic wishing to become parties to this
inspection at the general business proceedings should file a notice of
office of the applicant, if any, in intent to become a party with the
every county in which the modifica- department by (insert date)."
tion will located. 6. Section 403.527(3) and
4. A statement that: "A modifi- (4), Florida Statutes, in their
cation petition numbered to entirety.
authorize a modification to the (c) By publication of appropri-
previously certified electrical ate notice in the Florida Adminis-
transmission line from Florida trative Weekly.
to . Florida, is now pending Specific Authority: 403.523(l), F.S.
be e the Department of Environmen- Law Implemented: 403.523(9),
tal Regulation, pursuant to the 403.527, 403.535, 403.525, F.S.
Transmission Line Siting Act, History: New 11-20-80.
Chapter 403, Part 11, F.S." (The
departments assigned application 17-17.62 Evidence of Notice,
number shall be provided in the Additional Notice.
blank.) "The modification will pass (1) Evidence of any notice made

17-17.61(5)(a) 17-17.62(l)
5-9-83

pursuant to this chapter, together of a certification hearing.
with a copy of the notice, shall be Specific Authority: 403.523(l), F.S.
filed with the hearing officer and Law Implemented: 40-3.527(l),
all parties within ten (10) days of 403.537, 366.14(l), F.S. Historyt
issuance or publication of said New 11-20-80.
notice. A copy of each notice shall
be served on each party on or before 17-17.64 Certification Hear-
the date of publication and shall be ings-Subject Matter, Procedure,
made a part of the record of the Participants.
proceedings. (1) The department shall ar-
(2) Inadvertent failure -- of range with the hearing. officer for a
service on, or to give notice to the certification hearing to be held no
public or any of the persons enti- later than four (4) months after the
tled to receive such services pursu- filing of a complete application
ant to provisions of this chapter, with the department, in a convenient
may be cured by an order of the public location as close as practi-
hearing officer designed to afford cable to the proposed corridor.
the public or such persons adequate (2) The certification hearing
notice to enable their effective shall include an examination of the
participation in the proceedings. expected environmental impacts of
(3) The hearing officer may, at the transmission - line corridor,
any time, require the department to agency reports, other public
serve or publish additional notices interests and any issues deemed
of hearing and file evidence there- appropriate by the hearing officer.
Of. In preparing the recommended order,
Specific Authority: 403.523(l), F.S. the hearing officer shall consider
Law Implemented: 403.523(6)(9), the legislative intent under Section
403.527, F.S. History: New 403.521, F.S.
1-1-20-80. (a) The applicant for certifi-
cation shall make formal presenta-
17-17.63 Hearings Generally- tion of its proposal at this hearing
Conduct, Public Service Commis- and shall address each of the topics
sion's Determination of Need. listed in (2) above. The presenta-
(1) The certification hearing tions shall be designed to apprise
held pursuant to the Act and this the public otherwise unfamiliar with
Chapter shall be conducted according the the details of the proposal.
to the provisions of Chapter 120, (b) All parties may present
Florida Statutes. their respective cases in accordance
(2) Pursuant to Section 366.14 with . the rules of evidence in
F.S., the Public Service Commission administrative proceedings@ at the
has been directed to conduct a hearing. These presentations may
public hearing to determine the need include the application and all
for 'a transmission line regulated studies, reports and analyses
under Sections- 403.520-535, F.S. prepared in accordance with this
The commission's determination of Chapter.
need is binding on all parties to (c) Any person not a party may
the certification proceeding and is present oral or written communica-
a condition precedent to the conduct tions to the Hearing Officer at the

17-17.62(l) 17- 17.64(2)(c)
5-9-83

hearing. If the hearing officer 17-17.65 Retention and
proposes to consider such communica- Availability of Certification
tions the parties shall be given an and Application, Copying Fees.
opportunity to cross-examine or (1) The applicant shal.1 at all
challenge or rebut such communica- times retain complete copies of the
tions. application and certification at the
(d) Where the applicant seeks a central business office, and if avail-
condition in its certification which able, at least one business office in
constitutes a variance from the each county serving the area through
non-procedural standards or regula- which_ the corridor will pass. The
tions of the department or from the applicant's copies of the application
standards or regulations of any and certification shall be open for a
other agency, the applicant shall public inspection and copying during
notify the agency whose standards or normal business hours.
regulations are involved, all (2) The department shall retain
parties and the hearing officer at complete copies of the application and
least 75 days prior to the certifi- certification at the main office and
cation hearing, of the standards or the local district offices for the
regulations from which it seeks a districts through which the certified
variance, of the notice given to the corridors will pass. The department's
agency whose rules are involved, and file shall be open for a public
of the condition which it seeks to inspection and copying during normal
have included in the certification business hours.
on this issue. (3) A reasonable fee may be
(e) Where the applicant is charged by any party for providing
aware of its need to use, connect copies pursuant to this chapter.
to, or cross over any properties or Specific Authority: 403.523(l), F.S.
works of any agency, the applicant Law Implemented: 403.527, F.S.
shall notify the agency whose History: New 11-20-80.
properties or works are affected,
all parties and the hearing officer 17-17.66 Post-certification
of this need at least 75 days prior Monitoring and Reporting.
to the certification hearing. This (1) The applicant shall conduct
activity shall be an issue addressed at its expense such post-certification
in the certification hearing unless monitoring and reporting as is deemed
waived in writing by the agency reasonable by the Board, of th'e
involved. environmental effects arising from the
M Parties who are granted location of the transmission line
permission for untimely intervention right-of-way, the construction of the
pursuant to subsection 403.527(3) transmission line or lines and the
(d), F.S. shall be bound by the maintenance of the transmission line
status. of the proceedings as they right-of-way pursuant to the condi-
find them as of the date interven- tions of certification. The monitor-
tion is granted, unless otherwise ing and reporting shall be carried out
ordered by the hearing officer in in the manner prescribed in the
his discretion. conditions of certification.
Specific Authority: 403.523(l), F.S. Specific Authority: 403.532(l), F.S.
Law Implemented: 403.527(3)(4)(5), Law Implemented: 403.523(10), F.S.
F.S. History: New 11-20-80. History: New 11-20-80.
5-9-83 17-17.64(2)(c) -- 17-17.66 (History)

17-17.67 Review and 1.7-17.69 Processing of
Evaluation. . Modification Petition Pursuant
The department may at any time, to Section 403.S3S(3) F.S.
review the certification and eval- (1) The department shall issue
uate the compliance of the applicant notice of the receipt of a modifica-
with the conditions of certification tion petition to the public and
contained, therein and act upon such affected agencies and all parties to
review and evaluation as it deems the original certification proceed-
appropriate in acc -ordance with the ings by certified mail within 15
provisions of the Act and -this days of receipt. of the modification
Part. petition by the department.
Specific Authority: 403.523(l), F.S. (2) Parties --- to the original
Law Implemented: 403.532, 403.533, certification proceedings may become
F.S. History: New 11-20-80. parties to the modification proceed-
ings by filing a notice of intent @ to
17-17.68 Modification of become a party with the department
Certification, Fee. within thirty (301, days of the
(1) Certification, including publication of the notice required
Conditions of Certification, may be by (1) of this section. Section
modified pursuant to the 'provisions 403.527(3)(4), shall act as a guide
of Section 403.535, F. S. Any for any --- other.- agency- or person in
request for modification of certifi- becoming a party.
cation shall be accompanied by 14 (3) The department shall
copies of the appropriate altera- request assignment of a hearing
tions of the original application off icer or notify the Secretary
as - prescribed by DER Form within 7 days of receipt of a
17-1.122(118). modification petition by the
(2) If modification pursuant to department.
Subsections 403.535(2) or (3) is (4) The provisions of Section
sought,. the applicant shall submit a 17-17.56' and 17-17.57 relating to
$2000 modification fee to the de- completeness and sufficiency shall
partment, unless otherwise stipulat- apply to the review of a modifica-
ed to by the department. Any sums tion petition.
remaining after payment of autho- (5) The Public Service Commis-
rized costs shall be refunded to the sion, Department of Community
applicant within 90 days of approval Affairs, Department of Natural
or denial of the modification by the Resources, Game and Fresh Water Fish
Board, or withdrawal of the, modifi- Commission and each water management
cation district as defined in Chapter 373,
(.3) Upon receipt of a request F.S., in whose jurisdiction the
to modify certification, the Depart- modification would be located each
ment shall issue notice as prescrib- shall submit a report on the modifi--
ed by Section 17-17.61(4), FAC.- cation petition to the department
Specific Authority: 403.523(l), F.S. within 45 days of receipt of the
Law Implemented: 403.523(11), modification petition by these
403.535, F.S.. History: New 11-20-80. agencies.

17-17.67 17-17.69(5)
5-9-83

5_7

(6) The department shall per- (2) The department shall initi-
form similar studies to those ate a public hearing for revocation
required by Section 17-17.58 within or suspension of certification and
60 days of receipt of the modifica- notify the applicant, pursuant to
tion petition. the provisions of Chapter 120, F.S.
(7) The scope of studies and (3) The applicant, if so order-
reports required by (5) and (6) ed by the hearing officer shall
above shall be commensurate with the immediately terminate all activities
degree of modification requested. found to be in violation of the
(8) The department shall certification, pending final resoiu-
arrange to have a public notice tion of the revocation or suspension
regarding the modification hearing proceedings by the Board.
published pursuant to Section (4) Subsection (3) above shall
17-17.61(4) within 45 days of not interpreted as requiring the
receipt of the modification peti- termination of environmental stud-
tion by the department. ies, or monitoring by the Department
(9) The hearing officer shall or the applicant. The department
hold a modification hearing on the may terminate, at its discretion,
modification not later than 95 days such activities by written notice to
after receipt of the modification. the persons conducting such activi-
petition by the department. ties, and to the parties to the
(10) The department shall file certification hearing.
with the hearing officer and serve (5) The department may, at its
on all parties a written analysis of discretion, cause to be conducted
the modification petition not later any investigations, monitoring or
than 21 days prior to the modifica- studies except those related to need
tion hearing. deemed appropriate in contemplation
(11) The recommended order of or in pursuance of suspension or
the hearing officer shall be submit- revocation proceedings.
ted to the Board for final action no Specific Authority: 403.523(l), F.S.
later than 30 days after completion Law Implemented: 403.532, F.S.
of the modification hearing. History: New 11-20-80.
(12) The hearing officer may
alter any time limitation upon 17-17.71 Termination of
stipulation between the department Certification.
and the applicant or for good cause The applicant shall commence
shown by any party. construction of a transmission line
Specific Authority: 403.523(l), F.S. which has been certified within 15
Law Implemented: 403.523(3)(6)(8) years of the date of certification
(9), 403.526, 403.527, 403.535, F.S. as shown in the application, or
History: New 11-20-80. certification shall be terminated.
For good cause shown, which shall
17-17.70 Revocation or include, but not be limited to,
Suspension of Certificatione permitting delays, the certification
(1) Any material false state- expiration time prior to commence-
ment, noncompliance with terms or ment of construction activities may
conditions of a certification or be extended by the Board.
violation of Chapter 403 or regula- Specific Authority: 403.523(l)(8),
tions or orders issued thereunder F.S. Law Implemented: 403.529, F.S.
shall be grounds for revocation or History: New 11-20-80.
suspension of certification.

17-17.69(6) 17-17.71 (History)
5 9 83

f7F

I
I
I
I
I
I -

ATTACHMENT V
I I
I PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
POWER PLANT SITING REGULATIONS
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

Siting Handbook At tachment V PSC Siting Regulation .s

25-22.75 Transmission Line Permitting Proceedings power flows and voltage profiles 'on the transmission lines
25-22.76 Contents of Petition. in the more critical operating conditions. Load flows
25-22.77 Reserved should cover the general time period within which the
25-22.78 Reserved proposed transmission line or lines will be needecL but at
25-22.79 Reserved the option of the utility. may cover a period of several
25-22.80 Electrical Power Plant Permitting Proceedings years. One copy of the complete load flow analysis,
25-22.81 Contents of Petition including supporting documentation shall be filed with
25-22.82 Reserved the Commission. The load flow analysis shall Identify the
25-22-83 Reserved load forecasts upon which the load levels an based.
25-22.84 Reserved supplemental studies, such as transient stability or short
circuit analysis, may be submitted at the option of the
25-22.75 Transmission Line Permitting Proceed- utility or upon request of the Commission. if needed to
ings. U) Proceedings to determine the need for a support the need for the proposed transmission Una or
proposed transmission line as defined in Section lines. 14) A summary discussion of the major alternative
403.522(3). F.S., shall begin with a petition by a utility or transmission lines or transmission improvements which
an order issued on the Commigsion's own motion and shall were examined and evIuated by the utility in arriving at
be disposed of as provided in Chapter 25-2. F.A.C.. except the decision to- . pursue - -the--proposed - project. The
that the time deadlines and notice requirements in Section discussion shall consist of- Is) a general description of the
366.14, F.S., shall control. Proceedings may begin other transmission line alternatives, including. if
notwithstanding the fact that an application for corridor appropriate, load flow analyses and electrical system
site certification of a proposed transmission line pursuant diagram showing power flows and voltage profiles on the
to sections 403.502 through 403.535, F.S., is pending. A transmission lines in the more critiW operating
petition for reconsideration shall be filed within 5 days of conditions and (b) a discussion of the performance of each
the Commission's decision. alternative in terms of economics, reliability, long-term
(2) Upon receipt of a petition by a utility or flexibility and usefulness. or other relevant factors.
;I )rder pursuant to subsection (1), notice f5) A statement of the major mason or reasons for
shall be given of the commencement of the proceeding to: adding the proposed transmission line or lines, specifically
(a) The affected utility or utilities, if appropriate, whether the proposed transmission line or lines,
(bl The Department of Community Affairs, specifically whether the proposed transmission line or
Division of Local Resource Management; lines wilk
fe) The Department of Environmental Regulation; 1a) Improve or maintain reliability;
and. (b) Improve intra- or inter-system power transfer
(d) Each person who has requested placement on capabilities;
the mA*Hng list for receipt of such notice. (c) Integrate power supply sources;
Specific Authority: 120.01)(c), 350.01(6), 403.537(2) VS. Law ImplenientecL (d) Correct thermal overloads or low voltage
4W.537 P3. History-New 12-2-80. 2-oziderred 12-21-8L conditions;
?A-=76 Contents of Petition. Petitions submitted (s) Accommodate load growth;
to commence a determination of need proceeding or if) Improve system economics;
responses to the Commission's order commencing a ig) Accommodate relocations:
proceeding shall comply with the other requirementa of (h) Conserve or displace oil;
Chapter 25-2. F.A.C., as to form and style and shall (I) Serve any other useful purpose,
contain the following information: (j) Any combination of the above.
(1) A general description of the existing load and (6) A statement of the adverse consequences to the
electrical characteristics of the electrical transmission electrical system which will result if the project is delayed
grid including an electrical system map indicating the or if the Commi sion denies the application.
general location and configuration of existing and the (7) An estimate, of the time for full project
proposed transmission line or lines. development and an explanation of the factors and
(2) A general description of the proposed considerations which justify the proposed phasing of the
transmission line or lines, including the project name, the project where development of the project will be phased
starting and ending points of the transmission line or lines over an extended period of time.
as defined by the utility, the design and the operating Spedil Autharitr. 120-53(ixe), 403.537(2) VS. Law Implements& 403.537 F.S.
voltage of the proposed transmission line or lines. the History-Now 12-2-80, Transferred 12-21-SL
approximate cost. and the projected in-service date or
dates of the proposed transmission line or lines. 25-22.77 Reserved
13) A statement of the specific situations,
conditions. contingencies. or other factors which indicate 23-22.78 Reserved
that need exists for the proposed transmission line or
lines. including the general time within which the 23-22.79 Reserved
proposed transmission line or lines will be needed.
Documentation shall include load flow studies on a 25-22.80 Electrical Power Plant Permitting Pro.
peninsular Florida basis. a Gulf Power basis. a Southern ceedings.
Electric System basis or some combination of these and. U) Proceedings to determine the need for a
when applicable, inclusion of adjoining states showing proposed electrical power plant. as defined in Section

A-37

Siting Handbook Attachment V PSC Siting Regulations

403.503(7). F.S., shall begin with a petition by a utility or characteristics, generating capability, and
on the Commission's own motion and shall be disposed of interconnections.
in accordance with the provisionsof Chapter 25-2. F.A.C., f2) A general description of the proposed electrical
except that the time deadlines set forth in this role and in power plant. including the =a, number of units, fuel type
Sections 403.501 through 403.517, F.S.. to the extent and supply modes. the approximate costs, and projected
applicable. shall control. Proceedings may begin prior to in-servics date of dates.
the aEz-of an--ap-@fica-tion for site certification of the (3) A statement of the specific conditions.
proposed electrical power plant. contingencies or other factors which indicate a need for
12) Within 7 days following receipt of a petition. or the proposed electrical power plant including the general
in its order commencing a proceeding on its own motion, time within which the generating units will be needed.
the Corn-9 sion shall set a date for hearing, which shall be Documentation shall include historical and forecasted
within 90 days of receipt of the petition or of issuance of summer and winter peaks, number of customers, net
ts order Following the hearing, each party way make energy for load. and load factors with a discussion of the
submittals to the Comm; sion on a time schedule to be more critical operating conditions. Load forecasts shall
determined in accordance
with ithe requirements of each identify the model or models on which they were based
proceeding. but terminating no'later than 120 days from and shall include sufficient det" to permit analysis of the
the receipt of the petition. The matter will be placed before model or models. If a determination is sought on some
the Commission on an agenda which will permit a decision basis in addition to or in lieu of capacity needs. such as oil
no later than 135 days from the date of receiving the blackout. then detailed analysis and supporting
petition or the issuance of the order commencing the documentation of the costs and benefits is required.
proceeding. A petition for reconsideration must be MW (4) A summary discussion of the major available
l
within 5 days of the COMMi3giOU'3 decision. generating alternatives which were examined and
(3) Upon receipt of a petition by a utility or evaluated in arriving at the decision to pursue the
issuance of an order pursuant to subsection (1), notice proposed generating unit. The discussion shall include a
shall be given of the commencement of the proceeding to: general description of the generating unit alternatives,
(a) The affected utility or utilities. if appropriate: including purchases where appropriate-, and an evaluation
(b) The Department of Community Affairs, of each alternative in terms of economics. reliability, long
Division of Local Resource Management; term flexibility and usefulness and any other relevant
1c) The Department of Environmental Regulation; factors. Those major generating technologies generally
and available and potentially appropriate for the dirning of the
id) Each person who has requested placement on proposed plant and other conditions specific to it shall be
ithe mailin list for receipt of such notice. discussed.
Spect& Antharitr. 120.5&1)(c), 350.01(g), 386.05(l) F.S. Law Implammts& 15) A discussion of viable nongenerating
4W.519 F.S. History-New 12-2-M, Mwisferred 12-21-SL alternatives including an evaluation of the mature and
2&22.81 Contents'of Petition. Petitions submitted extent of reduction3in the growth rates of peak demand
sto commence a proceeding to determine the need for a KWH consumption and oil consumption resulting from
proposed electrical power plant or responses to the the goals and programs adopted pursuant to the Florida
Commission's order commencing such a proceeding shall Energy Efficiency and Conservation Act both historically
lWomply with the other requirements of Chapter 25.2. and prospectively and the effects on the kiming and size of
A.C., as to form and style except that a utility may, at the proposed plant.
11t3- option, submit its petition in the same for-at and style (6) An evaluation of the adverse consequences
as its application for site certification pursuant to which will result if the proposed electrical power plant is
a 403.501 through 403.517, F.S., so long as the not added in the approximate size sought or in the
0 - ".-- roximate time sought.
formational requirements of this rule and Chapter 25-2. app
W.A.C., am satisfied. The petition, to allow the Specific Authority: 120.53(lXc), 366.05(l) F.S. LAwImplententeci: 403.529 FS.
Commission to take into account the need for electric History-New L2-2-80, Zvndwred 12-22-81.
yateni reliability and integrity, the need for adequate
s
sonable cost electricity, and the need to determine 25-22M Reserved
fhether the proposed plant is the most cost effective
.alternative available. shall contain the following 25-" Reserved
information:
) A general description of the utility or utilities 25-22.84 Reserved
y affected, including the load and electrical

A-38

I
I
I
I
I
I
I ATTACHMENT VI

EQUIVALENCIES AND CONVERSIONS
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

Siting Handbook Attachment VI Glossary

GLOSSARY

Aldehydes - Group of @jghly reactive organic compounds contai-
ing the CO;;Pattached to both a hydrogen atom and a
hydrocarbon radical.

Alkalinity - The quality, state, or degree of having a p4- more
than seven.

Alpha - Closest in structure of an organic molecule to a
the nucleus of a helium atom carrying a positive charge
of +2.

Ambient - Surrounding on all sides such as in ambient air
quality standards.

Anadromous - Having the habit of migrating from deep water to
shallow water to breed.

Ani ons - Negatively charged ions.

Anthracite - a hard compact natural coal of high luster
differing from bituminous coal in that it contains only
a small amount of volatile matter and burns with a
nearly smokeless flame.

Aquatic Ecosystems - Water ecological system formed by the
interaction of organisms and their environment.

Aquifer - A water-bearing bed of permeable rock, sand, or
gravel capable of yielding considerable quantities of
water to wells or springs.

Aromatic - Relating to or having an aroma.

A-39

Siting Handbook Attachment VI Glossary

Bag House - An air pollution control technique in which bag
filters are used for filtering gas.

Base Load - The minimum load in a power system over a given
period of time.

Beneficiation - Process of cleaning coal to reduce the amount
and sulfur in the coal.

Benthic - Relating to or occuring on the bottom layer of a
body of water.

Benthos - Plant or animal life living at the bottom of the
sea, especially in the deeper parts.

Berm - A narrow shelf, edge, or path typically at the bottom
or top of a slope or along a bank.

Biomagnification - A type of food chain transfer with
increasing levels of a substance.

Biofouling - The adhesion of various marine organisms to
underwater structures.

Biomass - The amount of living matter in the form of one or
more kinds of organisms present in a particular habitat.

Biota - The animal and plant life of a region.

Bituminous - A coal that yields, when heated, considerable
volatile bituminous matter; also called "soft coal."

Blowdown - Water discharged from a cooling system to eliminate
contaminating chemicals.

BOD - Biochemical oxygen demand, amount of oxygen used in the
biological decay process.

Bottom Ash - Dry ash that does not melt, but is too heavy to
be entrained in the flue gas, is also known as
cinders.

Brackish - Somewhat salty water that contains less salt than
seawater, but is undrinkable.

A-40

Siting Handbook Attachment VI Glossary

Btu (British Thermal Unit) - The standard unit for measuring
quantity of heat energy, such as the heat content of
fuel. It is the amount of heat energy necessary to
raise the temperature of one pound of water one degree
Fahrenheit.

Busbar - A equalize.r conductor from a terminal or junction
point in a power system, for the connection of supplies
.and feeders.

Capacity -Maxium power output, expressed in kilowatts or mega-
watts.

Carcinogenic - Cancer producing.

Catalyst - A substance which speeds up a chemical reaction
ithout entering the reaction.
Catalywtic Oxidation - Increases the process involving the
addition of oxygen or the loss of hydrogen, while
remaining unchanged.

Cations - A positively charged ion.

Cogeneration - Use of fuel and boiler to generate electricity
and useable thermal energy in a two stage process.

Conservation - Improving the efficiency of energy use; using
less energy to produce the same product.

Coliform - Resembles colon bacilli, i.e, intestinal bacteria.

Condemnation - process by which the property of a private
owner is taken for public use without the consent of the
owner, but with a payment of just compensation.

Cooling Tower - A tower used to cool water after circulation
t.hrough a condenser.

Copepods - Of or belonging to the copepoda family, minute
aquatic crusteaceans.

Demand - The rate at which electric energy is delivered to or
by a system and is expressed in kilovolts, also see
Load.

A-41

Siting Handbook Attachment VI Glossary

Demineralizer - An apparatus for demineralizing water.

Depauperate - Falling short of natural development or size.

Dewatering - To remove water by draining, pressing, and
pumping.

Discounted - To make a deduction in evaluating 'the signif
icance or worth of something.

Dry Cooling - In a dry cooling tower, the condenser cooling
water rejects its heat to the air in a totally enclosed
system, which is similar to the cooling system in an
automobile.

Easement Limiting the property use of a parcel of land.

Ecotone A transition area between two adjacent ecological
communities.

Edema - Extended swelling of plant organs or parts-of organs
from an over development of cells induced by excess of
water combined with unfavorable light and temperature
relationships.

Electrostatic Precipators - Device for removing fine particu-
late matter in an air stream by use of electro-magnetic
fields.

Elutriation - The removal of substances from a mixture by
washing and the use of liquid sludge.

Eminent Domain - The power to take private property for public
use, either permanently or for a period of time.

Entrainment - The flowing in of organims due to the mass
motion of the cooling water.

Entrainer - A liquid added as a third component to liquid
mixtures for aiding their sepderation by 4C
fractional
distillation.

Entrapment - The prevention of the escape of organisms due to
the mass cooling water currents and forces involved.

A-42

Siting Handbook Attachment VI Glossary

Escalation - The upward adjustment of prices proportionally
and automatically to an alteration in the cost of
materials and labor.

Estuary - Place where freshwater joins saltwater.

Eutrophication - Process of aging of lakes and other still
water bodies due to excess nutrients.

Evapotranspiration - Loss of water from the soil by both
evaporation from the surface and by transpiration from
plants

Extra-High Voltage (EHV) - Voltage over 345,000 volts
(345kV).

Fee Simple Transfer - Outright purchase.

Flue - A channel in a chimney for conveying flame and smoke to
the outer air,

Fly Ash - A fine ash from the pulverij@ed fuel burned in
power stations.

Gigawatt - One billion watts.

Gigawatt-Hour - One million kilowatt hours or one billion watt
hours.

Gypsum Processes - Flue gas desulferization process that
produces gypsum.

Halogen - Any of the five elements fluorinq?, chlorine, bro-
mine, iodine, and astatine forming part of Group VIIIA
of the periodic table of elements and existing in the
free state normally as diatomic molecules (such a C124
Brf).

Hardpan - A cemented or compacted layer in soils through which
it is difficult to dig or excavate.

Hydric - Characterized by an abundant supply of moisture.

A-43

Siting Handbook Attachment VI Glossary

Hydroperiod - The frequency that water stands at or above the
soil surface or saturates the soil in the root zone of
the existing wetland vegetation.
Ichthyoplankton - The fish componentP the passively floating
or weakly swimming animal microrganisms of the sea.

Impingement - A situation in which an organism is forced
against a barrier, such as an intake screen, as a result
of the intake of water into a facility such as a
powerplant.

Intertie - In any framed work, a horizontal tie other than the
sill and plate or other principal ties, securing up
rights to one another (Line Connecting two utility
transmission systems.

Isopleth - Lines on a map connecting points at which a given
variable has a specified constant value.

Isotherm - A line drawn on a map through places having equal
temperature.

Iterative - Describes a procedure or process which repeatedly
executes a series of operations until some condition is
satisfied.

Karst - Uneven limestone topography characterized by sink-
holes.

Kilowatt - 1000 watts.

Kilowatt-Hour - The basic unit of electric energy equal to one
kilowatt of power supplied to or taken from an electric
circuit steadily for one hour.

Leaching - The removal, by percolation water of mineral salts
from the soil.

Leachate - Liquid that has passed through or emerged from
solid waste and contains soluble materials removed from
solid waste.

Lenticular - Shaped like a double convex lens.

A-44

Siting Handbook Attachment VI Glossary

Lignite - Dull brown compact fossil (wood), representing one
stage in the conversion of plant remains into coal.

Load - The amount of electric power delivered to a given
point on Jk-k-ft system
*A 4c@
Load Factor - The ratio of the average load in kilowatts
supplied during a designated period to the peak or
maximum load in kilowatts occuring in that period.
Loss - The general term applied to energy (kilowat'hours) and
power (kilowatt)) lost in the operation of an electrical
system.

Loss of Load Probability - Probability that at some
unspecified moment in a period, fre uently the peak, the
utility will not be able to meet it s demand.

Macrophyte - Member of 'macroscopic aquatic plant life capable of
being seen with""naked eye.

Makeup - The water being added to a cooling system to replace
that lost by evaporation or blowdonwn.

Mechanical Draft Cooling Towers - A type of cooling tower that
uses fans to control the amount of air used to cool
heated water.

Megawatt - 1000 kilowatts.

Megawatt-Hour - 1000 kilowatt hours.

Mesic Hammock - Art cluster of hardwood trees that is somewhat
higher than it-OFs surrondings and is characterized by a
moderate amoun@6-_of moisture.

Miscible Capable of being mixed.

Mutagenic Capable of inducing mutation.

Natural Draft Cooling Tower - A type of cooling tower 300 to
500, foot tall that uses the process of evaporation to
cool heated waste water.

A-45

Siting Handbook Attachment VI Glossary

Nekton - Free swimming organisms, such as fish.

Net Energy For Load - A term used by the public service
commission and includes the net generation produced by
the systems own plant, plus; energy recieved from
other power plants, minus; energy sold to others.

Organic - Showing the characteristics of a living organisms
and usually has carbon compounds.

Pathological Altered or caused by disease.

Particulates Finely divided solid or liquified particles in
the air or in an emission.
Peak Load - The greatest of all demands of4%.@load uad.&r
cQA_%!49T-e+-i-&n which has occured during a specified
pp-i-d--o4--t-4-me. See Demand and Load.

Percolation - Movement of water from the surface into the
ground.

Permeability - Facility with which a porous substance permits
passage of a fluid.

Phytoplankton - Passively floating plant life in a body of
water consisting mostly of diatoms and blue-green algae.

Podsolization - A important process in the formation and
modification of certain soils especially in humid
regions.

Potentiometric - Relating to an instrument for the precise?
measurement of electromotive forces. 0

Pozzolp-nic - Having the properties of pozzolana, a volcanic
dust that has the effect, when mixed with mortar, of
enabling the latterto harden either in the air or under
water.

Present Worth Value - The investment necessary to secure the
promise of future payment-.

A-46

Siting Handbook Attachment VI Glossary

Pulmonary - Pertaining to the lungs.

Raptor - Bird of prey.

Regenerative Processes - The utilization by special devices of
heat or other products that would ordinarily be lost.

Riparian - Relating to or locating on the bank of a water
course or sometimes a lake.

Scavenging - To remove dirt, waste or impurities from a
substance.

Slurry - A watery mixture of insoluble matter.

Spoil - Dredged material which has to be placed at another
site (Material excavated from below the sur-face of a
body of water.

Stochastic - Random, having an element of chance.

Stoichi/netry - Methodology and technology by which quantities
of reactants and products in chemical reactions are
determined.

Successional Stages - Progression of vegetative growth from
herbaceous to woody.

Temperature Inversion - An increase of temperature with height
through a layer of air which tends to trap the air
below it.

Teratogenic - Causes congenital malformation or birth defects.

Therm - 100,000 Btu

Throw Away Process - Type of flue gas desulfurzation process,
which results in valueless byproducts.

Traveling Screens - Rotating mesh screen attached to a power
plant in-take t6 prevent the intake of materials that
could clog the heat exchangers.

Toxic - Related to or caused by poision.

A-47

Siting Handbook Attachment VI Glossary

Watt - The electrical unit of power or rate of doing work. r

Weir - A dam placed across a river to raise the water level,
or the crest or spillway of a dam.
Xeric - Characterized by a scanty supply of moisture

Zooplankton Floating aquatic micro-organisms.

A-48

ATTACHMENT VII

EQUIVALENCIES AND CONVERSIONS

Siting Handbook Attachment VII Conversions

ATTACHMENT VII

EQUIVALENCIES AND CONVERSIONS

The following are units of measurement which are used with
some regularity in power plant siting applications:

Britsh Metric

1 inch 2.54 centimeters (cm)
I foot 0.3048 meters
1 mile 1.609 kilometers (km)
1 square foot 9,290 square centimeters
I acre 4,047 square meter
1 cubic foot 28,316 cubic centimeters
I gallon 3.785 liters
1 cubic yard 0.7647 cubic meter
1 pound 0.454 kilograms
1 ton (short) 0.9072 metric ton
1 pound per square inch 0.0703 kilogram per square
centimeter
1 pound per cubic foot 0.01602 kilogram per square
kilometer
I ton per square foot 9,765 kilograms per square
meter
I part per million I milligram per liter
(equivalent)
I British thermal unit 252 calories
(Btu)
1 pound per million Btu 0.43 grams per million joules
1.80 grams per million calories
1 Btuper pound 2.324 joules per gram;
0.555 calories
calories per gram
1 kilogram per hectacre 2.676 pounds per acre

A-49

f
I I
I . .
I
i
I
I
I ATTACHMENT VIII
I
I ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
I
I
I II
I
I
I
I
I
I Q
I
I
I I

Siting Handbook Attachment VIII Acronyms

ACRONYMS

AC Alternating Current
BACT Best Available Control Technology
BLWM Bureau of Land and Water Management
BOD biological oxygen demand
Btu British Thermal Unit
CEC Cation Exchange Capacity
CFM cubic feet per minute
CO carbon monoxide
C02 carbon dioxide
COE U. S. Corps of Engineers
CSP coal slurry pipeline
CWS cooling water system
CZM coastal zone management
Cal calorie
DC direct current
DCA Florida Dept. of Community Affairs
DER Florida Department of Environmental Regulation
DOAH Florida Division of Administrative Hearings
DOE U.S Department of Energy
DRI Development of Regional Impact
EHV Extra-high voltage
EIS Environmental Impact Statement
EPA U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
EPRI Electric power research institute
ESE Environmental Science and Engineering, Inc.
ESP Electrostatic Precipitator
FAAQS Florida Ambient Air Quality Standard
FAC Florida Administrative Code
FCG Florida Electric Coordinating Group
FEECA Florida Energy Efficiency and Conservation Act
FGD Flue Gas desulfurization
FPC Florida Power Coporation
FPL Florida Power and Light
FS Factor of Safety
FWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
G/m3 Grams per cubic meter
GEO Governor's Energy Office
GFC Florida Game and Freshwater Fish Commission
GPC Gulf Power Corporation
GPD Gallons per day
GPM Gallons per minute

A-51

Siting Handbook Attachment VIII Acronyms

GW Gigawatts
GWH Gigawatt-hours
H2SO4 Sulfuric acid
HP Horsepower
HZ Herz (i.e., cycles per second)
Ha hectare
ILL Interlibrary loan
JEA Jacksonville Electric Authority
JTU Jackson Turbidity Units
KG Kilograms
KJ Kilojoules
KM Kilometers
KV Kilovolt
KV/M Kilovolt per meter
KW Kilowatt
KWH Kilowatt per hour
LAK City of Lakeland Utilities
LC50 Lethal Concentration, 50% mortality
LOLP Loss of load probability
MGD Million gallons per day
MHW Mean high water
MMTPY Million tons per year
MMBtu Million Btu
MSL Mean sea level
MW Megawatt
MWH Megawatt-hours
MWe Megawatt (electric)
MWt Megawatt (thermal)
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NANO- 10 to the minus ninth
NOx Nitrogen oxides
NPDES National Pollution Dishcarge Elimination System
NSPS New Source Performance Standards
OUC Orlando Utilities Commission
pH Meaure of acidity or alkalinity
POD Point of discharge
PPB Parts per billion
PPM Parts per million
PPSA Power Plant Siting Act
PSC Florida Public Service Commission
PSD Prevention of Significant Deterioration
RBW Receiving body of water
RDF Refuse-derived fuel
RET Rare, endangered or threatened species
ROW Right of way

A-52

Siting Handbook Attachment VIII Acronyms

RPC Regional Planning Council
RRF Resource recovery facility
SECI Seminole Electric Cooperative, Inc.
SIP State Implementation Plan
ST. John's River Power Plant
S02 Sulfur Dioxide
sox Sulfur oxides
STAR Service Through Applied Research (Board of
Regents, State of Florida)
STPE Sewage treatment plant effluent
TAL City of Tallahassee Utilities
TDS Total Dissolved Solids
TECO Tampa Electric Co.
TLSA Transmission Line Siting Act
TPD Tons per day
TPY Tons per year
TSP Total Suspended Particulates
TSS Total Suspended Solids
UG Micrograms
UG/M3 micrograms per cubic meter
USGS U.S. Geologic Survey

A-53

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I ATTACHMENT ix
I DIRECTORY
I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

Siting Handbook Attachment IX Directory

ATTACHMENT IX

DIRECTORY OF AGENCIES

FREQUENTLY TAKING PART IN
POWER PLANT AND TRANSMISSION LINE SITING
IN FLORIDA

A. FEDERAL AGENCIES

1. Army Corps of Engineers
Jacksonville District Office
Nancy Schwall
P. 0. Box 4970
Jacksonville, FL 32201

2. Environmental Protection Agency
Region IV Office
345 Co.urtland St. N. E.
Atlanta, GA 30365

3. federal Aviation Administration
Carl Stokoe
Southern Regional Office
P. 0. Box 20636
Atlanta, GA 30320

4. Fish and Wildlife Service
Lloyd Stith
5612 June Ave
Panama City, FL 32405

Regional Director
17 Executive Park Dr. N. E.
Atlanta GA 30329

A-55

Siting Handbook Attachment IX Directory

5. National Marine Fisheries
Ed Keppner
Area Superviser
3500 Delwood Beach Rd.
Panama City, FL 32407

6. National Park Service
John Christiano
655 Parfet St.
P. 0. Box 25287
Denver, CO 80225

B. STATE AGENCIES

DEPT. OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION
Twin Towers Bldg.
2600 Blair Stone Rd.
Tallahassee, FL 32301

Division of Environmental Programs

Bureau of Air Quality Management Clair Fancy
Assistant Bureau Chief
(904) 488-1344
Air Modeling Section Larry George (904) 488-1344
New Source Review Section Bob King (904) 488-1344

Bureau of Ground Water Dr. Rodney DeHan, Chief
(904) 488-3601

Bureau of Water Quality Management Don Kell (904) 488-3601
Hazardous Waste Section
Solid Waste Section John Reese

Resource Recovery Program Ray Moreau (904) 488-0300

A-56

Siting Handbook Attachment IX Directory

Division of Environmental Permitting

Bureau of Permitting Suzanne Walker, Chief
Power Plant Siting Program Hamilton ("Buck") Oven
Adminstrator
Karen Anthony
(904) 488-0130

II. OTHER STATE AGENCIES

1. Dept. of Community Affairs
Paul Darst
2751 Executive Center Cir. E
Tallahassee, FL 32301
(904) 488-4925

2. Game and Freshwater F ish.Commission
Randy Kautz
Senior Biologist
Environmental4Services Office
Bryant Bldg.
620 So. Meridian
Tallahassee, FL 32304
(904) 488-6661

3. Dept. of Natural Resources
Casey Fitzgerald
Land Planner
Bureau of State Land Management
3300 Commonwealth Bldg., Room 203
Tallahassee, FL 32303
(904) 488-9120

A-57

Siting Handbook Attachment IX Directory

Charles Knight
Bureau of Environmental Land Management
3300 Commonwealth Bldg.
Tallahassee, FL 32303
(904) 488-9120

4. Office of the Public Counsel
Steve Burgess
Holland Bldg.
Tallahassee, FL 32301
(904) 488-9330

5. Public Service Commission
Bob Trapp
Electric and Gas Dept.
700 South Adams St.
Tallahassee FL 32301 r
(904) 488-8501

6. Dept. of State
Louis Tesar
Historic Preservationist
Bureau of Historic Preservation
Div. of Archives, History and Records Mgt.
Room 405, R. A. Gray Bldg.
401 E. Gaines St.
Tallahassee, FL 32301
(904) 488-2333

7. Dept. of Transportation
Ed McNeely
Office of Transportation Priorities
Burns Bldg.
Tallahassee, FL 32301
(904)488-1970

A-58

r
I
I
I
I
I
I
I ATTACHMENT X

BIBLIOGRAPHY
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

Siting Handbook Attachment X Bibliography

ATTACHMENT X

POWER PLANT SITING BIBLIOGRAPHY

Barnes, D. Development Document for Best Available Control
Technology for the Location, Design and Construction of
Cooling Water Intake Structures. (Washington, D. C.: U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 1976).

Barrett, W. J. et al. Planning Studies for Measurement of
Chemical Emissions of Stack Gases of Coal-Fired Power Plants.
(Palo Alto, CA: EPRI, March, 1983). EPRI Rpt. Nr. EA-2892.

Bartz, John (ed.) Proceedings of an EPRI Workshop on Water-
Conserving Cooling Systems. (Pai-o Alto, CA: EPRI, 1982).

Bartz, John and Maulbetsch, John. "Are Dry-Cooled Power
Plants a Feasible Alternative?" Mechanical Engineering.
(Oct., 1981).

Battelle Laboratories. Environmental Impact Monitoring Of
Nuclear Power Plants: Source Book of Monitoring Methods.
(Atomic I@_dustri'al Forum, 1975 2 vols.

A-59

Siting Handbook Attachment X Bibliography

Bechtel Corp. Florida Gas Coal Slurry Pipeline Feasibility
Study. (Winter Park, FL: Florida Gas Transmission Co., Nov.,
1978)

Berg, Sanford et al. An "Interdisciplinary Approach to Cost-
/Benefit Analysis of Innovative Electric Rates. (Gainesville,
FL: Univ. of Florida Public Utility Research Center, January,
1983).

Berg, Sanford. Innovated Electric Rates. (Lexington, MA:
Lexington Books, 1983).

Bergstrom, R. W. et al. Control of Nitrogen Oxides: Vol. 3:
Atmospheric Physical Phenomena Relevant to NOx Concentration.
(Palo Alto, CA: EPRI, Sept., 1981). EPRI Rpt. Nr. EA-2048.

Berkshire County Regional Planning Commission. Evaluation of
Power Facilities: A Reviewer's Handbook. (Pittsfield, MA:
B- hire County RPC, April, 1974). Available ILL: FSU Call
Nr. DOC HD 9685 U5.

Berry, L. B. et al. National Coal Utilization Assessment: A
Preliminary Assessment of Coal Utilization in the South. (Oak
Ridge, TN: Oak Ridge National Laboratory, 1978). NTIS Nr. PC
A21/MF AOI.

Bishop, Richard and Vogel, Daniel. "Power Plant Siting on
Wisconsin's Coasts: A Case Study of a Displaceable Use."
Coastal Zone Management Journal. (1977).

Boies, D. B. Technical and Economic Evaluations of Cooling
Systems Blowdown Control Techniques. (Washington, D. C.: U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Nov., 1973).

Bowne, N. E. et al. Preliminary Results from the EPRI Plume
Model Validation Project: Plains Site. (Palo Alto, CA:
EPRI, April, 1981). EPRI Rpt. Nr. EA-1788.

A-60

Siting Handbook Attachment X Bibliography

Brezonik, Patrick. "Acid Preci.pitation and Sulfate Deposition
in Florida." Science. (May, 1980).

CH2MHill. Water Resources of the Florida Power and Light
Service Area: AvailabiliTy _an_@_ Management. (Miami, FL:
Florida Po;;er and Light, March, 1.980).

California Energy Commission. Power Plant Siting Policy
Paper. (Sacramento, CA:@Calif. Energy Commission, Nov., 1978).

California Energy Commission.Constraints and Opportunities for
Power Plant Siting.(Sacramento, CA: Calif. Energy Cmmsn,
Nov.1979.)

Capehart, Barney et al. Florida's Electric Future: Building
Plentiful Supplies on Conservation.(Winter Park, FL: Florida
Conservation Foundation, Oct., 1982).

Capehart, Barney. "Transportation Impacts." in Green, A. E. S.
(ed.) The Impact of Increased Coal Use in Florida. (Gaines-
ville, FL: Univ. of Florida, 1979).

Cazalet, Edward et al. Costs and Benefits of Over/Under
Capacity in Electric Power System Planning. (Palo Alto:
EPRI, Oc'to@_er, 1978). EP.RI Rpt. Nr. EA-927.

Chapter 17, Florida Administrative Code

Chatten, Cowherd, et al. Hazardous Emission Characteristics
of Utility Boilers. (Washington, D. C.: U. S. EPA Office of
Research and Development, July, 1975).

Chavez, Mark. "Power Plant Siting in the California Coastal
Zone." Stanford Environmental Law Annual. Vol. 1 (1978),
pp. 171-201.

A-61

Siting Handbook Attachment X Bibliography

Clark, Louis, and Treadway, F. H. Impact of Electric Power
Transmission Line Easements on Real Estate Values. (Chicago,
IL: American'Institute of Real Estate Appraisers, 1972).

Clark, Louis. Analysis of Selling Price of Residences Traver-
sed by an Electric Power Transmission Line Easement in Autumn
Woods and Autumn Estates Subdivision, Leon County, Florida.
(Tallahassee, FL: Louis Clark, 1981).

Clemente, F. et al. Public Reaction to Proposed Energy
Facilities: A Sociologic@-lAnaTy-sis. (Pennsylvania State
Univ., Center for Study of the Environmental Policy, 1978).

Crillo, R. R. et al. An Evaluation of Regional Trends in
Power Plant Siting and Energy Transport. (Argonne, IL: Argonne
National Laboratory, July, 1977). Prepared for EPA and ERDA.
274 pp. NTIS Nr. ANL/AA-7

Curry, Martha. State and Local Planning Procedures Dealing
with Social and Economic Impacts from Nuclear Power Plants.
(Washington, D. C.: U. S. Nuj'l--ear Tegulatory Commission,
January, 1977).

Davis, Edward and Boegly, William. "A Review of Water Quality
Issues Ass.ociated with Coal Storage." Journal of Environmental
QualitX. Vol. 10, No. 2 (April June, 1981), pp. 127 - 133.

Delaney, B.T. et al. Methodology for Determining the Impact
of Environmental Regulatory Programs. (Palo Alto, CA: EPRI,
1981). EPRI Rpt. Nr. TPS 79-743.

A-62

Siting Handbook Attachment X Bibliography

Dobson, J. E. and Shepperd, A. D. Water Availability for
Energy in 1985 and 1990.Oak Ridge, TN: Oak Ridge National
Laboratory, 1979). NTIS Nr. ORNL/TM-6777. 87 pp.

Domino, Francis (ed-.). Energy From Solid Waste: Recent
Developments.(Park Ridge, NJ: Noyes Dat P.1, -1979). 315
..pp. Avail. ILL : Sci TP 360 E55.

Dow Associates, Inc. Biological Effects and Physical Charac-
teristics of Fields, Ions:and Shock.(St. Paul, MN: Minnesota
Environmental Quality f-oard-, Oct., 1977).

Drake, R. L. and Barranger, S. M. Mathematical Models for
Atmospheric Pollutants.(Palo Alto, CA: EPRI, Aug., 1979).
EPRI Rpt. Nr. EA-1131.

Ducsik, Dennis and Austin, Thomas. Citizen Participation in
Power Plant Siting. (Worcester, MA: Clark Univ., June, 1982).
Avail. ILL from Univ. of Texas at Austin, Call Nr. TJ 164
D827.

Ducsik, Dennis. "Integrating Coastal Zone and. Electric
Facility Planning: Weak Links in the In.stitutional Chain.11
Coastal Zone,Management Journal. Vol. 8, No. 4 (1980).

Dvorak, A. J. Impacts of Coal-Fired Power Plants on Fish,
Wildlife, and Their Habitats. (Washington, D. C.: U. S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, Office of Biological Services, March,
1978). NTIS Nr. PB 283658/3 A12.

EDAW, Inc. Visual Sensitivity of River Recreation to Power
Plants. (St. Paul, MN: Minnesota Environmental Quali@-y Board,
April, 1978).

EPRI et al. Seminar on Environmental Issues in the Siting of
Transmission Lines. (Palo Alto, CA: EPRI, Jan., 1982).

A-63

Siting Handbook Attachment X Bibliography

EPRI. EPRI Guide.(Palo Alto, CA: EPRI, date variable.

EPRI. Comparative Economics ofIndirect and Direct Dry/Wet-
Peaking Cooling-Tower Systems. (Palo Alto,CA: EPRI, March,
1983). EPRI Rpt. Nr. CS-2925.

Eagles, T. W. et al. Modeling Plant Location Patterns:
Applications. (Palo Alto, CA: EPRI, 1980 EPRI Rpt. Nr.
EA-1775.

Edgerton, E. S. et al. "Atmospheric Deposition of Acidity and
Sulfur in Florida." Chapter 13 of Eisenreich, S. J. (ed.)
Atmospheric Pollutants in Lakes. (Ann Arbor, MI: Ann Arbor
Science Public., 1981).

Eliassen, Anton. "A Review of Long-Range Transport Modeling."
Journal of Applied Meteorology. (March, 1980).

Emanuel, W. R. et al. "The Expanded Use of Fossil Fuels by
the U. S. and the Global Carbon Dioxide Problem." Journal of
Environmental Management. Vol. 10 (1980), pp. 37 49.

Englesson, G. A. Wet/Dry Cooling System Assessment Program.
(Palo Alto, CA: EPRf-,-June, 1983).

Fahien, Raymond and Theyuni, M. "Air Pollution Dispersion
Problems of Florida," in Green, A. E. S. (ed.), The Impact of
Increased Coal Use in Florida. (Gainesville, FL: Univ. of
Florida, 1979).

Faucett, H. L. Technical Assessment of NOx Removal Processes
for Utility Applications. (Palo Alto CA: EPRI, 1978). EPA-

A-64

Siting Handbook Attachment X Bibliography

600/7-77-127.

Federal Emergency Management Agency. Design Guidelines for
Florida Damage Reduction. (Washington, D. C.: FEMA, October,
1981). Prepared by AIA esearch Corp.

Federal Emergency Management Agency. Floodplain Management:
Ways of Estimating Wave Heights In Coastal High Hazard Areas.
(Washington, D. C.: FEMA , April, 1981).

Federal Emergency Management Agency. -Preparina for Hurricanes
and Coastal Flooding:A Handbook for Local Officials.(Washing-
ton, D. C.: FEMA, March , 1983_)_.____

Fernald, Edward (ed.). Atlas of Florida. (Tallahassee, FL:
Florida State Univ. Foundation, 1981).

Ferris, Benjamin. "Health Effects of Exposure to Low Levels
of Regulated Air Pollutants." Journal of 'the Air Pollution
Control Assn., Vol 28 (1978) pp. 482-496.

Fisher, G. L. et al. "Physical Factors Affecting the Mutageni-
city of Fly Ash from a Coal Fired Power Plant." Science. pp.
879-881 (May 25, 1979)..

Fishkind, Hank et al. The Fiscal Impact Model. (Gainesville,
FL: The Univ. of Flor:i7d--a Tireau of Economic and Business Re-
search, June, 1983).

Fla,. Div. of Admin. Hearings. In re: A22lication of Orlando
Ry
Utilities Commission Curtis.. tanton Ener Center Site
Certification, Case No. 81-1431. (f-allahassee, FL: Div. of
Administrative Hearings, Nov., 1982).

Fla. Div. of Admin. Hearings. In re: Florida Power and Light
Co. Applications for Power Plan7SI-te Certification =t. Lucie
Nuclear Plant No. 2. Case PA-74-02. (Tallahassee, FL: Dept. of
Administration, Oct., 1975). 34 pp.

A-65

Siting Handbook Attachment X Bibliography

Fowler, M. J. "Power Plant Performance." Environment. Vol.
20, No. 3 (April, 1978), pp. 25-32.

Freeman, S. David. Considerations Affecting Steam Power Plant
Selection. (Washing'ton, D.C.: U. S. GPO, 1968). 130 pp.

Fricke, H. D. et al. Power Plant Waste Heat Rejection Using
Dry Cooling Towers. (Palo Alto, CA: EPRI, 1980). EPRI Rpt.
Nr. CS-1324-SY

GCA Corp. Acid Rain Information Book.- (Washington, D. C.: U.
S. Dept. of Energy, 1980). NTIS Nr. DOE/EV/10 273-1. Also
published by Noyes Data Corp.

Ghaly, 0. F. Coal-Oil Mixture as a Utility Fuel. (Palo Alto,
CA: EPRI, March, 1982). 2 vols. EPRI Rpt. Nr. CS-2309.

Gibson, R. A. et al. Florida Power Corporation Second
Crystal River Environmental Progress Report to the Federal.
Interagency Advisory Committee. (St. Petersburg, FL: Flori-
da Power Corp., Jan., 1974).

Gilmore, J. S. Socioeconomic Impacts of Power Plants. (Palo
Alto, CA: EPRI, 1982).

Green, A. E. S. The Impact of Increased.Coal Use in Florida.
(Gainesville, FL: 'Univ. of Florida, 1979).

Green, A. E. S. (ed.) Coal-Burning Issues (Gainesville, FL:
Univ. of Florida Press, 1980).

Green, A. E. S. et al. "Factor of Safety Method, Application
to Air and Noise Pollution." Atmospheric Environment. (1980).

Green, Alex et al. "Wind Roses for Florida," Air Pollution
Control Assn. Journal, Vol. 32, No. 8 (August, 1982), pp.

A-70

Siting Handbook Attachment X Bibliography r

822-825.

Hackney, J. D. et al. Controlled Studies.of Human Health
Effects of Short-Term Inhalation..of Atmospheric Pollutants.
(Palo Alto, CA: EPRI, June,, 1983) . EPRI Rpt. Nr. EA-3125.

Hall, Lenwood et al. Power Plant Chlorination: A Biological
and Chemical Assessment. (Palo Alto, CA: EPRI, Dec ., 1981).
EPRI Rpt. Nr. EA-1750.

Hanna, Steve and Pell, Jerry. Cooling'Tower Environment,
'Development
1974. (Washington, D. C.: Energy Resear h and
Administration, 1975).

Hayes, S. R. Control of Nitropen Oxides: Vol.4: Mathematical
Modeling of Atmospheric NOx.' (Palo Alto, CA: EPRI, Sept.
1981). EPRI Rpt. Nr..EA-2048.

Healy, G. and Rosenberg, J. Si "The Florida Land Use
Program," in Land Use and the States. (Washington, D. C.
Resources for the Future, 1979).

Hendrickson, P. L. An Overview of Issues Affectinp, the Demand
for Dry and Wet/D-ry Cooling for Thermal Power Plants.
(Washington, D.C.: U. S. Dept. of Energy, 1978)

Hendrickson, Axel et al. Florida Acid Deposition Study,
Phase II Report. (Gainesville, FL: Evironmental Science and
Engineering, January, 1983).

Hershfield, David. Rainfall Frequency Atlas of the United
States. Technical Paper No. 40. (Washington, D. C.: U. S.

A-71

Siting Handbook Attachment X Bibliography

Dept. of Commerce, May, 1961).
Hindawi, I. J. et al. *Ecological Effects of Aerosol Drift
from a Saltwater Cooling System. (Corvallis, OR: Corvallis
Environmental Research Laboratory, Corvallis OR. U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 1976). NTIS Nr. EPA 600/3-
76-078.

Hobbs, Benjamin and Meier, 'Peter. "An Analysis of Water
Resources Constraints on Power Plant Siting in the Mid-
Atlantic States," Water Resources.Bulletin, Vol. 15, No. 6
(December,.1979), pp. 1666- 1676.

Hobbs, Benjamin and Skolitis, Diane. A Linear Programming-
Based Evaluation of Water Supply and Conservation Alternatives
for Thermal Power Generation in t lexas Gulf Region. (Palo
Alto, CA: EPRI, 1983).

Hobbs, Benjamin. "A Comparison of Weighting Methods in Power
Plant Siting." Decision Sciences, (Oct., 1980).

Hobbs, Benjamin. "Multiobjective Power Plant Siting Methods."
Journal of the Energy Division. (Oak Ridge, TN: Oak Ridge
National Laboratory, Oct., 1980).

Hobbs, Benjamin. A Compar ison of Regional Screenin&.Methods.
(Washington, D. C.: Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 1981).
NTIS Nr. NUREG/CR-1688 Available ILL :FSU Call Nr. Y3 N88
25/1688.

Honea, Robert. "Technology Characterization and Development
of Siting Criteria," in Oak Ridge Si.t.ing Analysis: A Baseline
Assessment Focusing on the National Energy Plan. (da'@-Ridge,
TN: Oak Ridge National Laboratory, October, 1979).

Hopkins, T. K. et al. Anclote Environmental Project Report,
1971. (Tampa, FL: Univ. of South Florida, 1971).

A-72

Siting Handbook Attachment X Bibliography r

Hopping, Wade and Raepple, Carolyn. "A Solution to the
Regulatory Maze: The Transmission Line Siting Act." FSU Law
Review, Vol 8 (1980), pp. 441-4 61.

Hughes, G. H. Perspectives on Use of Fresh Water for Cooling
Systems for Thermonuclear Power Plants in Florida. (Talla-
hassee, FL: U. S. Geological Survey, 1975).

Hutchinson, T. C. and Havas, M. Effects of Acid Precipita-
tion on Terrestrial Ecosystems. Proceedings of the NATO
Conference on the Effects of Acid Precipitation on Vegetation.
(New York: Plenum Press, 1.980). FSU Call Nr. SCI QH 545 KA17
N37 1978

IIT Research Institute. Biological Effects of High-Voltage
Fields: An Update. (Palo Alto, CA: EPRI, July, 1979).'EPRI
Rpt. Nr. T-A-1123. 2 vols.

Institute of Gas Technology. Management of Peat as an Energy
Resource. Executive Conference Proceedin-gs, Presented July 22-
24, 1979. (Chicago, IL: Institute of Gas Technology, n. d.).
331 pp.

Interdepartmental Center for Aeronomy and (other) Atmospheric
Sciences. Acid--Deposition Science Workshop, Causes and Ef-
fects: Exe@`ctive'Summary._ -(Gainesville, FL: Univ. of Flori-
da, March, 1983).

Israel, G. W. and Overcamp, T. J. "Drift Deposition Model
for Natural Draft Cooling Towers," in Hanna, S. R. and Pell,
J. (eds.), Cooling Tower Environment 1974. NTIS Nr. ERDA
Conf.-74-0302.

Jacksonville Electric Authority. Site Certification Hearings:
Prepared Direct Testimony. Jacksonville Electric Authority
St. John River Power Park Units 1 and 2. (Jacksonville, FL:

A-73

Siting Handbook Attachment X Bibliography

JEA, 1981).

.Jacksonville Electric. Authority. JEA Energy Conservation
Plan: Required Energy Conservation Programs under the Florida
Energy Efficiency and Conservation Act. (Jacksonville, FL:
JEA, Dec, 1980).

Jensen, Loren, Davis, Robert, et al. The Effects of Elevated
Temperature upon Aquatic Invertebrates. (Washington, D.C.:
Edison Electric Institute, 1969).

Jolbert, J. S. and Dobson, J. F. A Cell-Based Land Use
Screening Procedure for Regional Siting Analysis. (Oak
Ridge,TN: Oak Ridge National Laboratory, 1977). NTIS Nr.:
ORNL-NUREG TM-80.

Jolley, Robert. Water Chlorination: Environmental Impact and
Health Effects. Proceedings of a Conference on the Environ-
mental Impact of Water Chlorination. (Ann Arbor, MI: Ann
Arbor Science, 19 78). Available ILL: FTU Call Nr.: TD462
C66 1975.

Jones, James I, et al. A Summary of the Knowledge of the
Eastern Gulf of Mexico. (OrTa'ndo, FL_: Ta-rt'in-Marietta Aero-
space Corp., 1977).

Jopling, David. "Power Plant Siting and the Florida Power and
Light Company." Public Utilities Fortnightly, (June, 1973).

Keeney, Ralph et al. An Evaluation and Comparison of Nuclear
Powerplant Siting Methoi-ol-ogies. (Washington, D. C.: U. S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, March, 1979).

Kilpatrick, F. and Matchett (eds.) Water and Energy: Tech-
nical and Policy Issues. (New York: American Society of Civil
Engineers, 1982).

A-74

Siting Handbook Attachment X Bibliography

Knight, R. G. et al. FGD Sludge Disposal Manual. Second
Edition. (Palo Alto, CA: EPRI, Sept. 1980). EPRI Rpt. Nr.
CS--1515.

Larinoff, Michael. "Dry and Wet Peaking Tower Cooling Systems
for Power Plant Applications." Jo'urnal of Engineering for
Power. July., 1976, pp. 335- 348.

Leach, Stanley. Source, Use and Disposition of Water in
-e - 72- -
Florida: 1980. Water R sources Investi.gation -4096.
(Tall@@h-assee, FL: U. S. Geological Survey, 1983).

Leistritz, Larry. Economic.L Demographic, and Social Factors
Affecting Energy-Impacted Communities: An Assessment Model and
Implications for Nuclear Energy Centers. (North Dakota State
Univ., 1977).

Leo,. P. P. and Rossof, J. Control of Waste and Water Pollu-
tion from Coal-Fired Power Plants: Second R&D Report.
(Corvall'I"s, O'R: U. S. EPA Office of Resea nd Development,
Nov., 1978). NTIS Nr. PB-291 396. EPA-600/7-78-224.

Likens, Gene, et al. "Acid Rain," Scientific American, Vol
241, Nr. 4 (Oct., 1979), pp. 43-51.

Linsley, Kraeger Assoc. Proceedings: Workshop on Water
SupRly for Electric Energy. (EPRI, August, 1980). EPRI Rpt.
Nr. WS-79-237. I

Livingston, R. J. et al. "Avoidance Response of Estuarine
Organisms to Stormwater Runoff and Pulp Mill Effluent."
Estuarine Processes 1976) Vol. 1, pp. 313-331.

Livingston, R. J. Field and Laboartory Studies Concerning
Effects of Various P@llutants on Estuarine Coastal Organisms.
(Talli@-has-see-, FL: Florida State Univ., 1974). Florida Sea
Grant Report Nr. R/EM-1. 574 pp.

A-7(@

Siting Handbook Attachment X Bibliography

Maryland Dept. of Natural Resources. Power Plant Cumulative
Environmental Impact Report. (Annapolis, MD: Maryland Dept.
of Natural Resources, Feburary, 1982).

Maryland Dept. of Natural Resources. Cooling Tower Environ-
ment: 1978. Proceedings of a Symposium on Environmental
ff-fects of Cooling Tower Emissions . (Anapolis, MD: Mar. Dept.
of Nat. Res., 1978).

Maryland Dept. of Natural Resources. Power Plant Cumulative
Environmental Impact Report. (Annapolis, MD: Maryland Dept.
of Natural Resources, Power Plant Siting Program, November,
1978).

Maryland Power Plant Siting Program. - RIFLE: Regional Impact
on Facility Locations on the Economy. (Annapolis, MD: Maryland
'Tower Plant Siting P-ro-gra-m, February, 1983). 2 vols.

McBride, J. P. Radiological Impact of Airborne Effluents of
Coal-Fired and Nuclear Power Plants. ( Oak Ridge, TN: Oak
Ridge National Laboratory, August, 1977). NTIS Nr. ORNL-5315

McCoy, Earl. Rare ' Threatened, and Endangered Plant Species of
Southwest Florida and Potential OCS Activity Impacts. (Sli-
dell, LA: U. S. Dept. of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service,
Nov., 1981). NTIS Nr. FWS/OBS-81/50.

McCune, D. C. et al. "Studies on the Effects of Cooling Tower
Origin on Plants." Journal of the Air Pollution Control Assn.
(April, 1977).

Meier, Peter. Analytic Multi-Objective Decision Methods for
Power Plant Siting: A Review of Theory and Applications.
(Brookhaven, N.Y.: Brookhaven National Laboratory, 19
NTIS Nr. NUREG/CR-168 7.

A-7j

Siting Handbook Attachment X Bibliography

Metropolitan Dade County. Application for Certifica.tion for
Proposed Electric Generating Plant Site. (Miami, FL: Metro
Dade County, July, 1977).

Miller, Morton and Kaufman, Gary. "High Voltage Overhead."
Environment, Vol. 20, Nr. 1 (Feb., 197 8), pp. 6-36.

Minerva, Dana. Transmission Line Siting in Florida. (Talla-
hassee, FL: Florida House of Representatives, Oct., 1982).

Mitchell, Robert. Comparative Economics of Indirect and
Direct Dry/Wet-Peaking Cooling Tower Systems. (Palo Alto, CA:
EPRI, 1983)..

Moran, Mary. "Transmission Line Siting: Local Concerns Versus
State Energy Interests," Urban Law Annual, Vol.. 19 (1980), pp.
183-203.

Morrell, David and Singer, Grace. "Energy Facility Siting in
the Urban Coastal Zone: Compatible or Not?" Coastal Zone
Management Journal. (1979j.

k6
Mosbaeck, E. J. Power Shortage Costs: Estimates nd Applica-
tions. (Palo Alto, CA: EPRI, Dec. 1981). EPRI Rpt. Nr.
EA-1215. 3 vols.

Muzio, L. J. et al. Control of Nitrogen Oxides: Assessment
of Needs and OptionsL. Technical Support Document. (Palo
Alto, CA: E-PRI, July, 1983). 5 -vols.

Myhra, David. Energy Plant Sites: Community Planning.
(Atlanta, GA: Conway Publi@-hers, -179-80).

Nakamura, S. L. and Dailey, N. S. Atmospheric and Terrestrial
Effects of Closed-Cycle Cooling Systems: An Annotated Biblio- L

A-77

Siting Handbook Attachment X Bibliography

graphy. (Palo Alto, CA: EPRI, 1980). EPRI Rpt. Nr. EA-1438.
National Audubon Society. Siting Hazardous.Waste Management
Facilities. (Washington, D. C.: Natinal Audobon Society,
1983).

National Economic Research Associates, Inc. Pipeline Transpor-
tation of Coal to Georgia and Florida. (New York: NERA,
February, 1980).

National Governor's Assn. State Perspectives on Energy Fac-
ility Siting. (Washington, D.C.: NGA).

National Technical Information Service. Carbon Dioxide and
Climate, 1970-1983. (Springfield, VA: NT@IS, 1983). 138 pp.
NTIS Nr. PB-83-87-1210.

National Technical Information Service. Power Plant Siting
Bibliography. (Springfield, VA: NTIS., 1978). 269 entries;
covers years 1964 - 1977. Volume 1. NTIS Nr. PS 79-1071/4.

National Technical Information Service. Power Plant Siting
Bibliography. (Springfield, VA: NTIS, 1979). 94 entries;
covers years 1978 - Sept., 1982). Volume 2. NTIS Nr. PB 83-
805663.

New England Rivers Basin Commission. Power Plant Siting
Study: Compendium of Staff.Reports.,(.U-.---S-.-G.e-ol-ogical Survey,
Resource Planning Analysis Office, November, 1980).

Nierenberg, William et al. Changing Climate.(Washington, D.
C.: National Academy of Sciences, October, 1983).

Nichols, Charles. Development Document for the Proposed
Effluent Limitations, Guidelines and New Source Performance
Standards. (Washington, D.C.; 'U-.S-. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency, Oct., 1974) 2 vols.

Nietubicz, Richard and Green, Lamar. Cooling Tower Environ-
ment: 1978. (Anapolis, MD: Maryland Dept. of Natural Resour-
ces Power Plant Siting Program, May, 1978). Avail. ILL from
EPA Library: TD 19 5 C6c66 1978 pt. 1.-

A - 719

Siting Handbook Attachment X Bibliography

Nor'west-Pacific Corp. Feasibility Study for a Forest-
- '@@A:' EPRI
Residue Fuel Electric Generating Plant..(Palo Aito,
May, 1981). EPRI Rpt. Nr. CS- 1819.

North Central Florida Regional Planning Council. Economic,-
Fiscal, and Land Use Analysis, Seminole Electric Coal-Fired
Electric Generating Plant, Taylor County, Florida. (Gaine-
sville, FL: NCFRPC, in preparation).

Opresko, D. M. Review of Open Literature on the Effects of
Chlorine on Aquatic Organisms. (Palo Alto, T-A: EPRI, August,
1980). EPRI Rpt. Nr. EA-14 91.

Orlando Utilities Commission. @Site Selection Study: Coal
Fired Power Plant. (Orlando, FL: Orlando Utilities Commis-
sion, Jan., 1980).

Orlando Utilities Commission. Site Certification AP21ication,
Curtis H. Stanton Energy Center, Unit 1. (Orlando, FL:
Orlando Utilities Commission', May, 1981). 5 vols.

Paddock, R. A. and Ditmas, J.-D. An Assessment df the Once-
Through Cooling Alternative for Central Station Steam-
Electric Generating Stations. (Argonne National Laboratory,
1978).

Parker, J. H. et al. Coal Waste Artificial Reef Program,
Phase 3. (Palo Alto, CA: EPRI, Nov., 1981 2 vols. EPRI
Rpt. Nr. CS-2009.

Siting Handbook Attachment X Bibliography

Popper, Frank. "Siting LULUs." Planning, (April, 1981).
Prager, J. C. Survey of Benthic Microbiota and Zooplankton
near Florida Pow-er and Light's Turkey Point Power Plant.
Tc-orvallis, OR: EPA -Office of Research and -Fe-velopment,
1976).

Renfroe, 0. S. BuildinR Materials-from Solid Waste. (Park
Ridge, NJ: Noyes Data Corp., 1979)). 275 pp. Avail. ILL:
FAMU Call Nr. TA 403.6 B83.

Resources for the Future. Public Regulation of Site Selection
for Nuclear Power Plants. (Washington, D. C.: Resources for
the Future, 1977).

Rezneat, Darnell. Impact of Construction ..Activities in
Wetlands..U. S. Ecological Research Series . (Corvallis, OR:
EPA Office of Research and Development, 1976). NTIS Nr. EPA-
600/3-76-045.

Rogers, Golden, Halpern. New Jersey Facility Development
Potential Study. (Trenton, J. New Jersey Dept.of Environ-
mental Protection, Div. of Coastal Resources, Sept., 1981).

Rogers, Golden, Inc. 'Maryland Major Facilities Study.
(Washington, D. C.: National Atmospheric and Oceanic Adminis-
tration, January, 1978). 4 vols . Available ILL from Texas
A&M Library, Call Nr. T J 163.25.4. U6 R6. NTIS Nr. PB-296
817.

Rogers, John et al. Eastern Shore Power Plant Siting Study.
Volume 2 of Maryland Major Facilities Study. (Maryland Dept.
of Natural Resources, Maryland Power Plant Siting Program,
October, 1977).

Rogers, John et al. Environmental Assessment Handbook. Vol. 4
of the Maryland Major Facilities Study. (Annapolis, MD:
Maryland Dept. of Natural Resources, Energy and Coastal Zone
Administration, December, 1977).

Rogers, John et al. Maryland Maj-or Facilities Study: Execu-
tive Summary, (Annapolis, MD: Maryland Dept. of Natural
Resources, January, 1978). Avail. ILL; Texas A&M Univ. at
Galveston, Call Nr. TJ 163.25 U6R6; NTIS Nr. PB-296-817 (Vol.
1); PB-296-818 (Vol. 2); PB-296-819 (Vol. 3); PB-219-820 (Vol.

A-80

Siting Handbook Attachment X Bibliography

4); PB-296-821 (Executive Summary).
Rogoff, Marc'and Maiden, Benjamin. Availability and Costs of
Non-Traditional -Water Supplies for Energy. (Columbus, OF:
Battelle Laboratories, 1980). Avail. ILL: FAMU Call Nr. TA
403.6 B83.

Rogozen, Michael and Hausknecht, Donald. Health Effects of
Mercury and Its Compounds. (Palo Alto, CA: EPRI, July,
1978). EPRI Rpt. Nr. EC-224.

Rosecrance, A. E. and Colby, B. J. Organic Material Emissions
From Holding Ponds at Coal-Fired Power Generation Facilities.
(Palo Alto, CA: EPRI, Marc@_,191@0_). EPRI Rpt. Nr. EA-1377.

Rosenberg, H. S. et al. Control of NOx Emission by Stack Gas
Treatment. (Palo Alto, CA: EPRI, 1978).

Rupp, E. M. Energy Technology Impacts on Agricultu-re with a
Bibliography of Models for Impact Assessment on Cr22 Ecosys-
tems. (Oak Ridge, TN: Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Sept.,
1979). NTIS NR. PC A05/MF AOI

Sat riana, M. J. New Developments in Flue Gas Desulfurization
Technology. (Park Ridge, NJ: Noyes Data Corp., 1981).
Avail. ILL; Florida' Atlantic Univ. Call Nr. D885.5.N48

Schumacher, M. M. Coal-Oil Mixture Combustion Technology,
(Park Ridge, NJ: Noyes Data Corp., 1981). 480 pp. Avail. ILL;
Univ. of Florida Call Nr. TJ 2545. C6

Seminole Electric Cooperative, Inc. SECI Late Eighties Coal
Project: Plan of Study. (Tampa, FL: Seminole Electric
Cooperative, July 1982).

A-81

Siting Handbook Attachment X Bibliography

Seminole Electric Cooperative. Site Certification Application
and Environmental Analysis:, Se-m-17nole Plant Units I and 2.
(Tampa, FL: SECI, August, 1 978). 4 vols.

Shannon, Robert. Handbook of Coal-Based Electric Power
Generation: The Technoloyy_,_ Utility Application and Economics
of Coal for Generating Electric Power. (Park Ridge, NJ: Noyes
Publications, 198 2). 372 pp. Avail. ILL: Univ. of Florida
Call Nr.TK 105/S34 1982.

Shih, C. C. et al. Emissions Assessment of Conventional
Stationary Combustion Systems. (Washington, D. C.: U. S.
Environmental Prote'@tion Agency, 1979). 2 vols.

Shy, C. M. et al. 'Health Effects of Air Pollution. (New
York: American Thoracic Society, Medical Section of American
Lung Assn., 1978).

Siedel, Stephen, and Keyes, Dale.- Can We Delay A Greenhouse
Warming? (Washington, D.C.: U. S. En-vironmental Protection
Agency, Nov., 1983). Avail. ILL; FSU Call Nr. EP1.2: G83/Corr.

Souten, D. R. and Oliver, W. R. Control of Nitrogen Oxides:
Assessment of Needs and Options: Vol. 2: Legislative and
Regulatory Environment. (Palo Alt-0, CA: 'f-PRI, Sept., 1981).
EPRI Rpt. EA-2048.

Southern Governor's Conference. State and Regional Aspects of
Major Energy Facility SitinS-, (Atlanta, GA: Southern
Interstate Nuclear Board, 1977).

Stevens, David. State Perspectives on Energy Facility,Siting:
Current State Practices.- (Washington, D. C.:. National
Governor's Assn., Dec., 1978 ).

Strain, J. Robert. Coimmunity Economic-Growth: Impact Model.
(Gainesville, FL: Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences,
1982.) Circular # 513.

Stuart, Tim. Analysis of the.Request for a Thermal Variance
for the A. B. Hopkins Power Plant. (Tallahassee, FL: Florida

A-8L

Siting Handbook Attachment X Bibliography

Dept. of Environmental Regulation).
Tampa Electric Co. "Proposed McInnes Site," in Ten-Year Site
Plan (Tampa, FL: Tampa Electric Co 1983).

Tampa Electric Co. Site Certification Application for Big
Bend Station Unit 4. (Tampa, FL: _-TECO, Oct., 1979). 4
vols.

Tank, Ronald. Focus on Environmental Geology. (N.Y.: Oxford
Univ. Press, 1976).

Taylor, Karl. "Climatic Survey of Florida" in Green, A. E. S.
(ed.) The Impact of Increased Coal Use in Florida. (Gaines-
ville, FL: Univ. of Florida, 1980).

The Council of State Governments. The States and Natural
Hazards. (Lexington, KY: The Council of State Governments,
1979).

Turner, D. Bruce. "Atmospheric Dispersion Modeling--A Criti-
cal Review." Journal of the Air Pollution Control Assn. (May,
1979).

Turner, R. R. et al. Leachability and Aqueous Speciation of
Selected Trace Constituents of Coal Fly Ash. (Palo Alto, CA: k6
EPRI, 1982). EPRI Rpt. Nr. EA-2588.

U. S. Dept. of Commerce, National Oceanic and -Atmospheric
Administration. Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion, Final
Environmental Impact Statement.. (Washignton, D. C. NOAA
Office of Mineral and Energy, July, 1981).

U. S. Dept. of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration. Coastal Facilities Guidelines. (Washington,
D. C.: NOAA Office of Coastal Zone Management, August, 1976).

U. S. Dept. of Energy. Peat Prospectus. (Washington, D. C.: U.
S. DOE Div. of Fossil Fuel Processing, July, 1979). 77 pp.

A-83

Siting Handbook Attachment X Bibliography

U. S. Dept. of Energy, Economic Regulatory Administration,
Office of Fuels Programs. The Florida Statewide Coal Conver-
sion Study: Alternatives to Coal Conversion for Florida
T-R-A, Oct., 1983)_ NTIS Nr.
Utilities. (Washington, D.C.:
DOE/RG-0064.

U. S. Dept. of Energy, Energy Information Administration.
Annual Report to Congress. Vol III: Forecasts. (Washington,
D. C.: Dept. of Energy, 1983). NTIS Nr. DOE/EIA-0173/83/3

U. S. Dept. of Energy., Economic Regulatory Administration,
Office of Fuels Programs. Conversion of Florida Electric
Power Plants from Oil to Coal.Burning: Draft Final Report.
(Washington, ERA, 1983

U. S. Dept. of Interior. Environmental Criteria for Electrical
Systems.. (Washington, D. C.: U.S. Dept. of Interior, 1978).

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. Draft Environmental
Impact Statement, Tampa Elect. Co., Big Bend Unit 4, Technical
Reference Documents. (Atlanta, GA: USEPA Region IV Office,
July, 1981). 2 vols. NTIS Nr. EPA 904/9-81-070.

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. Draft Environmental
Impact Statement and State Analysis Report, Jacksonville
Electric Authority St. Johns River Power Park. (Atlanta, GA:
USEPA Region IV Office, t., 1981). NTIS Nr. EPA 904/9081-
088.

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. Draf t Environmental
Impact Statement, Florida Power Corp. Crystal River Units 4
and 5. (Atlanta, GA: USEPA Regional. IV Office, July, 1980).
NTIS Nr. EPA 904/9 -80-048. 2 vols.

A-80

Siting Handbook Attachment X Bibliography

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. Final Environmental
Impact Statement: Florida Power Corp. Crystal River Units 4
and 5. (Atlanta, GA: USEPA, Region IV Office, January, 1981).

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. Final Environmental
Impact Statement, Florida Power Corporation Crystal River
Units 4 and 5. (Atlanta, GA: USEPA Region IV Office,
January, 1981).

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. Radiological Impact
Caused by Emissions of Radionuclides into Air in the United
States: Preliminary Report. (Washington, D. C.: U.S. EPT,-
n.@-.). NT;TS Nr. EPA 520/7-79-006.

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. Source Assessment:
Water Pollution from Coal Storage Areas. (EPA Industrial
Re'@-earch Laborat-orT, May,-1978).

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. Draft Environmental
IM.pa@-t S-tatement: Tampa Electric Co. Big Bend Unit. Nr. 4:
Technical Reference Document. (At.lanta.L GA: U. S. EPA Region
IV-L Oct., 1981). 2 vols.

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Draft EIS Related to
Operation of St. Lucie Plant, Unit 2 Docket 50-389.
(Washington, D..C.: U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
October, 1981). NTIS Nr. NUREG-0842.

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Final Environmental
Statement Related to Steam Generator Repair at FfL Turkey Pt.
Plants Units 3 & 4. (Washington D. C.: U. S. NRC, March,
1981). NTIS Nr. NUREG-0743.

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Improving Regulatory
Effectiveness in Federal/S_tate Siting Actions. (Washington, D.
C.: U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, May, 1977).

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Draft EIS Related to the
Operation of the St. Lucie Plant, Unit No. 2. (Washington, D.
C.: U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Oct., 1981)@. Docket
50-38

A-8r

Siting Handbook Attachment X Bibliography

Vanderhorst, J. R. Effects of Chlorine on Marine Benthos.
(Palo Alto, CA: EPRI, October, 1982). EPRI Rpt. Nr. EA-2696.

Voelker, A. H. Power Plant Siting: An A2plication of the
Nominal Group Process Technique. (Oak Ri-dge, TN: Oak Ridge
National Laboratory, 1977). NTIS Nr. ORNL/NUREG/TM-81.

Wachter, R. A. and Blackwood, T. R. Source Assessment: Water
Pollution from Coal Storage Areas. (Washington, D. C.: U. S.
EPA, 1978).

Ward, D. B. (ed.) Rare and Endangered Biota of Florida.
(Gainesville, FL: University Presses of Florida.)

Weber, R. David. Energy: An Information Guide; Vol 2: Electric
and Nuclear Power. (Santa Barbara, CA: Clio Press, 1983).

Wilson, William. "Sulfates in the Atmosphere: A Progress Re-
port." Atmospheric Environment. (December, 1978).

Winter, John and Conner, David. Power Plant Siting. (New
York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1978). 197 pp.

Withlachoochee Regional Planning Council. Evaluation of
mpacts Associated with the Expansion of the Crystal River
Energy Park. (Ocala, @L: WRPC, in preparation).
I

Woffinden, George et al. Airborne Monitoring of Cooling Tower
Effluents. (Palo Alto, CA: EPRI, June, 1977).

Woodward-Clyde Consultants. Ranking of Eight Sites for Coal@
Fired Power Plant Development for Florida Power Corporation,
St. Petersburg, Florida. Appendix to 1979 Ten Year Site Plan.
(St.Petersburg, FL: Florida Power Corp., 1979).

A-A

Siting Handbook Attachment X Bibliography

Woolfenden, Glen. Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Verte-
brates ofSouthwest Florida and Potential OCS Activity Impacts.
(Slidell, LA: U. S. Dept. of Interior, Fish and Wildlife
Service, Feb., 1983). NTIS Nr. FWS/OBS-82/03.

Yost, F. E. and Talmage, S. S. Power Plant Cooling Lakes,
Resevoirs, and Ponds: An Annotated Bibliography. (Palo Alto,
CA: EPRI, 1981).

Yost, F. E. and Uziel, M. S. Impingement and Entrainment: An
Updated Annotated Bibliography. (Palo Alto, CA: EPRI, May,
1981). EPRI Rpt. Nr. EA-1 55.

Zilenski, S. G. et al. Inventory of Organic Emissions from
Fossil Fuel Combustion for Power Plants. (Palo Alto, CA:
EPRI, 1978). EPRI Rpt. Nr. EC-2341.

A-87

-- :r

I
ON UNION 7,; 1
3 66 8 14103 6451 1
1
1
1
I
I
I
I
I
F
I
I
.1.
'I
1-
k
i
- I 1@
6
I"

hh"

AL,