HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet 11-07-05
~
'WIll
Novemlae. 7, 2005
..00 PM
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
AGENDA
WELCOME
ALL MEETINGS ARE TELEVISED.
PLEASE TURN OFF ALL CELL PHONES AND PAGERS
PRIOR TO ENTERING THE COMMISSION CHAMBERS.
GENERAL RULES AND PROCEDURES - Attached is the agenda which will determine the order of business conducted at today's
Board meeting:
CONSENT AGENDA - These items are considered routine and are enacted by one mati on. There will be no separate discussion of
these items unless a Commissioner so requests.
REGULAR AGENDA - Proclamations, Presentations, Public Hearings, and Department requests are items, which the Commission will
discuss individually usually in the order listed on the agenda.
PUBLIC HEARINGS - These items are usually heard on the first and third Tuesday at 6:00 P.M. or as soon thereafter as possible.
However, if a public hearing is scheduled for a meeting on a second or fourth Tuesday, which begins at 9:00 A.M., then public
hearings will be heard at 9:00 A.M. or as soon thereafter as possible. These time designations are intended to indicate that an item
will nat be addressed prior to the listed time. The Chairman will open each public hearing and as!?s anyone wishing to spea!? to come
forward, one at a time. Comments will be limited to five minutes.
As a general rule, when issues are scheduled before the Commission under department request or public hearing, the order of
presentation is: (1) County staff presents the details of the Board item (2) Commissioners comment (3) if a public hearing, the
Chairman will as!? for public comment. (4) further discussion and action by the board.
ADDRESSING THE COMMISSION - Please state your name and address, spea!?ing clearly into the microphone. If you have bac!?up
material. please have eight copies for distribution.
NON-AGENDA ITEMS - These items are presented by an individual Commissioner or stall as necessary at the conclusion of the
printed agenda.
PUBLIC COMMENT - Time is allotted at the beginning of each meeting of general public comment. Please limit comments to five
minutes.
DECORUM - Please be respectful of others opinions.
MEETINGS _ All Board meetings are open to the public and are held on the first and third Tuesdays of each month at 6:00 P.M. and
on the second and fourth Tuesdays at 9:00 A.M.. unless otherwise advertised. Meetings are held in the County Commission Chambers
in the Roger Poitras Administration Annex at 2300 Virginia Ave., Ft. Pierce, FL 34982 The Board schedules additional wor!?ShOp5
throughout the year necessary to accomplish their goals and commitments. Notice is provided of these worRshops. Assistive Listening
Device is available to anyone with a hearing disability. Anyone with a disability requiring accommodation to attend this meeting
should contact the St. Lucie County Community Services Director at (772) 462-1777 or TDD (772) 462-1428 at least forty-eight (48)
hours prior to the meeting.
·
BOARD OF COUN~
COMM.II.ONERS
www.co.st-Iucie.fl.us
Fr.nnie H..tchinson, Chal.m.n District No.4
D.u. C......eI, Vice Chal. District N.. 2
'oseph E. Smith District No. I
P.ul. A. Leurls Dbtrlct No. J
Ch.1s C..'t Dlst.lct N.. I
N.vemlter 7, 2005
6100 P.M.
INVOCATION
PLEDGE OF ALLECIANCE
I. j
&~
,,\~ ~ J)
REGULAR AGENDA
GROWTH MANAGEMENT II I \ j A J A 0
'\J~}ì Ù)'\ io ()e~u.¡ ppn.:VQC{:;-
Consider Draft Resolution No. 05-384 granting approval of a rezoning from AG-5
(Agriculture - 1 Dwelling unit per 5 acres) to U (Utilities) for an approximately 3000 acre
property located on the east side of Bluefield Road, approximately 4 miles south of
OReechobee Road - Consider staff recommendation to approve Draft Resolution No. 05-384
granting approval of a rezoning from AG-5 (Agriculture 1 Dwelling unit per 5 acres) to U
(Utilities) for an approximately 3000 acre property located on the east side of Bluefield
Road, Approximately 4 miles south of OReechobee Road.
GROWTH MAHAGRMINT fJo L-.. +0 d e ~ ~p Me ~ )'--Ò
Consider Draft Resolution No. 05-385 granting condit~1 Use and Major Site Plan approval
for the project to be Rnown as Florida Power & Light - South West St. Lucie Power Plant for
property located on the east side of Bluefield Road, Approximately 4 miles south of
OReechobee Road.
1J
~
\\t?{ù
NOTICE: All Proceedings before this Board are electronically recorded. Any person who decides to appeal any action tal?en by the
Board at these meetings will need a record of the proceedings and for such purpose may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the
proceedings is made. Upon the request of any party to the proceedings, individuals testifying during a hearing will be sworn in. Any
party to the proceedings will be granted the opportunity to cross-examine any individual testifying during a hearing upon request.
Anyone with a disability requiring accommodation to attend this meeting should contact the St. Lucie County Community Services
Manager at (772) 462-1777 or TDD (772) 462-1428 at least forty-eight (48) hours prior to the meeting.
AGENDA REQUEST ITEM NO.1""
DATE: November 7, 2005
REVISED
REGULAR 0
PUBLIC HEARING [X]
CONSENT 0 .
TO:
Board of County Commissioners
PRESENTED BY:
~ --- ---~
-- , r-- " ---) ------.
-- --)
Assistant County Administrator
SUBMITTED BY (DEPT): Growth Management
Consider Draft Resolution 05-384 granting approval of a rezoning from AG-5
(Agriculture -1 Dwelling unit per 5 acres) to U (Utilities) for an approximately
4 miles south of Okeechobee Road.
SUBJECT:
The Petitioner, Florida Power and Light has requested approval of a rezoning
from AG-5 (Agriculture - 1 Dwelling unit per 5 acres) to U (Utilities) for an
approximately 3000 acre property located on the east side of Bluefield Road,
approximately 4 miles south of Okeechobee Road.
BACKGROUND:
FUNDS AVAILABLE:
N/A
On September 29, 2005 the S1. Lucie County Planning and Zoning
Commission recommended approval of the change in zoning from AG-5
(Agriculture -1 Dwelling unit per 5 acres) to U (Utilities) by a vote of 4-2 (Mr.
McCurdy & Ms. Hammer voted against).
PREVIOUS ACTION:
Staff recommends approval of Draft Resolution 05-384 granting approval of
a rezoning from AG-5 (Agriculture - 1 Dwelling unit per 5 acres) to U
(Utilities) for an approximately 4 miles south of Okeechobee Road.
RECOMMENDATION:
COMMISSION ACTION:
~PPROVED
o OTHER:
o DENIED
Approved 5-0
Motion to deny.
fJ~L County Attomey
Originating Dept.:
Finance:
/Ue' -
Do glas M. Anderson
County Administrator
Coordination/Signatures
Mgt. & Budget: ~£
Environ. Res. Division: ~
Purchasing:
Other:
~
..."
Commission Review: November 7,2005
GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT
Planning Division
MEMORANDUM
TO: County Commission
FROM: Assistant County Administrator
DATE: November 2, 2005
SUBJECT: Petition of Florida Power & Light for Conditional Use and Major Site Plan
Approval for a 1700 MW coal fired electric generation plant located on the
east side of Sluefield Road approximately 4 miles south of Okeechobee
Road
LOCATION: East side of Sluefield Road approximately 4 miles south of Okeechobee
Road
EXISTING ZONING: U (Utilities) (based on accompanying petition)
FUTURE LAND USE: AG - 5 (Agriculture - 1 dwelling uniU5 acres)
PARCEL SIZE: Approximately 3000 acres
SURROUNDING ZONING:
The subject property is surrounded by AG-5 (Agricultural 1
du/5 ac) zoning on all sides
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
The existing uses in this area are primarily agricultural with
preserved land (Sluefield Ranch) to the west.
FIRE/EMS PROTECTION:
Station # 11, (Shinn Road) is located approximately 20
miles to the northeast.
UTILITY SERVICE:
Water and sewer service will be provided on site.
TRANSPORTATION IMPACTS:
Right-of-Way
Adequacy:
The existing right-of-way width for Bluefield Road is 50
feet.
The existing right-of-way width for Okeechobee Road is 66
feet
'-"
....,,¡
November 2, 2005
Page 2
Subject: Florida Power & Light
Major Site Plan and Conditional Use
Scheduled Area
Improvements:
As a part of the application for conditional use, the
applicant has committed to pave Bluefield Road from
Okeechobee Road to its project entrance or beyond if the
county wished paved access to the Bluefield Preserve. The
applicant will also provide for temporary modifications to
the intersection of Bluefield and Okeechobee Roads.
These modifications are intended to provide for safe and
efficient traffic operations through the plant's construction
period.
The Florida Department of Transportation will be widening
Okeechobee Road (SR 70) out to Berman Road in
Okeechobee County. This work will be accomplished in
phases over the next seven to ten years.
TYPE OF CONCURRENCY
DOCUMENT REQUIRED:
Certificate of Capacity
*************************************************************************
STANDARDS OF REVIEW AS SET FORTH IN SECTION 11.07.03,
ST. LUCIE COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE
In reviewing this application for proposed conditional use, the Board of County Commissioners
shall consider and make the following determinations:
1. Whether the proposed conditional use is in conflict with any applicable portions
of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code;
The proposed conditional use has been determined to not be in conflict with any
applicable provision of the S1. Lucie County Land Development Code. Section
3.01.03(W)(7)(b), U (Utilities) Zoning District, allows electric generation plants as
conditional uses. As noted in the comments below, the proposed site development plan
that accompanies this request for a conditional use permit has been determined to meet
the minimum standards of the Land Development Code.
2. Whether and the extent to which the proposed conditional use would have an
adverse impact on nearby properties;
The construction and operation of a 1700 MW coal fired electric generation plant will
impact nearby properties. The extent to which this impact is considered adverse can be
mitigated by the site design and layout and the specific actions taken by the applicant to
protect nearby and more distant properties. The proposed site is located within an area
zoned for productive agriculture. Also adjacent to the site is the Bluefield Ranch
preserve area.
~
-.I
November 2, 2005
Page 3
Subject: Florida Power & Light
Major Site Plan and Conditional Use
The applicant has designed the project to minimize impact to the adjacent natural areas.
The proposed project provides substantial buffers/berms, makes important water
retention areas available to the South Florida Water Management District and dedicates
adjacent areas to the county. A recommended condition of approval requires county
review of final design of the buffer/berm areas.
The applicant has proposed the use of various technologies to minimize the impact of
plant emissions. An analysis of these efforts is attached as a part of a report prepared by
an independent consultant retained by the county.
In addition to air emissions, county staff has been concerned with the emission of light
and noise from the plant. The applicant has provided information concerning these
issues. The applicant has projected that the proposed use will comply with the county
noise ordinance. A condition of approval requires county review of final lighting design.
Long-term traffic impacts at and around the site are expected to be minimal.
Construction traffic is handled through the applicant's construction of temporary
improvements to the local road network. Recommended conditions of approval address
the traffic issues.
Rail traffic is expected to impact intersections in portions of the county to the east of the
proposed plant. The applicant has agreed to attempt to minimize this impact through
negotiations with the Florida East Coast Railroad concerning timing of deliveries. The
applicant and county staff recognize that the Florida East Coast Railroad will ultimately
control this timing. The applicant has agreed to construct turn lane improvements where
the FEC tracks cross Commerce Center Parkway, Reserve Boulevard and Rangeline
Road. A recommended condition of approval addresses these issues.
3. Whether and the extent to which the proposed conditional use would be served by
adequate public facilities and services, including roads, police protection, solid
waste disposal, water, sewer, drainage structures, parks, and mass transit;
This conditional use is not expected to create significant additional demands on any
public facilities in this area. The traffic report for the proposed project indicates minimal
traffic impacts caused by the long-term operation of the plant. Approximately 180 full
time employees will access the site in shifts. Minimal delivery by truck is expected.
During the construction of the plant, significantly more workers and delivery vehicles will
access the site. The applicant has agreed to construct various temporary traffic
improvements in order to maintain required Levels of Service in this area. Other county
roadways will be impacted on a long term basis by interruptions caused by coal and
other delivery trains. Timing of deliveries to avoid peak times will help to minimize this
impact.
Water and sewer service will be provided by the applicant.
4. Whether and the extent to which the propased conditional use would result in
significant adverse impacts on the natural environment;
"-'
..."
November 2, 2005
Page 4
Subject: Florida Power & Light
Major Site Plan and Conditional Use
The construction and operation of a 1700 MW coal fired electric generation plant will
impact the natural environment. The extent to which this impact is considered
significantly adverse can be mitigated by the site design and layout and the specific
actions taken by the applicant to protect the natural environment.
The proposed site is located adjacent to the Bluefield Ranch preserve area. The
Pine lands preserve area is located to the northeast. In addition privately held and
relatively pristine areas surround the proposed site. The impacts of this proposal may
also extend beyond the immediate area.
The applicant has designed the project to minimize impact to the adjacent natural areas.
The proposed project makes important land available to the South Florida Water
Management District, dedicates adjacent areas to the county, and provides substantial
buffers. A recommended condition of approval requires county review of the area
dedicated to the county.
The applicant has proposed the use of various technologies to minimize the impact of
plant emissions. An analysis of these efforts is attached as a part of a report prepared by
an independent consultant retained by the county.
In addition to air emissions, county staff has been concerned with the emission of light
and noise from the plant. The applicant has provided information concerning these
issues. A condition of approval requires county review of final lighting design.
Long-term traffic impacts at and around the site are expected to be minimal.
Construction traffic is handled through the applicant's construction of temporary
improvements to the local road network. Recommended conditions of approval address
the traffic issues.
Rail traffic is expected to impact intersections in portions of the county to the east of the
proposed plant. The applicant has agreed to attempt to minimize this impact through
negotiations with the Florida East Coast Railroad (FEC) concerning timing of deliveries.
The applicant and county staff recognize that the FEC will ultimately control this issue.
The applicant has agreed to construct turn lane improvements where the FEC tracks
cross Commerce Center Parkway, Reserve Boulevard and Rangeline Road. A
recommended condition of approval addresses these issues.
**********************************
STANDARDS FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW
In addition to the minimum standards of review and project development set out in Section
7.00.00, Section 11.02.07, of the Sf. Lucie County Land Development Code identifies the
minimum Standards of Review for all proposed Site Plans. These standards must be met in
order for any site plan approvals to be considered. Staff has reviewed the request for Major Site
Plan approval, utilizing these requirements and notes the following:
'--'
"""""
November 2. 2005
Page 5
Subject: Florida Power & Light
Major Site Plan and Conditional Use
CONSISTENCY WITH LOCAL ORDINANCES AND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The proposed Florida Power & Light Company 1700 MW electric generation plant is
consistent with the general purpose, goals, objectives and standards of this Code, the
St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan, and the Code and Compiled Laws of St. Lucie
County, and the proposed use complies with all additional standards imposed on it by
the particular provisions of this Code authorizing such use and any other requirement of
the Code and Compiled Laws of St. Lucie County.
The proposed Florida Power & Light Company 1700 MW electric generation plant is
consistent with the general purpose, goals, objectives and policies of the St. Lucie
County Comprehensive Plan. These policies include, but are not limited to:
Policy 1.1.2.3 requires preservation of open space as a part of any future non-
agricultural development.
Policy 1.1.2.4 requires the "orderly delivery of services concurrent with the impacts of
development" within the agricultural land use categories.
Policy 1.1.2.5 requires a site assessment for conversion of designated agricultural land
to non-agricultural uses. Eight standards are listed.
Policy 1.1.9.9 requires the developer to be responsible for on-site management of
stormwater.
Policy 1.1.9.10 requires converted agricultural land to avoid adverse impacts on the
natural resources essential to the production of crops and citrus.
EFFECT ON NEARBY PROPERTIES
a. The proposed building or use will not have an undue adverse affect upon nearby
property, the character of the neighborhood, traffic conditions, parking, utility
facilities, and other matters affecting the public health, safety, and general
welfare.
The proposed Florida Power & Light 1700 MW electric generation plant has been
determined not to have an undue adverse effect upon nearby properties if
approved with adequate limiting conditions. The proposed project has the
potential to effect the immediate area through visual impacts including lighting,
noise impacts, traffic impacts, and environmental issues. The proposed project
could also affect more distant areas by impacting traffic flows around railroad
crossings and through air born emissions. If the project is approved, staff is
recommending a number of conditions of approval that are intended to mitigate
these potential negative affects.
b. All reasonable steps have been taken to minimize any adverse effect of the
proposed building or use on the immediate vicinity through building design, site
design, landscaping and screening.
'-"
....,;
November 2, 2005
Page 6
Subject: Florida Power & Light
Major Site Plan and Conditional Use
The developer has designed this project in a manner intended to minimize
adverse effects to the immediate vicinity and the area. Staff has added
recommended conditions of approval to further minimize these effects.
c. The proposed building or use will be constructed, arranged, and operated so as
not to interfere with the development and use of neighboring property, in
accordance with applicable district regulations.
The design of the proposed project, including the recommended conditions, has
been determined not to interfere with the development or use of the neighboring
properties. Visual impacts including lighting, noise impacts, traffic impacts, and
environmental issues have been addressed through the project design and
recommended conditions.
C. ADEQUACY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES
The proposed building or use complies with the standards of Chapter V, Adequate
Public Facilities.
Traffic issues with the approval of the recommended limiting conditions comply with the
standards of Chapter V, adequate public facilities.
Water and sewer services will be provided on site by the applicant.
Removal of solid waste for the byproducts of the coal fired generators will be handled by
the applicant. Waste will be removed from the site in railcars that have delivered coal or
other products to the site. No additional rail or truck trips will be required.
D. ADEQUACY OF FIRE PROTECTION
The applicant has obtained from the St. Lucie County Bureau of Fire Prevention written
confirmation, or has otherwise demonstrated by substantial credible evidence, that water
supply, evacuation facilities, and emergency access are satisfactory to provide adequate
fire protection.
The applicant has obtained from the 5t. Lucie County Bureau of Fire Prevention written
confirmation that the proposed site plan conceptually meets the minimum access and
water supply requirements for fire protection services at this facility.
The applicant has agreed to provide fire and emergency services on site through the
construction. A condition of approval addresses this issue.
E. ADEQUACY OF SCHOOL FACILITIES
The proposed building or use will be served by adequate school facilities
The applicant is proposing a non-residential use that will not impact school facilities.
This facility will not negatively impact the school facilities within the County
'-"
....,¡I
November 2, 2005
Page 7
Subject: Florida Power & Light
Major Site Plan and Conditional Use
F. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
For developments required to provide an environmental impact report under Section
11.02.09(A)(5), the proposed development wíll not contravene any applicable provision
of the Sf. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan, or of Chapter VIII, "Natural Environment
Analysis", of the St. Lucie County Barrier Island Study Analysis of Growth Management
Policy Plan, Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. (August 1982).
The applicant has provided an environmental impact report that has been
reviewed by the County's Environmental Resource Department (ERD). On
October 11 , 2005, the ERD recommended denial of the project. At that time, the
ERD also provided additional recommended conditions to be included if the
Board chooses to approve the petition. The ERD recommendation and conditions
are attached. The conditions have also been included in the draft Resolution. The
report of an independent consultant retained by the county to assess air born
emissions is also attached
*******************************
COMMENTS:
The petitioner, Florida Power & Light Company, is seeking approval for a conditional use permit
in order to construct and operate a 1,700 Megawatt (MW) electric generation plant on property
located on the east side of Bluefield Road approximately 4 miles south of Okeechobee Road
(SR 70) in the U (Utilities) Zoning District.
The proposed site plan for the Plant is attached. Landscape and perimeter berm details, and
details concerning the southern rail access have not been completed at this time. Conditions of
approval address these issues. Recent discussions with the applicant have indicated that they
are able to use a single 500' stack, rather that the two 700 foot stacks previously proposed. A
condition of approval addresses this issue.
Growth Management staff recognizes that the ERD has recommended denial of the petition
(see attached Memorandum) but finds that the petition, if approved with the recommended
limiting conditions, meets the standards of review as set forth in Section 11.07.03 of the S1.
Lucie County Land Development Code and is not in conflict with the goals, objectives, and
policies of the S1. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan.
Growth Management staff recommends that you forward this petition to the Board of County
Commissioners with a recommendation of approval subject to the following conditions:
1. FPL shall construct the Project in accordance with the LDC and the conditions contained
herein, in addition to the conditions set forth in the Site Certification Final Order ("Final
Order") issued by the Governor and Cabinet under the Florida Electrical Power Plant
Siting Act ("Act"). For purposes of this Resolution the term "Final Order" shall mean the
vested, non-appealable Site Certification Final Order issued by the Governor and
'-"
...""
November 2.2005
Page 8
Subject: Florida Power & Light
Major Site Plan and Conditional Use
Cabinet under the Act. Any final site plan, subject to the specific conditions contained
within this Resolution, set forth in or otherwise approved by the Final Order shall
constitute the final site plan for the Project in compliance with the LDC.
2. The Conditional Use Permit and Major Site Plan approval granted under this Resolution
is specifically conditioned on the requirement that FPL, or its successors În interest, shall
obtain the Final Order and all necessary permits and authorizations from the appropriate
federal and state regulatory agencies, including but not limited to, the United States
Army Corps of Engineers, the Siting Board, and the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection, prior to the commencement of development activity on the
Property.
3. The approvals and authorizations granted by this Resolution are for the purpose of
developing, constructing and operating an electric generation plant on the Property with
the understanding that the development, construction. and operation of the Project is
also subject to the Final Order. Furthermore, it is understood and acknowledged that the
LDC provision that governs the expiration of conditional use permits does not address
the permitting of projects under the Act and, therefore, is not applicable to this Project.
Therefore, to be consistent with the Act, this Resolution shall expire if the Project has not
started site development within fifteen (15) years of the issuance of the Final Order or
unless FPL has been granted an extension pursuant to Section 11.07.05(F), LDC.
4. The Certificate of Capacity, a copy of which is attached to this Resolution, shall remain
valid for the period of Conditional Use/Site Plan approval. Should the Conditional
Use/Site Plan approval granted by this Resolution expire or an extension be sought
pursuant to Section 11.07.05(F), LDC, a new certificate of capacity shall be required.
5. A copy of this Resolution and, at the appropriate time, a copy of the Final Order, shall be
placed on file with the St. Lucie County Growth Management Director. Furthermore, the
Growth Management Director is hereby authorized and directed to cause the notation of
this Resolution to be made on the Official Zoning Map of St. Lucie County, Florida, and
to include a reference to the date of adoption of this Resolution.
6. FPL shall submit to the St. Lucie County Environmental Resources Department ("ERD")
a detailed lighting plan for the Project within twelve (12) months of the date this
Resolution is recorded in the public records of St. Lucie County. The detailed lighting
plan shall comply with federal and state requirements, such as those imposed by OSHA
and the FAA, and with the principles and guidelines referred to herein to the extent that
such principles and guidelines are not in conflict with federal and state requirements.
The detailed lighting plan is subject to review by County staff or their designee and
approval by the ERD Director. FPL shall use its best efforts to design a lighting plan that
minimizes to the greatest extent reasonably possible the light pollution and light trespass
emanating from the Project. FPL shall incorporate guidelines from the Illuminating
Engineering Society of North America in the design of the outdoor lighting systems.
FPL's conceptual and detailed lighting plans shall incorporate the following design
principles:
a. Minimize upward light from luminaries; and
b. Minimize upward light in general so that light reaches its intended target; and
'-'
....,;
November 2. 2005
Page 9
Subject: Florida Power & Light
Major Site Plan and Conditional Use
c. Turn off lighting not needed for safety and security; and
d. Contain light within its intended target area by suitable choice of luminaries for
light distribution; and
e. Selection of appropriate mounting height and physical location; and
f. Minimize glare in the horizontal and vertical directions.
Within ten (10) working days of receipt of the detailed lighting plan, the ERD Director
shall determine that the ERD has sufficient information to evaluate the plan or request
FPL to provide more information. Once the detailed lighting plan is deemed complete for
review, the plan shall be reviewed for compliance with the conditions set forth herein and
the ERD Director shall, within ninety (90) calendar days, approve the plan, approve the
plan with conditions, or deny the plan with citation to the provision that the plan fails to
satisfy.
7. FPL shall submit to the ERD a detailed landscape plan for the Project within six (6)
months of the date this Resolution is recorded in the public records of S1. Lucie County.
The detailed landscape plan shall comply with the standards set forth in the Land
Development Code ("LDC'') or a program agreed to by FPL and the County. The
detailed landscape plan is subject to review by County staff or their designee and
approval by the ERD Director.
The detailed landscape plans shall incorporate the following design principles:
· If landscaping is proposed on-site, then the plans shall comply with the
requirements of the County's Land Development Code (LDC);
· If landscaping is proposed off-site, then the plans shall comply with the
requirements of the LDC, unless FLP demonstrates and the County agrees that
the landscape program that is proposed does not require a formal landscape
plan;
· The minimum number of canopy trees, with the type and size required pursuant
to the LDC, shall be 1,874 (this number shall be multiplied by 1.5 for every tree
proposed off-site);
· The minimum number of shrubs, if required, with the type and size required
pursuant to the LDC. shall be 9,767 (this number shall be multiplied by 1.5 for
every shrub proposed off-site);
· FPL may propose an alternative landscape program, but the alternative must
provide benefits that are equivalent to or greater than planting the number of
trees and shrubs noted above.
· FPL shall work with ERD staff prior to submitting the landscape plans in order to
identify the most advantageous use of the trees and shrubs.
Within ten (10) working days of receipt of the landscape plan, the ERD Director shall
determine that the ERD has sufficient information to evaluate the plan or request FPL to
provide more information. Once the landscape plan is deemed complete for review, the
plan shall be reviewed for compliance with the LDC and the conditions set forth herein
and the ERD Director shall, within ninety (90) calendar days, approve the plan, approve
the plan with conditions, or deny the plan with citation to the provision that the plan fails
to satisfy.
'-'
-.I
November 2, 2005
Page 10
Subject: Florida Power & Light
Major Site Plan and Conditional Use
8. FPL shall submit to the Growth Management Department a detailed design plan for that
portion of the rail spur to be located on the County's Bluefield Ranch Preserve property
within six (6) months of the date this resolution is recorded in the public records of 51.
Lucie County. The detailed designs for the rail spur shall comply with good engineering
practices and the standards set forth in the LDC. The detailed design plan is subject to
review by County staff or their designee and approval by the Growth Management
Director.
The detailed design plans shall identify the exact locations of Bluefield Ranch Property
to be developed. The detailed design plans shall include an Environmental Impact
Report, prepared in accordance with the LDC, for the area that will be impacted by the
rail spur. When developing the detailed design plans for the rail spur, FPL shall work
with County staff to identify and use the rail spur location at the southern end of Bluefield
Ranch Preserve Property that will result in the least amount of environmental impact. In
designing the rail spur, FPL shall comply with applicable federal, state, and local
regulations governing the protection of legally protected species. If listed plant or animal
species are found to be utilizing the area proposed for impact, FPL shall be required to
explore alternative designs to avoid or minimize the impacts to the listed species.
Within ten (10) working days of receipt of the rail spur plan, the Growth Management
Director shall determine that the Growth Management Department has sufficient
information to evaluate the plan or request FPL to provide more information. Once the
rail spur plan is deemed complete for review, the plan shall be reviewed for compliance
with the LDC and the conditions set forth herein and the Growth Management Director
shall, within ninety (90) calendar days. approve the plan, approve the plan with
conditions, or deny the plan with citation to the provision that the plan failed to satisfy.
FPL shall not commence construction on any portion of the County's Bluefield Ranch
Preserve until FPL has demonstrated compliance with the County's requirements and
received the Growth Management Director's prior written approval.
9. FPL shall transfer to the County, at no cost to the County, approximately 1,400 acres of
property, as shown on the map attached as Exhibit "A" to this resolution, for public
conservation and recreation use. The transfer is expressly conditioned on the prior
issuance of the Final Order and the commencement of Project construction. FPL and
the County shall enter into a Memorandum of Understanding that sets forth the terms
and conditions of the transfer. The County agrees that it shall only use the property for
agricultural uses, recreational uses, or conservation uses and shall not use the property
for residential, commercial or industrial use. Nothing herein shall preclude FPL and the
County from transferring development rights from the property.
FPL shall provide the County an environmental assessment on the approximately 10400
acres of property that FPL is proposing to transfer to the County to be used for parks
and preservation purposes prior to the transfer of the property. At a minimum, the
environmental assessment shall identify the sizes (acreages), types, and locations of the
various vegetative habitats present in the 1AOO-acre parcel. The environmental
assessment also shall identify the sizes, types, and locations of any habitat used or
occupied by any listed animal and plant species.
'-'
"""
November 2. 2005
Page 11
Subject: Florida Power & Light
Major Site Plan and Conditional Use
FPL shall establish at least two (2) monitoring sites within the wetland system being
transferred to the County as part of the 1,400 acres. The location of the monitoring sites
shall be mutually agreed to by the ERD and FPL. FPL shall prepare annual monitoring
reports that, at a minimum, include information regarding water levels (pizeometer
readings), data identifying exotic vegetation, data identifying listed species, and data
regarding water quality within the wetland system. Monitoring shall begin within twelve
(12) months of the date this Resolution is recorded in the public records of St. Lucie
County and shall continue for five (5) years after the first electric generating unit
becomes operational. The monitoring reports required herein shall be submitted to the
ERD within thirty (30) days after each twelve month monitoring period.
FPL shall provide the County with a Phase I Environmental Assessment ("Phase I") for
potential contamination and a Phase II Environmental Assessment ("Phase II") if
recommended by the firm conducting the Phase I. The Phase I and Phase II must
comply with the EPA guidelines for "all appropriate inquiry", currently in draft form at
69FR52541 and the ASTM standard, currently in draft from as ASTM 1527-05, and due
diligence site investigation. The Phase I and Phase II shall be prepared by an
independent third party firm that is qualified to perform such evaluations and is agreed
upon by the County and FPL. FPL shall agree to hold the County harmless for any pre-
existing contamination on the site. whenever discovered.
FPL shall provide the County annual compensation, for a period of approximately twenty
(20) years, in the amount of One Hundred Thousand and no/100 dollars ($100,000.00)
to restore and maintain the approximately 1,400 acre site or to be used for purchase
and/or restoration of environmentally sensitive lands within the County. The first
payment shall be due at the time of transfer and thereafter shall be due on or before
October 15th of each year, for a total of twenty payments. The acceptance of the
property shall be subject to Board of County Commissioners' approval.
10. FPL shall submit to the ERD a detailed design plan for the berm that borders the
western boundary of the Project within six (6) months of the date this Resolution is
recorded in the public records of St. Lucie County. Within ten (10) working days of
receipt of the berm plan, the ERD Director shall determine that the ERD has sufficient
information to evaluate the plan or request FPL to provide more information. Once the
berm plan is deemed complete for review, the plan shall be reviewed for compliance with
the LDC and the conditions set forth herein and the ERD Director shall, within ninety (90)
calendar days, approve the plan, approve the plan with conditions, or deny the plan with
citation to the provision that the plan failed to satisfy.
11. Whenever FPL submits or receives a document, as defined below, from an
environmental agency. FPL shall provide the County with a copy within the time frame
set out below. For purposes of this Condition the term "document" shall mean: FPL
monitoring reports, test results, notices of a malfunction or non-compliance. or an
application for a permit, amendment, modification, variance, waiver. or other relief;
environmental agency-inspection reports, warning letter, notice of violation, consent
order, or grant or denial of any permit, amendment, modification or request for relief. or
any other proposed agency action or final determination concerning the Project. For
purposes of this Condition, an environmental agency shall mean each local, state,
regional, and federal agency that has jurisdiction over the Project's environmental
'-'"
..."
November 2, 2005
Page 12
Subject: Florida Power & Light
Major Site Plan and Conditional Use
impacts, such as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the FDEP, and the
South Florida Water Management District. All documents covered by this Condition shall
be submitted to the County within a reasonable time after they are submitted by FPL or
received from an agency but in no event more than seven (7) days after such
submission or receipt.
12. To determine whether an Activated Carbon Injection (ACI) system will reduce the
mercury emissions from the Project, FPL shall either (a) develop, if available from
sufficient industry data, an evaluation to determine the projected mercury removal as the
result of installing an ACI system, or (b) conduct slipstream tests with an ACI system
within 36 months after the first electrical generating unit commences operation. At least
90 days before conducting the slipstream tests, FPL shall submit a proposed testing
protocol to the ERD for approval by the ERD Director. Copies of the testing protocol
also shall be submitted to the EPA and FDEP at least ninety (90) days before conducting
the tests. The test results shall be submitted to the ERD within forty-five (45) days after
the completion of testing.
An independent, third party consulting firm shall prepare the written evaluation of the ACI
systems and the report required by this condition. The consulting firm shall be
experienced and knowledgeable with regard to air pollution control issues. The
consulting firm selected to prepare the report shall be mutually acceptable to FPL and
the County. FPL shall recommend one or more consulting firms that are acceptable to
FPL and, within thirty (30) days thereafter, the County Administrator shall accept or
reject FPL's recommendation(s).
If the results from either (a) or (b) demonstrate that an ACI system can reduce the
Project's annual mercury emissions by five percent (5%) or more, FPL shall prepare a
report evaluating the costs and benefits of using an ACI system at the Project on a full-
time basis. The report shall be submitted to the County within one hundred thirty five
(135) days after the completion of the slipstream testing, if any, or within thirty-six (36)
months after the first electrical generating unit commences operation. At a minimum, the
report shall evaluate the following issues: (a) whether the ACI system is commercially
available; (b) whether an ACI vendor will guarantee that the ACI system will reduce the
Project's mercury emissions by 5% or more; (c) whether the ACI system can be used
without significantly affecting the commercial production of combustion by-products at
the Project; (d) whether the EPA and FDEP will authorize the use of the ACI system at
the Project; (e) if the data demonstrates that an ACI system would increase the mercury
removal by 20 or more pounds on an annual basis over the current measured
performance; and (f) whether the Florida Public Service Commission allows FPL cost
reimbursement for the installation.
If the Board of County Commissioners reasonably concludes that the issues set forth in
conditions (a) through (f), listed above, can be answered in the affirmative. FPL shall
install an ACI system at the Project. The County shall give FPL a reasonable period of
time, not to exceed to exceed three (3) years, to install the ACI system.
13. FPL shall install, maintain, and use a Continuous Emission Monitor (CEM) to measure
the mercury emissions from each combustion unit at the Project. These monitors will not
be used by the County to determine compliance with the mercury emission limits
v
.....1
November 2, 2005
Page 13
Subject: Florida Power & Light
Major Site Plan and Conditional Use
established by the EPA and FDEP, unless the EPA or FDEP confirm that the CEMs data
are valid for such purposes. The data from the mercury CEMs shall be submitted by
FPL to the ERO on a quarterly basis, within 30 days after the end of each calendar
quarter. FPL also shall submit an annual report and analysis of the CEMs data, which
shall identify any trends or anomalies in the Project's mercury emissions. The annual
reports shall compare the Project's mercury emissions, as measured with the CEMs, to
the mercury emissions measured during the Project's stack tests.
14. Pursuant to this Resolution the County has approved a conceptual site plan for the
Project. If FPL proposes a change that substantially increases the intensity and density
of the conceptual site plan, then such proposed change shall be subject to review
pursuant to the LOC provisions governing major amendments to conditional use permits.
FPL shall not commence construction on any such change until FPL receives prior
Board of County Commissioners approval.
15. No later than six (6) months after the second electric generating unit becomes
operational, FPL shall implement an ambient monitoring network for Particulate Matter
(PM), Particulate Matter less than 10 microns (PM1o), Particulate Matter less than 2.5
microns (PM25), and meteorological parameters including wind speed, wind direction,
temperature. stability, and rainfall. The network shall consist of four (4) sites. The
monitoring plan shall conform to FDEP/EPA siting guidelines and shall be submitted for
the County's review four (4) months prior to implementation. The monitoring_network
shall operate for three years with quarterly data reports submitted to the ERO within
forty-five (45) days of the end of each calendar quarter. In the event the monitoring data
shows concentrations that are 75% or more of the applicable EPA or FOEP Ambient
Standards, the monitoring program shall continue until 3 consecutive years of data show
levels below 75% of the Standard. If FPL can provide a demonstration that their
operations do not contribute a significant amount to the monitored levels as defined by
EPA Significant Impact Levels. the monitoring program can be discontinued after the
initial 3 year period.
16. The Project shall be limited to two (2) - approximately 850 MW (net) electric generating
units, accessory uses, and associated facilities and a single primary exhaust stack with a
maximum height of Five Hundred (500) feet measured from finished grade level.
17. After issuance of the Final Order, FPL shall design a paved rural road section to be
located within the existing Bluefield Road right-of-way from the intersection of S.R. 70
(Okeechobee Road) to the entrance of the Project. FPL shall complete construction of
the road improvements prior to completion of initial site development and
commencement of vertical construction of the Project, and all such improvements shall
be completed in a timeframe that would limit construction traffic impacts. For that
section of Bluefield Road adjacent to property under contract to FPL ("FPL Property"),
FPL shall transfer property to the County sufficient to expand the right-of-way so that a
typical 60-foot wide rural road section can be constructed. For that stretch of Bluefield
Road between S.R. 70 and the northwest corner of the FPL property. the County shall
allow FPL to construct the road within the existing right-of-way which is approximately 50
foot wide or the County may contribute additional right-of-way (from the adjacent public
canal right-of-way) so that a typical 60-foot section may be constructed.
'w'
'wi
November 2, 2005
Page 14
Subject: Florida Power & Light
Major Site Plan and Conditional Use
Within ten (10) working days of receipt of the road design, the County Engineer shall
determine that the County has sufficient information to evaluate the designor request
FPL to provide more information. Once the road design is deemed complete for review,
the design shall be reviewed for compliance with the LDC and the conditions set forth
herein and the County Engineer shall, within ninety (90) calendar days, approve the
design, approve the design with conditions, or deny the design with citation to the
provision that the design failed to satisfy.
18. After issuance of the Final Order. FPL shall design and construct roadway improvements
at the intersection of S.R. 70 and Bluefield Road as warranted by the construction and in
accordance with Florida Department of Transportation (FOOT) standards. FPL shall
begin construction of the road improvements prior to commencement of construction of
the Project, and all such improvements shall be completed in a timeframe that would
limit construction traffic impacts. These will include temporary improvements
necessitated by the construction and approved by FDOT which may be removed once
construction is completed. The County, in conjunction with FOOT, will determine the
timing of the activation of any temporary traffic signals constructed at the intersection.
Within ten (10) working days of receipt of the road design, the County Engineer shall
determine that the County has sufficient information to evaluate the plan or request FPL
to provide more information. Once the road design is deemed complete for review, the
design shall be reviewed for compliance with the LDC and the conditions set forth herein
and the County Engineer shall, within ninety (90) calendar days, approve the design,
approve the design with conditions, or deny the design with citation to the provision that
the design failed to satisfy.
19. After issuance of the Final Order, FPL shall design and construct temporary roadway
improvements at the intersection of S.R. 70 and Midway Road as warranted by the
construction and in accordance with FDOT standards. FPL shall begin construction of
the road improvements prior to commencement of construction of the Project, and all
such improvements shall be completed in a timeframe that would limit construction traffic
impacts. These will include temporary improvements necessitated by the construction
and approved by FDOT which may be removed once construction is completed. The
County. in conjunction with FDOT, will determine the timing of the activation of any
temporary traffic signals constructed at the intersection. It is noted that FDOT has
indicated that they have plans to improve the S.R. 70 - Midway Road intersection prior
to 2008, which is the projected construction commencement date for the Project, and
those FDOT improvements may negate FPL's condition to construct the above
referenced road improvements.
Within ten (10) working days of receipt of the road design, the County Engineer shall
determine that the County has sufficient information to evaluate the plan or request FPL
to provide more information. Once the road design is deemed complete for review, the
design shall be reviewed for compliance with the LDC and the conditions set forth herein
and the County Engineer shall, within ninety (90) calendar days, approve the design,
approve the design with conditions, or deny the design with citation to the provision that
the design failed to satisfy.
v
""'"
November 2, 2005
Page 15
Subject: Florida Power & Light
Major Site Plan and Conditional Use
20. After issuance of the Final Order, FPL shall construct a driveway from Bluefield Road
into the Project that complies with the standards set forth in the LDC. FPL shall begin
construction of the driveway improvements prior to commencement of construction of
the Project, and all such improvements shall be completed in a timeframe that would
limit construction traffic impacts.
Within ten (10) working days of receipt of the driveway design, the County Engineer shall
determine that the County has sufficient information to evaluate the design or request
FPL to provide more information. Once the driveway design is deemed complete for
review, the design shall be reviewed for compliance with the LDC and the conditions set
forth herein and the County Engineer shall, within ninety (90) calendar days, approve the
design, approve the design with conditions, or deny the design with citation to the
provision that the design failed to satisfy.
21. After issuance of the Final Order and prior to the initiation of train deliveries once the
Project is operational, FPL shall design and construct the turn lane improvements
recommended in the Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.'s SW St. Lucie Power Project
Transportation Study Railroad Analysis, dated September 6, 2005, subject to the County
Engineer's approval, where the Florida East Coast railroad tracks cross Commerce
Center Parkway, Reserve Boulevard and Rangeline Road.
22. FPL shall pay for the cost of temporary fire-rescue services provided by the St. Lucie
County Fire District ("Fire District") at the Project during construction. The "construction
period" shall be defined as the time period from when significant construction begins
until the Project's first electrical generating unit reaches substantial completion at which
time the temporary fire-rescue services shall be discontinued. During the construction
period FPL shall provide the Fire District with the following: a facility sufficient to house
equipment and staff; equipment (which shall consist of a standard 1,250 gpm pumper
truck, an ambulance. and depending upon the stage of construction, a brush truck); and
staffing sufficient to provide a minimum of four person shifts, 24 hours per day, seven
days per week. FPL and the Fire District agree that 16 full time equivalent positions will
be sufficient to provide the staffing levels required. FPL and the Fire District shall enter
into an agreement that sets forth the terms, conditions and payment of costs of the
services to be provided.
23. FPL shall develop an emergency response plan for when the Project is operational and
such plan shall be completed prior to the start of operations and a copy provided to the
Fire District.
24. FPL shall use good faith efforts to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding with the
South Florida Water Management District ("District") for the transfer of approximately
3,000 acres of property, as shown on the map attached as Exhibit "A" to this Resolution,
for use by the District as a reservoir which will be an integral part of the Comprehensive
Everglades Restoration Plan ("CERP"). The transfer is expressly conditioned on the prior
issuance of the Final Order and the commencement of Project construction. In the event
the property is not transferred to the District, it shall only be used by FPL or its
successors in interest for agricultural use (its existing use or other permitted agricultural
uses) or for conservation purposes, and it shall not be used for residential, commercial,
or industrial use without the express consent and approval of the County. Nothing
~'
..."
November 2. 2005
Page 16
Subject: Florida Power & Light
Major Site Plan and Conditional Use
herein shall preclude FPL and the County from transferring development rights from the
property.
25. FPL shall cooperate with the County if the County establishes a transfer of development
rights ("TDR") program for the property to be transferred to the SFWMD and to the
County ("4400 acres") and for any other property identified by the County. All net
proceeds generated by a TDR program for the 4400 acres shall be paid to the County
for use by the County for any lawful purpose. For the development rights associated
with the 4400 acres, Evans Properties, Inc. ("Evans"), the current owner of the 4400
acres, shall retain the right of first refusal to acquire all or a part of the development
rights generated by such property at the market rate established by the TDR program.
The specific terms and conditions of the TDR program and relationship of the parties
shall be set forth in an agreement between the County, FPL and Evans.
26. FPL shall cooperate with the County, subject to the conditions listed below, if the County
develops innovative property tax initiatives in order to leverage the value of the property
taxes generated by the Project. FPL agrees to participate in such innovative property
tax initiatives so long as the program does not cost FPL more than what FPL would have
paid in property taxes if the program had not been implemented by the County and
FPL's participation must not violate federal or state law and must be acceptable to the
Florida Public Service Commission.
27. In its application for site certification under the Act. FPL shall request the FDEP Siting
Board to include all of the Conditions set forth herein (Conditions No. 1 through No. 27)
in the conditions of certification that are established for the Project under the Act.
Staff recommends approval of Draft Resolution 05-385.
Please contact this office if you have any questions on this matter.
SUBMITTED:
-
-- - '\
--... .
r' .
(~--
Faye Outlaw
Assistant County Administrator
"'.
.J
November 2, 2005
Page 17
Subject: Florida Power & Light
Major Site Plan and Conditional Use
dpk
cc: Assistant County Administrator
Johnathan Ferguson
File
'-'"
....."
RESOLUTION 05 - 3 85
FILE NO.: CD-OS-008
A RESOLUTION GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT AND A MAJOR SITE PLAN APPROV AL
FOR A 1,700 MEGAWATT (MW) ELECTRIC
GENERATION PLANT TO BE KNOWN AS SW ST.
LUCIE POWER PROJECT IN THE U (UTILITIES)
ZONING DISTRICT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED IN
ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA.
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of St. Lucie County, Florida, based on
an of the testimony and evidence presented at a public hearing, including but not limited to, the
staff report and other reports, all written materials that were part of the record at the public
hearing, and all other referenced materials, has made the following detenninations:
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DETERMINA nONS
1. Florida Power & Light Company ("FPL") presented a petition ("Petition") for a
Conditional Use Pennit to construct an approximately 1,700 MW net electric generation
plant in the U (Utilities) Zoning District for the property described in Part B ("Property").
For purposes of this Resolution the electric generation plant will be known as the SW St.
Lucie Power Project ("Project").
2. On September 29, 2005 the St. Lucie County Planning & Zoning Commission ("P&Z
Commission") held a public hearing on the Petition. Legally sufficient notice was
provided by posting a sign near the Property that listed the dates of the public hearings;
publishing notice at least ten (10) days prior to the public hearing; and notifying by mail
an property owners within one mile of the Property. At the public hearing, after
considering the testimony and evidence submitted, the P&Z Commission voted to
recommend that the St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners ("County
Commissioners") approve the Petition to grant a Conditional Use Pennit for the operation
of an electric generation plant.
3. On November 7, 2005 the County Commission held a public hearing on the Petition.
Legally sufficient notice was provided by posting a sign near the Property that listed the
dates of the public hearings; publishing notice at least ten (10) days prior to the public
hearing; and notifying by mail an property owners within one mile ofthe Property.
4. Ifthe Project is built and operated in compliance with the conditions contained in Part C
of this Resolution, the proposed conditional use will be consistent with the goals,
objectives, and policies of the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Growth Management
Plan ("Comprehensive Plan"), and will be in compliance with the St. Lucie County Land
Development Code ("LDC"), including but not limited to, the standards set forth in
Page 1 of 14
'-'
....,
Section 11.07.03, LDC. Specifically, the Project as governed by the proposed
Conditional Use Permit:
a) will not have an undue adverse effect upon nearby property; and
b) through buffering, design elements, and the conditions set forth in this Resolution,
is compatible with the existing or planned character of the neighborhood in which
it is located; and
c) will ensure that all reasonable steps have been taken to minimize any adverse
effect on the immediate vicinity; and
d) will be constructed, arranged, and operated so as not to interfere with the
development and use of neighboring property, in accordance with applicable
regulations; and
e) will ensure that the Project will be served by adequate public facilities and
services, including roads, police protection, fire protection, solid waste disposal,
water, sewer, and drainage structures; and
f) confirms that the Project demonstrates that water supply, evacuation facilities, and
emergency access are satisfactory to provide adequate fire protection.
5. A Certificate of Capacity, a copy of which is attached to this Resolution, was granted by
the Community Development Director on
6. Section 1l.07.05(B), LDC, requires that the Conditional Use Permit application be
accompanied by an application for site plan as required by Section 11.02.02, LDC.
MAJOR SITE PLAN DETERMINA nONS
7. FPL presented an application for a Major Site Plan ("Plan") to construct a 1,700 MW
electric generation plant in the U (Utilities) Zoning District for the property described in
Part B. For purposes of this Resolution the electric generation plant will be known as the
SW St. Lucie Power Project.
8. The St. Lucie County Development Review Committee ("DRC") has reviewed the Plan
and found it to be consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the
Comprehensive Plan, to meet an requirements of the LDC, and to be consistent with the
Future Land Use Map and Zoning Map, subject to the conditions set forth in Part C of
this Resolution.
9. If this Project is built and operated in compliance with the conditions contained in Part C
of this Resolution, the proposed Plan will be consistent with the goals, objectives, and
policies of the Comprehensive Plan, in compliance with an requirements of the LDC, and
in compliance with an applicable provisions of the St. Lucie County Code of Ordinances.
Page 2 of 14
'-"
>.,J
10. If the Project is built and operated in compliance with the conditions contained in Part C
of this Resolution:
a. The proposed Plan will not have an undue adverse effect on adjacent property,
traffic conditions, drainage, public facilities or other matters affecting the public health,
safety and general welfare.
b. All reasonable steps have been taken to minimize any adverse effects of the
proposed Plan on the immediate vicinity, the natural environment, and on the property
values in the area.
c. The proposed Plan will be constructed, arranged and operated so as not to
interfere with the orderly and logical development and use of neighboring property, in
accordance with applicable zoning district regulations.
d. The proposed Plan will utilize onsite water and sewer service.
e. The proposed Plan has demonstrated that water supply, evacuation facilities, and
emergency access are satisfactory to provide adequate fire protection.
f. The proposed Plan is not in conflict with the public interest and is in hannony
with the purpose and intent ofthe LDC.
11. A Certificate of Capacity, a copy of which is attached to this Resolution, was granted by
the Community Development Director on
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of S1.
Lucie County, Florida:
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND MAJOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL
PART A:
Pursuant to Sections 11.02.08 and 11.07.03, LDC, a Major Site Plan approval and a Conditional
Use Pennit for Florida Power & Light Company, to allow the construction and operation of an
electric generation plant in the U (Utilities) Zoning District, is hereby granted for the Property,
subject to the conditions set forth in Part C.
PART B:
The property on which this Major Site Plan and Conditional Use Pennit approval is being
granted is described as follows:
Propertv Legal Description:
Page 3 of 14
'-"
....,
A parcel of land lying in portions of Sections 13, 14, 15,23,24,25, 26, and 36 in Township 37
South, Range 37 East, all lying and being in St. Lucie County, Florida. Being more particularly
described as follows:
Commencing at the Southeast comer of said Section 36 also being the Southeast Comer of
Township 37 South, Range 37 East, proceed South 89° 54'03" West along the South Line of said
Section 36 a distance of 140.00 feet to a point on the projected West right-of-way of the C-23
Canal; thence North 00° 05' 57" West a distance of 125.11 feet to a 1" Iron Pipe at the
intersection of the West right-of-way of the C-23 Canal and the Northwesterly right-of-way line
of the FEC railroad; thence continue North 00° 05' 57" West along the said West right-of-way of
the C-23 Canal a distance of 207.65 feet to the Point of Beginning of said parcel ofland; thence
departing said West right-of-way of the C-23 Canal South 89° 54' 18" West a distance of 90.00
feet; thence North 30° 44' 35" West a distance of24,204.73 feet; thence North 90° 00' 00" East a
distance of 12,487.90 feet to a point on the said West right-of-way of the C-23 Canal; thence
South 00° 01' 12" West along the West right-of-way of the C-23 Canal a distance of 15,855.41
feet to a point of intersection with the North line of said Section 36 and the West right-of-way of
the C-23 Canal; thence South 00° 05' 57" East a distance of 4,947.67 feet to the point of
beginning of this description; said parcel containing 3,000.00 acres more or less.
PART C:
CONDITIONS
I, FPL shall construct the Project in accordance with the LDC and the conditions contained
herein, in addition to the conditions set forth in the Site Certification Final Order ("Final
Order") issued by the Governor and Cabinet under the Florida Electrical Power Plant
Siting Act ("Act"). For purposes of this Resolution the term "Final Order" shall mean the
vested, non-appealable Site Certification Final Order issued by the Governor and Cabinet
under the Act. Any final site plan, subject to the specific conditions contained within this
Resolution, set forth in or otherwise approved by the Final Order shall constitute the final
site plan for the Project in compliance with the LDC.
2. The Conditional Use Permit and Major Site Plan approval granted under this Resolution
is specifically conditioned on the requirement that FPL, or its successors in interest, shall
obtain the Final Order and all necessary permits and authorizations from the appropriate
federal and state regulatory agencies, including but not limited to, the United States Army
Corps of Engineers, the Siting Board, and the Florida Department of Environmental
Protection, prior to the commencement of development activity on the Property.
3. The approvals and authorizations granted by this Resolution are for the purpose of
developing, constructing and operating an electric generation plant on the Property with
the understanding that the development, construction, and operation of the Project is also
subject to the Final Order. Furthermore, it is understood and acknowledged that the LDC
provision that governs the expiration of conditional use permits does not address the
permitting of projects under the Act and, therefore, is not applicable to this Project.
Page 4 of 14
~
...,;
Therefore, to be consistent with the Act, this Resolution shall expire if the Project has not
started site development within fifteen (15) years of the issuance of the Final Order or
unless FPL has been granted an extension pursuant to Section 11.07 .05(F), LDC.
4. The Certificate of Capacity, a copy of which is attached to this Resolution, shall remain
valid for the period of Conditional Use/Site Plan approval. Should the Conditional
Use/Site Plan approval granted by this Resolution expire or an extension be sought
pursuant to Section 11.07 .05(F), LDC, a new certificate of capacity shall be required.
5. A copy of this Resolution and, at the appropriate time, a copy of the Final Order, shall be
placed on file with the St. Lucie County Growth Management Director. Furthermore, the
Growth Management Director is hereby authorized and directed to cause the notation of
this Resolution to be made on the Official Zoning Map of St. Lucie County, Florida, and
to include a reference to the date of adoption of this Resolution.
6. FPL shall submit to the St. Lucie County Environmental Resources Department ("ERD")
a detailed lighting plan for the Project within twelve (12) months of the date this
Resolution is recorded in the public records of St. Lucie County. The detailed lighting
plan shall comply with federal and state requirements, such as those imposed by OSHA
and the FAA, and with the principles and guidelines referred to herein to the extent that
such principles and guidelines are not in conflict with federal and state requirements.
The detailed lighting plan is subject to review by County staff or their designee and
approval by the ERD Director. FPL shall use its best efforts to design a lighting plan that
minimizes to the greatest extent reasonably possible the light pollution and light trespass
emanating from the Project. FPL shall incorporate guidelines ftom the Illuminating
Engineering Society of North America in the design of the outdoor lighting systems.
FPL's conceptual and detailed lighting plans shall incorporate the following design
principles:
a. Minimize upward light from luminaries; and
b. Minimize upward light in general so that light reaches its intended target; and
c. Turn offlighting not needed for safety and security; and
d. Contain light within its intended target area by suitable choice of luminaries for
light distribution; and
e. Selection of appropriate mounting height and physical location; and
f. Minimize glare in the horizontal and vertical directions.
Within ten (10) working days of receipt of the detailed lighting plan, the ERD Director
shall determine that the ERD has sufficient information to evaluate the plan or request
FPL to provide more information. Once the detailed lighting plan is deemed complete
for review, the plan shall be reviewed for compliance with the conditions set forth herein
and the ERD Director shall, within ninety (90) calendar days, approve the plan, approve
the plan with conditions, or deny the plan with citation to the provision that the plan fails
to satisfy.
Page 5 of 14
'-"
....""
7. FPL shall submit to the ERD a detailed landscape plan for the Project within six (6)
months of the date this Resolution is recorded in the public records of St. Lucie County.
The detailed landscape plan shall comply with the standards set forth in the Land
Development Code ("LDC") or a program agreed to by FPL and the County. The
detailed landscape plan is subject to review by County staff or their designee and
approval by the ERD Director.
The detailed landscape plans shall incorporate the following design principles:
· If landscaping is proposed on-site, then the plans shall comply with the
requirements of the County's Land Development Code (LDC);
· If landscaping is proposed off-site, then the plans shall comply with the
requirements of the LDC, unless FLP demonstrates and the County agrees that the
landscape program that is proposed does not require a formal landscape plan;
· The minimum number of canopy trees, with the type and size required pursuant to
the LDC, shall be 1,874 (this number shall be multiplied by 1.5 for every tree
proposed off-site);
· The minimum number of shrubs, if required, with the type and size required
pursuant to the LDC, shall be 9,767 (this number shall be multiplied by 1.5 for
every shrub proposed off-site);
· FPL may propose an alternative landscape program, but the alternative must
provide benefits that are equivalent to or greater than planting the number of trees
and shrubs noted above.
· FPL shall work with ERD staff prior to submitting the landscape plans in order to
identify the most advantageous use of the trees and shrubs.
Within ten (10) working days of receipt of the landscape plan, the ERD Director shall
determine that the ERD has sufficient information to evaluate the plan or request FPL to
provide more information. Once the landscape plan is deemed complete for review, the
plan shall be reviewed for compliance with the LDC and the conditions set forth herein
and the ERD Director shall, within ninety (90) calendar days, approve the plan, approve
the plan with conditions, or deny the plan with citation to the provision that the plan fails
to satisfy.
8. FPL shall submit to the Growth Management Department a detailed design plan for that
portion of the rail spur to be located on the County's Bluefield Ranch Preserve property
within six (6) months of the date this resolution is recorded in the public records of S1.
Lucie County. The detailed designs for the rail spur shall comply with good engineering
practices and the standards set forth in the LDC. The detailed design plan is subject to
review by County staff or their designee and approval by the Growth Management
Director.
The detailed design plans shall identify the exact locations of Bluefield Ranch Property to
be developed. The detailed design plans shall include an Environmental Impact Report,
prepared in accordance with the LDC, for the area that will be impacted by the rail spur.
When developing the detailed design plans for the rail spur, FPL shall work with County
Page 6 of 14
'-"
'WI
staff to identify and use the rail spur location at the southern end of Bluefield Ranch
Preserve Property that will result in the least amount of environmental impact. In
designing the rail spur, FPL shall comply with applicable federal, state, and local
regulations governing the protection of legally protected species. If listed plant or animal
species are found to be utilizing the area proposed for impact, FPL shall be required to
explore alternative designs to avoid or minimize the impacts to the listed species.
Within ten (10) working days of receipt of the rail spur plan, the Growth Management
Director shall determine that the Growth Management Department has sufficient
information to evaluate the plan or request FPL to provide more information. Once the
rail spur plan is deemed complete for review, the plan shall be reviewed for compliance
with the LDC and the conditions set forth herein and the Growth Management Director
shall, within ninety (90) calendar days, approve the plan, approve the plan with
conditions, or deny the plan with citation to the provision that the plan failed to satisfy.
FPL shall not commence construction on any portion of the County's Bluefield Ranch
Preserve until FPL has demonstrated compliance with the County's requirements and
received the Growth Management Director's prior written approval.
9. FPL shall transfer to the County, at no cost to the County, approximately 1,400 acres of
property, as shown on the map attached as Exhibit "A" to this resolution, for public
conservation and recreation use. The transfer is expressly conditioned on the prior
issuance of the Final Order and the commencement of Project construction. FPL and the
County shall enter into a Memorandum of Understanding that sets forth the terms and
conditions of the transfer. The County agrees that it shall only use the property for
agricultural uses, recreational uses, or conservation uses and shall not use the property for
residential, commercial or industrial use. Nothing herein shall preclude FPL and the
County from transferring development rights from the property.
FPL shall provide the County an environmental assessment on the approximately 1,400
acres of property that FPL is proposing to transfer to the County to be used for parks and
preservation purposes prior to the transfer of the property. At a minimum, the
environmental assessment shall identify the sizes (acreages), types, and locations of the
various vegetative habitats present in the 1,400-acre parcel. The environmental
assessment also shall identify the sizes, types, and locations of any habitat used or
occupied by any listed animal and plant species.
FPL shall establish at least two (2) monitoring sites within the wetland system being
transferred to the County as part of the 1,400 acres. The location of the monitoring sites
shall be mutually agreed to by the ERD and FPL. FPL shall prepare annual monitoring
reports that, at a minimum, include information regarding water levels (pizeometer
readings), data identifying exotic vegetation, data identifying listed species, and data
regarding water quality within the wetland system. Monitoring shall begin within twelve
(12) months of the date this Resolution is recorded in the public records of St. Lucie
County and shall continue for five (5) years after the first electric generating unit
becomes operational. The monitoring reports required herein shall be submitted to the
ERD within thirty (30) days after each twelve month monitoring period.
Page 7 of 14
'-'
..J
FPL shall provide the County with a Phase I Environmental Assessment ("Phase I") for
potential contamination and a Phase II Environmental Assessment ("Phase II") if
recommended by the firm conducting the Phase 1. The Phase I and Phase II must comply
with the EP A guidelines for "all appropriate inquiry", currently in draft form at
69FR52541 and the ASTM standard, currently in draft from as ASTM 1527-05, and due
diligence site investigation. The Phase I and Phase II shall be prepared by an
independent third party firm that is qualified to perform such evaluations and is agreed
upon by the County and FPL. FPL shall agree to hold the County harmless for any pre-
existing contamination on the site, whenever discovered.
FPL shall provide the County annual compensation, for a period of approximately twenty
(20) years, in the amount of One Hundred Thousand and no/1 00 dollars ($100,000.00) to
restore and maintain the approximately 1,400 acre site or to be used for purchase and/or
restoration of environmentally sensitive lands within the County. The first payment shall
be due at the time of transfer and thereafter shall be due on or before October 15th of
each year, for a total of twenty payments. The acceptance of the property shall be subject
to Board of County Commissioners' approval.
10. FPL shall submit to the ERD a detailed design plan for the berm that borders the western
boundary of the Project within six (6) months of the date this Resolution is recorded in
the public records of St. Lucie County. Within ten (10) working days of receipt of the
berm plan, the ERD Director shall determine that the ERD has sufficient information to
evaluate the plan or request FPL to provide more information. Once the berm plan is
deemed complete for review, the plan shall be reviewed for compliance with the LDC
and the conditions set forth herein and the ERD Director shall, within ninety (90)
calendar days, approve the plan, approve the plan with conditions, or deny the plan with
citation to the provision that the plan failed to satisfy.
11. Whenever FPL submits or receives a document, as defined below, from an environmental
agency, FPL shall provide the County with a copy within the time frame set out below.
For purposes of this Condition the term "document" shall mean: FPL monitoring reports,
test results, notices of a malfunction or non-compliance, or an application for a permit,
amendment, modification, variance, waiver, or other relief; environmental agency
inspection reports, warning letter, notice of violation, consent order, or grant or denial of
any pennit, amendment, modification or request for relief, or any other proposed agency
action or final determination concerning the Project. For purposes of this Condition, an
environmental agency shall mean each local, state, regional, and federal agency that has
jurisdiction over the Project's environmental impacts, such as the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), the FDEP, and the South Florida Water Management District.
All documents covered by this Condition shan be submitted to the County within a
reasonable time after they are submitted by FPL or received from an agency but in no
event more than seven (7) days after such submission or receipt.
12. To determine whether an Activated Carbon Injection (ACI) system will reduce the
mercury emissions from the Project, FPL shall either (a) develop, if available from
Page 8 of14
'-"
....,;
sufficient industry data, an evaluation to determine the projected mercury removal as the
result of installing an ACI system, or (b) conduct slipstream tests with an ACI system
within 36 months after the first electrical generating unit commences operation. At least
90 days before conducting the slipstream tests, FPL shall submit a proposed testing
protocol to the ERD for approval by the ERD Director. Copies of the testing protocol
also shall be submitted to the EP A and FDEP at least ninety (90) days before conducting
the tests. The test results shall be submitted to the ERD within forty-five (45) days after
the completion of testing.
An independent, third party consulting finn shall prepare the written evaluation of the
ACI systems and the report required by this condition. The consulting firm shall be
experienced and knowledgeable with regard to air pollution control issues. The
consulting firm selected to prepare the report shall be mutually acceptable to FPL and the
County. FPL shall recommend one or more consulting firms that are acceptable to FPL
and, within thirty (30) days thereafter, the County Administrator shall accept or reject
FPL's recommendation(s).
If the results from either (a) or (b) demonstrate that an ACI system can reduce the
Project's annual mercury emissions by five percent (5%) or more, FPL shall prepare a
report evaluating the costs and benefits of using an ACI system at the Project on a full-
time basis. The report shall be submitted to the County within one hundred thirty five
(135) days after the completion of the slipstream testing, if any, or within thirty-six (36)
months after the first electrical generating unit commences operation. At a minimum, the
report shall evaluate the following issues: (a) whether the ACI system is commercially
available; (b) whether an ACI vendor will guarantee that the ACI system will reduce the
Project's mercury emissions by 5% or more; (c) whether the ACI system can be used
without significantly affecting the commercial production of combustion by-products at
the Project; (d) whether the EP A and FDEP will authorize the use of the ACI system at
the Project; (e) if the data demonstrates that an ACI system would increase the mercury
removal by 20 or more pounds on an annual basis over the current measured
performance; and (f) whether the Florida Public Service Commission allows FPL cost
reimbursement for the installation.
If the Board of County Commissioners reasonably concludes that the issues set forth in
conditions (a) through (f), listed above, can be answered in the affirmative, FPL shall
install an ACI system at the Project. The County shall give FPL a reasonable period of
time, not to exceed to exceed three (3) years, to install the ACI system.
13. FPL shall install, maintain, and use a Continuous Emission Monitor (CEM) to measure
the mercury emissions from each combustion unit at the Project. These monitors will not
be used by the County to determine compliance with the mercury emission limits
established by the EP A and FDEP, unless the EP A or FDEP confirm that the CEMs data
are valid for such purposes. The data from the mercury CEMs shall be submitted by FPL
to the ERD on a quarterly basis, within 30 days after the end of each calendar quarter.
FPL also shall submit an annual report and analysis of the CEMs data, which shall
identify any trends or anomalies in the Project's mercury emissions. The annual reports
Page 9 of 14
'-"
""
shall compare the Project's mercury emissions, as measured with the CEMs, to the
mercury emissions measured during the Project's stack tests.
14. Pursuant to this Resolution the County has approved a conceptual site plan for the
Project. IfFPL proposes a change that substantially increases the intensity and density of
the conceptual site plan, then such proposed change shall be subject to review pursuant to
the LDC provisions governing major amendments to conditional use pennits. FPL shall
not commence construction on any such change until FPL receives prior Board of County
Commissioners approval.
15. No later than six (6) months after the second electric generating unit becomes
operational, FPL shall implement an ambient monitoring network for Particulate Matter
(PM), particulate Matter less than 10 microns (PMIO), Particulate Matter less than 2.5
microns (PMzs), and meteorological parameters including wind speed, wind direction,
temperature, stability, and rainfall. The network shall consist of four (4) sites. The
monitoring plan shall confonn to FDEP/EP A siting guidelines and shall be submitted for
the County's review four (4) months prior to implementation. The monitoringßetwork
shall operate for three years with quarterly data reports submitted to the ERD within
forty-five (45) days of the end of each calendar quarter. In the event the monitoring data
shows concentrations that are 75% or more of the applicable EP A or FDEP Ambient
Standards, the monitoring program shall continue until 3 consecutive years of data show
levels below 75% of the Standard. If FPL can provide a demonstration that their
operations do not contribute a significant amount to the monitored levels as defined by
EPA Significant Impact Levels, the monitoring program can be discontinued after the
initial 3 year period.
16. The Project shall be limited to two (2) - approximately 850 MW (net) electric generating
units, accessory uses, and associated facilities and a single primary exhaust stack with a
maximum height of Five Hundred (500) feet measured from finished grade level.
17. After issuance of the Final Order, FPL shall design a paved rural road section to be
located within the existing Bluefield Road right-of-way from the intersection of S.R. 70
(Okeechobee Road) to the entrance of the Project. FPL shall complete construction of
the road improvements prior to completion of initial site development and
commencement of vertical construction of the Project, and all such improvements shall
be completed in a timeframe that would limit construction traffic impacts. For that
section of Bluefield Road adjacent to property under contract to FPL ("FPL Property"),
FPL shall transfer property to the County sufficient to expand the right-of-way so that a
typical 60-foot wide rural road section can be constructed. For that stretch of Bluefield
Road between S.R. 70 and the northwest corner of the FPL property, the County shall
allow FPL to construct the road within the existing right-of-way which is approximately
50 foot wide or the County may contribute additional right-of-way (from the adjacent
public canal right-of-way) so that a typica160-foot section may be constructed.
Within ten (10) working days of receipt of the road design, the County Engineer shall
detennine that the County has sufficient infonnation to evaluate the designor request FPL
Page 10 ofl4
'-'
'WI
to provide more information. Once the road design is deemed complete for review, the
design shall be reviewed for compliance with the LDC and the conditions set forth herein
and the County Engineer shall, within ninety (90) calendar days, approve the design,
approve the design with conditions, or deny the design with citation to the provision that
the design failed to satisfy.
18. After issuance of the Final Order~ FPL shall design and construct roadway improvements
at the intersection of S.R. 70 and Bluefield Road as warranted by the construction and in
accordance with Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) standards. FPL shall
begin construction of the road improvements prior to commencement of construction of
the Project, and all such improvements shall be completed in a time frame that would
limit construction traffic impacts. These will include temporary improvements
necessitated by the construction and approved by FDOT which may be removed once
construction is completed. The County, in conjunction with FDOT, will determine the
timing of the activation of any temporary traffic signals constructed at the intersection.
Within ten (10) working days of receipt of the road design, the County Engineer shall
determine that the County has sufficient information to evaluate the plan or request FPL
to provide more information. Once the road design is deemed complete for review, the
design shall be reviewed for compliance with the LDC and the conditions set forth herein
and the County Engineer shall, within ninety (90) calendar days, approve the design,
approve the design with conditions, or deny the design with citation to the provision that
the design failed to satisfy.
19. After issuance of the Final Order, FPL shall design and construct temporary roadway
improvements at the intersection of S.R. 70 and Midway Road as warranted by the
construction and in accordance with FDOT standards. FPL shall begin construction of
the road improvements prior to commencement of construction of the Project, and all
such improvements shall be completed in a time frame that would limit construction
traffic impacts. These will include temporary improvements necessitated by the
construction and approved by FDOT which may be removed once construction is
completed. The County, in conjunction with FDOT, will determine the timing of the
activation of any temporary traffic signals constructed at the intersection. It is noted that
FDOT has indicated that they have plans to improve the S.R. 70 - Midway Road
intersection prior to 2008, which is the projected construction commencement date for
the Project, and those FDOT improvements may negate FPL's condition to construct the
above referenced road improvements.
Within ten (10) working days of receipt of the road design, the County Engineer shall
determine that the County has sufficient information to evaluate the plan or request FPL
to provide more information. Once the road design is deemed complete for review, the
design shall be reviewed for compliance with the LDC and the conditions set forth herein
and the County Engineer shall, within ninety (90) calendar days, approve the design,
approve the design with conditions, or deny the design with citation to the provision that
the design failed to satisfy.
Page 11 of14
'-"
""""
20. After issuance of the Final Order, FPL shall construct a driveway from Bluefield Road
into the Project that complies with the standards set forth in the LDC. FPL shall begin
construction of the driveway improvements prior to commencement of construction of
the Project, and all such improvements shall be completed in a timerrame that would
limit construction traffic impacts.
Within ten (10) working days of receipt of the driveway design, the County Engineer
shall determine that the County has sufficient information to evaluate the design or
request FPL to provide more information. Once the driveway design is deemed complete
for review, the design shall be reviewed for compliance with the LDC and the conditions
set forth herein and the County Engineer shall, within ninety (90) calendar days, approve
the design, approve the design with conditions, or deny the design with citation to the
provision that the design failed to satisfy.
21. After issuance of the Final Order and prior to the initiation of train deliveries once the
Project is operational, FPL shall design and construct the turn lane improvements
recommended in the Kimley-Hom and Associates, Inc.'s SW St. Lucie Power Project
Transportation Study Railroad Analysis, dated September 6, 2005, subject to the County
Engineer's approval, where the Florida East Coast railroad tracks cross Commerce Center
Parkway, Reserve Boulevard and Rangeline Road.
22. FPL shall pay for the cost of temporary fire-rescue services provided by the St. Lucie
County Fire District ("Fire District") at the Project during construction. The
"construction period" shall be defined as the time period rrom when significant
construction begins until the Project'S first electrical generating unit reaches substantial
completion at which time the temporary fire-rescue services shall be discontinued.
During the construction period FPL shall provide the Fire District with the following: a
facility sufficient to house equipment and staff; equipment (which shall consist of a
standard 1,250 gpm pumper truck, an ambulance, and depending upon the stage of
construction, a brush truck); and staffing sufficient to provide a minimum of four person
shifts, 24 hours per day, seven days per week. FPL and the Fire District agree that 16 full
time equivalent positions will be sufficient to provide the staffing levels required. FPL
and the Fire District shall enter into an agreement that sets forth the terms, conditions and
payment of costs of the services to be provided.
23. FPL shall develop an emergency response plan for when the Project is operational and
such plan shall be completed prior to the start of operations and a copy provided to the
Fire District.
24. FPL shall use good faith efforts to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding with the
South Florida Water Management District ("District") for the transfer of approximately
3,000 acres of property, as shown on the map attached as Exhibit "A" to this Resolution,
for use by the District as a reservoir which will be an integral part of the Comprehensive
Everglades Restoration Plan ("CERP"). The transfer is expressly conditioned on the prior
issuance of the Final Order and the commencement of Project construction. In the event
the property is not transferred to the District, it shall only be used by FPL or its
Page 12 of 14
y
.J
successors in interest for agricultural use (its existing use or other permitted agricultural
uses) or for conservation purposes, and it shall not be used for residential, commercial, or
industrial use without the express consent and approval of the County. Nothing herein
shall preclude FPL and the County from transferring development rights from the
property.
25. FPL shall cooperate with the County if the County establishes a transfer of development
rights ("TDR") program for the property to be transferred to the SFWMD and to the
County ("4400 acres") and for any other property identified by the County. All net
proceeds generated by a TDR program for the 4400 acres shall be paid to the County for
use by the County for any lawful purpose. For the development rights associated with the
4400 acres, Evans Properties, Inc. ("Evans"), the current owner of the 4400 acres, shall
retain the right of first refusal to acquire all or a part of the development rights generated
by such property at the market rate established by the TDR program. The specific terms
and conditions of the TDR program and relationship of the parties shall be set forth in an
agreement between the County, FPL and Evans.
26. FPL shall cooperate with the County, subject to the conditions listed below, ifthe County
develops innovative property tax initiatives in order to leverage the value of the property
taxes generated by the Project. FPL agrees to participate in such innovative property tax
initiatives so long as the program does not cost FPL more than what FPL would have
paid in property taxes if the program had not been implemented by the County and FPL's
participation must not violate federal or state law and must be acceptable to the Florida
Public Service Commission.
27. In its application for site certification under the Act, FPL shall request the FDEP Siting
Board to include all of the Conditions set forth herein (Conditions No. 1 through No. 27)
in the conditions of certification that are established for the Project under the Act.
AFTER MOTION AND SECOND, THE VOTE ON THIS RESOLUTION WAS AS
FOLLOWS:
Chairman Frannie Hutchinson
xxx
Vice-Chairman Doug Coward
xxx
Commissioner Paula Lewis
xxx
Commissioner Chris Craft
xxx
Commissioner Joseph Smith
xxx
Page 13 of 14
y
J
PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED this _ day of November, 2005.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA
BY
Frannie Hutchinson, Chairman
ATTEST:
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND
CORRECTNESS:
Deputy Clerk
County Attorney
Page 14 of 14
...,
ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES
DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
TO:
David Kelly, Planning Manager
FROM:
Vanessa Bessey, Environmental Resources Director
DATE:
October 31,2005
RE:
FPL SWSLPP Project
Environmental Resources Department (ERD) staff continues to have concerns regarding FPL's
proposed Coal Burning Electrical Power Plant Project (Project). The following issues need to be
completely resolved before staff can submit a comprehensive report to the BOCC regarding the
environmental impacts to the surrounding areas, including a County owned Natural Area, and the
entire county. Based on the concerns summarized below, ERD recommends that the Board of
County Commissioners deny the applications of FPL for a change in zoning to Utilities and for a
conditional use permit to allow the operation of a coal fired power plant in St. Lucie County.
The concerns are followed by recommended conditions of approval should the Board of County
Commissioners decide to approve this project.
1) Staff continues to be concerned with respect to potential lighting and noise impacts to the
Bluefield Ranch Preserve located directly adjacent to the proposed project. ERD staff
recognizes the project will have to comply with state and federally mandated operational and
safety requirements that may apply to the project (e.g., FAA, OSHA, etc...).
2) Neither a detailed landscape plan for the site nor a written description of the proposed on site
landscaping have been submitted for review. The applicant has shown an interest in off site
landscaping, however no plans have been submitted for review. ERD staff would not be
opposed to off site plantings or restoration being a component of this project.
3) A definitive location has not been submitted identifying the portion of property within the
County's Bluefield Ranch Natural Area that will be needed to construct a west bound rail spur
into FPL's property. Without this information ERD staff is unable to fully review the impacts
this project may have on the County's Natural Area.
4) ERD staff has not received any information regarding the environmental quality of the
approximately 1,400 acres FPL is proposing to be set aside for preservation and park use in
order to fully evaluate the costs and benefits to the County. A detailed environmental
assessment needs to be submitted for review. Will the land be placed under a conservation
easement dedicated to S1. Lucie County or will ownership be transferred to the county? Will
81. Lucie County be responsible for the perpetual management of the property? Will FPL be
contributing any funding for future management?
5) ERD staff has nr' "eceived confirmation from Florida Communities Trust 'ur funding partner
for the Bluefield\..dnch Natural Area, of the allowance of the proposed VN1It bound rail spur on
the Bluefield Ranch Natural Area property.
6) The Project is proposing to emit 12,000,000 tons of Carbon Dioxide per year, 880 tons of
particulate matter per year and <200 pounds of mercury per year. These are emissions that
currently do not exist and remain a concern to ERD.
7) ERD remains concerned with the local, statewide, nationwide and global issues associated
with the emissions being proposed for the Project, specifically mercury which is a problem
throughout the world.
Should the Board of County Commissioners decide to approve this project, ERD recommends the
following conditions of approval be incorporated into the development order.
Some of these concerns may be addressed when FPL's Project is reviewed by the Florida
Department of Environmental Protection and other agencies under the Florida Electrical Power Plant
Siting Act (PPSA). Other concerns can be addressed after the PPSA review process is completed
and FPL's final site plan is established.
1) FPL shall submit to the St. Lucie County Environmental Resources Department ("ERD") a
detailed lighting plan for the Project within twelve (12) months of the date this Resolution is
recorded in the public records of St. Lucie County. The detailed lighting plan shall comply with
federal and state requirements, such as those imposed by OSHA and the FAA, and with the
principles and guidelines referred to herein to the extent that such principles and guidelines are
not in conflict with federal and state requirements. The detailed lighting plan is subject to
review by County staff or their designee and approval by the ERD Director. FPL shall use its
best efforts to design a lighting plan that minimizes to the greatest extent reasonably possible
the light pollution and light trespass emanating from the Project. FPL shall incorporate
guidelines from the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America in the design of the
outdoor lighting systems. FPL's conceptual and detailed lighting plans shall incorporate the
following design principles:
a. Minimize upward light from luminaries; and
b. Minimize upward light in general so that light reaches its intended target; and
c. Turn off lighting not needed for safety and security; and
d. Contain light within its intended target area by suitable choice of luminaries for light
distribution; and
e. Selection of appropriate mounting height and physical location; and
f. Minimize glare in the horizontal and vertical directions.
Within ten (10) working days of receipt of the detailed lighting plan, the ERD Director shall
determine that the ERD has sufficient information to evaluate the plan or request FPL to
provide more information. Once the detailed lighting plan is deemed complete for review, the
plan shall be reviewed for compliance with the conditions set forth herein and the ERD Director
shall, within ninety (90) calendar days, approve the plan, approve the plan with conditions, or
deny the plan with citation to the provision that the plan fails to satisfy.
2) FPL shall submit to the ERD a detailed landscape plan for the Project within six (6) months of
the date this Resolution is recorded in the public records of St. Lucie County. The detailed
landscape plan shall comply with the standards set forth in the Land Development Code
("LDC") or a program agreed to by FPL and the County. The detailed landscape plan is
subject to review by County staff or their designee and approval by the ERD Director.
The detailed landscape plans shall incorporate the following design principles:
· If lands¥g is proposed on-site, then the plans shall comply ~ the requirements of
the County's Land Development Code (LDC);
· If landscaping is proposed off-site, then the plans shall comply with the requirements of
the LDC, unless FLP demonstrates and the County agrees that the landscape program
that is proposed does not require a formal landscape plan;
· The minimum number of canopy trees, with the type and size required pursuant to the
LDC, shall be 1,874 (this number shall be multiplied by 1.5 for every tree proposed off-
site);
· The minimum number of shrubs, if required, with the type and size required pursuant to
the LDC, shall be 9,767 (this number shall be multiplied by 1.5 for every shrub proposed
off-site );
· FPL may propose an alternative landscape program, but the alternative must provide
benefits that are equivalent to or greater than planting the number of trees and shrubs
noted above.
· FPL shall work with ERD staff prior to submitting the landscape plans in order to identify
the most advantageous use of the trees and shrubs.
Within ten (10) working days of receipt of the landscape plan, the ERD Director shall determine
that the ERD has sufficient information to evaluate the plan or request FPL to provide more
information. Once the landscape plan is deemed complete for review, the plan shall be
reviewed for compliance with the LDC and the conditions set forth herein and the ERD Director
shall, within ninety (90) calendar days, approve the plan, approve the plan with conditions, or
deny the plan with citation to the provision that the plan fails to satisfy.
3) FPL shall submit to the Growth Management Department a detailed design plan for that portion
of the rail spur to be located on the County's Bluefield Ranch Preserve property within six (6)
months of the date this resolution is recorded in the public records of 8t. Lucie County. The
detailed designs for the rail spur shall comply with good engineering practices and the
standards set forth in the LDC. The detailed design plan is subject to review by County staff or
their designee and approval by the Growth Management Director.
The detailed design plans shall identify the exact locations of Bluefield Ranch Property to be
developed. The detailed design plans shall include an Environmental Impact Report, prepared
in accordance with the LDC, for the area that will be impacted by the rail spur. When
developing the detailed design plans for the rail spur, FPL shall work with County staff to
identify and use the rail spur location at the southern end of Bluefield Ranch Preserve Property
that will result in the least amount of environmental impact. In designing the rail spur, FPL
shall comply with applicable federal, state, and local regulations governing the protection of
legally protected species. If listed plant or animal species are found to be utilizing the area
proposed for impact, FPL shall be required to explore alternative designs to avoid or minimize
the impacts to the listed species.
Within ten (10) working days of receipt of the rail spur plan, the Growth Management Director
shall determine that the Growth Management Department has sufficient information to
evaluate the plan or request FPL to provide more information. Once the rail spur plan is
deemed complete for review, the plan shall be reviewed for compliance with the LDC and the
conditions set forth herein and the Growth Management Director shall, within ninety (90)
calendar days, approve the plan, approve the plan with conditions, or deny the plan with
citation to the provision that the plan failed to satisfy. FPL shall not commence construction on
any portion of the County's Bluefield Ranch Preserve until FPL has demonstrated compliance
with the County'- requirements and received the Growth Management '"'irector's prior written
approval. '-" .....,
4) FPL shall transfer to the County, at no cost to the County, approximately 1,400 acres of
property, as shown on the map attached as Exhibit "A" to this resolution, for public
conservation and recreation use. The transfer is expressly conditioned on the prior issuance
of the Final Order and the commencement of Project construction. FPL and the County shall
enter into a Memorandum of Understanding that sets forth the terms and conditions of the
transfer. The County agrees that it shall only use the property for agricultural uses,
recreational uses, or conservation uses and shall not use the property for residential,
commercial or industrial use. Nothing herein shall preclude FPL and the County from
transferring development rights from the property.
FPL shall provide the County an environmental assessment on the approximately 1,400 acres
of property that FPL is proposing to transfer to the County to be used for parks and
preservation purposes prior to the transfer of the property. At a minimum, the environmental
assessment shall identify the sizes (acreages), types, and locations of the various vegetative
habitats present in the 1,400-acre parcel. The environmental assessment also shall identify
the sizes, types, and locations of any habitat used or occupied by any listed animal and plant
species.
FPL shall establish at least two (2) monitoring sites within the wetland system being
transferred to the County as part of the 1,400 acres. The location of the monitoring sites shall
be mutually agreed to by the ERD and FPL. FPL shall prepare annual monitoring reports that,
at a minimum, include information regarding water levels (pizeometer readings), data
identifying exotic vegetation, data identifying listed species, and data regarding water quality
within the wetland system. Monitoring shall begin within twelve (12) months of the date this
Resolution is recorded in the public records of S1. Lucie County and shall continue for five (5)
years after the first electric generating unit becomes operational. The monitoring reports
required herein shall be submitted to the ERD within thirty (30) days after each twelve month
monitoring period.
FPL shall provide the County with a Phase I Environmental Assessment ("Phase I") for
potential contamination and a Phase II Environmental Assessment ("Phase II") if
recommended by the firm conducting the Phase I. The Phase I and Phase II must comply with
the EPA guidelines for "all appropriate inquiry", currently in draft form at 69FR52541 and the
ASTM standard, currently in draft from as ASTM 1527-05, and due diligence site investigation.
The Phase I and Phase II shall be prepared by an independent third party firm that is qualified
to perform such evaluations and is agreed upon by the County and FPL. FPL shall agree to
hold the County harmless for any pre-existing contamination on the site, whenever discovered.
FPL shall provide the County annual compensation, for a period of approximately twenty (20)
years, in the amount of One Hundred Thousand and no/100 dollars ($100,000.00) to restore
and maintain the approximately 1,400 acre site and/or to purchase or restore other
environmentally significant lands. The first payment shall be due at the time of transfer and
thereafter shall be due on or before October 15th of each year, for a total of twenty payments.
The acceptance of the property shall be subject to Board of County Commissioners' approval.
5) FPL shall submit to the ERD a detailed design plan for the berm that borders the western
boundary of the Project within six (6) months of the date this Resolution is recorded in the
public records of S1. Lucie County. Within ten (10) working days of receipt of the berm plan,
the ERD Director shall determine that the ERD has sufficient information to evaluate the plan
or request FPL ~') provide more information. Once the berm plan i!'! "'eemed complete for
review, the pla~all be reviewed for compliance with the LDC and ~ conditions set forth
herein and the ERD Director shall, within ninety (90) calendar days, approve the plan, approve
the plan with conditions, or deny the plan with citation to the provision that the plan failed to
satisfy.
6) Whenever FPL submits or receives a document, as defined below, from an environmental
agency, FPL shall provide the County with a copy within the time frame set out below. For
purposes of this Condition the term "document" shall mean: FPL monitoring reports, test
results, notices of a malfunction or non-compliance, or an application for a permit, amendment,
modification, variance, waiver, or other relief; environmental agency_inspection reports,
warning letter, notice of violation, consent order, or grant or denial of any permit, amendment,
modification or request for relief, or any other proposed agency action or final determination
concerning the Project. For purposes of this Condition, an environmental agency shall mean
each local, state, regional, and federal agency that has jurisdiction over the Project's
environmental impacts, such as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the FDEP,
and the South Florida Water Management District. All documents covered by this Condition
shall be submitted to the County within a reasonable time after they are submitted by FPL or
received from an agency but in no event more than seven (7) days after such submission or
receipt.
7) To determine whether an Activated Carbon Injection (ACI) system will reduce the mercury
emissions from the Project, FPL shall either (a) develop, if available from sufficient industry
data, an evaluation to determine the projected mercury removal as the result of installing an
ACI system, or (b) conduct slipstream tests with an ACI system within 36 months after the first
electrical generating unit commences operation. At least 90 days before conducting the
slipstream tests, FPL shall submit a proposed testing protocol to the ERD for approval by the
ERD Director. Copies of the testing protocol also shall be submitted to the EPA and FDEP at
least ninety (90) days before conducting the tests. The test results shall be submitted to the
ERD within forty-five (45) days after the completion of testing.
An independent, third party consulting firm shall prepare the written evaluation of the ACI
systems and the report required by this condition. The consulting firm shall be experienced
and knowledgeable with regard to air pollution control issues. The consulting firm selected to
prepare the report shall be mutually acceptable to FPL and the County, FPL shall recommend
one or more consulting firms that are acceptable to FPL and, within thirty (30) days thereafter,
the County Administrator shall accept or reject FPL's recommendation(s).
If the results from either (a) or (b) demonstrate that an ACI system can reduce the Project's
annual mercury emissions by five percent (5%) or more, FPL shall prepare a report evaluating
the costs and benefits of using an ACI system at the Project on a full-time basis. The report
shall be submitted to the County within one hundred thirty five (135) days atter the completion
of the slipstream testing, if any, or within thirty-six (36) months after the first electrical
generating unit commences operation. At a minimum, the report shall evaluate the following
issues: (a) whether the ACI system is commercially available; (b) whether an ACI vendor will
guarantee that the ACI system will reduce the Project's mercury emissions by 5% or more; (c)
whether the ACI system can be used without significantly affecting the commercial production
of combustion by-products at the Project; (d) whether the EPA and FDEP will authorize the use
of the ACI system at the Project; (e) if the data demonstrates that an ACI system would
increase the mercury removal by 20 or more pounds on an annual basis over the current
measured performance; and (f) whether the Florida Public Service Commission allows FPL
cost reimbursement for the installation.
If the Board of I"'l)unty Commissioners reasonably concludes that tl">" issues set forth in
conditions (a) th\..igh (f), listed above, can be answered in the affirmat¡....J FPL shall install an
ACI system at the Project. The County shall give FPL a reasonable period of time, not to
exceed to exceed three (3) years, to install the ACI system.
8) FPL shall install, maintain, and use a Continuous Emission Monitor (CEM) to measure the
mercury emissions from each combustion unit at the Project. These monitors will not be used
by the County to determine compliance with the mercury emission limits established by the
EPA and FDEP, unless the EPA or FDEP confirm that the CEMs data are valid for such
purposes. The data from the mercury CEMs shall be submitted by FPL to the ERD on a
quarterly basis, within 30 days after the end of each calendar quarter. FPL also shall submit
an annual report and analysis of the CEMs data, which shall identify any trends or anomalies
in the Project's mercury emissions. The annual reports shall compare the Project's mercury
emissions, as measured with the CEMs, to the mercury emissions measured during the
Project's stack tests.
9) Pursuant to this Resolution the County has approved a conceptual site plan for the Project. If
FPL proposes a change that substantially increases the intensity and density of the conceptual
site plan, then such proposed change shall be subject to review pursuant to the LDC
provisions governing major amendments to conditional use permits. FPL shall not commence
construction on any such change until FPL receives prior Board of County Commissioners
approval.
10) No later than six (6) months after the second electric generating unit becomes operational,
FPL shall implement an ambient monitoring network for Particulate Matter (PM), Particulate
Matter less than 10 microns (PM10), Particulate Matter less than 2.5 microns (PM2.5), and
meteorological parameters including wind speed, wind direction, temperature, stability, and
rainfall. The network shall consist of four (4) sites. The monitoring plan shall conform to
FDEP/EPA siting guidelines and shall be submitted for the County's review four (4) months
prior to implementation. The monitoring_network shall operate for three years with quarterly
data reports submitted to the ERD within forty-five (45) days of the end of each calendar
quarter. In the event the monitoring data shows concentrations that are 75% or more of the
applicable EPA or FDEP Ambient Standards, the monitoring program shall continue until 3
consecutive years of data show levels below 75% of the Standard. If FPL can provide a
demonstration that their operations do not contribute a significant amount to the monitored
levels as defined by EPA Significant Impact Levels, the monitoring program can be
discontinued after the initial 3 year period.
11) In its application for site certification under the PPSA, FPL shall request the FDEP and the
Siting Board to include all of the requirements set forth above (Conditions Nos. 1 - 12) in the
conditions of certification that are established for the Project under the PPSA.
Please include a copy of this memo in the staff report being provided to the Board of County
Commissioners.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 462-2526.
'-'
'-"
PLANNING AND ZONINGCOMMISSION REVIEW:
September 29, 2005
CU-05-008
GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT
Planning Division
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Planning Manager
DATE: September 22,2005
SUBJECT: Application of Florida Power & Light Company for a Conditional Use Permit and
Major Site Plan approval to allow the construction of a 1,700 Megawatt (MW) electric
generation plant consisting of two 850 MW units on approximately 3000 acres in the
U (Utilities) Zoning District. (File: CU-05-008)
LOCATION: East side of Bluefield Road, approximately 4 miles south of
SR 70 (Okeechobee Road)
ZONING DESIGNATION:
LAND USE DESIGNATION:
U (Utilities)
AG-5 (Agricultural 1 du/5 ac)
PARCEL SIZE:
PROPOSED USE:
Approximately 3000 acres
A 1,700 Megawatt (MW) electric generation plant consisting
of two 850 MW units on approximately 3000 acres
SURROUNDING ZONING:
The subject property is surrounded by AG-5 (Agricultural 1
du/5 ac) zoning on all sides
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
The existing uses in this area are primarily agricultural with
preserved land (Bluefield Ranch) to the west.
FIRE/EMS PROTECTION:
Station # 11, (Shinn Road) is located approximately 20 miles
to the northeast.
UTILITY SERVICE:
Water and sewer service will be provided on site.
TRANSPORTATION IMPACTS
RIGHT-Of-WAY
ADEQUACY:
The existing right-of-way width for Bluefield Road is 50 feet.
'-"
~
September 22, 2005
Page 2 of 11
Florida Power & Light Company
File: CU-05-009
The existing right-of-way width for Okeechobee Road is 66
feet.
SCHEDULED
IMPROVEMENTS:
As a part of his application for conditional use, the applicant
has committed to pave Bluefield Road from Okeechobee
Road to its project entrance or beyond if the county wished
paved access to the Bluefield Preserve. The applicant will
also modify the intersection of Bluefield and Okeechobee
Roads.
The Florida Department of Transportation will be widening
Okeechobee Road (SR 70) out to Berman Road in
Okeechobee County. This work will be accomplished in
phases over the next seven to ten years.
TYPE OF CONCURRENCY
DOCUMENT REQUIRED:
Certificate of Capacity.
********************************************
STANDARDS OF REVIEW AS SET FORTH IN SECTION 11.07.03,
ST. LUCIE COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE
In reviewing this application for proposed conditional use, the Board of County Commissioners shall
consider and make the following determinations:
1. Whether the proposed conditional use is in conflict with any applicable portions of
the St. Lucie County Land Development Code;
The proposed conditional use has been determined to not be in conflict with any applicable
provision of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code. Section 3.01.03(W)(7)(b), U
(Utilities) Zoning District, allows electric generation plants as conditional uses. As noted in
the comments below, the proposed site development plan that accompanies this request for
a conditional use permit has been determined to meet the minimum standards of the Land
Development Code.
2. Whether and the extent to which the proposed conditional use would have an adverse
impact on nearby properties;
The construction and operation of a 1700 MW coal fired electric generation plant will impact
nearby properties. The extent to which this impact is considered adverse can be mitigated by
the site design and layout and the specific actions taken by the applicant to protect nearby
and more distant properties.
'-'
.....J
September 22. 2005
Page 3 of 11
Florida Power & Light Company
File: CU-05-009
The proposed site is located within an area zoned for productive agriculture. Also adjacent to
the site is the Bluefield Ranch preserve area.
The applicant has designed the project to minimize impact to the adjacent natural areas. The
proposed project provides substantial bufferslberms, makes important water retention areas
available to the South Florida Water Management District and dedicates adjacent areas to
the county. A recommended condition of approval requires county review of final design of
the buffer/berm areas.
The applicant has proposed the use of various technologies to minimize the impact of plant
emissions. An analysis of these efforts is attached as a part of a report prepared by an
independent consultant retained by the county. Additional conditions of approval may be
required.
In addition to air emissions, county staff has been concerned with the emission of light and
noise from the plant. The applicant has provided information concerning these issues. The
applicant has projected that the proposed use will comply with the county noise ordinance.
A condition of approval requires county review of final lighting design.
Long-term traffic impacts at and around the site are expected to be minimal. Construction
traffic is handled through the applicant's construction of temporary improvements to the local
road network. Recommended conditions of approval address the traffic issues.
Rail traffic is expected to impact intersections in portions of the county to the east of the
proposed plant. The applicant has agreed to attempt to minimize this impact through
negotiations with the Florida East Coast Railroad concerning timing of deliveries. The
applicant and county staff recognize that the Florida East Coast Railroad will ultimately
control this timing.
3. Whether and the extent to which the proposed conditional use would be served by
adequate public facilities and services, including roads, police protection, solid waste
disposal, water, sewer, drainage structures, parks, and mass transit;
This conditional use is not expected to create significant additional demands on any public
facilities in this area. The traffic report for the proposed project indicates minimal traffic
impacts caused by the long-term operation of the plant. Approximately 180 full time
employees will access the site in shifts. Minimal delivery by truck is expected. During the
construction of the plant, significantly more workers and delivery vehicles will access the
site. The applicant has agreed to construct various temporary traffic improvements in order
to maintain required Levels of Service in this area. Other county roadways will be impacted
on a long term basis by interruptions caused by coal and other delivery trains. Timing of
deliveries to avoid peak times will help to minimize this impact.
Water and sewer service will be provided by the applicant.
4. Whether and the extent to which the proposed conditional use would result in
significant adverse impacts on the natural environment;
'-'
....I
September 22, 2005
Page 4 of 11
Florida Power & Light Company
File: CU-05-009
The construction and operation of a 1700 MW coal fired electric generation plant will impact
the natural environment. The extent to which this impact is considered significantly adverse
can be mitigated by the site design and layout and the specific actions taken by the applicant
to protect the natural environment.
The proposed site is located adjacent to the Bluefield Ranch preserve area. The Pinelands
preserve area is located to the northeast. In addition privately held and relatively pristine
areas surround the proposed site. The impacts of this proposal may also extend beyond the
immediate area.
The applicant has designed the project to minimize impact to the adjacent natural areas. The
proposed project provides substantial buffers and dedicates adjacent areas to the county. A
recommended condition of approval requires county review of final design of these areas.
The applicant has proposed the use of various technologies to minimize the impact of plant
emissions. An analysis of these efforts is attached as a part of a report prepared by an
independent consultant retained by the county. Additional conditions of approval may be
required.
In addition to air emissions, county staff has been concerned with the emission of light and
noise from the plant. The applicant has provided information concerning these issues. A
condition of approval requires county review of final lighting design.
Long-term traffic impacts at and around the site are expected to be minimal. Construction
traffic is handled through the applicant's construction of temporary improvements to the local
road network. Recommended conditions of approval address the traffic issues.
Rail traffic is expected to impact intersections in portions of the county to the east of the
proposed plant. The applicant has agreed to attempt to minimize this impact through
negotiations with the Florida East Coast Railroad (FEC) concerning timing of deliveries. The
applicant and county staff recognize that the FEC will ultimately control this issue.
**********************************
STANDARDS FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW
In addition to the minimum standards of review and project development set out in Section 7.00.00,
Section 11.02.07, of the Sf. Lucie County Land Development Code identifies the minimum
Standards of Review for all proposed Site Plans. These standards must be met in order for any site
plan approvals to be considered. Staff has reviewed the request for Major Site Plan approval.
utilizing these requirements and notes the following:
1. CONSISTENCY WITH LOCAL ORDINANCES AND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The proposed Florida Power & Light Company 1700 MW electric generation plant is
consistent with the general purpose, goals, objectives and standards of this Code, the Sf.
Lucie County Comprehensive Plan, and the Code and Compiled Laws of Sf. Lucie County,
and the proposed use complies with all additional standards imposed on it by the particular
'"
...,
September 22,2005
Page 5 of 11
Florida Power & Light Company
File: CU-05-009
provisions of this Code authorizing such use and any other requirement of the Code and
Compiled Laws of St. Lucie County.
The proposed Florida Power & Light Company 1700 MW electric generation plant is
consistent with the general purpose, goals, objectives and policies of the St. Lucie County
Comprehensive Plan. These policies include, but are not limited to:
Policy 1.1.2.3 requires preservation of open space as a part of any future non-agricultural
development. Policy 1.1.2.4 requires the "orderly delivery of services concurrent with the
impacts of development" within the agricultural land use categories.
2. EFFECT ON NEARBY PROPERTIES
a. The proposed building or use will not have an undue adverse affect upon nearby
property, the character of the neighborhood, traffic conditions, parking, utility
facilities, and other matters affecting the public health, safety, and general welfare.
The proposed Florida Power & Light 1700 MW electric generation plant has been
determined not to have an undue adverse effect upon nearby properties if approved
with adequate limiting conditions. The proposed project has the potential to effect
the immediate area through visual impacts including lighting, noise impacts, traffic
impacts, and environmental issues. The proposed project could also affect more
distant areas by impacting traffic flows around railroad crossings and through air
born emissions. If the project is approved, staff is recommending a number of
conditions of approval that are intended to mitigate these potential negative affects.
b. All reasonable steps have been taken to minimize any adverse effect of the
proposed building or use on the immediate vicinity through building design, site
design, landscaping and screening.
The developer has designed this project in a manner intended to minimize adverse
effects to the immediate vicinity and the area. Staff has added recommended
conditions of approval to further minimize these effects.
c. The proposed building or use will be constructed, arranged, and operated so as not
to interfere with the development and use of neighboring properly, in accordance
with applicable district regulations.
The design of the proposed project, including the recommended conditions, has
been determined not to interfere with the development or use of the neighboring
properties. Visual impacts including lighting, noise impacts, traffic impacts, and
environmental issues have been addressed through the project design and
recommended conditions.
C. ADEQUACY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES
The proposed building or use complies with the standards of Chapter V, Adequate Public
Facilities.
'-'"
.."
September 22,2005
Page 6 of 11
Florida Power & Light Company
File: CU-05-009
Traffic issues with the approval of the recommended limiting conditions comply with the
standards of Chapter V, adequate public facilities.
Water and sewer services will be provided on site by the applicant.
Solid waste services for the byproducts of the coal fired generators will be handled by the
applicant. Waste will be removed from the site in railcars that have delivered coal or other
products to the site. No additional rail or truck trips will be required.
D. ADEQUACY OF FIRE PROTECTION
The applicant has obtained from the Sf. Lucie County Bureau of Fire Prevention written
confirmation, or has otherwise demonstrated by substantial credible evidence, that water
supply, evacuation facilities, and emergency access are satisfactory to provide adequate fire
protection.
The applicant has obtained from the St. Lucie County Bureau of Fire Prevention written
confirmation that the proposed site plan conceptually meets the minimum access and water
supply requirements for fire protection services at this facility.
E. ADEQUACY OF SCHOOL FACILITIES
The proposed building or use wíll be served by adequate school facilities
The applicant is proposing a non-residential use that will not impact school facilities. This
facility will not negatively impact the school facilities within the County
F. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
For developments required to provide an environmental impact report under Section
11.02.09(A)(5), the proposed development wíll not contravene any applicable provision of
the Sf. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan, or of Chapter VIII, "Natural Environment
Analysis'; of the Sf. Lucie County Barrier Island Study Analysis of Growth Management
Policy Plan, Kimley-Hom and Associates, Inc, (August 1982).
The applicant has provided an environmental impact report that has been reviewed by the
county's Environmental Resource Department (ERD). That review, along with the report of
an independent consultant retained by the county to assess air born emissions is attached.
The ERD continues to have serious concerns with the project and its impacts on the
immediate and more distant areas. These concerns are contained within the referenced
report. Conditions to help mitigate these concerns are included.
*******************************
'"
..""
September 22, 2005
Page 7 of 11
Florida Power & Light Company
File: CU-05-009
COMMENTS:
The petitioner, Florida Power & Light Company, is seeking approval for a conditional use permit in
order to construct and operate a 1,700 Megawatt (MW) electric generation plant on property located
on the east side of Bluefield Road approximately 4 miles south of Okeechobee Road (SR 70) in the
U (Utilities) Zoning District.
The proposed site plan for the Plant is attached. Landscape and perimeter berm details, and details
concerning to southern rail access have not been completed at this time. Conditions of approval
address these issues. Recent discussions with the applicant have indicated that they are able to use
a single 500' stack, rather that the two 700 foot stacks previously proposed. A condition of approval
addresses this issue.
Staff finds that this petition, if approved with the recommended limiting conditions, meets the
standards of review as set forth in Section 11.07.03 of the St. Lucie County Land Development
Code and is not in conflict with the goals, objectives, and policies of the St. Lucie County
Comprehensive Plan.
Staff recommends that you forward this petition to the Board of County Commissioners with a
recommendation of approval subject to the following conditions:
ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS
1) FPL shall provide County staff a detailed lighting plan for the power plant no later than 90 days after
issuance by Florida's Governor and cabinet of the Site Certification final order under the Power Plant Siting
Act which shall be approved by County staff or their designee. FPL shall use its best efforts to design a
lighting plan that minimizes to the greatest extent reasonably possible the light pollution and light trespass
emanating from the Project. FPL shall incorporate guidelines from the Illuminating Engineering Society of
North America in the design of the outdoor lighting systems. Where practical, FPL shall incorporate the
following design principles:
· Minimize upward light from luminaries;
· Minimize upward light in general so that light reaches its intended target;
· Turn off lighting not needed for safety and security;
· Contain light within its intended target area by suitable choice of luminaries for light distribution;
· Selection of appropriate mounting height and physical location; and
· Minimize glare in the horizontal and vertical directions.
2) FPL shall provide ERD staff with a landscape plan or plans, no later than 90 days after issuance by
Florida's Governor and cabinet of the Site Certification final order under the Power Plant Siting Act which shall
be approved by County staff. The landscape plan or plans shall incorporate the following:
· If landscaping is proposed on-site, then the plan shall comply with the requirements of the
LDC;
· If landscaping is proposed off-site, then the plan shall comply with the requirements of the
LDC unless the County and FPL agree that the landscape program that is proposed does not
require a formal landscape plan;
· The minimum number of canopy trees, with the type and size per the LDC, shall be 1,874
(this number shall be multiplied by 1.5 for every tree proposed off-site);
· The minimum number of shrubs, with the type and size per the LDC, shall be 9,767 (this
number shall be multiplied by 1.5 for every shrub proposed off-site);
..."
...JI
September 22, 2005
Page80f11
Florida Power & Light Company
File: CU-05-009
. The County and FPL may agree to an alternative program that is deemed to be the
equivalent to planting the number of trees and shrubs noted above.
FPL shall work with ERD staff prior to submitting the landscape plans in order to identify the most
advantageous use of the trees and shrubs.
3) FPL shall provide St. Lucie County with detailed design plans for the west bound rail spur to be located
;:ïtrthe County's Bluefield Ranch Preserve Property no later than 90 days after issuance by Florida's
Governor and cabinet of the Site Certification final order under the Power Plant Siting Act which shall be
approved by St. Lucie County. The design plans shall include the exact locations of Bluefield Ranch
Property to be developed and an Environmental Impact Report in accordance with the Land Development
Code for the area proposed to be impacted. FPL shall work with County staff to determine the rail spur
location at the southern end of Bluefield Ranch Preserve Property which has the least amount of
environmental impact. If listed species are found to be utilizing the area proposed for impact, FPL shall be
required to explore alternative designs to avoid impacting the area.
4) FPL shall provide St. Lucie County with an Environmental Assessment on the approximately 1400
i¡1t:IféS of property that FPL is proposing to transfer ownership to the County to be used for parks and
preservation purposes prior to the transfer of the property. The Environmental Assessment shall identify
at a minimum the site, approximate acreages, the size and location of the vegetative habitats present and
shall identify any listed animal and plant species with approximate locations that may occur on the
property. County staff shall have 90 days to review the submitted material to determine the costs and
benefits to the County and subject to county approval shall require the transfer.
5) ~AnY lands proposed to be impacted on the County's Bluefield Ranch Preserve shall be subject to the
_roval and requirements of St. Lucie County.
6) FPL shall provide a detailed plan regarding the proposed berm that borders the western boundary of
the project no later than 90 days after issuance by Florida's Governor and cabinet of the Site Certification
final order under the Power Plant Siting Act which shall be approved by St. Lucie County.
7) FPL shall agree to provide St. Lucie County a yearly report due to the County on October 1 of each
year summarizing any new Best Available Control Technologies available to further reduce the pollutants
being emitted from the power plant. The first annual report shall be due on October 1, 2006.
8) Based on the information identified in the annual report referenced in Condition 7, FPL shall conduct a
~_t benefit analysis to determine if there is a net benefit associated with installing the identified
technology. Once the plant is in operation. if there is a substantial net benefit and all federal and state
agencies authorize the use of the technology, then FPL shall install the technology within a reasonable
time frame based on the size and the extent of the technology.
9)FPl shall install an Activated Carbon Injection (ACI) system or equivalent at the time of the project to
further reduce mercury emissions within a reasonable time frame after the following conditions are
established:
· The ACI system is considered commercially available and is guaranteed to
achieve mercury improvements;
· The ACI will not adversely impact the commercial production of by-products;
· A cost benefit analysis shows a substantial net benefit and all federal and state
agencies authorize the use of the technology at the project.
1 O)FPL shall be required to comply with the recommendations of the September 2005 Air Pollution
OoI'ttrol report prepared for the county by RTP Environmental Associates.
*'
4Jl\L=-~L
~L f- ~ ~. 0~^> ~S
'-'
'...,,¡I
September 22. 2005
Page 9 of 11
Florida Power & Light Company
File: CU-05-009
11) The plant shall be limited to a single stack with a maximum height of 500 feet.
ROAD & BRIOGE CONDITIONS
1) Upon issuance by Florida's Governor and cabinet of the Site Certification final order under the Power
Plant Siting Act for the SW SI. Lucie Power Project ("Project"), FPL shall design a paved rural road
section to be located within the existing Bluefield Road right-of-way from the intersection of S.R. 70
(Okeechobee Road) to the entrance of the Project. FPL shall begin construction of the road
improvements concurrent with commencement of construction of the Project. For that section of
Bluefield Road adjacent to property under contract to FPL ("FPL Property"), FPL shall donate property
to the County sufficient to expand the right-of-way so that a typical 60-foot wide rural road section can
be constructed. For that stretch of Bluefield Road between S.R. 70 and the northwest corner of the
FPL property, the County shall allow FPL to construct the road within the existing right-of-way which is
approximately 50 foot wide or the County may contribute additional right-of-way (from the adjacent
public canal right-of-way) so that a typical 60-foot section may be constructed.
2) FPL shall design and construct roadway improvements at the intersection of S.R. 70 and Bluefield
Road as warranted and in accordance with FOOT standards. These will include temporary
improvements necessitated by the construction and approved by FDOT which may be removed once
construction is completed. The County, in conjunction with FOOT, will determine the timing of the
"turn on" of any temporary Traffic Signals constructed at the intersection.
3) FPL shall design and construct temporary roadway improvements at the intersection of S.R. 70 and
Midway Road as warranted and in accordance with FOOT standards. These will include temporary
improvements necessitated by the construction and approved by FOOT which may be removed once
construction is completed. The County, in conjunction with FOOT, will determine the timing of the
"turn on" of any temporary Traffic Signals constructed at the intersection. It should be noted that
FDOT has indicated that they have plans to improve the S.R. 70 - Midway Road intersection prior to
2008, which is the projected construction commencement date for the Project, and those FDOT
improvements may negate FPL's condition to construct the above referenced road improvements.
4) FPL shall construct a driveway from Bluefield Road into the Project in accordance with the standards
in the Land Development Code ("LDC").
5) All improvements enumerated in Conditions 1 through 4 shall be designed and constructed by FPL
after issuance by Florida's Governor and cabinet of the Site Certification final order under the Power
Plant Siting Act. FPL shall begin construction of all road improvements concurrent with
commencement of construction of the Project and all such improvements shall be completed in a
timeframe that would mitigate construction traffic impacts.
6) The additional train traffic that will occur once the Project is operational may result in traffic concerns
where the FEC tracks cross Commerce Center Parkway, Reserve Boulevard and Rangeline Road.
After issuance by Florida's Governor and cabinet of the Site Certification final order under the Power
Plant Siting Act and prior to the initiation of train deliveries once the Project is operational, FPL shall
design and construct the turn lane improvements recommended in the Kimley-Horn and Associates,
Inc.'s SW SI. Lucie Power Project Transportation Study Railroad Analysis, dated August 2005,
subject to FDOT approval. where appropriate.
Please contact this office if you have any questions on this matter.
Attachments
'-'
~
September 22. 2005
Page 10 of 11
Florida Power & Light Company
File: CU-05-009
dpk
cc: County Attorney
Assistant County Administrators
Environmental Resources Director
File
'-"
....,
Suggested motions to recommend approval/denial of this requested conditional use.
MOTION TO APPROVE:
AFTER CONSIDERING THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING,
INCLUDING STAFF COMMENTS, AND THE STANDARDS OF REVIEW AS SET FORTH IN
SECTION 11.07.03, ST. LUCIE COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, I HEREBY MOVE THAT
THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMEND THAT THE ST. LUCIE COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS GRANT APPROVAL TO THE APPLICATION OF
FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY, FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW THE
OPERATION OF A 1700 MEGAWATT ELECTRIC GENERATION PLANT IN THE U (UTILITIES)
ZONING DISTRICT, BECAUSE...
[CITE REASON(S) WHY - PLEASE BE SPECIFIC]
MOTION TO DENY:
AFTER CONSIDERING THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING,
INCLUDING STAFF COMMENTS, AND THE STANDARDS OF REVIEW AS SET FORTH IN
SECTION 11.07.03, ST. LUCIE COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, I HEREBY MOVE THAT
THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMEND THAT THE ST. LUCIE COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DENY THE APPLICATION OF FLORIDA POWER &
LIGHT COMPANY, FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW THE OPERATION OF A
1700 MEGAWATT ELECTRIC GENERATION PLANT IN THE U (UTILITIES) ZONING DISTRICT,
BECAUSE.. .
[CITE REASON(S) WHY - PLEASE BE SPECIFIC]
'-"
""
MAPS AND OTHER INFORMATION
>. ~ ~
c:
ctI
a.
E It)
0 0
~ 0
() ~
:1.. Il'i
- ~ , ~ii
.c ex:> z.~ ~ .....
...
0) 0 ~
:.J 0 t~ E
J
l() .s¡
oð ~ 0 ~ I Q.
0 0 II)
L. :J a" .~ t en
Q) oc· 'C
~ 0 !!!
~~ t'D
0 Q.
Cl. ~~ ~
~ Q.
ctI Q.
"'C t'D
.¡:
.Q
>.
ë
"
o
U
~
"
if
"
111
'6
.E
J "... ~""IS
ì
t ,..
. ....
~ u
Iii
1"'";') ~l':¡
!
.
.;
IX)
to
'"
ë
"
o
U
"
:e
111
:::!!
i
ð
.
v
Æ¡uno:J aaq04:>aa~O
A Petition of FICUa Power & Light Company for a Condit~al Use Permit to
allow the operation of an electric generation plant and ancillary uses in the U
(Utilities) Zoning District.
\ ----'
i\ I--- illMAL CANAl: RD
U \ I
~/~ I---
i
I~n I
~ T I I
I f--
~ L
~
~ T II
\ ~~~~~~~
9 ~"~~.~ø~
p~ ~a;;; _a;~;;;
~~\~'v<J~ ø?i~~ '/~0ij~ L
~~~~ Irr
~~~0://~
~ D ~~~?>~
~~0~ GLADES CUT-OFf
- 10/'//
~~~~ /
- ~ ~~~/~
_ 0/%'~ '/
'//'; / ~
~~~~
~~~ /
/:/z
'/~~
V / '". %
'0'/:
~
Martin County
Legend .9:- ~~z:c, a,-7~~ N
CU 05-008 A
(jrowt/í .NQ1I1!IÞ1InIt ZJ¥<2r/'men¡-
~ Subject property Map prepared September 15, 2005
Zoning Flðrida Power & Light Company
~, t---
Ì\ - I mMAL.CANA~RD
J ~
III/~ I--
I~n , I
\ T -r I I
I I---
~" AG-5 L
~
\~ I II
AG-}
~v~~o ~w/% '/'ß'@~~
~\~~o<# @@ ~ /~ ~~ ~ n L
~W~
~Ø0~ II
D -~
I- ~;~~ GLADES CUT-OFF
//"/h /~
L. ~/~?f¿
- RIC --- ~~ ~
,~~~;
~~
CPUB ~
~ A.G-5
Martin County
Legend .L. . ~ N
CU 05-008 .9:- ·_uvw é;'u~_.c._ A
fjrO'W11f .Mtmft1rment D9?/~rmrl!7lt
~ Subject property Map prepared September 15, 2005
Land Use
Flo'fida Power & Light Company
CPUB
Martin County
CU 05-008
Legend
~ Subject property
5è ;(~ é~H~~>
(jrO"Wl1f Nana¡¡nnenl :D9ørlment
N
Â
Map prepared September 15, 2005
'-' '-i
Florida Power & Light Company
'.'.~, ; .r\I
:l. ~ :~.
~.. ' . ,
CU 05-008
Legend
~ Subject property
r'_ / ..r7 ~
.X--.;....NVU'" vOH.n7__~~..:.....
ýrO"W/lf .Jtfanaunnent :tJ'!P4r/mrm/
N
Â
Map prepared September 15, 2005
Flo'ñda Power & Light Com~any
L I---
\ ,~..._._........__..._........_--_......... ~
/(c, 1 145.87 1 ~
~~o ii8 Wß~~~ ~ ~
.09
I
I
,~~c; \ Wß/~~//0/ '// '$ ~ ·
I
Ø>-0 \ ýI:~~/¿/;~~¿¿j/r/// '/~ '/~//~ I% . ~g8
"'~/~þ~~/i%%~
.9
\ \~~// /~,~~ wð I
I
.. 0"ß/à~Ø'~Ø/~~ I
.. W'//w//Ó '///@f~~ ~ 12
~ I// ''lj '///// /j -;//~ « I
",~~~~ ·
·
·
·
"\ 'Y'/// '//////&/////./////////// ~ ·
~~ ~/~~'~///.ú~//_//h ·
·
~ '///0 '/ ~ '~/~ .~
... "(0/ ~~%::;;/ 81
.. ~///¿;¿@; Wðr ,~3
. ..
~ y~ // ////>-//'/// ~ '/ ·
· 'v 0'/// '/h~ ~ ·
\~~ I
I
I
\ "//// '~h I
·
I GL;ADES CU
I
~ ~ '0 '/ 'l:- ~////, I
I
.~~.~ I
I
.Bþ
'/~~/~ ~ ,1)6
\~0~~ .q
. .~" ~~ I
I
\ ,/////~ I V
\~ I
I
I /
"'~Ç& I
I
I
~ /~j/~ I
1\}5. ~ (/ /,,0'/:: '/:: I
I
~~~~ I
~ V '/~ .b8
\ ~~/' :!i
~ v// .7þ
~ y// ·
~\~~ ·
·
·
~ ~ ~
1~
--
~ Subject property Xh . a ~, N
CU 05-008 . .....~ 'OM .~~..:.~:.~...... A
~ : : :: 500' buffer grO'Wtli .MQn.19't!'Jftnlt Oifj'14rlml'lft
Map prepared September 15, 2005
'-"
"'"
BOARD OF
COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS
"=r' '."~' '~., ::"~,: "1'E"::'''i'''''è:::~:':'''''''' "'ii''!!'''','':'
COUNTY ~ 1
F LOR I D A"'" '
GROWTH
MANAGEMENT
October 20, 2005
In accordance with the St. Lucie County Land Development Code, you are hereby advised that Florida
Power and Light Company, has petitioned St. Lucie County for a Change in Zoning from the AG-5
(Agricultural - 1 du/5 acres) Zoning District to the U (Utilities) Zoning District and for a
Conditional Use Permit to allow the operation of an electric generation plant and ancillary uses in
the U (Utilities) Zoning District, for the following described property:
Location:
East side of Bluefield Road, approximately 4.0 miles south of State Road
70 (Okeechobee Road).
THE PROPERTY'S LEGAL DESCRIPTION IS AVAILABLE UPON REQUEST
Public hearings on these petitions will be held at 6:00 P.M., or as soon thereafter as possible, on November
7, 2005, County Commissioner's Chambers, St. Lucie County Administration Building Annex, 2300
Virginia Avenue, Fort Pierce, Florida. Note that this meeting has been rescheduled from October 25,
2005 due to hurricane safety precautions. All interested persons will be given an opportunity to be heard at
that time. Written comments received in advance of the public hearing will also be considered. The County
Planning Division should receive written comments to the Board of County Commissioners at least 3 days
prior to a scheduled hearing.
County policy discourages communication with individual County Commissioners on any case outside of the
scheduled public hearing(s). You may speak at a public hearing, or provide written comments for the record.
The proceedings of the Board of County Commissioners are electronically recorded. If a person decides to
appeal any decision made by the Board of County Commissioners with respect to any matter considered at
such meeting or hearing, he will need a record of the proceedings. For such purpose, he may need to ensure
that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon
which the appeal is to be based. Upon the request of any party to the proceeding, individuals testifYing
during a hearing will be swom in. Any party to the proceeding will be granted an opportunity to cross-
examine any individual testifYing during a hearing upon request. If it becomes necessary, a public hearing
may be continued to a date-certain.
Anyone with a disability requiring accommodation to attend this meeting should contact the St. Lucie
County Community Services Director at least forty-eight (48) hours prior to the meeting at (772) 462-
1777 or T.D.D. (772) 462-1428.
If you no longer own property adjacent to the above-described parcel, please forward this notice to the new
owner. Please call (772) 462-1594 if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
~~~;nY;~~t~~=~:~~ O~,~~~~~,.~~~~~~:~, Œ_.
JOSE.H E, SMITH, DisTricr No.1. DOUG COWARD, Disrricr No.2' PAULA A. LEWIS, DiSTricT No. J . FRANNIE HUTCHINSON. DisrricT NO.4' CH~IS C~AFT, Disrricr No.5
COUi"'Iry Adminisrraror - Douglas M. Anderson
2.300 Virginia Avenue · Fort Pierce, FL .34982-5652
Administration: (772) 462-1590 · Planning: (772) 462-2822 · GISfTechnical Services: (772) 462-155.3
Economic Development: (772) 462-1550 · Fox: (772) 462-1581
Tourist Development: (772) 462-1529 · Fox: (772) 462-21.32
www.co.st-Iucie.fl.us
\.-t
..-: ---~Clt":lMI.:....-..
La.
...,,¡
BOARD OF
COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS
September 19, 2005
~=r. ~~~IE - > >
COUNTY ""',-,
F L" 0 R I" D A, . ":'" >:.
GROWTH
MANAGEMENT
rn
-
ALl
In accordance with the St. Lucie County Land Development Code, you are hereby advised that Florida
Power & Light Company has petitioned SI. Lucie County for a Conditional Use Permit to allow the
operation of an electric generation plant and accessory uses in the U (Utilities) Zoning District for the
following described property:
Location:
East side of Bluefield Road, approximately 4 miles south of SR 70 (Okeechobee Road).
THE PROPERTY'S LEGAL DESCRIPTION IS AVAILABLE UPON REQUEST
Please note that the proposed conditional use is on conjunction with a petition for a Change in Zoning from
the AG-5 (Agricultural - 1 du/5 acres) Zoning District to the U (Utilities) Zoning District, The first public
hearings on these petitions will be held at 6:00 P.M., or as soon thereafter as possible, on September
29, 2005, In the County Commissioners' Chambers, St. Lucie County Administration Building Annex,
2300 Virginia Avenue, Fort Pierce, Florida. All interested persons will be given an opportunity to be heard
at that time. Written comments received in advance of the public hearing will also be considered. Written
comments to the Planning and Zoning Commission should be received by the County Planning Division at
least 3 days prior to a scheduled hearing.
County policy discourages communication with individual Planning and Zoning Commission and County
Commission on any case outside of the scheduled public hearing{s). You may speak at a public hearing, or
provide written comments for the record.
The proceedings of the Planning and Zoning Commission are electronically recorded. If a person decides 10
appeal any decision made by the Planning and Zoning Commission with respect to any matter considered at
such meeting or hearing, he will need a record of the proceedings. For such purpose, he may need to
ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence
upon which the appeal is to be based. Upon the request of any party 10 the proceeding, individuals testifying
during a hearing will be sworn in. Any party to the proceeding will be granted an opportunity to cross-
examine any individual testifying during a hearing upon request. If it becomes necessary, a public hearing
may be continued to a date-certain.
Anyone with a disability requiring accommodation to attend this meeting should contact the SI. Lucie
County Community Services Director at least forty-eight (48) hours prior to the meeting at 772/462-1777
or T.D.D. 772/462-1428,
If you no longer own property adjacent to the above-described parcel, please forward this notice to the new
owner. Please call 772/462-2822 if you have any questions, and refer to: File Number CU-05-008 and RZ-
05-009.
Sincerely,
S1, ~UCIE C~.!JNTY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
(J;'-1'l-ttl. b?-tJ.,..)..l t ..¿ ,;
Charles Grande, Chairmari':S' ,
JOSEPH E. SMITH, DiSTricT No.1. DOUG COWARD, DiSTricT No, 2 . PAULA A. LEWIS, DiSTTlcr No. ;) . FRANNIE HUTCHINSON, DiSTricT No, 4 . CHf\IS CMFT, DiSTriCT No.5
Counry AdminiSTraTOr - Douglas M. Anderson
2.300 Virginia Avenue . Fort Pierce, FL 34982-5652
Administration: (772) 462-1590 . Planning: (772) 462-2822 · GI5Jiechnical Services: (772) 462-1553
Economic Development: (772) 462-1550 · Fox: (772) 462-1581
Tourist Development: (772) 462-1529 · Fox: (772) 462-21.32
www.co.st-Iucie.fl.us
'"
~
¡¡¡
o
!i!~;:ì<i'":l'i~¡g~,
Ü«~~;:!~~~~~....
~N'"
ü ....
;i
ü
~o ~ œ ~~~ OONO M NgOOOO~OO 0 ~ o~~o~o
.^~ -. ~ "''''~ ~~~~8°0 00 ~ ~~~~o~~~ ~ 0 ~o ~~~
", -- ~.. ,- ,- - - CO CO __ _ (0 to œ <D 0 CO 10 CD
O"t ~ "I "INN "t 9 "t ~"t"t"t "t~"t"t "t ~ "t"t~~~"t
~COMØ~~o~~M~œœ~M<D<DN~~O~~W~~NÓ~~(þCO~(O(O~æ(o(o(o<DWtOtO(o(o_M~~_~~~CD
g~~~~M~~M~œ~~œ~~~~~œ~œœg;:œ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~æ~~æ~~~;~;;;;
ü~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~N~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~M~~~~~~
UJ
!;(
I-
rJ)
o
a~i~~~~~~~Œi~~~æŒæ~~~~~i~~~~iiæiiiæ~i~iiii~iiiii~i~~~ii
.~~"''''œ...œ~~''''''''''~~~~~œ~N~N''''''~~'''''''~~,~ oo~~'" ~~~'"
~q~~~Q~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I~~~~-~~o.m_~~
(O(O~co~NMmmmmmœ~Mo~cgQ~~~_~VOM_Mcgv N~MN~~~~~~
_mNN__ ----.....~~~__.... ....~cg....MMM(O M ....vCDNO_MM....N....
V~~_ V ~ (0 (0
£ ££ ££-5£ £-5 £ £ £ £
IE m'" UU In m IE IE IE
m VI ~ Q) I~[~ ccÆf.~ ~ .r:::CD[I][J)Œ!G)ccmln cc £Q.liCD m ID
~ifi~B¡~cciêl~I~B iizl ~~~~iiiiiiill£fi£fifi-5£fiifi~lE~i~~EBi
~mmro~w~p,o~~~~~ ~~IE~~~~~~~~Q)ro~~m~mm~mmmææ~~mmm~ro~ro~~~~m
D~ooØ£1-~¡E~---_~~ "'~~~~~!~-OO~~~~~~~rJ)oooooooooororooo~ro~~-~..~.~
O~~~~j~Ec~~roro~E~~ Illl~~~~~i~~~~i~~~~~e~e~ee~e~I~~~~~~1
a~~8æ~&~££~~~æ~~~ð£~~~~~~~&~~~~~æ~~8~~~~~~~~~~æ~&~ææ~~~
NO 00 ~~~~ :¡¡o 0 :¡¡ 0 0
....~ :8:8 ~ ~ OJ
UJ", ~"''''''' ",:8 '" '" '" '"
UJ~ ~~ ~...~ ~~ ;:!; ;:!; ~ ~
cr:N "IN NNNN "I '"
.... >C >C >C X )( X X ð Š !! >C !! >C
rJ) 0 o 0 .g0oo 0 0
oro rooo rororo roro ro ro ro m
:;JO 00 0000 00 0 0 0 0
ü~ ~Q. ~~~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~
o
m N
o ~
_~ ~w __ ~____ __~ _ ~_ __
Co "C 00 C:C: Q)i::CCC ceO C C &:: e
~~ "C ~ ~~ ð~~ ~Q)Q)~~ ~Q) Q) uQ) Q) Q)
.. 1!: ~ "" EE ,EI~EI~EE ~EE';; ~ -0 1!:~E ~E ~
I~ "C ED -¡;: æêñ .;ac ~ ~ fú ~ I~ - èí ÇI; CD"D 0
Iffi1!:~~-o-o ~~-o-o-o~"''''~-o~~~~~ l,,~ffi"'''''ffi ",,,,rJ) ~ ~"~,,,cr: '" '"
~[Dæ!~2œæQ)~222ujj ~----~"D > iC:~i ~cæ ~ ~._~Q) ~ ~
~tü~II~I:56·~:::I~~22~~~:~~~~.:I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~1~)~I~~~~
w~~~~O'ê~~'~8-~oi~ ~~~~.~~.~.~~oEI~~~!~~~g~~~««««~c~~~~~~~~~
~rou~~~c:~~ ~~c:crororo~8c:cc:c:>_~Qro~rororo_roro>~~~&&&~=~=~~~roEOrooro
~~roc Q)~»> roro~c~~m ~~~~Zro .~~~~~~x~~>S~5000~0~0~co~EE~E~
~··Q)ø~>ø~w>oo~~øø····o~ooooww~~oo>o,,·,·,,·o-···Zœæœœœœffim··moo ~··_ro"ro.
oZma~>MooOOOOUMNZZ~~MMMMO_O~~Zzzzmzzo~w~wwww~zø~woz~~z~Z
:;J~ogø8o~~~"'''''''0...~~N~OOOO~o'''~:¡;¡~~~~0~~'''NNNNN'''NN~NNO'''~OO~o~
O<~~N~Ng~~~~~N~«~~NNÑÑ~~~NM««~<c~~~~~~~~~<~~~~<~~<~<
~
rJ)
cr:
¡¡
N
o
:;J
ü
'"
I~
rJ)
..
ií
-0
'"
E
"
ro
'"
"C
'"
~
.!!!~"*
~E£
'" '" '"
~~cr:
Ü
-0
"S;
'"
o
"
C
c
8
...,
CD
o
:,¡;
o
:;J
U
oð
œ
o
"
..
o
s:!
«
z
....
rJ)
:5
N
o
:;J
Ü
t;
cr:
¡¡
o
:;J
ü
¡¡
·
·
"
¿
Ü
...J
...J
~
ø
"
ê
'"
~
~
~
~
¡;¡
"!
-0
~
..
C cl@
.~ .~ ~
3=§l;
rJ rJ)...J
:>
'"
re
'"
ü
.
"E
o
z
E
~
C3
~
'"
.r;
~
~
.g U
"-0
i~
LLO
«
q;
ï=
'"
o
~
"2
«
'C
o
·
·
..
...J
o
~
~
'" . ~
G.I lUïr:::
E E :>
~~~
::
c '"
~:o:
o C
...,«
q;
c
..
"
~ ~~ ~~~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~
en OO(/) (/ (/)(J)(/) (J)VJ C/J (fJ U) U)
e ee õõõõ õõ e e õ õ
~ ~~ ~I-""~ ~~ ~ ü~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~~g ~~ ~£££ ~~~~ ~~g ~ j~ ~ ~
cr:" 0 ~~8 cr:cr: ~~88 cr:cr:cr:cr: ~cr:...J cr: Ic""'cr: cr: cr:
w~ U ~~- ww ~__ I_WWWW WWg W I~E§w w w
~~ ð ~~c: ~< ~cccc: ~I~«« ~~~ < 8~=~ ~ ~
<~~ U ~ g~m~~:: ~~~g~ g~I~::~:::: ~::õgggggggg::gl~~g~ :: ~
~<æ j «:> ~~~«« ~i~~i ...J81~«« «~...J...J...J...J...J...J...J...J5~~~~:5~,,<":5
rJ ieN~ c ..~~OC i~ ~ ~:>~ii~~ i~~]]~]~~~-oLLj~LL~LL8£i£LL
~~~I.ª~æ~ææ~§~~£~z~~~J~jíEæ~~§~~~I~~~j i ~~~§x ~Ec~=ro~ro~
0:;Jcc-O~8~~~!~~~8~~~~~8888œ.r;-O:>-:;J~~~~:;J:;JN €c€€€€~c~~I:;J:¡¡~:;J~:;J
:;JOIJ!~~@"'33~~~~"''''OOo~''''''''''''~~~=~000Õ~00~ððooooOOOO~500q;~0:>0
uoow~~U,~~~~~(fJ~~(fJooZ(f).~,~~ OOC/JC/JOOOO(/)(/)~0(fJ~ZZZZZZzZU)zm>X0Ittwttw
o
u
-
.J;;
m
:;
~
i
D..
..
-0
ð:i
ii:E
.š~
1;; ~ 0
:;.~ ::::¡
"'.UJ
,ª~á!
2æ~
O~~~NMð~~V~MO~~~~OM8~~~M~_~_g~~8~...~~~~~mg~~~N~~m~8NV~~
888888888§§§§8§§§§§888 §~§8§88§8 8~ ð§§8888§§8§8~88~§8
~N"'~~~~N~",,,,~~8~~"'~~Ng~ ~~-~~~~~o ~¡ 8~~g~gg"':¡¡"'8~~"'~~~~
~~~~~~~~i~8~i~~~g~~~~~~~~§êêêê~88mNg~ê~ª~~~ê8ªê~ê~~~~~8
~~~~-~~~ ~~N ~-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~j~ i~NN~~~~"'~~~_~N~_N_~
- ~~ NNM __ _NNNNNN_MM___~ N ~---~-NNNNM~_NM~N_N
~~~~~~~œ~oooo!NM~~~~~~~~~~N~~~W ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~OO
OCOOOOOOO-_~~________~____NNNM~ OOOOOOCO__~__~M
~----I;-----~I~-I;;;~--~~-I;---~-I;--~~ ~~~~NNI~NNNNN~~NNNNN
W N ~ ~ 0'" "'... "':! . I w 5! ~ ~ g ~Ig
tr ,.... CIOCOQ)O)-"," tr
~ ~~crioU"iMCC:o U OJIl)MCÐCOO ...",I
'" ",¡:;¡ N ... 1',., « ¡¡¡"'...."''''N
~ -N '"
U U
-' ...J
ã; « is
0 U
~ ~:I!:I!~~:¡¡:¡¡o ;¡! ~., .,
I-- ŠO °
IOLOO coco~ CI) .... ....
O~~~~~'f'f;X o --
Q.J,~"!"aAahfDCO COfQ a.........:g:;jOM
08è1;(/;""'---~" QmCD O)æ
::JN~~~~~~~ ~ ::JOJQ)~O)œ
('I) (W)r')c") MM U~~ ¡; ~'"
w W
I-- ~
«
!ñ I--
CI)
0 0
::J -J...J...J...J...J...J...J...J...J...J GLiiiiiLiiili
U u..U.LLLLll.U.U.U.LLI.1.
-££-£ '6
m :g :g ..
CI>
~ ~~mQ]£I].~ m
~_~:S__EEE'6" >- E£ -£
'" ...w(I)iië6ñinl...J I-- 1ii:g£g¡
- Ïi'.!!1 .!!1 ~ ~ a. a. a. Æ - U t::t::~CXJOa:l
g ~a.a..:Jj-üS-o(f.J
=,«t:'t:c(<(:Gu:Gc1:: 0 IV m '" 9' E e
::J .a.a~IU"iõCIJ
UU;~~U;U;:!;:!;:!;~æ UI/)CI):!;>a.>
¡::! 000 ~~~ü-gê~
.,.,.,
w ~~~ tli-¥ü~~~~~
w
tr NNN trI/)CI)"'m3:i6
I-- " " " t;~~Ü:Q)UJÆ
CI) o 00
0 ma¡m o N_
::J 000 ::>ggg]05 g
U a. a. a. ü__....18"''''
___ IS
æ "" ..
E~~ ã:
Q)II)CL) ~
Igg~-o~
I.:£:r:::>_
..- "C "C CD CD ro ã5 CD
l--.,crtr~,,::Ö::;::Ö¡¡-E
tH;g§~o;g-g-g-gæ8
g: ~ E E ~ '; ~ ~ ~ .:!: :>
U') O~ftJoo··....C:;>
OCl:)...J...Ja::JccZZZ~Z
::>ofðgooI=I=1=8~
üa.............Q.Q.«<"........
I~
UJ
tr
ü:
N
o
::J
U
~
w
tr
I--
CI)
o
::>
I~
I/)
a:
¡¡
N
o
::>
Ü
'"
-0
"
::;
« ~ «
'"
z 0 Z
I-- i¿ I--
~ CI)
::; S ~
N " N
0 '" 0
::> -g ::> .\1
U a: U tr
1;= 1~1<r:1¡¡;
CI)
tr Q;1~lt
ü: IJ.. .,.,0 E
0 °1~1~1~ ~
::> ::::> ro co J: ~
U U...J...Ja.
~
o
::>
U
o
'"
°
:x
o
~
1--1--1--
UJUJCI)
000
$$$
~HHL3
ffiffiffi.J;¡"
I-I-I-.::;g
«c(<(~:J
~ 3::!;:!;~æ
~.n ~~~æ~
:5................:r:rx :5
ocr:~~a:Q:~~~~~
::> ¡¡ ,,:, ¡¡ ¡¡OOO.Qii
ou..a::cr:u.I.L<n(l)CI)u..,
ò
u
:;:
'"
:J
o
¡
...
..
-0
'C I)
~E
.š~
;¡~
:J ·ii
"''''
ª'ê
.. co
:lEa.
m8°f"......NNN
2°°000
8õoo02°
~_~¡¡¡5!¡¡o;5
-0°88---
~Hiªê__~~~
~~~~::::gj~~ ¡;-
Cl~MMM;;;Mr:;;;;i~
I~~~ C\I N N N NI~I~ ðl~
u u
.5 .s
iii rñ
« .!II CI>
~ I~ ¡
~ e e
.!"...-_1::';~r;.
eQ:g:gilã Iã
6 Û 3: 3:1:Ç ~ ¡¡: ~
u ~N~":X"'
.5 _ ~ /':i;:! M;:!
1i 000ªi8
igi¡i~8~
t:~ w,..........,..........,...co
U('I')(I")C')(")(")(")
e ~ ~ 1:n:HH:!,~
.. a. ''''
@âVidP KeUY~SWª~PPAir\o. ...Ition Control Review RTP 9-2Ò-2005 DEAC.doc
-
...J
. ..~
Page 1.1
Air Pollution Control Review of Florida Power & Light Company's
Proposed 1,700 MW Coal-fired SW St. Lucie Power Project.
September, 2005
Prepared for:
$Jf~~(.k~~
St. Lucie County
Public Works Department
Environmental Resources Division
Prepared By:
.
RTP Environmental Associates Inc.®
AIR. WATER. SOLID WASTE CONSULTANTS
http://www.rtpenv.com
239 u.s. Highway 22 East (732) 96B-9600 Voice
Green Brook. NJ DBB12 (732) 968-9603 Fax
David P Kelly - SWSLPP Air
. tion Control Review RTP 9-20-2005 DEAC.doc
....,
Page 2
Executive Summary
Florida Power & Light Company (FP&L) is proposing to construct two 850 megawatt
supercritical pressure, pulverized coal-fired electric generating units at a new greenfield site
in St. Lucie County. With a total generating capacity of 1,700 MW, the SW St. Lucie Power
Project will be one of the largest proposed coal-fired electric generating stations in the U.S.
Based on the emission rate information data provided by FP&L, RTP has confirmed the
annual emissions calculations provided by FP&L. Based on these potential annual emissions,
this new power plant will be a major new source under the Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD) program of the Clean Air Act.
Proposed Air Pollution Control Systems
The PSD program will require the application of the best available control technology
(BACT) to each emissions unit for which the facility has potential emissions in excess of the
significant increase levels. The SWSLPP will be classified as a PSD major source for carbon
monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxides (NO.), particulate matter (PM/PM,O), sulfur dioxide (S02),
volatile organic compounds (VOC), lead, fluorides (as HF), and sulfuric acid mist. The
requirements of BACT have two components; 1. A specified control technology, and 2. An
allowable emission limit. FP&L is proposing to utilize five advanced air pollution control
systems, including low NO. burners, selective catalytic reduction, fabric filter baghouses, wet
flue gas desulfurization, and wet electrostatic precipitators. Based on air pollution control
permits issued since 2004, these pollution control systems have been concluded by
environmental regulatory agencies in Texas, West Virginia, Utah, and Wisconsin to represent
BACT. The emission rates proposed by FP&L appear to be consistent with other recently
permitted sources. However, the allowable, numeric limits can be controversial. For
instance, permits for similar facilities appear to require S02 control efficiencies of96 - 98%,
compared to approximately 94% proposed by FP&L. If96% reduction can be continuously
achievable, the allowable emissions would be reduced by at least 33%.
The supercritical pulverized coal-fired boilers in these generating units have design thermal
efficiencies of39%. That is, 39% of the energy released from coal combustion will be
converted to electricity; the remaining 61% ofthe energy will be rejected as heat in hot flue
gas and in warmed cooling water. The ability to improve thermal efficiency is, therefore, a
primary goal of improving the environmental performance of coal-fired electric generating
units, since a 1.0% increase in efficiency can reduce all air emissions by more than 2.0%.
The supercritical design is a substantial improvement over subcritical boilers which have
thermal efficiencies of about 34%, and represents the best currently available boiler
technology. While work is being done to develop even higher temperature and pressure ultra-
supercritical pressure boilers with thermal efficiencies of 4\ %, these boilers are not avai]able
at this time.
Air Pollution Control Review of Florida Power & Light Company's Proposed
1.700 MW Coal-fired 5W 51. Lucie Power Project.
RTP Environmental Associates. Inc.
September, 2005
- 2 -
@avid P KeIIY:5V1i~[pp Air ~tion Control Review RTP 9-20-2005 DEAC.doc
Page 31
....,J
Coal-fired Power Plant Technalogies and the Issue of IGCC as BACT
There are a number of technologies which may be used to produce electricity from coal. By
far the most common technology is based on the direct combustion of coal in an external
combustion boiler. The heat of combustion produces steam in the boiler which is used to
power a steam turbine coupled to an electric generator. These power plants are called
"conventional" coal-fired power plants. The proposed SWSLPP units are conventional coal-
fired units. An advanced technology called integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) is
fundamentally different in that IGCC plants do not combust coal directly. Rather, IGCC
technology first gasifies coal in a fuel conversion facility which resembles a petroleum
refinery. The resulting synthetic gas or "syngas" is then cleaned and com busted in an internal
combustion engine - a gas turbine coupled to an electric generator.
IGCC plants have the potential to improve thermal efficiencies to more than 42%, and also
have the potential to further reduce nitrate and sulfate ("acid rain") emissions, as well as
mercury emissions, as compared to advanced SCPC units. However, there were only four
operating IGCC units worldwide in 2004, with units in Florida, Indiana, the Netherlands, and
Spain, with a total capacity of ],063 MW. In October, 2004, Secretary of Energy Spencer
Abraham announced a $235 million grant from the U.S. DOE to construct an advanced 285-
megawatt coal-based ]GCC facility by the Southern Company at the Orlando Utilities
Commission's Stanton Energy Center in Orange County, Florida. ]n short, ]GCC is a rapidly
developing coal-fired power plant process technology which has great environmental
promise, but also has potential economic risk.
The ]GCC units installed to date have had poor availabilities and have net capacities of250-
300 MW. Therefore, FP&L would need to install at least 6 ]GCC units to achieve the same
capacity proposed for the SWSLPP. ]n addition, ]GCC technology is currently about 25%
more costly than SCPC technology. While FP&L will probably use these issues to argue that
IGCC is technically and economically infeasible for the SWSLPP, environmental groups
have contested other conventional coal-fired power plant air pollution control permits on the
basis that IGCC is an inherently lower emitting process than conventional power plants.
They have argued that because the BACT requirements apply broadly to coal-fired power
plants, the agency must consider requiring that the plant be redesigned to use ]GCC
technology. The requirement to redesign the plant to use IGCC technology may be a
significant air pollution control permitting issue and is likely to be raised by environmental
groups.
Material Handling Emissions
According to the information from FP&L, the SWSLPP will include coal, limestone, fly ash,
bottom ash, gypsum, and byproduct material handling systems. The information indicates 59
sources with potential PM and PM10 emissions of 28.8 and 15.3 tons per year, respectively.
However, a similar sized facility permitted in Wisconsin had potential PM and PMIO material
handling emissions of 482 and 290 tons per year, respectively. FP&L's estimates appear to
significantly underestimate potential material handling emissions.
Air Pollution Control Review of Florida Power & Light Company's Proposed
1,700 MW Coal-fired SW St. Lucie Power Project.
RTP Environmental Associales, Inc.
September, 2005
- 3 -
IQavid P Kelly- SWSLF>PÃir ~ion Control Review RTP 9-20-2005 DEAC.doc
Pagè4
"will
Fugitive dust sources can lead to significant, ongoing issues with respect to public nuisance.
Poor planning for these sources can be an issue for FP&L and the County for years to corne.
Furthermore, fugitive dust emissions can also be a significant problem in demonstrating that
a source will attain and maintain required ambient air quality standards. Underestimating
these emissions may allow the facility to demonstrate that it can achieve the ambient
standards (and therefore be permitted), but by 'underestimating emissions, the facility may not
be able to meet the standards in practice. A more thorough analysis and demonstration of
material handling emissions is necessary to ensure that the facility can meet ambient air
quality standards.
Other Emission Sources for the Facility
There are other probable emission sources at the SWSLPP which have not been included in
FP&L's information, including auxiliary boilers, emergency generators, fire pumps, fuel oil
storage tanks, and cooling towers. While these sources do not have significant emissions as
compared to the SCPC boilers, these sources can have a significant impact on air quality
because the emissions are released much closer to the ground than the 600 foot stacks for the
SCPC units. For instance, an important emission source not currently discussed in FP&L's
information is cooling towers. Unless the SWSLPP will utilize once through cooling, this
facility will require cooling towers. The most common type of cooling towers for major
power plants are mechanical draft cooling towers. These towers have particulate emissions
resulting from cooling tower drift which can have an adverse impact on air quality.
Ambient Air Quality Impacts
The PSD program requires an air quality analysis for each regulated pollutant that a proposed
major source would emit at levels greater than the significant emissions levels. The purpose
of the air quality analysis is to demonstrate that allowable emission increases from the
proposed source, combined with emissions from other sources, will not cause or contribute to
violations of any National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS), or PSD increments. The
dispersion modeling analysis is usually performed in two steps: 1. A preliminary significant
impact analysis, and, if necessary, 2. A multi-source cumulative impact analysis.
Based on FP&L's modeling results, the SWSLPP maximum modeled air pollutant
concentrations exceed the significant impact levels for NO., PMIO, and S02. Therefore,
FP&L will need to conduct a detailed, multi-source cumulative impact analysis. The
refined impact analysis must determine the total impact of the source in combination with
other sources and compliance with the NAAQS. While FP&L has not provided information
on the refined analysis, FP&L's preliminary data suggests that the facility may meet all PSD
increments and NAAQS. However, for PM emissions, the modeled impact is approximately
one-half of the PSD increment, and that impact is based on material handling operations. If
the current material handling emissions have been underestimated, compliance with the PSD
increment for PM may be more difficult for the facility to achieve.
Air Pollution Control Review of Florida Power & Light Company's Proposed
1.700 MW Coal-fired 5W 51. Lucie Power Project.
RTP Environmental Associates, Inc.
September, 2005
- 4-
@avid P Kelly:SW~ÇPPAir ~ion Control Revi,ew RTP 9-20-2005 DEAC.doc
Page 5 I
...,.¡
Table of Contents
Executive Summary
Proposed Air Pollution Control Systems
Coal-fired Power Plant Technologies and the Issue ofIGCC as BACT
Material Handling Emissions
Other Emission Sources for the Facility
Ambient Air Quality Impacts
ii
ii
iii
iii
Chapter 1. Introduction.
4
Chapter 2. Proiect Description. 5
U Supercritical Pulyerized Coal-fired Boilers 5
Design Fuels 5
Air Pollution Control Requirements 6
Potential Emissions 7
2.2 Material Handling Operations 7
2.3 Other Emission Sources 7
Chapter 3. Evaluation of the proposed air pollution control eauipment. 9
D Carbon Monoxide 9
Recent BACT Determinations 9
Good Combustion Control 9
Carbon Monoxide Control Conclusions. 10
3.2 Nitrogen Oxides. II
Recent BACT Determinations II
Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) 11
Nitrogen Oxides Control Conclusions. 13
3.3 PM and PMIO BACT Analysis. 14
Artifact Formation 14
Recent BACT Determinations 14
PMIPMIO Control Alternatives. 15
Control of Hazardous Air Pollutants 16
PM/PMIO Control Conclusions. 16
3.4 Sulfur Dioxide. 17
Recent BACT Determinations 17
SO, Control Alternatives 17
Flue Gas Desulfurization 17
Air Pollution Control Review of Florida Power & Light Company's Proposed
1,700 MW Coai·fired SW SI. Lucie Power Project.
RTP Environmental Associates, Inc,
September, 2005
- 5 -
l':::,avlo to' Kel.IY..:~W§~F'PAir Pnllution Control Review RTP 9-20-2005 DEAC.doc
'-'
Page 6 ¡
...,
Clean Fuels
Sulfur Dioxide Control Conclusions.
3.5 Volatile Organic Compounds.
Recent BACT Determinations
VOC Control Conclusions.
3.6 Sulfuric Acid Mist.
Recent BACT Determinations
H2S04 Control Alternatives
Sulfuric Acid Mist Control Conclusions.
3.7 Lead Emissions.
Recent BACT Determinations
Lead Control Conclusions.
3.8 Mercury Emissions.
Recent BACT Determinations
Recently Promulgated Mercury Standards.
Mercury Control Alternatives
Mercury Control Conclusions
20
20
22
22
23
23
23
23
25
26
26
27
27
27
28
29
30
Chapter 4. Air Qualitv Impacts. 31
!J. Modeling Methodology 32
ISCSTJ Model 32
Modeling Parameters 32
4.2 Proiect Only Significant Impact Analysis 33
4.3 Refined NAAOS and PSD Increment Analysis 34
4.4 Class I Analyses..................................... ................................... ...... 34
Chapter 6. Coal-Fired Power Plant Technoloaies and the Issue of IGCC
as BACT. 35
g Electric Grid Power Requirements and Electric Generation 39
5.2 New Power Plant Construction in the U.S. 39
5.3 Power Plant Thermal Efficiencies and Air Emissions 40
5.4 Conventional coal-fired power plants. 41
5.5 IGCC Power Plants 41
Overview 41
Operating Experience 41
Maior IGCC Power Plant Components 42
Emissions and Performance 44
Current Status of the IGCC Technology 45
5.6 Conclusion...................................... ..................................... ...... .45
Air Pollution Control Review or Florida Power & Light Company·s Proposed
1.700 MW Coal-fired SW SI. Lucie Power Project.
RTP Environmental Associates. Inc.
September. 2005
·6-
David P Kelly - SWSLPP Air P
n Control Review RTP 9-20-2005 DEAC.doc
Page 7
RTP Environmental Associates, Inc.
September, 2005
Air Pollulion Control Review of Florida Power & Light Company's proposed
1,700 MW Coal-fired SW SI. Lucie Power Project.
- 7-
pavid P Kelly - SWSLPP Ai
'lution Control Review RTP 9-20-2005 DEAC.doc
Page 8
TABLES
TABLE I. Potential air emissions for each of the scrc boilers at the SWSLPP. 8
TABLE 2. Potential emissions for the SWSLPP compared to the PSD applicability
threshold levels (tons per year). 8
TABLE 3. Summary ofrecent BACT emission limits for carbon monoxide. 10
TABLE 4. Summary of recent BACT emission limits for nitro~en oxides for bituminous
coal. 12
TABLE 5. Summary of recent BACT emission limits for nitrogen oxides for
subbituminous coal. 15
TABLE 6. Summary of recent BACT emission limits for sulfur dioxide. 18
TABLE 7. Summary ofFGD systems identified as commercially available and
conclusions regarding their applicability as BACT to the scrc boilers. 19
TABLE 8. Potential sulfur dioxide emissions based on the use of a typical Appalachian
coal and wet flue gas desulfurization. 2 I
TABLE 9. Summary of recent BACT emission limits for VOC emissions. 22
TABLE 10. Summary of recent BACT emission limits for sulfuric acid mist. 24
TABLE I I. Summary of recent BACT emission limits for lead (Pb) emissions. 26
TABLE I I. Summary of recent BACT emission limits for mercury (Hg) emissions. 28
TABLE 12. NAAQS. significant impact levels. and PSD Class II increments. uglm'. 32
TABLE 13. Summary of the maximum pollutant concentrations for the SWSLPP. 33
TABLE 14. Summary of the maximum pollutant concentrations for the SWSLPP
compared to the Class II PSD increments. 34
TABLE 15. Statistics for all coal-fired IGCC plants operating worldwide in 20041. 42
TABLE 16. Emissions data for all coal-fired ¡GCC plants operating worldwide in 2004.
All data reported in pounds per MWh. 45
FIGURES
FIGURE I. Overall process flow diagram for a conventional supercritical pulverized coal-
fired electric generating unit.
FIGURE 2. Overall process flow diagram for an integrated gasification combined cycle
coal-fired electric generating unit.
FIGURE 3. Electric utility load curve during typical hot summer and cold winter days and
the power plant types used to meet these load requirements.
Air Pollution Control Review of Florida Power & Lighl Company's Proposed
1,700 MW Coal-fired 5W 51. Lucie Power Project
- 8-
RTP Environmental Associates, Inc.
5eplember, 2005
[QavidPKeny=sWSLPP Airution Control Review RTP 9-20-2005 DEAC.doc
"""
Page 9 I
Chapter 1.
Introduction.
Florida Power & Light Company (FP&L) is proposing to construct two 850 megawatt
supercritical pressure, pulverized coal-fired electric generating units at a new site in St.
Lucie County, Florida, FP&L has provided preliminary, conceptual technical and
environmental data to St. Lucie County in April, 2005 as part of a rezoning and conditional
use application. As of September 14, FP&L is still preparing the PSD permit application
for submittal to the Florida Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ). The County is in
the process of reviewing local approvals for rezoning, site plan, and conditional use ofthe
proposed property for the project. While the County understands that other Agencies will
review this project under the Florida Power Plant Siting Act, the County wants an
objective, technical review of the information provided by the applicant and the potential
impacts of this project on the County from a human health and environmental perspective.
To this end, the County has requested that RTP review the information and supporting data
provided by the applicant related to air quality to determine:
I. Reasonableness and accuracy of information related to the anticipated 1,700 MW
facility produced by a combination of bituminous coal from domestic and foreign
sources, and petroleum coke.
2. Evaluate project impacts as related to National Ambient Air Quality Standards and
PSD increments to confirm emissions will meet the regulatory requirements.
3. Coordinate with the applicant's environmental consultant to review air modeling
and emissions data.
4. Evaluate the technical feasibility of the air quality control equipment to perform to
the design specifications and projected emissions.
5. Review and evaluate air related responses provided to DRC questions.
6. Evaluate potential impacts to environmentally sensitive receptors present on
adjacent County-owned natural areas.
Air Pollution Control Review of Florida Power & Light Company's Proposed
1,700 MW Coal-fired SW 51. Lucie Power Project
RTP Environmental Associates, Inc.
September, 2005
·9-
~vid P Kelli-s:W~Çp¡:)Alrp0l.:ncontrol .Review .RTP 9-20-2005 DEAC.do,c
r-agelu I
....,
Chapter 1. Project Description.
Florida Power & Light Company (FP&L) is proposing to construct two 850 megawatt
supercritical pressure, pulverized coal-fired electric generating units at a new greenfield
site in St. Lucie County, Florida. With a total generating capacity of 1,700 MW, the SW St.
Lucie Power Project will be one of the largest proposed new coal-fired electric generating
stations in the U.S.
1.1 Supercritical Pulverized Coal-fired Boilers
The SWSLPP units are designed to be conventional power plants using supercritical
pressure, pulverized coal-fired (SCPC) boilers coupled with steam turbine / electric
generator sets. These units are undoubtedly designed to be base loaded, with capacity
factors for the two units likely to be 85% - 90%. These high capacity factors require an
availability of at least 94% for each unit, equal to an unavailability of 6%, or about 3 weeks
per year, with a maximum forced outage rate of 2%, or about I week per year.
General design specifications for each of the SCPC boilers.
Type
Maximum
Continuous Rating
and Efficiency
Supercritical, variable pressure design
Maximum Design Heat Input Capacity, mmBtu/hr
7,400
Unit Output Rating. MWnct
Overall thermal efficiency, %
Net Unit Heat Rate, Btu/kWh
850
39
8,716
Since the late 1950s one U.S. vendor has supplied 90 units totaling 60,000 MW ranging in
size from 343 to 1300 MW. Therefore, the SCPC design is a mature, proven technology.
The supercritical pressures improve unit efficiency by about 5% when compared to
subcritical designs. Because ofthe greater efficiency, these units will have an inherently
lower emission rate for all pollutants on a pound per megawatt hour basis.
Design Fuels
FP&L has indicated that these units will be designed to bum central Appalachian coal. In
addition, the facility may import Columbian coal, and it may also co-fire petroleum coke.
Coal-fired boilers also require a startup fuel which may be used for load stabilization and
supplemental firing. The most common startup fuels are distillate fuel oil or natural gas.
FP&L has not provided design fuel data. This fuel data is critical in determining potential
SÛ], HCI, HF, and mercury emission rates, since these pollutants result from the presence
Air Pollution Control Review 01 Florida Power & Light Company's Proposed
1,700 MW Coal-fired SW SI Lucie Power Project.
RTP Environmental Associates, Inc.
September, 2005
- 10-
[þavid PKelly - ªwª~j5p Air ~ti()n Control Review RIP 9-20-2005 DEAC.doc
Page11j
'wi
of those contaminants in the coal. The coal type can also affect NO, and CO pollutant
emission rates. The Central Appalachian coal quality data in the following Table is based
on the U.S. Geologic Services' COALQUAL database data for Central Appalachian coal.
RTP has limited information on Colombian coals. At least one faciJity permitted in 1999,
the AES Puerto Rico facility, was permitted to fire Colombian coals with sulfur contents of
less than 1.0%. Assuming a typical heating value of 10,000 Btu/lb, this coal would have an
uncontrolled S02 emission rate of2.0 Ib/mmBtu, similar to the Appalachian coals.
FP&L has indicated that the facility would be designed to fire petroleum coke. Because of
the limited quantities available, petroleum coke could only be used as a supplemental fuel.
While there are many types of petroleum coke, most petroleum coke is a high Btu, high
sulfur, low moisture, and low ash fuel produced from the refining of crude oil. In
appearance, it looks much like coal. The sulfur content of petroleum coke is dependent on
the crude oil source and the refining requirements. Typical sulfur levels are very high,
ranging from 4 - 6%, with uncontrolled S02 emission rates of6.0 - 9.0 Ib/mmBtu.
The production of petroleum coke expanded rapidly in the I 990s due to the changing
qualities of crude oil, and environmental regulations requiring cleaner transportation fuels.
The latter requirements have reduced the allowable sulfur content in transportation fuels
from 0.1% to less than 0.05%. The U.S. EPA has promulgated regulations that will
become effective in 2006 that will further reduce fuel sulfur content for transportation
distillate fuel oil to less than 0.0015%. To achieve these low sulfur contents, much of the
sulfur is captured in the petroleum coke.
Petroleum coke has been used for years as part of the fuel blend at steam-electric
generating facilities. The coke fired in most pulverized coal units is a soft coke which can
be easily pulverized, although other types of coke, including shot coke, may be used.
Moisture, %
Ash Content, %
Volatile Matter, %
Fixed Carbon, %
Sulfur, %
Heat Value, Btullb
Uncontrolled 502, Ib/mmBtu
Typical fuel specifications for the SW St. Lucie Power Project.
Proximate Analysis Central Columbian Coal
Appalachian Coal
3.39
8.98
32.58
55.07
1.37
13,157
2.09
Petroleum Coke
'" 1.0
'" 10,000
'" 2.0
'" 4.0 - 6.5
'" 14,000
"'6.0-9.0
AIr Pollution Control Requirements
Based on the information from FP&L, these units will have five pollution control systems:
I. Low-NO, Burners
Air Pollution Control Review of Florida Power & Light Company's Proposed
1,700 MW Coal-flred SW St Lucie Power Project
RTP Environmental Associates, Inc.
September, 2005
- 11 -
[QaVid P Kelly ~ªW~I'F)¡:íÂir I\-,tion Control Review RTP9-20-2005 DEAC.doc
Page12
''w/I
2. Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR)
3. Fabric Filter Baghouse
4. Wet Limestone Forced Oxidation Flue Gas Desulfurization
5. Wet Electrostatic Precipitator
Potential Emissions
Potential emissions for the SWSLPP based on the data provided by FP&L are summarized
in Table I. Potential criteria and PSD emissions for the entire SWSLPP facility as
compared to the PSD significant levels are summarized in Table 2. Based on Table 2, the
SWSLPP will be a major source under the PSD program for emissions of carbon monoxide
(CO), nitrogen oxides (NO.), PMIPM1o, sulfur dioxide (S02), volatile organic compounds
(VOC), lead, fluorides (as HF), and sulfuric acid mist. An evaluation of the pollution
control systems is included in Chapter 3.
1.2 Material Handling Operations
According to the information from FP&L, material handling systems will include coal,
limestone, fly ash, bottom ash, gypsum, and byproduct handling systems. This information
indicates 59 point and fugitive sources (point sources have a distinct stack, fugitive sources
have no formal stack, such as coal piles), with potential PM and PMIO emissions of28.8
and 15.3 tons per year, respectively. This appears to be a significant underestimation in
potential material handling emissions. By way of comparison, a similar sized facility
permitted in Wisconsin in 2004 had potential PM and PMIO material handling emissions of
482 and 290 tons per year, respectively.
FP&L must conduct a complete BACT analysis for all PM/PMIO emission sources,
including the material handling sources. BACT for other permits require an active coal
storage building or storage silos where coal is unloaded, stored, and reclaimed, as well as
numerous other controls on fugitive dust sources. Fugitive dust sources can lead to
significant, ongoing issues with respect to public nuisance. Poor planning for these
sources can be an issue for FP&L and the County for years to come. Furthermore, fugitive
dust emissions can be a significant problem in demonstrating that a source will attain and
maintain national ambient air quality standards. Underestimating these emissions may
allow the facility to demonstrate that it can achieve the ambient standards (and therefore be
permitted), but, by underestimating emissions, the facility may not be able to meet the
standards in practice. Therefore, RTP recommends that FP&L conduct a more thorough
analysis and demonstration of material handling emissions.
1.3 Other Emission Sources
There are other possible emission sources at the SWSLPP which have not been included in
FP&L's information to date, including auxiliary boilers, emergency generators, fire pumps,
fuel oil storage tanks, and cooling towers. While these sources do not have significant
emissions as compared to the SCPC boilers, these sources can have a significant impact on
Air Pollution Control Review of Florida Power & Light Company's Proposed
1.700 MW Coal·fired SW St. Lucie Power Project.
RTP Environmental Associates, Inc.
September, 2005
- 12-
David P Kelly -SWSLPP Air P
n Control Review RTP 9-20-2005 DEAC.doc
Page 13
the dispersion modeling analyses because the emissions are released much closer to the
ground than the 600 foot stacks for the SCPC units.
For instance, an important emission source not currently discussed in FP&L's information
is cooling towers. Unless the SWSLPP will utilize once through cooling, this facility will
require cooling towers. The most common type of cooling towers for major power plants
are mechanical draft cooling towers. These towers have particulate emissions resulting
from cooling tower drift which can sometimes have an adverse impact on dispersion
modeling results.
POLLUTANT
TABLE 1. Potential air emissions for each ofthe SCPC boilers at the SWSLPP.
Carbon Monoxide
Nitrogen Oxides
Particulate Matter
Particulate Matter
Sulfur Dioxide
Organic Compounds
Lead
Mercury
Beryllium
Fluorides (as HF)
Sulfuric Acid Mist
Carbon Dioxide
CO
NO.
PM
PM¡o
S02
OC
Pb
Hg
Be
HF
H2S04
CO2
Ib/MWh
1.27
0.58
0.12
0.12
0.99
0.021
2.7E-05
I.3E-05
2.8E-06
0.0022
0.041
1.27
POTENTIAL
TO EMIT
tons/yr
4,991.4
2,267.5
487.2
487.2
3,889.8
81.4
0.108
0.052
0.011
8.7
162.1
4,991.4
EMISSION RATE
TABLE 2. Potential emissions for the SWSLPP compared to the PSD applicability
threshold levels (tons per year).
Pollutant
Carbon Monoxide
Nitrogen Oxides
PM
PMIO
Sulfur Dioxide
VOC
Lead
Mercury
Beryllium
Fluorides (as HF)
IblmmBtu
0.15
0.07
0.015
0.015
0.12
0.0025
0.0000033
1 .6E-06
3.4E-07
0.00027
0.005
0.15
Potential Project
Emissions
9,962
4,538
972
972
7,779
163
0.22
0.10
0.02
17
PSD Significant
Emission Threshold
100
40
25
15
40
40
0.6
nla
nla
3
Over the Significant
Threshold?
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
NO
n/a
nla
Yes
RTP Environmental Associates, Inc.
September. 2005
Air Pollution Control Review of Florida Power & Light Company's Proposed
1.700 MW Coal-fired SW St. Lucie Power Project.
- 13 -
[ÞaVid P Kelly- "SVYŠ[p,p Air I\..,.Ition Control Review RIP 9-20-2005 DEAC.dOc· .
..."
. '~~9~]4]
Sulfuric Acid Mist
324
7
Yes
Air Pollution Control Review of Florida Power & light Company's Proposed
1,700 MW Coal-fired SW 5t. Lucie Power Project.
RTP Environmental Associates, inc.
5eplember, 2005
- 14-
[Qavid.p Kelly:sijJSLÞÞ Air'~ ...Jtion Control Review RTP 9-20-2005 DEAC,doc~~~~·-..""
Pa9~
Chapter 2. Evaluation of the proposed air
pollution control equipment.
The Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) regulations under 40 CFR §52.21 specifY
that any major new stationary source within an attainment area must undergo a PSD review
and obtain a preconstruction permit. For new sources, the regulations apply to any source in
any of28 designated industrial source categories having potential emissions of 100 tons per
year or more, or any other source having potential emissions of250 tons per year or more of
any pollutant regulated under the Act. Because the proposed fossil fuel-fired boilers are one
of the 28 designated source categories, the SWSLPP major source status is based on potential
emissions in excess of 100 tons per year. Based on Table 2, the SWSLPP is a major
stationary source under the PSD program for carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxides (NOx),
particulate matter. PMIO, sulfur dioxide (S02), volatile organic compounds (VOC),
fluorides (HF), and sulfuric acid mist (H2S04).
2.4 Carbon Monoxide
Recent BACT Determinations
Table 3 is a summary of fifteen recent carbon monoxide BACT determinations for coal-
fired boilers. The only technology identified for CO emissions is good combustion control.
From Table 3, the most stringent emission limit is a proposed limit of 0.1 0 Ib/mmBtu, with
other BACT limits ranging from 0.11 to 0.15 Ib/mmBtu. FP&L is proposing a limit of
0.154 Ib/mmBtu, which is at the upper end of this range.
Good Combustion Control
Combustion controis in modern utility boilers generally include the following:
1. Staged combustion to minimize NOx formation.
2. Good air/fuel mixing in the combustion zone.
3. High temperatures and low oxygen levels in the primary combustion zone.
4. Overall excess oxygen levels just high enough to complete combustion.
5. Sufficient residence time to complete combustion.
Combustion efficiency is directly related to the three "I's" of combustion: Time,
Temperature, and Turbulence. A fourth critical parameter is the level of oxygen (02) in the
boiler, referred to as excess O2. Combustion control is accomplished primarily through
boiler design (as it relates to time, temperature, and turbulence) and boiler operation (as it
relates to excess O2). Very low or very high excess Ch levels may cause high CO
emissions, and also affect NOx formation. Boilers generally have an inverse relationship
Air Pollution Control Review of Florida Power & Light Company's Proposed
1,700 MW Coal·fired SW Sl. Lucie Power Project
RTP Environmental Associates. Inc,
September, 2005
·15 -
I]!Vid ÞKeIIY:êWÆ:~~f'AirPc\-;>n Control Review RTP 9-20-2005 DEAC.doc
Page 161
~..J
between excess Û2 levels and CO versus NO. emissions: raising excess O2 tends to reduce
CO emissions, but tend to increase NO. emissions. Because of these interrelationships,
SCPC boilers typically operate within a narrow excess O2 range.
CO emissions are also sensitive to boiler operating conditions. Changes in operating
conditions such as boiler start up and shut down can have a significant, though temporary,
impact on emissions. For instance, during boiler start up the boiler itself is relatively cool,
and the low air flow rates make it difficult to obtain good air/fuel mixing. As a result, CO
emissions can "spike" during boiler start up, shut down, and during mill starts and stops.
TABLE 3. Summary of recent BACT emission limits for carbon monoxide.
"";Sii0';···~I·. . > Capaçlty Unit Pennltor .... .' Date State Primary Umlt
.. '."'>'" . .. MW .. Type Application Fuel .. Ib/mrnBtu
1 Fl'&L SW 1700 SCI'C I're-appl .Jun-OS FL Appalae 0.15
SLPP hian
2 Montana-Dakota 175 CFB Permit Jun-05 ND Lignite 0.15
Utilities
3 Omaha Public 660 PC Permit Mar-05 NE PRB 0.15
Power District
4 Xcel Energy - 750 PC Permit Mar-05 CO Sub Bit 0.13
Comanche
S LongleafEnergy 1200 PC Application Jan-05 GO PRB or 0.15
Associates, LLC bitum.
6 NEVCO Energy 270 CFB Permit Oct-04 UT Sub Bit 0.12
(Sevier Power)
7 City Pub Serv. 750 PC Permit Oct-04 TX PRB 0.15
of San Antonio
8 Intermountain 950 PC Permit Oct-04 UT Sub Bit 0.15
Power
9 Intennountain 950 PC Pennit Oct-04 UT Bitum. 0.15
Power
I WPSC Weston 500 PC Permit Jul-04 WI Subbit 0.15
0 Unit 4
1 Sandy Creek (LS 800 PC Permit Jun-04 TX PRB 0.15
1 Pow~r)
1 Longview 600 PC Permit Mar-04 WV Bit Coal 0.11
2 Power, LLC 2.5% S
1 Has1ings 220 PC Permit Mar-04 NE PRB 0.15
3 Utilities
1 Steag Desert 1500 SCPC Application Feb-04 NM Sub Bit 0.10
4 Enenzv
1 Elm Road Gen. 615 SCPC Permit Jan-04 WI Pin. #8 0.12
S Station
Carbon Monoxide Control Conclusions.
The only technology identified for CO emissions is good combustion control. The SCPC
boilers proposed by FP&L will utilize these controls. FP&L is proposing a limit of 0.154
1b/mmBtu, which is at the upper end of the range of 14 recently issued permits. However,
Air Pollution Control Review of Florida Power & Light Company's Proposed
1.700 MW Coal·fired SW St. Lucie Power Project.
RTP Environmental Associates, Inc.
September, 2005
- 16-
[þaVid PKelly': syv~çep Âir .......tion Control Review RTP 9-20-2005· DEAC.do.c
...."I.
Page 17
since CO emissions are not considered as critical as other criteria air pollutants such as
NO" the proposed limit is probably approvable.
2.5 Nitrogen Oxides.
Recent BACT Determinations
Table 4 is a summary of recent NO, BACT detenninations for coal-fired boilers. The most
stringent emission limit is 0.05 Ib/mmBtu for a subbituminous coal-fired unit, with other
limits ranging from 0.07 to 0.16Ib/mmBtu. All PC boilers were required to use low NO,
burners in combination with SCR. A facility not included in Table 4, but never-the-Iess
relevant to the SWSLPP, is the Thoroughbred Generating Station in Kentucky. This
proposed 1,500 MW facility has a permit issued in 2002 which is still being contested.
This facility would also combust bituminous coal in SCPC boilers. The penn it requires
low NO, burners in combination with SCR, and has an emission limit of 0.07 Ib/mmBtu.
Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR)
Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) is a secondary, post combustion control system that
can reduce NO. emissions by up to 90% in coal-fired utility boilers. SCR systems consist
of an ammonia (NH3) or urea (CO(NH2)2) injection system and a catalytic reactor. The
ammonia injection grid injects NH3 into the flue gas upstream of the catalyst. NH3 reacts
with NO, and O2 in the presence of the catalyst to fonn molecular nitrogen (N2) and water
according to the following general equations:
4NH3 + 4NO + O2 ->
4NH3 + 2N02 + O2 ->
4N2 + 6H20
3N2 + 6H20
Important secondary reactions that occur in the presence of the catalyst are the oxidation of
S02 to S03 and the oxidation of elemental mercury:
2S02 + O2
HgO
-> S03
-> Hg2+
The secondary oxidation of sulfur dioxide to sulfur trioxide leads to increased sulfuric acid
mist emissions. Conversely, the secondary oxidation of elemental mercury to oxidized
mercury in the SCR favorably impacts mercury control in the wet FGD system. Increasing
the amount of oxidized mercury improves mercury control in the wet FGD.
To achieve optimum long-tenn NO. reductions, SCR systems must be carefully designed
for each application. The NH3 injection rate must be carefully controlled to maintain an
NHiNO. molar ratio that efficiently reduces NO, without excessive ammonia passing
through the control system as ammonia "slip". The SCR reactor operating temperature
depends on the catalyst used and is also critical to SCR perfonnance. The most common
Air Pollution Control Review of Florida Power & light Company's Proposed
1,700 MW Coal-fired SW SI. Lucie Power Project.
RTP Environmental Associates, Inc.
September. 2005
- 17-
David P Kelly- SWSLf'P Air
tion Control Review RTP 9-20-2005 DEAC.doc
Page1S!
catalyst for utility boiler applications is a vanadium-based material supported on
aluminum, honeycomb substrate that is installed in multiple layers in the catalytic reactor
vessel. This catalyst has an optimum operating range between 650-750 of, which requires
that the SCR system be located between the boiler economizer and the air preheater.
TABLE 4. Summary of recent BACT emission limits for nitrogen oxides for
bituminous coal.
. .'. Capacity Unit Permit or Date·· State Primary Limit
0Fr·,· ·"T·~6
·....i» ...... ..... '. MW Type Application' Fuel..·· Ibln1mBtu
1 }'P&L SW 1700 SCI'C I're-Bllpl ,hm-05 FL '\ppBI. 0.07
SI.PI'
2 Montana-Dakota 175 CFB Permit J un-O 5 ND Lignite 0.09
Utilities
3 Omaha Public 660 PC Permit Mar-05 NE PRB 0.08
Power District
4 Xcel Energy - 750 PC Permit Mar-OS CO Sub Bil 0.08
Comanche
5 Longleaf Energy 1200 PC Application Ian-OS GO PRB or 0.07
Associates, LLC bitum.
6 NEVCO Energy 270 CFB Permit Oct-04 UT Sub Bit 0.10
(Sevier Power)
7 City Pub Serv. 750 PC Permit Oct-04 TX PRB 0.05
of San Antonio
8 Intermountain 950 PC Permit Oct-04 UT Sub Bit 0.07
Power
9 Intermountain 950 PC Permit Oct-04 UI Bitum. 0.07
Power
I WPSC Weston 500 PC Permit Jul-04 WI Subbit 0.07*
0 Unit 4
1 Sandy Creek (LS 800 PC Permit Jun-04 TX PRB 0.09
I Power)
I Longview 600 PC Permit Mar-04 WV Bit Coal 0.08
2 Power, LLC 2.5%S
1 Hastings 220 PC Permit Mar-04 NE PRB 0.08
3 Utilities
1 S teag Desert 1500 SCPC Application F eb-04 NM Sub Bit 0.07
4 EnerJ(Y
1 Elm Road Gen. 615 SCPC Permit J an-04 WI Pitt. #8 0.07
5 Station
Footnotes
· The permit also includes an annual emission limit of 0.06 Ib/mmBtu.
Achievable Emission Reductions
SCR technology has demonstrated the highest levels of NO. reductions of all feasible NO.
control systems for coal-fired utility boilers. SCR systems for coal-fired boiler applications
Air Pollution Control Review of Florida Power & Light Company's Proposed
1,700 MW Coal-fired SW SI. Lucia Power Project.
. 18-
RTP Environmental Associates, Inc.
September, 2005
...I
Page 191
lQavid PK~nY.:^§~[L.ef'}\irÞ'--onControl Review RTP 9-20-2005 DEACdoc
have design control efficiencies of up to 90%. SCR is generally combined with other
combustion control methods, particularly low-NO. burners, to achieve the lowest possible
emission rates. The actual performance ofSCR systems vary significantly depending on
the volume of catalyst, the inlet NO. concentration, the operating temperature, the age of
the catalyst, concentrations of poisoning agents in the flue gas, and the acceptable level of
ammonia slip. All of these parameters must be optimized to obtain the highest levels of
NO. reduction.
The AES Somerset Station in New York was the first large U.S. coal-fired boiler SCR
retrofit and was placed into service in 1999. This unit has a design boiler NO. emission
rate of 0.55 Ib/mmBtu. The SCR system has a design control efficiency of90%. As of
October 2002, this SCR system has operated during four ozone seasons. The SCR has
demonstrated that it can achieve the 90% design NO. reduction. However, typical
operating NO. reduction efficiencies, especially at higher loads, is approximately 85%.]
While the SCR is designed to achieve an outlet emission rate of 0.05 Ib/mmBtu on a short
term basis at full load operation, this unit cannot achieve this emission rate, nor even an
emission rate of 0.07 Ib/mmBtu, on a long term basis. This is due (in part) to the fact that
the SCR reactor temperature drops below the optimum temperature during lower boiler
load operation, resulting in reduced NO. removal efficiencies and higher emission rates.
The City Public Service of San Antonio PC boiler firing Powder River Basin
subbituminous coal has an emission limit of 0.05 Ib/mmBtu, based on an annual average.
The most stringent NO. emission limit for bituminous coal-fired boilers is 0.07 Ib/mmBtu.
The achievable emission rate for subbituminous coal-fired PC units is lower because the
NO. emission rate leaving the boiler can be lower for subbituminous coal applications than
for otherwise similar bituminous coal applications. The lower NO. concentration at the
SCR inlet can translate directly to lower SCR outlet concentrations.
Nitrogen Oxides Control Conclusions.
The most stringent emission limit for recently issued permits is 0.05 Ib/mmBtu for a
subbituminous coal-fired unit, with other limits ranging from 0.07 to 0.16 Ib/mmBtu.
FP&L is proposing a limit ofO.07Ib/mmBtu, which is equal to the lowest permitted
emission limits for recently permitted bituminous coal-fired boilers. All PC boilers were
required to use low NO. burners in combination with SCR, which is also proposed by
FP&L for the SWSLPP. While it is correct to conclude that subbituminous coal-fired units
should have a lower BACT emission limit than bituminous coal-fired units, it is also
important to note that all SCR systems are being designed to achieve emission rates of no
more than 0.05 Ib/mmBtu. Because NO. emissions are a critical pollutant of concern for
acid rain, nitrogen deposition and eutrophication, and ozone (smog) formation, additional
pressure may be placed on FP&L to further lower the allowable NO. emission rate.
I SCR Svstem Ooeratim!: Exoerience at AES Somerset, B&W Report BR-1732, D.P. Tonn. A.
Kokkinos, The Babcock & Wilcox Company, Barberton, Ohio; and D. Monnin, AES Somerset,
LLC, Barker, New York.
Air Pollution Control Review of Florida Power & Light Company's Proposed
1.7DO MW Coal-fired SW St. Lucie Power Project.
RTP Environmental Associales, Inc.
September, 2005
-19 -
@åVidPt<eIlY~ª~SLPP. Air l )tion çontiõrRi~i~v.. Rt~~~~.?~>:2è@~ÖE'\¢.:<f~ê. .... "
-
...""
.....·..f~g~1(H
Air Pollution Control Review of Florida Power & Light Company's Proposed
1 ,700 MW Coal-fired 5W 51. Lucie Power Project.
RTP Environmental Associates, Inc.
September. 2005
-20 -
[Qavid P Kelly:'ªW~[ÞPAir~tion Control Review RTP .9-20-2005 DEAC.doc
"WI!
Pag~
2.6 PM and PM10 BACT Analysis.
Particulate matter (PM) and particulate matter with particle sizes less than 10 microns,
(PMIO), can be defined differently in different states. The definition of particulate matter
under the federal Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources, 40 CFR § 60.2, is:
Particulate matter means any finely divided solid or liquid
material, other than uncombined water, as measured by the
reference methods specified under each applicable subpart.
The required reference method for new coal-fired boilers under 40 CFR § 60.48a(b)(2)
requires the use of Reference Method 5 for units without wet FGD systems or a variation
ofthis method, Method 5B, for facilities measuring emissions after wet FGD systems.
This is the method required by many states listed in the U.S. EPA's databases. However,
some states also require the measurement of PM10 emissions separately, or they may define
PM emissions using other reference methods.
From the above definition, particulate matter may be solid or liquid materials. PM which
exists as a solid or liquid at temperatures of approximately 250 of are measured using U.S.
EPA's Reference Method 5, and are commonly called "front half' emissions. Particulate
matter which exists as a solid or liquid at a much lower temperature of 32 of are measured
using U.S. EPA's Reference Method 202, and are commonly called "back half' or
"condensable" particulate matter. Because of these very different temperatures at which
particulate matter emissions are measured, the amount of particulate matter measured
depends on the reference methodes) required. The direct comparison of emission
limitations from different states is complicated by the fact that the test methodes) required
are be different. The most stringent test requirements are generally based on the
requirement to use both Reference Methods 5 and 202.
Artifact Formation
PM measurement using Reference Method 202 is further complicated by the well
documented problem of PM formation in the sample train. The intimate contact of water
with flue gas in the sample train can create "artifacts" by converting gaseous pollutants to
PM. These phenomena results in a positive bias indicating more PM than is actually
emitted. Method 202 does not include any procedures for quantifying and removing artifacts
from the total measured result. The most important artifact is sulfuric acid mist. FP&L's
proposal to use a wet electrostatic precipitator for sulfuric acid mist control should help
reduce total PM emissions and mitigate artifact formation.
Recent BACT Determinations
From Table 5, the most stringent emission limit is 0.013 Ib/mmBtu for a subbituminous
coal-fired unit, with other BACT limits ranging from 0.015 to 0.033 Ib/mmBtu. The
variation is due to individual unit design and fuel requirements, unit (boiler) type, and the
Air Pollution Control Review of Florida Power & Light Company's Proposed
1,700 MW Coal-fired SW St. Lucie Power Project.
RTP Environmental Associates, Inc.
September, 2005
- 21 -
@jvid Pl<e ly-ªyŸ~p~ir~iOr1 Control Review RIP 9-20-2005 DEAC.doc
-.I
Page 221
issue of the reference methods required to demonstrate compliance.
TABLE S. Summary of recent BACT emission limits for nitrogen oxides for
subbituminous coal.
.UI~ ,'. Capacity Unit Permit or ' Date State Primary limit
c,', ,." . MW Tvpe Application .' Fuel .', Ib/mmBtu
I H&L SW 1700 SCI'C l're-a lpl .lun-05 JiL Appal. 0.015
SLPP
2 Montana-Dakota 175 CFB Permit Jun-05 ND Lignite 0.028
Utilities
3 Omaha Public 660 PC Permit Mar-OS NE PRB 0.018
Power District
4 Xcel Energy - 750 PC Permit Mar-OS CO Sub Bit 0.022
Comanche
5 Longleaf Energy 1200 PC Application Jan-05 GO PRB or 0.033
Associates, LLC bitum.
6 NEVCO Energy 270 CFB Permit Oct-04 UT Sub Bit 0.016
(Sevier Power)
7 City Pub Servo 750 PC Permit Oct-04 TX PRB 0.022
of San Antonio
8 Intermountain 950 PC Permit Oct-04 UT Sub Bit 0.013
Power
9 Intermountain 950 PC Permit Oct-04 UT Bitum. 0.013
Power
1 WPSC Weston 500 PC Permit Jul-04 WI Subbit 0.020
0 Unit 4
1 Sandy Creek (LS 800 PC Permit J un-04 TX PRB 0.033
1 Power)
1 Longview 600 PC Permit Mar-04 WV Bit Coal 0.018
2 Power, LLC 2.5%S
1 Hastings 220 PC Permit Mar-04 NE PRB 0.018
3 Utilities
1 Steag Desert 1500 sepc Application F eb-04 NM Sub Bit 0.020
4 Enerl!v
1 Elm Road Gen. 615 sepe Permit Jan-04 WI Pitt. #8 0.018
5 Station
PMlPM10 Control Alternatives.
Fabric filter baghouses and electrostatic precipitators (ESP) have been the only control
technologies used for coal-fired boilers permitted under the PSD program since 1994. The
use of even high efficiency ESPs has become less common, probably because fabric filter
systems are easier to operate, have fewer malfunction issues, and may enhance the control
of other pollutants, especially mercury.
Fabric Filter Baghouse
Air Pollution Control Review of Florida Power & Light Company's Proposed
1,700 MW Coal-fired SW SI. Lucie Power Project.
RTP Environmental Associates, Inc,
September, 2005
-22 -
[þavid PKelly-sWê'LppAir\..rutionControl Review RTP 9-20-2005 DEAC.doc
.."r..
Page 231
A baghouse separates dry particles from the boiler flue gas by filtering the flue gas through
a fabric filter. As the flue gas flows through a fabric filter, a layer of accumulated fly ash,
referred to as the "filter cake", builds up on the fabric. The primary filtering media is
actually the filter cake, rather than the fabric itself. Fabric filter baghouses have several
advantages when used for the control of fly ash from a SCPC boiler, including:
· Higher control efficiencies as compared to other technologies.
· Higher control efficiencies at smaller particle sizes.
· Relatively constant outlet grain loading over the entire boiler load range.
· Simpler operations and maintenance.
· Enhanced hazardous air pollutant control.
The primary disadvantage of fabric filter baghouses is the relatively high pressure drop
high induced draft fan power requirements as compared to an ESP.
Electrostatic Precipitators
An electrostatic precipitator (ESP) is a particulate control system that uses electrical forces
to move particulate matter out of the flue gas stream and onto colJection plates. ESPs may
be designed for wet or dry operation. Wet ESPs are used for sulfuric acid mist control, and
have been proposed for the SWSLPP.
Recently, electrostatic precipitators (ESPs) have not been used for pulverized coal-fired
boiler applications as frequently as baghouses, primarily because baghouses are more
flexible, simpler to operate, and, in most cases, have lower emission rates.
Control of Hazardous Air Pollutants
An important consideration in selecting a particulate control system is that a number of
hazardous air polJutants (HAPs) emitted from coal combustion can be effectively colJected
by particulate control systems. HAP emissions from coal-fired boilers may be classified
into 4 categories:, including: I. Organic HAP emissions, 2. Inorganic, solid phase HAPs,
3. Inorganic acid gas HAPs, and 4. Mercury. Many of the inorganic, solid phase HAPs
tend to be enriched on fine particulate matter. Because baghouses are more efficient at
removing total fine particulate matter than other PM control systems, baghouses have
higher trace metal and inorganic hazardous air pollutant control efficiencies than ESPs or
other PM control systems2.
PM/PM10 Control Conclusions.
The most stringent PM emission limit is 0.013 Ib/mmBtu for a subbituminous coal-fired
unit, with other BACT limits ranging from 0.0\5 to 0.033 Ib/mmBtu. FP&L's proposed
limit of 0.0\5 Ib/mmBtu is at the lower range of BACT limits. All recently permitted PC
boilers are utilizing fabric filter baghouses as proposed by FP&L. The proposed control
2 Reference: Table 3-3 from the U.S. EPA Report #EPA-600/R-01-109; April, 2002.
Air Pollution Control Review of Florida Power & Light Company's Proposed
1,700 MW Coal-fired SW St. Lucie Power Project.
-23 -
RTP Environmenlal Associates, Inc.
September, 2005
David P Kelly: SI}JªLpP Air' Ition Control Review RTP 9-20-2005 DEAC.doc
Page 24
equipment and emission limit appear to be consistent with other BACT detenninations.
2.7 Sulfur Dioxide.
Recent BACT Determinations
Table 6 is a summary of recent S02 BACT detenninations from coal-fired boilers. The
most stringent emission limit is 0.022 Ib/mmBtu for a subbituminous coal-fired CFB
boiler. Based on a maximum uncontrolled coal S02 emission rate of 0.6 Ib/mmBtu, this
limit is equal to a reduction efficiency of96%. The City Public Service of San Antonio has
an emission limit ofO.06Ib/mmBtu for a subbituminous coal-fired PC boiler. Based on
the permit required maximum uncontrolled S02 emission rate of 0.625 Ib/mmBtu for the
PRB coal, this is equal to a reduction efficiency of90%. The penn it for Weston Unit 4 has
an emission limit of 0.10 Ib/mmBtu, and is also based on firing subbituminous coal. Based
on an uncontrolled coal sulfur content of approximately 1.25 Ib/mmBtu, this is equal to a
reduction efficiency of92%.
For bituminous coal-fired units, all of the pennits issued require the use of wet flue gas
desulfurization systems. The most stringent emission limit is 0.12 Ib/mmBtu for the
Longview Power facility. Based on an uncontrolled coal sulfur content of 4.00 Ib/mmBtu,
this is equal to a reduction efficiency of97%. The Elm Road Generating Station has an
emission limit of 0.15 Ib/mmBtu, with a requirement to fire washed Pittsburg #8 coal with
a maximum uncontrolled S02 emission rate of 4.0 Ib/mmBtu. This limit is equal to a
reduction efficiency of96%. Finally, the Thoroughbred Generating Station (Kentucky)
which is not listed in this Table has a limit of 0.167Ib/mmBtu and also fires a high sulfur
bituminous coal. Based on a very high sulfur coal with an uncontrolled 802 emission rate
of 8.0 Ib/mmBtu, this allowable emission rate is equal to a reduction efficiency of98%.
502 Control Alternatives
Sulfur dioxide emissions from PC boilers may be controlled by the use oflow sulfur coals,
or through post combustion flue gas desulfurization (FGD) systems. These technologies
may be used separately or in combination for more effective 802 control.
Flue Gas Desulfurization
Flue gas desulfurization (FGD) technologies for large pulverized coal-fired utility boilers
include "wet" and "dry" systems. Wet FGD systems are characterized by low flue gas
outlet temperatures, saturated flue gas conditions, and a wet sludge reaction product. For
most coals, the flue gas saturation temperature is about 123 of; FP&L indicates a stack
temperature of 135 OF which may actually be above the saturation temperature. In most
wet FGD applications, the primary particulate control system is located upstream of the
FGD system so that the fly ash and scrubber reaction products are collected separately.
Air Pollution Control Review of Florida Power & Light Company's Proposed
1,700 MW Coal-r.red SW SI. Lucie Power Project.
RTP Environmental Associates, Inc.
September, 2005
·24 -
~--
Page251
]"!3vid PKeÌlY.:~W[C~eÄir~ionControl.Rêview RTP 9-20-2005 DEAC.doc
Conversely, dry FGD systems are typically characterized by flue gas temperatures above
the saturation point and the particulate control system is located downs/ream of the FGD
system. In dry FGD systems, the fly ash and the FGD reaction product are commingled
into a single product or waste stream. Wet FGD systems generally have higher S02 control
efficiencies than dry FGD systems.
TABLE 6. Summary of recent BACT emission limits for sulfur dioxide.
~... C;apacity Unit Peí'mltor Date State Primary .. Limit
'..c .... MW Iy". Application Fuel '. Ib/mmBtu
I ¡;'P&L SW 1700 SCI'C I're-appl .lun-05 .,'1. Apllal. 0.12
SLPP
2 Montana-Dakota 175 CFB Permit Jun-05 ND Lignite 0.038
Utilities
3 Omaha Public 660 PC Permit Mar-OS NE PRB 0.12
Power District
4 Xcel Energy - 750 PC Permit Mar-OS CO Sub Bit 0.10
Comanche
5 Longleaf Energy 1200 PC Application lan-OS GO PRB or 0.12
Associates, LLC bitum.
6 NEVCO Energy 270 CFB Permit Oct-04 UT SubBit 0.022
(Sevier Power)'
7 City Pub Servo 750 PC Permit Oct-04 TX PRB 0.06
or San Antonio
8 Intermountain 950 PC Permit Ocl-04 UT Sub Bit 0.09
Power
9 Intermountain 950 PC Permit Oct-04 UT Bitum. 0.09
Power
I WPSC Weston 500 PC Permit Jul-04 WI Subbit 0.10
0 Unit 4
I Sandy Creek (LS 800 PC Permit 100-04 TX PRB 0.12
I Power)
I Longview 600 PC Permit Mar-04 WV Bit Coal 0.12
2 Power. LLC 2.5%S
I Hastings 220 PC Permit Mar-04 NE PRB 0.12
3 Utilities
I Steag Desert 1500 sepe Application F eb-04 NM Sub Bit 0.06
4 Enerl!v
I Elm Road Gcn. 615 sepe Permit Jan-04 WI Pitt. #8 0.15
5 Station
There are many FGD systems which have been developed, and at least eight FGD
technologies are commercially available. The most common new FGD systems are wet
limestone or wet lime forced oxidation FGD. The 5 most common technologies, their
characteristics, and their S02 reduction ability are summarized in Table 7.
In addition to these commercially demonstrated technologies, a new multi-pollutant
process called the Airborne Process™ is planned for cofunding by the U.S. DOE. In
October, 2004, U.S. Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham announced that Peabody
Air Pollution Control Review of Florida Power & Light Company's Proposed
1,700 MW Coal-fired SW St. Lucie Power Project.
RTP Environmental Associates. Inc.
September, 2005
- 25 -
[pa\lid PKelly:êlÎY§:çJ'p Air\wution Control Review RTP9-20-2005 DEAC.doc
....,,¡
Page 26
Energy's Mustang Energy project will be awarded a $19.7 million grant for demonstrating
technology to achieve ultra-low emissions at the proposed 300 MW facility near Grants,
New Mexico. One objective of this project is to demonstrate 99.5% S02 removal The
process is intended to achieve this goal while producing a potentially high-value granular
fertilizer byproduct. However, because the Mustang project is receiving U.S. DOE funding
to demonstrate the technology's feasibility, the technology probably does not meet the
BACT requirement to be commercially available and demonstrated in practice.
TABLE 7. Summary of FGD systems identified as commercially available and
conclusions regarding their applicability as BACT to the SCPC boilers.
1;~þnC)tC)gY Conclusion I Basis
I. Wet Limestone
Forced Oxidation
(LSFO)
2. Wet Lime Forced
Oxidation (LFO)
3. Ammonium
Sulfate Forced
Oxidation (ASFO)
4. Lurgi Circulating
Fluidized Bed
(Dry)
5. Lime Spray
Drying (Dry)
· High S02 reduction capability.
· Limestone reagent compatible with local area,
· Gypsum product compatible with area drywall use.
· High S02 reduction capability.
· Lime reagent costs are higher than limestone.
· Gypsum product compatible with area drywall use.
· Lime production has secondary environmental impacts.
· Reagent is anhydrous ammonia, a hazardous material.
· Higher operating costs than LSFO.
· Ammonium sulfate product is a high quality fertilizer.
· Lime reagent costs are higher than limestone.
· Less efficient lime utilization than LFO.
· Lime production has secondary environmental impacts.
· Commingled fly ash and reaction product stream does
not have demonstrated beneficial reuse options.
· Reduction efficiency inferior to other technologies.
· Commingled fly ash and reaction product stream does
not have demonstrated beneficial reuse options.
Reduction
Efficléncy
90 - 98%
90 - 98%
90 - 98%
90 - 95%+
70 - 92%
Wet Limestone with Forced Oxidation (LSFO)
Wet limestone with forced oxidation (LSFO) is a modification of a conventional wet
limestone FGD process. A wet limestone system forms a scrubber product composed
mostly of calcium sulfite (CaS03). The LSFO process oxidizes the unstable calcium sulfite
to a stable end product, calcium sulfate dehydrate, or gypsum, or CaS0.-2H20.
In the LSFO process, flue gas exiting the baghouse at approximately 300 of enters a spray
tower where a calcium carbonate/limestone slurry is sprayed into the flue gas. Through a
series of reactions, S02 reacts with calcium carbonate in the limestone to form calcium
sulfite. The flue gas exits the absorption tower through a mist eliminator or wet
Air Pollution Control Review of Florida Power & light Company's Proposed
1,700 MW Coal-fired SW St. Lucie Power Project.
-26 -
RTP Environmental Associates. Inc.
September. 2005
DavidPKelly-SWSÇPPÄir ·tion Control Review RTP 9-20-2005 DEAC.doc
Page 27 I
...I
electrostatic precipitator to remove entrained moisture droplets. The slurry drains into a
recirculation tank located at the bottom of the spray tower. By injecting air into the slurry,
the calcium sulfite is subsequently oxidized to gypsum. A portion of the slurry in the
recirculation tank is pumped back into the spray tower, and a portion is removed. The
removed slurry is dewatered and the gypsum is stockpiled for transport offsite for reuse.
To achieve very high control efficiencies, FGD buffering agents such as dibasic acids may
be used in the scrubber slurry.
Achievable Emission Reductions
Modem wet FGD designs controlling bituminous coal combustion can be designed to
achieve 98% S02 removal. While modem FGD systems can be designed to achieve 98%
S02 removal on an initial performance guarantee basis, it will be difficult to achieve this
control level day after day, year after year. Even modem FGD systems experience
temporary process upsets and long term degradation from sulfite blinding, aluminum
fluoride blinding, recycle pump failures, and other mechanical problems. Never-the-Iess,
some operating systems are achieving long term emission reductions approaching 98%.
FGD Reaction Product Use
A major environmental consideration in selecting the S02 control system is the ultimate
fate of the reaction products. The use of a typical Appalachian coal at the SWSLPP would
produce approximately 350,000 tons of gypsum per year. Gypsum is a naturally occurring
mineral that is mined around the world for the manufacture of plaster, wallboard, Portland
cement, and agricultural soil conditioners. While gypsum is used in the manufacture of
plaster, wallboard, Portland cement, and agricultural soil conditioners, the largest volume
use is in the production of wallboard (drywall). When producing such large volumes of
reaction products, a proven, marketable byproduct is a significant environmental advantage
which can help ensure that the byproduct has a beneficial use, rather than being disposed of
in a landfill at an additional environmental cost.
Clean Fuels
Sulfur dioxide emissions may be controlled by FGD systems designed to remove the
pollutant prior to discharging the flue gases, or they may be reduced by limiting the sulfur
content of the fuel itself. A typical Appalachian coal has an uncontrolled 802 emission rate
of2.09 Ib/mmBtu, and FP&L has made a statement that this is a low sulfur coal. While a
typical Appalachian coal has a lower sulfur content than other eastern coals such as
Pittsburg #8 and Illinois basin coals, western subbituminous coals have sulfur contents of
less than half of the typical Appalachian coals. For instance, the City Public Service of
San Antonio is using a PRB coal with an uncontrolled 802 emission rate of 0.625
Ib/mmBtu, a level which is less than one-third of a typical Appalachian coal.
Air Pollution Control Review of Florida Power & Light Company's Proposed
1,700 MN Coal·fired SW St. Lucie Power Project.
RTP Environmental Associates, Inc.
September. 2005
-27 -
Lgavid P KeIIY~ªIJV§beP, Air P^llution Control Review RTP 9-20-2005 DEAC.doc
'-'
Page2S:
'WI
Sulfur Dioxide Control Conclusions.
For new coal-fired units permitted since January, 2004, the most stringent SOz emission
limit is 0.022 Ib/mmBtu. Other limits ranged from 0.04 - 0.15 Ib/mmBtu. For bituminous
coal-fired units, the most stringent emission limit is 0.12 Ib/mmBtu for the Longview
Power facility. Based on an assumed uncontrolled coal sulfur content of 4.00 Ib/mmBtu,
this is equal to a reduction efficiency of97%. Finally, the Thoroughbred Generating
Station (Kentucky) which is not listed in this Table also fires a high sulfur bituminous coal
and has a limit of 0.167 Ib/mmBtu.
All penn its issued for bituminous coal-fired boilers required the use of wet FGD systems.
Based on penn its issued for the Elm Road Generating Station (Wisconsin) and the
Thoroughbred Generating Station (Kentucky), the FGD systems are designed for 98%
removal. If96% reduction can be continuously achievable (as was concluded for the Elm
Road facility), and if the FP&L proposed coal is a 2.llb/mmBtu coal, then the allowable
emission limit may be reduced from FP&L's proposed limit of 0.12 Ib/mmBtu, to
approximately 0.08 Ib/mmBtu. Table 8 illustrates the dramatic reductions which may be
achieved based on more aggressive control requirements.
TABLE 8. Potential sulfur dioxide emissions based on the use of a typical
Appalachian coal and wet flue gas desulfurization.
CONTROL CONTROL RESULTING
SCENARIO EFFICIENCY EMISSION LIMIT
. IblmmBtu
Typical Uncontrolled 0% 2.09
Appalachian Coal
FP&L Proposed
Emission Rate
Typical Permitted
Level
Aggressive BACT
Review
Current wet FGD
Design
POTENTIAL S02
EMISSIONS
tons per year
135.298
94% 0.12 7,779
96% 0.08 5,419
97% 0.06 4,064
98% 0.04 2,710
The level of reduction and the resulting allowable emission rate representing BACT can be
a controversial subject. FP&L will probably want to keep the allowable emission rate high,
since a higher limit will give more margin for compliance and will reduce control costs.
On the other hand, if modem wet FGD systems are being designed for 98% control at other
facilities, it may be reasonable to expect a higher level of control than that proposed by
FP&L. Even a 96% control level would reduce potential SOz emissions by 33% as
compared to the level proposed by FP&L.
Air Pollution Control Review Of Florida Power & Light Company's Proposed
1.700 MW Coal-fired SW Sl. Lucie Power Project
RTP Environmental Associates. Inc.
September. 2005
- 28-
[ÞaVid P Kelly ~Š~§.Ç~P~J\if·~tiori Cö"trol Revièw RTP 9-20-2005 DEt-C.<;Ioc
..-.1
...~:...::~~~~::~!::~~:!
Air Pollution Control Review 01 Florida Power & Light Company's Proposed
1,700 MW Coal-fired SW St. Lucie Power Project.
RTP Environmenlal Associates, Inc.
September, 2005
-29 -
David PKelly-SWSLPP Air." "ution Control Review RTP 9~20-2005 DEAC.doc
Page 30 .
2.8 Volatile Organic Compounds.
Like carbon monoxide (CO), volatile organic compounds (VOC) are emitted as a result of
incomplete combustion. Incomplete combustion also leads to emissions of particulate
matter, and hazardous organic pollutants. Therefore, the most direct approach for reducing
VOC emissions (and also reduce other related pollutants) is to improve combustion.
Recent BACT Determinations
Table 9 is a summary of fifteen recent VOC BACT determinations for coal-fired boilers.
As with CO emissions, the only technology identified for VOC emissions is good
combustion control. From Table 9, the most stringent emission limit is the limit proposed
by FP&L of 0.0025 Ib/mmBtu, which is at the upper end of this range.
TABLE 9. Summary of recent BACT emission limits for VOC emissions.
'. ., , Capac;lty Unit Perm It or Date Stélte Primary Llmi.t
,:' .............. . MW Type Application Fuel Ib/mmBtu
1 FI'&L SW 17011 sepe Prc-appJ .lun-05 FL Appal. 0.0025
SLPP
2 Montana-Dakota 175 CFB Permit Jun-05 ND Lignite 0.0050
Utilities
3 Omaha Public 660 PC Permit Mar-OS NE PRB 0.0040
Power District
4 Xcel Energy - 750 PC Permit Mar-05 CO Sub Bit 0.0035
Comanche
5 Longleaf Energy 1200 PC Application Jan-05 GO PRB or 0.0060
Associates. LLC bitum.
6 NEVCO Energy 270 CFB Permit Oct-04 UT Sub Bit 0.0050
(Sevier Power)
7 City Pub Servo 750 PC Permit Ocl-04 TX PRB 0.0025
of San Antonio
8 Intermountain 950 PC Permit Oct-04 UT Sub Bit 0.0027
Power
9 Intermountain 950 PC Permit Oct-04 UT BilUm. 0.0027
Power
I WPSC Weston 500 PC Permit Jul-04 WI Subbit 0.0036
0 Unit 4
1 Sandy Creek (LS 800 PC Permit J un-04 TX PRB 0.0036
I Power)
I Longview 600 PC Permit Mar-04 WV Bit Coal 0.0040
2 Power, LLC 2.5%S
I Hastings 220 PC Permit Mar-04 NE PRB 0.0040
3 Utilities
I Steag Desert 1500 SCPC Application Feb·04 NM Sub Bit 0.0043
4 Ener2Y
I Elm Road Gen. 615 SCPC Permit Jan-04 WI Pitt. #8 0.0035
5 Station
Air Pollution Control Review of Florida Power & Ught Company's Proposed
1,700 MW Coal-fired SW St. Lucie Power Project.
RTP Environmental Associates, Inc.
September. 2005
- 30-
David P Kell :§WSLPPAi,.p
:on Control Review RTP 9-20-2005 DEAC.doc
'-'"
Page 31 I
VOC Control Conclusions.
The only technology identified for CO and VOC emissions is good combustion control.
The SCPC boilers proposed by FP&L will utilize these controls. FP&L is proposing a
VOC emission limit of 0.0025 Ib/mmBtu, which is at the lowest end of the range of 14
recently issued permits. Therefore, the proposed limit is probably approvable.
2.9 Sulfuric Acid Mist.
During combustion, approximately I - 2% of the fuel sulfur may be oxidized from sulfur
dioxide to sulfur trioxide (S03). As noted above, the SCR catalyst may oxidize an
additional 1- 2% of the S02 to S03. When the flue gas temperature drops below the acid
dewpoint temperature, sulfur trioxide is oxidized to sulfuric acid (H2S04). Since the S02
control technology review proposes the use of wet FGD systems, the flue gas temperature
will be at or below the acid gas dew point, and the S03 emissions will be oxidized in the
FGD system and stack to sulfuric acid mist. Sulfuric acid mist may also be a condensable
particulate matter emission, with particle sizes in the sub micron size. Because of their
very small particle size, sulfuric acid mist concentrations of 5 ppm (approximately 0.017
Ib/mmBtu) can cause stack opacity of up to 10%. These very fine particles of sulfuric acid
mist often result in a tell-tale plume with a distinctive light blue color.
Recent BACT Determinations
Table 10 is a summary of the recent H2S04 BACT determinations from coal-fired boilers.
The most stringent emission limit is 0.0024 Ib/mmBtu for the NEVCO Energy facility.
The most stringent emission limits for similar bituminous coal-fired boilers are 0.00497
IbslmmBtu for the Thoroughbred Generating facility (Kentucky), and 0.010 Ib/mmBtu for
the Elm Road Generating Station.
H2S04 Control Alternatives
As with sulfur dioxide emissions, sulfuric acid mist emissions may be limited by the use of
low sulfur fuels. In addition, sulfuric acid mist may be controlled using wet electrostatic
precipitators (wet ESP) particulate control systems or sorbent injection.
It is important to note that wet FGD systems are generally ineffective at controlling sulfuric
acid mist. Recent data indicate that wet FGD systems reduce sulfuric acid mist emissions
by only about 10 - 30%. This low reduction is probably because the acid mist droplets are
so small that they tend to follow the gas phase path around the slurry droplets in the FGD
absorber. Since the acid droplets don't make physical contact with the scrubber slurry
droplets, and because these acid mist droplets are in the sub micron particle size range, they
tend to flow out of the absorber and through conventional mist eliminators.
Clean Fuels
Air Pollution Control Review of Florida Power & Light Company's Proposed
1.700 MW Coal-fired SW SI. Lucie Power Project.
RTP Environmental Associates. Inc.
September. 2005
- 31 -
1...";"".-91... . .. I"'_I.Iß-~,..!,"":',~,I,. I
nil r UIIULlUII ,",UIIII VI r\t::VIt::W 1'\ I r- ::I-¿U-¿UUO U~Al,;.aOC
Page 32 I
"wi
As with sulfur dioxide emissions, sulfuric acid mist emissions may be reduced by limiting
the sulfur content of the fuel. However, since sulfur trioxide and subsequent sulfuric acid
mist formation is typically limited to I - 3% of the total fuel sulfur content, limiting fuel
sulfur content will have a relatively small impact on the total sulfuric acid mist emissions.
TABLE 10. Summary of recent BACT emission limits for sulfuric acid mist.
.... Capacity ..Unlt Permit or .... Date ...State Prlmllry Limit
.....;2 ......
> ... ... ... MW···· Type Application ... Fuel Ib/mmBtlJ
1 FI'&L SW 1700 SCPC P rc-a ppl ./ u n-05 FL Appal. 0.0050
SU'I'
2 Montana-Dakota 175 CFB Permit Jun-05 ND Lignite 0.0061
Utilities
3 Omaha Public 660 PC Permit Mar-OS NE PRB
Power District
4 Xcel Energy - 750 PC Permit Mar-OS CO Sub Bit 0.0042
Comanche
5 Longleaf Energy 1200 PC Application lan-05 GO PRB or 0.0050
Associates, LLC bitum.
6 NEVCO Energy 270 CFB Permit Oct-04 UT Sub Bit 0.0024
(Sevier Power)
7 City Pub Serv. 750 PC Permit Oct-04 TX PRB 0.0037
of San Antonio
8 Intermountain 950 PC Permit Oct-04 UT Sub Bit 0.0044
Power
9 Intennountain 950 PC Permit Oct-04 UT Bitum. 0.0044
Power
1 WPSC Weston 500 PC Permit Jul-04 WI Subbit 0.005
0 Unit 4
1 Sandy Creek (LS 800 PC Permit J un-04 TX PRB
1 Power)
1 Longview 600 PC Permit Mar-04 WV Bit Coal 0.020
2 Power LLC 2.5% S
I Hastings 220 PC Permit Mar-04 NE PRB
3 Utilities
1 Steag Desert 1500 SCPC Application Feb-04 NM Sub Bit
4 Enerl!:Y
1 Elm Road Gen. 615 SCPC Permit Jan-04 WI Pitt. #8 0.010
5 Station
Wet Electrostatic Precipitator
An electrostatic precipitator (ESP) is a particulate control device that uses electrical forces
to move particulate matter out of the flue gas stream and onto collection plates. Particulate
matter and aerosols in the gas stream are negatively charged by discharge electrodes
located in the ESP. Once the particles are negatively charged they migrate toward the
grounded collection plates. In a dry ESP, the particulate matter continues to accumulate on
Air Pollution Control Review Of Florida Power & light Company's Proposed
1,700 MW Coal-fired SW St. Lucie Power Project.
RTP Environmental Associates, Inc.
September, 2005
·32 -
[DaVid P Kêlly:$II\I§LPP \./"ution Control Review RTP 9-20-2005 DEAC.doc.
.....J
Page 33
the collection plate until it is removed by rapping or spraying.
In modem wet FGD designs, the wet ESP is integrated into the FGD system by replacing
conventional demisters with the wet ESP. The operating principle of wet electrostatic
precipitators (WESPs) is similar to dry ESPs. However, a wet ESP operates in a saturated
flue gas in which the temperature is below the dew point. Cleaning is performed by
continuously washing the collection surfaces with water, rather than the mechanical
rapping of the collection plates as in a dry ESP. Water condensing from the flue gas
stream and water sprayed on the collection surfaces is used to continuously wash collected
materials off the collection surfaces.
Wet ESPs effectively control sulfuric acid mist aerosols, and are also effective in collecting
other trace contaminants in the flue gas. The effectiveness of wet ESPs has been
documented by units installed at sulfuric acid production plants and other industrial sources
that have highly acidic exhaust streams. In addition, wet ESPs can operate with higher
electrical power consumption levels than conventional dry ESPs, enabling greater control
efficiencies of sub micron particles and aerosols. When used in conjunction with wet flue
gas desulfurization systems, wet ESPs are very effective in reducing sulfuric acid mist,
metals and other sub-micron particles.
Sorbent Injection Systems
There are a number of new technologies under various stages of development designed to
control sulfuric acid mist emissions from existing coal-fired boilers that are being retrofit
with SCR systems. Most of these technologies are dry injection systems that are designed
to be installed between the SCR catalyst and the particulate collection systems. The
injected solids react with the S03 prior to sulfuric acid mist formation to produce a solid
waste product. Some of these new technologies are expected to be commercially available
in the near future, with some limited full-scale test data already available.
Achievable Emission Reductions
Limited information is available on the control efficiency of sulfuric acid mist emissions
utilizing a wet ESP. Control efficiencies of95% have been obtained for similar systems
operating on sulfuric acid plants, implying a controlled emission rate of about 0.002
Ib/mmBtu. However, there is significant uncertainty as to the actual reduction that can be
achieved in practice, and there is concern over the accuracy of the reference test method
used to demonstrate compliance.
Limited information is available on the control efficiency of dry sorbent injection systems.
However, control efficiencies are expected to be similar to wet ESPs.
Sulfuric Acid Mist Control Conclusions.
The only technology identified for sulfuric acid mist emissions for new bituminous coal-
fired boilers using wet FGD systems is wet electrostatic precipitators. RTP understands
Air Pollution Control Review 01 Florida Power & Light Company's Proposed
1.700 MW Coal-fired SW SI. Lucie Power Project.
- 33 -
RTP Environmental Associates, Inc.
September. 2005
[Qavid P kelly,~-$.W_s.~flpAir ,,-)iOn Control.Review RIP 9~20-2005 DEAC.doc
Page34!
"'.øÍ
that the SCPC boilers proposed by FP&L will utilize these controls. FP&L is proposing a
sulfuric acid mist emission limit ofO.005Ib/mmBtu, which is among the lowest permitted
emission rates for similar bituminous coal-fired units. Therefore, the proposed limit is
probably approvable.
2.10 Lead Emissions.
Lead (Pb) is a trace element contained in coal. When coal is burned, the high combustion
temperatures vaporize lead. The majority of lead recondenses on fly ash particles, allowing
collection in the proposed fabric filter control systems. However, trace substances such as
lead may be enriched on smaller fly ash particles. This enrichment onto smaller fly ash
particles can reduce lead collection efficiencies, especially for devices such as ESPs which
may have a relatively poor collection performance on particles less than 10 microns in
diameter. This is one reason why baghouses may be considered a superior PM and lead
control device as compared to ESPs.
Recent BACT Determinations
Table II is a summary of the recent lead BACT determinations. It appears that FP&L may
be proposing the most stringent lead limit found in the current EPA database.
TABLE 11. Summary ofrecent BACT emission limits for lead (Ph) emissions.
~¡,~a~llty .. Capacity Unit è. Permit or Date State Primary Limit
MW Type Application .. Fuel IblmmBtu
1 FP&I. SW 1700 SCPC Pre-appl Jun-05 FL Appal. 3.3260
SLPP
2 MontWla-Dakota 175 CFB Permit Jun-05 ND Lignite
Utilities
3 Omaha Public 660 PC Permit Mar-OS NE PRB
Power District
4 Xcel Energy - 750 PC Permit Mar-OS CO Sub Bit
Comanche
5 Longleaf Energy 1200 PC Application Jan-05 GO PRB or
Associates. LLC bitum.
6 NEVCO Energy 270 CFB Permit Oct-04 UT Sub Bit 11.3
(Sevier Power)
7 City Pub Serv. 750 PC Permit Oct-04 TX PRB 8.4
of San Antonio
8 Intermountain 950 PC Permit Oct-04 UT Sub Bit 20.0
Power
9 Intermountain 950 PC Permit Oct-04 UT Bitum. 20.0
Power
1 WPSC Weston 500 PC Permit Jul-04 WI Subbit 25.1
0 Unit 4
I Sandy Creek (LS 800 PC Permit J un-04 TX PRB
1 Power)
Air Pollution Control Review of Florida Power & Light Company's Proposed
1,700 MW Coal-fired SW SI. Lucie Power Project.
RTP Environmental Associates, Inc.
September, 2005
.34 -
[Þavid PKe¡IY:'ª~b~~Äir~tion Control Review RTP 9-20-2005 DEAC.doc
''''''''''
Page351
I Longview 600 PC Permit Mar-04 WV Bit Coal
2 Power, LLC 2.5%S
I Hastings 220 PC Permit Mar-04 NE PRB
3 Utilities
I Steag Desert 1500 SCPC Application Feb-04 NM Sub Bit
4 Enerl!Y
I Elm Road Gen. 615 SCPC Permit J an-04 WI Pin. #8
5 Station
Lead Control Conclusions.
17.8
7.4
The fabric filter baghouses proposed by FP&L are probably the best control systems for
lead emissions. Ifwe can confirm that FP&L is proposing a lead emission limit of 3.326
Ib/triIlion Btu, this would be the lowest permitted emission rate for similar bituminous coal-
fired units. Therefore, the proposed limit is probably approvable.
2.11 Mercury Emissions.
Mercury (Hg) is a trace element contained in coal. When coal is burned, the high
combustion temperatures vaporize mercury to form elemental mercury (HgO). This gaseous
form ofrnercury may then react with other substances in the flue gas to form other species
of mercury such as oxidized mercury (Hg2+), and particle bound mercury (Hgp). The total
mercury in the flue gas (HgT) is the sum ofHgp, Hg2+, and HgO.3 Unlike lead, however,
much of the mercury may remain in the gas phase, making its capture and control more
difficult.
Mercury is present at varying levels in all coals, When coal is burned, the mercury exits
the boiler at very low concentrations, on the order of parts per billion. This extremely low
concentration and the unusual properties of mercury present a number of technical
challenges to its capture and control. The study of the mechanisms for the capture and
control of mercury emissions from coal combustion is relatively new and ongoing.
However, research on mercury control has shown that all particulate matter and flue gas
desulfurization systems capture and control mercury emissions to varying degrees, and that
state of the art pollution control systems may have very high mercury control levels. The
capture of mercury by flue gas cleaning devices appears to be dependent on mercury
speciation and coal type. Both HgO and Hg2+ are in vapor-phase at flue gas temperatures.
Elemental mercury (HgO) is insoluble in water and current data suggests that it is poorly
captured in the baghouse and wet FGD systems. Particle bound mercury is expected to be
captured at high levels in the baghouse. The Hg2+ compounds are weakly to strongly
soluble, and the more-soluble species can be captured in wet FGD scrubbers. Both HgO and
Hg2+ may be adsorbed onto porous solids such as fly ash, powdered activated carbons
(PAC), or calcium-based acid gas sorbents and collected in a PM control device.
Recent BACT Determinations
3 Taken from the U.S. EPA document Control of Mercury Emissionsfrom Coal-Fired Utility
Boilers: Interim Report, EP A-600/R-0 1-109, April, 2002.
Air Pollution Control Review of Florida Power & light Company's Proposed
1,700 MW Coal-fired SW St. Lucie Power Project.
RTP Environmental Associates. Inc.
September, 2005
- 35-
@avid P kelly:~§Jpp:Air~tioI'\Control Review RTP 9-20-2005 DEAC.doc
Page 36 I
,."""
Table 12 is a summary ofthe recent mercury BACT limits from coal-fired boilers. The
most stringent emission limits are 0.6 Ib/TBtu (trillion Btu) for the Intermountain Power
facility when firing bituminous coals, and 1.12 IbrrBtu for the Elm Road Generating
Station PC boilers. The Longview Power permit has a limit of2.38 Ib/trillion Btu. The
final permit for the Thoroughbred Generating Station (Kentucky) has a limit 00.21
lbltrillion Btll.
TABLE 11. Summary ofrecent BACT emission limits for mercury (Hg) emissions.
'i," c::;ap;aclty Unit Permit or Date St;ate Prlm;ary Limit
:J¡J;:J'J'.,'J: ' MW>" Type Application Fuel , IblTBtu
1 j<'P&L SW 1700 SCI'C Pre-8(11J1 .hm·OS FL Appal. 1.61
SLPP
2 Montana-Dakota 175 CFB Permit J un-05 ND Lignite
Utilities
3 Omaha Public 660 PC Permit Mar-05 NE PRB
Power District
4 Xcel Energy· 750 PC Permit Mar-05 CO Sub Bit 0.78
Comanche
5 Longleaf Energy 1200 PC Application Jan-05 GO PRB or 0.60
Associates, LLC bitum.
6 NEVCO Energy 270 CFB Permit Oct-04 vr Sub Bit 4.00
(Sevier Power)
7 City Pub Servo 750 PC Permit Oct-04 rx PRB 2.00
of San Antonio
8 Intermountain 950 PC Permit Oct-04 vr SubBil 2.00
Power
9 Intermountain 950 PC Permit Oct-04 vr Bilum. 0.60
Power
I WPSC Weston 500 PC Permit Jul-04 WI Subbit 1.70
0 Unit 4
I Sandy Creek (LS 800 PC Permit Jun-04 rx PRB 17.00
I Power)
1 Longview 600 PC Permit Mar-04 WV Bit Coal 2.38
2 Power, LLC 2.5%S
1 Hastings 220 PC Permit Mar-04 NE PRB
3 Utilities
1 Steag Desert 1500 sepe Application F eb-04 NM Sub Bit
4 Energy
1 Elm Road Gen. 615 sepe Permit J an-04 WI Pitt. #8 1.12
5 Station
Recently Promulgated Mercury Standards.
On May 18, 2005, the U.S. EPA published the final Clean Air Mercury Rule and
established standards of performance for mercury emissions from new electric
utility steam generating units. This rule established a "cap and trade" program for
mercury emissions from coal-fired units. In this notice, the U.S. EPA also
Air Pollution Control Review of Florida Power & Light Company's Proposed
1,700 MW Coal·fired SW 51 Lucie Power Projecl
RTP Environmental Associates, Inc,
September, 2005
- 36-
David PKêl[i-$,^,SLP~.Air
Ition Control Review RTP 9-20-2005 DEAC.doc
pageJ7l
published mercury performance standards for new units under 40 CFR Part 60 as follows:
· Bituminous units - 21 x 10-6 Ib/MWh
· Subbituminous units (wet FGD) - 42 x 10<; Ib/MWh
· Subbituminous units (dry FGD) -78 x 1O-61bIMWh
· IGCC units - 20 x 10-6 Ib/MWh
The bituminous coal-fired limit of 21 x I 0-61b1MWh is therefore the BACT baseline_ For
comparison, FP&L's indicated mercury emission rate limit is 1.61 Ib/TBtu. At a design
heat rate of 8,800 Btu/kWh, this limit is equal to 14.2 x 1O-61b/MWh which is well below
the recently promulgated new source performance standard.
Mercury Control Alternatives
The 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments required the U.S. EPA to study the health and
environmental impacts of hazardous air pollutants emitted from electric utility steam
generating units. The EPA's 1998 Report to Congress on this issue identified additional
information needed to gain a better understanding of mercury (Hg) emissions from coal-
fired units, To gather this information, the EPA conducted a survey of major coal-fired
steam generating units in the United States. In the synthesis report of this work, "Control
of Mercury Emissions from Coal-Fired Electric Utility Boilers" published in February,
2004, EPA states:
"There are two broad approaches to mercury control: (I) activated carbon injection
(ACI), and (2) multi-pollutant control, in which Hg capture is enhanced in
existing/new S02, NO" and PM control devices."
The use of activated carbon injection for mercury control is a new technology which is still
at various levels of development. However, the use of existing, multi-pollutant controls for
mercury control is already demonstrated in practice.
Multipollutant Control Systems
According to EPA's report, mercury control efficiencies for existing coal-fired electric
generating units with conventional, non mercury specific controls ranged from 0 to 98%,
with state of the art controls achieving the highest performance levels. The control
efficiencies depend on the type of coal burned and the pollution control systems employed
by the source. The highest levels of control are expected to be achieved by pulverized coal-
fired units com busting bituminous coals equipped with selective catalytic reduction, fabric
filter baghouses, and flue gas desulfurization (FGD) systems. EPA's report shows that the
average control efficiency during the short term testing for bituminous PC boilers equipped
with fabric filter baghouses and flue gas desulfurization systems but not SCR is 98%.
Further, the report states:
"Available data also reflect that use of selective catalytic reduction (SCR) NO.
Air Pollution Conlrol Review of Florida Power & light Company's Proposed
1,700 MW Coal-fired SW St Lucie Power Project
RTP Environmental Associates, Inc.
September. 2005
-37 -
David PKelly ~. SIJVSLPP Air' 'Jtion Control Review RTP 9-20-2005 DEAC,doc
. ....J
Page 381
control enhances oxidation ofHgO in flue gas and results in increased mercury
removal in wet FOD."
The pollution control systems proposed by FP&L for these boilers will include SCR, fabric
filter baghouses, wet FGD, and wet electrostatic precipitators. Based on the EPA's
findings as stated in this report, the mercury control perfonnance for the pollution control
systems on these pulverized coal-fired boilers are likely to be further enhanced and may
exceed 90%.
Activated Carbon Injection
The only potential mercury removal technique and the only technology which may be
considered to be mercury control specific which may enhance the SCR, fabric filter
baghouse, wet FGD and wet ESP combination is activated carbon injection. Two possible
configurations could be added to the four systems already required:
I. Injection ahead of the fabric filter prior to the FGD system, and
2. Injection into a second compact baghouse added downstream of the wet ESP.
To date, there have been several short-tenn, full-scale activated carbon injection tests at
power plants, including the DOE/EPRI-sponsored tests at Alabama Power's Plant Gaston
and at Wisconsin Electric's Pleasant Prairie Power Plant. Plant Gaston fires a low sulfur
bituminous coal and used activated carbon injection into a separate compact baghouse.
Pleasant Prairie fires PRB coal and used activated carbon injection before a cold-side ESP.
While some facilities are now being designed with activated carbon injection, such as
Weston 4, these facilities fire subbituminous coals which have much lower expected
mercury capture levels in the multipollutant control systems.
The amount of capture that will occur from ACI for these PC boilers remains uncertain.
However, based on EPA's data that indicates that the current pollution control systems may
achieve 90 - 98% mercury control, ACI is likely to achieve only a marginal reduction in
mercury emissions, with reductions of no more than 2 - 10% of the uncontrolled mercury
emission rate.
Mercury Control Conclusions
The U.S. EPA report, "Control of Mercury Emissions from Coal-Fired Electric Utility
Boilers" February, 2004 indicates that the average mercury control efficiency for
bituminous PC boilers equipped with fabric filter baghouses and FGD systems but not SCR
is 98%. Further, EPA and other pollution control studies have concluded that SCR systems
enhance oxidation of mercury in the flue gas and increase mercury removal in multi-
pollutant control systems. The proposed NO., PM/PM,o, S02, and H2S04 pollution control
systems for the SWSLPP will include SCR, fabric filter baghouses, wet FGD, and wet
electrostatic precipitators. This combination of advanced control systems is likely to
control mercury to levels of at least 90%.
Air Pollution Control Review of Florida Power & Ughl Company's Proposed
1.700 t.WV Coal-fired SW 51. Lucie Power Project.
RTP Environmental Associates, Inc.
September, 2005
- 38-
David P Kelly ~ SINSLPPAir
'tion Control Review RTP 9-20-2005 DEAC.doc
J
Page 39
FP&L has not supplied information on the uncontrolled mercury emission rates. However,
the regulatory analyses supporting other permitted BACT limits have specifically required
at least 90% reduction. FP&L may need to revise its proposed mercury emission limits to
reflect a higher level of control. Otherwise, FP&L may need to further consider activated
carbon injection which will have a very high control cost.
Air PoIlulion Control Review of Florida Power & Light Company's Proposed
1,700 MW Coal-fired SW SI. Lucie Power Project.
RTP Environmental Associates, Inc.
September, 2005
-39 -
David P lSeuY-^§WSLPPÄirPr'· ·'ion Control ReviewRTP 9-20-2005 DEAC.doc
-...I
page401
Chapter 3. Air Quality Impacts.
The PSD program requires an air quality analysis for each regulated pollutant that a
proposed major source would emit at levels greater than the significant emissions levels.
As summarized in Table 2, the SWSLPP will have the potential to emit N02, S02, CO,
YOe, and PMIPM¡o in excess of the significant emission threshold levels. Therefore, an
air quality modeling analysis is required for these pollutants.
The purpose of the air quality analysis is to demonstrate through the use of air quality
dispersion models and background ambient data, that allowable emission increases from
the proposed source, combined with emissions from other sources (including "associated
growth" emissions), will not cause or contribute to violations of any National Ambient Air
Quality Standard (NAAQS), or of any applicable maximum allowable increase over the
baseline concentration in any area including PSD increments. The dispersion modeling
analysis is usually performed in two steps:
I. A "preliminary" or "project-only" significant impact analysis, and,
2. A "refined" or "multi-source cumulative" NAAQS and PSD
increment impact analysis.
The preliminary impact analysis estimates the maximum air pollutant ambient air
concentrations resulting from emissions from only the proposed source. The pollutants
analyzed are those with emission increases above the significant emission levels. The
results of the preliminary impact analysis will determine whether a cumulative impact
analysis must be performed. When the maximum ambient concentrations of a pollutant are
below the significant impact level (SIL) for all averaging periods, the emissions from the
proposed source are not expected to have any significant impact on ambient air
concentrations, and no further air quality analysis is required. Table 12 is a summary of the
NAAQS, PSD increments, and SILs.
If the proposed source's maximum modeled air pollutant concentrations exceed the
significant impact level (SIL) for any pollutant and averaging interval, the extent of the
geographical area in which the source exceeds the SIL is determined, and a cumulative
impact analysis is performed for that pollutant and averaging interval within this area. This
geographic area is referred to as the significant impact area (SIA). The cumulative impact
analysis expands the significant impact analysis by considering emissions from both the
proposed source and other existing or permitted sources in the SIA, as well as other sources
located outside of the SIA that may cause significant ambient concentrations within the
proposed source's SIA. The cumulative impact analysis is limited to locations within the
proposed source's SIA. The results from the cumulative impact analysis are used to
determine compliance with the ambient air quality standards and PSD increments.
Air POllution Control Review of Florida Power & light Company's Proposed
1.700 MW Coal-fired SW St. Lucie Power Project.
RTP Environmental Associates, Inc.
September, 2005
-40 -
David P Kelly -sW~Ipþ' Air
Ition Control Review RTP 9-20-2005 DEAC.doc
Page 41
If the cumulative impact analysis demonstrates violations of any NAAQS or PSD
increment, the proposed source can still be pennitted if it can demonstrate that the
emissions from the proposed source do not result in ambient impacts that exceed the SIL at
the same time and location of any modeled violation. In other words, the proposed source
must demonstrate that it would not "significantly contribute" to any modeled violation.
TABLE 12. NAAQS, significant impact levels, and PSD Class II increments, ug/mJ.
Pollutant ... .. Averaging NMQS Significant PSD Class II
.. Period Impact Level Increment
NOl Annual 100 I 25
CO 8-hour 10,000' 500 NA
I-hour 40,000' 2000 NA
PMlo Annual 50 I 17
24-hour ISO' 5 30
Ozone .. I-hour 235 NA NA
SOl Annual 80 I 20
24-hour 365' 5 91
3-hour 1,300'" 25 512
Footnotes
. Not be exceeded more than once per year.
.. Ozone is a photochemical pollutant and not emitted directly.
... Secondary standard. Not to be exceeded more than once per year.
Note: FAAQS for S02 24-hour is 260 uglmJ.
3.1 Modeling Methodology
The U.S. EPA Guideline on Air Quality Models (40 CFR Part 51, Appendix W) are
generally applied in the air quality dispersion modeling analyses. RTP cannot confirm at
this time what methodologies were used.
ISCST3 Model
The air quality modeling analysis should be perfonned using the latest version of the
Industrial Source Complex, Short-Term model (ISCSTJ), Version three (Release 02035).
The ISCSTJ model is an EPA-approved Gaussian air dispersion model that is designed to
estimate the downwind concentrations from single or multiple sources using actual hourly
meteorological data. The ISCST3 model is the model used for most industrial sources and
PSD pennits and is an appropriate model for this generating station.
Modeling Parameters
Air Pollution Control Review of Florida Power & light Company's Proposed RTP Environmental Associates, Inc.
1,700 MW Coal-fired SW St. Lucie Power Project. September, 2005
-41 -
Page 42 I
~vid PKeliy:s\Ì\l§'1ëêAirî\...t10nControl Review RTP 9-20-2005 DEAC.doc
'.. .J '
-
The stack heights for all emissions sources may not take credit in the impact analysis for
stacks that exceed Good Engineering Practice (GEP). GEP is the maximum height a stack
may be modeled in order to avoid building downwash impacts. GEP as defined in the EPA
Guidelinefor Determination afGood Engineering Practice Stack Height (f'echnical
Support Documentfor the Stack Height Regulations) (EPA, ]985), is:
Where,
GEP = H + I.5 L
H = Height of the structure; and
L = lesser of the building height or the greatest crosswind
distance of the building (maximum projected width)
For instance FP&L has indicated a stack height of 600 feet. To be GEP, the largest
building (usually the boilerhouse) must be approximately 240 feet tall, or about 24 stories
tall. RTP cannot confirm at this time the building heights or other specific site parameters
used in the dispersion modeling analysis.
3.2 Project Only Significant Impact Analysis
Table 13 is a summary of the maximum estimated pollutant concentrations for the
proposed SWSLPP as determined by FP&L compared to the significant impact levels.
From Tab]e 13, FP&L's estimated impacts indicate that the facility will exceed the
significant impact levels for NO., PMw, and S02. Based on Table 13, FP&L will need to
conduct a detailed "refined" or "multi-source cumulative" NAAQS and PSD increment
impact analysis. Note that FP&L has not provided information on the refined analysis.
TABLE 13. Summary of the maximum pollutant concentrations for the SWSLPP.
Pollutant Averaging Period . Highest Modeled Significance Level,
Concentration, mg/mS
mg/ms
N02 Annual 1.5 1
CO I-hour 260 2,000
8-hour 55 500
PMw 24-hour 14 5
Annual 1 1
S02 3-hour 70 25
24-hour 30 5
Annual 2.5 I
Air Pollution Control Review of Florida Power & light Company's Proposed
1,700 MW Coal-fired 5W 5t. Lucie Power Project.
RTP Environmental Associates. Inc.
September, 2005
-42 -
David P Kelly- ¡:¡,^,§~pp Air P'on Control Review RTP 9-20-2005 DEAC.doc
Page 43 .
Lead I Quarterly I ?? I nla
3.3 Refined NAAQS and PSD Increment Analysis
Based on FP&L's modeling data, the SWSLPP maximum modeled air pollutant
concentrations exceed the significant impact level (SIL) for NO., PM1O, and S02. The
refined impact analysis must determine the total impact of the source and compliance with
the NAAQS. While FP&L has not provided information on the refined analysis, we can
evaluate the probable impact of the SWSLPP with respect to the PSD increments. Table 14
shows that the facility may meet all PSD increments. However, for PM emissions, the
modeled impact is approximately one-half of the PSD increment, and that impact is based
on material handling operations. As noted in section 2.2 ofthis report, it appears that the
current material handling emissions may be significantly underestimated. Therefore,
compliance with the PSD increment for PM may be more difficult for the facility to
achieve.
TABLE 14. Summary of the maximum pollutant concentrations for the SWSLPP
compared to the Class II PSD increments.
Pollutant Averaging Period Highest Modeled PSD Class II
Concentration, Increment. mg/m3
mg/m3
N02 Annual 1.5 25
CO I-hour 260 nla
8-hour 55 nla
PMIO 24-hour 14 30
Annual I 17
S02 3-hour 70 512
24-hour 30 91
Annual 2.5 20
Lead Quarterly ?? nla
3.4 Class I Analyses
No Class I Analyses have been provided
Air Pollution Control Review of Florida Power & Light Company's Proposed RTP Environmental Associates. Inc.
1.700 MW Coal-fired SW St Lucie Power Project September. 2005
- 43 -
Page 44
maVidPkelli~S~=~bEf:iÄi" p~nGontrol RevÎew RTP 9-20-2005 DEAC.doc
J
Chapter 4. Coal-Fired Power Plant Technologies
and the Issue of IGCC as BACT.
According to the u.s. EPA's NSR Workshop manual:
The first step in a -top-down" analysis is to identify, for the
emissions unit in question, all -available" control options.
Available control options are those air pollution control
technologies or techniques with a practical potential for
application to the emissions unit and the regulated pollutant
under evaluation. Air pollution control technologies and
techniques include the application of production process or
available methods, systems, and techniques, including fuel
cleaning or treatment or innovative fuel combustion techniques
for control of the affected pollutant. This includes technologies
employed outside of the United States. As discussed later, in
some circumstances inherently lower-polluting processes are
appropriate for consideration as available control alternatives.
The control alternatives should include not only existing
controls for the source category in question, but also (through
technology transfer) controls applied to similar source
categories and gas streams, and innovative control technologies.
Technologies required under lowest achievable emission rate
(LAER) determinations are available for BACT purposes and must
also be included as control alternatives and usually represent
the top alternative." (page B.5)
There are a number of potential process technologies which may be used to produce
electricity from coal. The most common process technology is based on the direct
combustion of coal in an external combustion boiler. The heat of combustion produces
steam to power a steam turbine coupled to an electric generator. These power plants are
classified as "conventional" coal-fired power plants. Integrated gasification combined
cycle (IGCC) power plants are fundamentally different in that IGCC plants do not combust
coal directly. Rather, IGCC technology first gasifies coal in a fuel conversion facility, and
then combusts the resulting synthetic gas in a gas turbine coupled to an electric generator.
In this way, IGCC is a fundamentally different process for producing electricity from coal.
The process flow diagrams for conventional and ¡GCC units are shown in Figures ¡ and 2.
Several air pollution control permits for new coal-fired electric generating facilities have
been challenged based on the premise that ¡GCC is an inherently lower emitting process
than conventional power plants. They have argued that because the BACT requirements
apply broadly to coal-fired power plants. the agency must consider requiring that the plant
be redesigned to use ¡GCC technology. The requirement to redesign the plant to use [GCC
technology has become a significant air pollution control pennitting issue. The following
is a summary of the technologies and status of the ¡GCC technology.
Air Pollution Control Review of Florida Power & Light Company's Proposed
1,700 MW Coal·flred SW St. Lucie Power Project.
RTP Environmental Associates. Inc.
September, 2005
·44 -
~vidPÎ<.~uY-êWSLPPAir P,-,on Control ReviewRTP 9-20-2005 DEAC.doc
J
Page45
FIGURE 1. Overall process flow diagram for a conventional supenritical pulverized coal-fired electric generating unit
......-
~
~.
t".......,....,.....
'...._...,_.~.'....." .,......._-,.. ..~.._....."
Air PoIutioo Control Review of Florida Power & Light Company's Proposed
1,700 MW C08I·firecl SW St. Lucie Power Project.
RTP Environmental Associates, Inc
September. 2005
·45·
.-....-.-.,
[Q¡vid P~eIlY:]~~LÞÞAirP~nControIReviewRTP 9-20:2005 DEAC.doc
~
Page 461
FIGURE 2. Overall process now diagram for an integrated gasification combined cycle coal·fired electric generating unit.
..1,lIplnUI"'I,,,1
eu"",.r,I'-II'II"!
1..1I11f 1II"I¥.r~ ".."
..w_.··..··
.,...
1....llIn
. ,,-----
-.....-
CodingWaI.S_
.-.-
øllln..II," I'IU,I
wnll'·IO'II. c.,.tUrT'.III'
A... gll II;t",uII
'1,"1
,ow.r "'nl will'! Tw, Clm'UIII," Tu~II\" '''f
Onl'I"IIIT...II'III'
Air I'oIlution ConIroI Review of Florida Power & Ughl Company's Proposed
1,700 MNCDIII·fired SWSt Lucie Power project
RTP En\lironmenlsl Associatss, Inc
September, 2005
·46·
I]avid P l<eIlY~"§ì&§~f:ipÄir ~tion Control Review RTP 9-20-2005 DEAC.doc
,..;
Page47
4.1 Electric Grid Power Requirements and Electric Generation
The power requirements of the electric grid change continuously throughout the day, and
throughout the year. Electric power requirements are normally highest during the day and
lowest at night. The absolute highest power requirements normally occur on the hottest
summer days and the coldest winter days. Figure 3 is an example of an electric grid load
curve showing the total amount of electricity that electric customers demand as a function
of time, The types of power plants that meet this demand are known as base load,
intermediate, and peaking power plants.
Base load plants such as the proposed SWSLPP units provide the majority of electric
energy to the system. These plants operate continuously except when down for scheduled
maintenance or unplanned outages. They have high "capacity factors" of 60% - 95%.
Capacity factor means the ratio of the amount of power actually produced by a plant in a
given period to that which could have been produced if the plant operated at 100% of its
rated output for 100% of the time. To achieve these high capacity factors, baseload plants
must have very high reliability and availability. Because base load power plants provide
the majority of electric energy to the grid, it is critical that these plants be highly reliable.
Base load plants use lower cost fuels and produce power at lower costs than intermediate
and peaking plants. Examples of base load power plants include major new and existing
coal-fired plants, nuclear power plants, and hydroelectric power plants.
Intermediate or loadfo/lowing plants are often older, less efficient base load plants or
new plants constructed specifically for cyclic operation, such as natural gas-fired combined
cycle power plants. They are normally operated during times of elevated demand and have
lower capacity factors than base load plants, typically in the range of 25 to 50%. These
plants may start and stop daily, or they may be turned down during evening hours.
Peaking plants provide the additional power needed during periods of peak demand, such
as those caused by high heating loads on cold winter days or air-conditioning loads on hot
summer days. The capacity factor of peaking plants is usually less than 15%. Peaking
plants are more economical and much faster to build than base or intermediate load plants,
but are usually less efficient and more expensive to operate.
4.2 New Power Plant Construction in the U.S.
According to the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), the electric power industry added 48
gigawatts of new electric generating capacity in 2003. Eighty percent of the new capacity
was natural gas-fired. In the 10 year period from 1993 to 2003, natural gas-fired electric
generating capacity in the U.S. increased from 66 gigawatts to 208 gigawatts, an increase
of215%. During the same period, coal-fired electric generating capacity increased from
310 gigawatts to 313 gigawatts, or an increase of I %. This data means that relatively
little new coal-fired base load capacity has been added in the U.S. in the past 10 years.
Air Pollution Conlrol Review of Florida Power & Ught Company's Proposed
1.700 MW Coal-fired SW St. Lucie Power Project.
RTP Environmental Associates, Inc.
September, 2005
- 47-
David PK~lly - SWSLPP Air'
¡tion Control Review RTP 9-20-2005 DEAC.doc
Page 48
FIGURE 3. Electric utility load curve during typical hot summer and cold winter
days and the power plant types used to meet these load requirements.
Q
CII
:J
Þ
'õ
'¡::
Õ
.!!1
w
Peak Load
- - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
Intermediate Load
Time of Day
4.3 Power Plant Thermal Efficiencies and Air Emissions
The thermal efficiency of an electric generating unit is critical to reducing air emissions,
coal consumption, and other environmental impacts. A unit's thermal efficiency is
expressed as a percentage, and is determined by the net electric output of the unit divided
by the gross fuel energy input. In the utility industry, efficiency is often expressed as the
unit's heat rate, which is the reciprocal of the thermal efficiency. Heat rate is defined as
the fuel energy input required per unit of electricity produced. In the U.S., heat rate is
usually expressed in units of Btu per kWh of electricity produced.
An electric generating unit consists of a coal-fired boiler and steam turbine/electric
generator set. In an IGCC plant, the unit consists of the gasification plant and one or more
combustion turbines and steam turbines in the power block. When improvements are made
to the efficiency of the unit, all air emissions can be reduced. With similar air pollutant
emission rates from the boiler or combustion turbine, expressed in pounds per million Btu
of heat input, a 1.0% increase in a unit's efficiency can reduce criteria air emissions and
CO2 by more than 2.0%. For example, consider two units with comparable NO, emission
rates of 0.07 Ib/mmBtu, but with differing thermal efficiencies of34% and 39% (10,035
and 8,850 BtulkWh). The NO, emission rates for these two units, expressed in terms of
pounds per MWh of electricity produced would be 0.70 and 0.62IbIMWh, respectively. In
Air Pollution Control Review of Florida Power & Light Company's Proposed
1.700 MW Coal-fired SW St. Lucie Power Project.
RTP Environmental Associates, Inc.
September. 2005
- 48-
Page 49
~Vid P KeITy:§W~Ç:è~ l..irPo"'-6n Control Review RTP 9-20-2005 DEAC~'doc
...,.¡
this case, a 5% improvement in thermal efficiency results in a 12% improvement in NO.
emissions for each MWh of electricity actually produced.
4.4 Conventional coal-fired power plants.
Conventional power plants are distinguished by the direct combustion of coal in an
external combustion boiler, and the use of steam from the boiler to power a steam turbine /
electric generator set. Conventional coal-fired power plants generally consist of one or
more "units". A unit usually consists of one coal-fired boiler and one steam
turbine/electric generator set (called a one-by-one configuration), although other
configurations, such as two boilers serving a single steam turbine/electric generator set (a
two by one configuration) may also be used. According to the U.S. Department of
Energy's Energy Information Administration, there were approximately 1,530 coal-fired
electric generating units which reported operating information in 2003, with a total
capacity of over 320,000 MW(e). The nameplate generating capacity for these units ranged
from less than 1 MW to over 1,400 MW4. Since the inception of the PSD program in
1978, approximately 366 coal-fired electric generating units have been installed in the U.S.
with a combined capacity of more than 107,000 MW.
4.5 IGCC Power Plants
Overview
Integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) is an advanced electric generation process
that integrates a fuel gasification process with a combustion turbine combined cycle power
block. The fuel conversion or gasification facility resembles a petroleum refinery,
converting coal or other feedstocks into a synthetic gas or "syngas". Syngas is primarily
composed of hydrogen (H2), carbon monoxide (CO), and carbon dioxide (C02), with
smaller quantities of particulate matter, hydrogen sulfide (H2S), and other contaminants.
The syngas is processed through a gas cooling and cleanup system, and is then combusted
in a combustion turbine combined cycle power block to produce electricity.
Operating Experience
According to the U.S. DOE, of the approximately 1,530 coal-fired electric generating units
operating in the U.S. in 2003, only 2 were IGCC units. The Wabash River unit was shut
down in 2004 and is scheduled to be reopened in 2005 as SG Solutions, LLC. In 2004,
there was a total of four operating IGCC units worldwide. Table 15 summarizes the data
from the four operating coal-fired IGCC plants worldwide.
TABLE IS. Statistics for all coal-fired IGCC plants operating worldwide in 2004'.
. The U.S. DOE's Energy Information Administration (EIA) data may be obtained at:
httD://www.eia.doe.aov/cneaf/electricitv/caae/cacacitv/cacacitv.html.
Air Pollution Control Review of Florida Power & Light Company's Proposed
1.700 MW Coal-fired SW SI. Lucie Power Project
RTP Environmental Associates, Inc.
September, 2005
- 49-
@åvid Þkeny:§~W:~ÇÎ;)¡:)ðir~tion Control Heview HTP 9-20-2005 DEAC.doc
-..I
Page sO]
Wabash Power Polk Power Willem Alexander Puertollano
, ',' .. , Station Station
Owner Global Energy I Tampa Electric NUON ELCOGAS
Cinergy
Location Indiana, US Florida, US Netherlands Puerto llano. Spain
Capacity, MW net 262 250 253 298
Gasifier ConocoPhillips ChevronTexaco Shell Prenflo
Gulfier Availability 84.2%' 85%' 50% 68%
Gas Turbine GE MS 700lFA GE MS 700lFA Siemens V 94.2 Siemens V 94.2
Efficiency, % HHV 39.7 37.5 41.4 41.5
Heat rate. Btu/KWh 8.600 9.100 8,240 8,230
Fuel Feedstock Bit CoallPet Coke Bit CoallPet Coke Bituminous Coal Bit CoallPet Coke
Particulate Control Candle Filter Water scrubber Candle filter Candle filter
Acid Gas Clean-up MDEA scrubber MDEA scrubber Sultinol M MDEA scrubber
Sulfur By-product Sulfur Sulfuric acid Sulfur Sulfur
Sulfur Recovery, % 99% design 98% design 99% design 99% design
HOx Control Steam Dilution N, & Steam Oil. Syn Sat & N, Dil. Syn Sat & N, Dil.
Footnotes
· From Financing IGCC - 3 Party Covenant. Rosenberg. Alpern, Walker, Harvard University, J. F.
Kennedy School of Government, Energy Tech. Innovation Project, Feb., 2004, page 33.
· Year 5 operational data in 2000 from Maior Environmental ASDects of Gasification-Based Power
Generation Technologies. U.S. DOE, National Energy Technology Laboratory, December 2002.
, Year 5 operational data in 2001 from the above referenced report.
Major IGCC Power Plant Components
The major components of a coal-fired lGCC power plant include:
I. Material handling equipment,
2, Gasifier and Air separation unit,
3. Syngas cooling and clean-up processes, and
4. Combined cycle power block.
The major components of an IGCC facility have existed for decades. The fuel gasification
process, including the gasifier, air separation unit, and syngas clean-up processes use
technology that has been used to create fuels since the 1930's and has been deployed
around the world in refining, chemical, and electric power applications. The combined
cycle power block is also widely used around the world for electric power production.
However, the gas turbines used in these combined cycle power plants use natural gas or
distillate fuel oil, not syngas. However, the integration of these technologies into a viable,
long-term electric power generating technology is a continuing goal of the U.s. DOE's
Clean Coal Technology program.
Material Handling Equipment
AIr Pollution Control Review of Florida Power & light Company's Proposed RTP Environmental Associates, Inc,
1.700 MW Coal·fired SW 51. Lucie Power Projecl. September, 2005
- 50-
[Qavid P Ke!Jy~~í{I{§JppAir J\."otion Control ReviewRTP 9-20-2005 DEAC.doc
på9è51]
~
Material handling equipment is required for the coal fuel input, and the ash (slag), and
sulfur or sulfuric acid byproduct production. The coal handling equipment is similar
to that used at conventional PC power plants. The coal is normally crushed or pulverized
prior to feeding it into the gasifier. Some gasification technologies use dry coal, while
others feed the coal to the gasifier as a coal-water slurry.
Gasifier and Air Separation Unit
The gasifier uses oxygen from the air separation unit and steam to produce syngas from the
coal feedstock. Syngas is primarily composed of hydrogen (H2), carbon monoxide (CO) as
the primary combustible components as well as carbon dioxide (C02), and smaller
quantities of particulate matter, hydrogen sulfide (H2S), and other contaminants. The
gasifier operates in a reducing environment where insufficient oxygen is supplied for
complete combustion. The gasifier operates at temperatures of 2,000 - 3,000 of and
pressures of 400 - 1,000 psi (30 - 70 atmospheres).
As with boiler selection in a conventional coal-fired power plant, there are a number of
gasifier designs that can be incorporated into an IGCC power plant. Currently, all gasifier
reactors are based on one of three types, including moving-bed or fixed-bed reactors,
fluidized-bed reactors, and entrained-flow reactors. Currently, nearly all [GCC units in
operation or under construction are based on entrained-flow gasifiers.
All of the gasification processes used for IGCC to date also use oxygen-blown systems.
Air consists of approximately 79% nitrogen, 20.9% oxygen, and 0.1 % trace gases. Oxygen
is separated from air by a cryogenic oxygen plant commonly called an air separation unit
(ASU). The ASU uses compressors which account for the largest parasitic load on an
IGCC facility.
In existing IGCC facilities, the gasifier has been a major source of plant downtime.
Because the high availability of baseload power plants is critical to the process selection,
plant designers are proposing to construct multiple train gasifier IGCC units to address the
low availability of single train IGCC power plants. However, at this time, there are no
currently operating multiple train coal fueled IGCC plants in the World.
Syngas Cooling and Clean-up
The coal gasifiers operate at high temperatures and produce raw, hot syngas. After the
gasifier, the syngas is cooled to below I,OOO°F using a waste heat boiler or a direct quench
process. After the gas is cooled, the syngas passes to the syngas clean-up systems. Syngas
clean-up generally involves removing particulate matter, sulfur, nitrogen, and chlorine-
based compounds from the syngas before it is directed to the power block. Particulate
matter is removed using either ceramic or metallic filters (called candle filters) located
upstream of the heat recovery device. or by water scrubbers located downstream of the
cooling device. The syngas is then treated in clean up processes to remove hydrogen
sulfide (H2S), carbonyl sulfide, and nitrogen compounds. The acid gas removal processes
are either chemical solvent-based processes using aqueous solutions of amines such as
Air Pollution Control Review of Florida Power & Light Company's Proposed
1,700 MW Coal-fired SW 5t. Lucie Power Project.
RTP Environmental Associates. Inc.
September, 2005
- 51 -
[Q!vid PK~lIy~:$YY~~~~ÄirP~n Control Review RTP 9-20-2005 DEAC.doc
Page 52 I
'J
methyl diethanolamine (MDEA) or physical solvent-based processes such as Selexol,
which uses dimethyl ethers of polyethylene glycol, or Rectisol, which uses refrigerated
methanol. The sulfur is recovered from the stripping processes and recovered as either as
sulfuric acid or elemental sulfur.
To control mercury emissions, the gas cleanup system may also use a carbon bed
absorption system. Although there are no IGCC plants operating with carbon bed
absorption for mercury control, the coal gasification system operated by Eastman Chemical
Company for chemical production has demonstrated 95% mercury removal utilizing a
single carbon bed filter.
Combined Cycle Power Block
After clean-up, the syngas is sent to the combined cycle power block. For !GCC, the
power block is a combined cycle system. Combined cycle power blocks are a hybrid of
combustion turbines and steam electric generating units. Rather than com busting the
syngas in an external combustion boiler, the syngas is com busted in an internal combustion
engine - a combustion turbine (CT) coupled to an electric generator. The exhaust gas from
the CT typically ranges from 1,000 - 1,200 OF. This waste heat is recovered in a heat
recovery steam generator (HRSG) to produce steam and drive a second steam turbine
generator set to produce electricity. About two-thirds of the electric output of the
combined cycle power block is produced by the combustion turbine, and one-third by the
steam turbine. In an IGCC power plant, the CT powers an electric generator, and may also
provide compressed air to the air separation unit.
An important consideration to address in the power block section is the need to fire
alternate fuels such as natural gas or distillate fuel oil to achieve the necessary unit
availability for a baseload electric generating unit. While the combustion turbine may be
designed to fire syngas as well as natural gas and distillate fuel oil, there are some
important process and air emission differences when these alternative fuels are fired. In
addition, there are severe, negative economic impacts to the operation of an IGCC unit
when natural gas or distillate fuel oil are fired. The primary process difference is that the
volumetric heating value of cleaned syngas is less than natural gas or fuel oil. As a result,
there is a much larger volume of fuel required with syngas firing to provide the necessary
energy input to the CT. This large volume results in a larger total mass flow through the
CT, and, consequently, a larger power output. For example, a General Electric 7FA
industrial CT has an output rating of 197 M W when firing syngas, but only 172 MW when
firing natural gas or fuel oil.
Emissions and Performance
Table 16 is a summary of the environmental emissions performance of the four IGCC units
operating worldwide in 2004.
TABLE 16. Emissions data for all coal-fired IGCC plants operating worldwide in
Air Pollution Control Review of Florida Power & Light Company's Proposed
1.700 t.WV Coal-fired SW St Lucie Power Project
RTP Environmental Associates. Inc.
September, 2005
- 52-
rn~Vid P K~uy:ší{i{§k~pAirP¥n Control Review RTP 9-20-2005 DEAC.doc
..,;
2004. All data reported in pounds per MWh.
Wabash Power
Station
0.46'
8,240
8,230
Wlllem
Alexander
Puertollano,
Spain
Carbon Monoxide (CO)
Nitrogen axides (NO.)
Particulate Matter
0.70
0.01
0.44
0.88
0.044
0.\5
1.09
0.10
1.08
0.09'
6.1 x 10"
8,600
Sulfur Dioxide (SO.)
VOC.
Mercury (Hg)
Heat Rate, BtulKWh
Footnotes
, Based on an emission rate of 0.05 Ib/mmBtu and a unit heat rate of9,100 BtulkWh as reported in
Wabash River Coal Gasification ReDowering Proiect. Proiect Performance Summary. Clean Coal
Technology Demonstration Program, U.S. DOE Report DOE/FE-0448, July, 2002, page 5.
b Based on an emission rate of7.2 lblhr and a unit output of250 MW as reported in TamDa Electric
Integrated Gasification Combined-Cycle Proiect. Proiect Performance Summary, Clean Coal
Technology Demonstration Program, U.S. DOE Report DOEfFE-0469, June, 2004, page 6.
, VOC emissions for the Wabash unit is from the presentation Wabash River Coal Gasification
ReDowering Proiect Overview, Phil Amick, Technology Director -Gasification, ConocoPhillips,
given at the Workshop on Gasification Technologies, June 8-9, 2004.
Current Status of the IGCC Technology
As presented above, there are currently only four coal-fueled IGCC plants operating
worldwide, as compared to thousands of conventional coal-fired power plants, and
hundreds of advanced, supercritical pulverized coal-fired units. The total coal-fueled
¡GCC capacity operating worldwide in 2003 was about 1,060 MW, or just over 250 MW
per unit. This total worldwide capacity is less than the power requirements of the planned
ERGS Units 1 & 2. Both of the existing U.S. IGCC projects including the Wabash Power
Station and the Polk Power Station received 50% cofunding from the U.S. DOE as part of
the Clean Coal Technology program.
The following is a summary of some ofthe major developments with respect to IGCe.
U.S. DOE's Clean Coal Power Initiative
In July, 2004, the U.S. DOE announced it had received proposals for a new generation of
clean coal projects valued at nearly $6 billion, in Round 2 ofthe President's Clean Coal
Power Initiative. On October 21,2004, Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham announced
a $235 million grant from the U.S. DOE to construct an advanced 285-megawatt coal-
based IOCC facility led by the Southern Company. The Southern Company is one of the
largest electricity producers in the U.S., with nearly 39,000 megawatts of electric
generating capacity. Southern Company Services, along with Southern Power Company,
Air Pollution Control Review of Florida Power & Light Company's Proposed
1.700 MW Coal-fired SW SI. Lucie Power Project.
RTP Environmental Associates, Inc.
September, 2005
- 53 -
Page 531
[Þavid Pl<eIlY:$'?Yª,L.~~Air ~tionCo;'troIRevié,^, RIP 9-20-2005 DEAC.doc
...,¡
Page 54/
the Orlando Utilities Commission, and Kellogg Brown and Root, propose to construct a
285 MW coal-based gasification plant at the Orlando Utilities Commission's Stanton
Energy Center in Orange County, Florida. The total cost for this demonstration project is
$557 million, or about $1,950 per kW of installed capacity. The U.S. DOE will contribute
$235 million as the federal cost share.
The Southern Company project is one of two selected in Round 2 of the Clean Coal Power
Initiative to demonstrate IGCC technology. In the second project, Excelsior Energy Inc.
and ConocoPhillips propose to construct and operate the 531 MW Mesaba Energy Project
in Hoyt Lakes, Minnesota. Excelsior Energy Inc. is an independent energy development
company based in Minnetonka, Minnesota. The project is intended to demonstrate reduce
costs and improved efficiency and availability for a next generation, oxygen-blown
gasification plant using bituminous coal. The total cost for the demonstration project is
$1.18 billion, or about $2,200 per kW of installed capacity. The U.S. DOE will contribute
$36 million as the federal cost share.
Other Recent Developments
On August 31, 2004, American Electric Power (AEP) announced plans to build a 1,000
MW coal-based IGCC power plant within the next 5-6 years. AEP owns and operates
about 36,000 MW of electric generating capacity.
On October 4, 2004, GE Energy and Bechtel Corporation announced the intent to establish
an alliance to develop a standard commercial offering for optimized IGCC projects in
North America. On October 26, 2004, Cinergy/PS1, GE Energy and Bechtel Corporation
signed a letter of intent to study the feasibility of constructing an IGCC generating station.
PSI Energy, the Indiana operating company ofCinergy Corp., would own and operate the
facility. Cinergy operates over 13,000 megawatts of generating capacity. The plant would
produce 500 to 600 megawatts of electricity to help meet increased electrical demand over
the next decade. The letter of intent is the first step toward reaching a contract to design
and construct the plant.
4.6 Conclusion
The SCPC configuration proposed for the SWSLPP represents one of the best methods for
bituminous coal fired power generation for facilities greater than 1000 MW at this time.
IGCC facilities are not yet available in this size range without increased risks in operational
availability and financial feasibility.
Air Pollution Control Review of Florida Power & Light Company's Proposed
1,700 MW Coal-fired SW 51. Lucie Power Project.
RTP Environmental Associales, Inc.
September, 2005
- 54-
l!>avidPk~l¡y:q~!,þon SeqÚ~.;tiol1 Using Trees[1 ].doc
Page .11
~J
Carbon Sequestration
I. American Forests Org: Climate Change Calculator
http://www.americanforests.org/resources/ccc/index.vhv
· http://www . americanforests.org/resources/ccc/index. vhp
American Forests' research in their Global ReLeaf sites shows that, on average, a tree
removes .9175 tons of C02 during the first 40 years after planting. However, as trees
grow. they compete for rootspace, sunlight, and water. Therefore, three trees must be
planted to ensure that at least one makes it to 40 years.
According to this Information, the climate change calculator estimates it
will take approximately 36,000,000 trees to sequester 12 million tons of
C02 over the span of 40 years. At this rate It will take 523,161,000 trees to
sequester 12 million tons of C02 in one year.
2. USDA Forest Service: Climate Change Tree Atlas of The Eastern US
httD:/ /www.fs.fed.us/ne/delaware/atlas/
· According to this spatial database the two most dominant types of
forests in Florida are: Oak-Gum-Cypress & Longleaf-Slash-Pine.
3. Kurt H. Johnsen, D. Wear, R.Oren, R.O. Teskey, F. Sanchez, R. Will. J. Butnor,
D. Markewitz, D. Richter, T. Rials, H.L. Allen, J. Seiler, D. Ellsworth, C. Maier,
G. Katul, and P.M. Dougherty. "Carbon Sequestration and Southern Pine
Forests", Journal of Forestry, April 2001
· "Essentially, carbon sequestered by forests is the difference between carbon
gained by photosynthesis and carbon released by respiration of all the
components of the ecosystem; this overall carbon gain or loss is called net
ecosystem productivity (NEP) More recently, technology and theory have
developed so NEP can be estimated "directly' (some modeling is needed) in a
method called eddy covariance. Annual NEP of forests in the southeastern United
States, measured with eddy-covariance instruments, tends to be higher than that
in forests elsewhere in North America, reaching values above 4,460 pounds of
carbon per acre per year (Clark et al. 1999). Over two years, eddy covariance
measurements at a 14-yearold loblolly pine (Pinus taeda) stand at the Duke
Forest in Durham, North Carolina (located in the northern third of the species
range) showed positive NEP in nearly all months of the year (fig. 2, p. 17). The
annual NEP at this forest was estimated between 5.620 and 6 780 Dounds of
carbon Der acre Der vear (Katul et al. 1999) similar to estimates in a Florida slash
Dine (Pinus elliottit) Dlantation {Clark et al. 19991. Lastly this analysis assurnes
that all pine forests are at the same highly productive developmental stage
represented by the two monitored stands used in the estimate. (Note: Although at
a productive stage of growth, the measured Duke Forest stand is not highly
productive, per se, as it has a site index of 43 feet, base age 25.)"
· At the average value of the two high NEP values for the Florida slash pine forest
and the Loblolly pine forest (6,200 Ib C/acre-yr), it will take 1,055,687 acres to
sequester 12 mill. tons C02.
8. Robert A. Mickler, Todd S. Earnhardt, and Jennifer A. Moore. "Modeling and
Spatially Distributing Forest Net Primary Production at the Regional Scale", 3289 J.
Air & Waste Manage. Assoc. 52:] 74-] 85
. Based on the climate. soil, and vegetation input data, PoET-II calculates the
David P . (êuy:.car~o~n'Sê....uê'-Hôñ US1n Ir~ês[1 j.doc
Page 2;
maximum amount of foliage or leaf area that can be supported. NPP (Net Primary
Production) eauals total ¡¡ross ohotosvnthesis minus growth and maintenance
resDiration for leaf. wood. and root comoartments. Respiration is calculated as a
fwtction ofthe current and orevious months' minimum and maximum air
temperature. Changes in water availability and plant water demand place
limitations on leaf area produced; as vapor pressure deficit and air temperature
increase above optimal photosynthetic levels. total leaf area decreases. Reduced
leaf area decreases total carbon fixation and alters ecosystem hydrology.
Transpiration is calculated from a maximum potential transpiration modified by
plant water demand that is a function of gross photosynthesis and water use
efficiency. Interception loss is a function of total leaf area and total precipitation.
ET is equal to transpiration and interception loss. Drainage is calculated as
precipitation in excess ofET and WHC. Maximum water storage capacity is
detennined by WHC to a depth of 100 cm. Monthly ET is a function ofleafarea,
plant water demand, and climate (Le., air temperature and vapor pressure deficit).
· The total area needed for the sequestration of 12 mill. tons of C02 was
calculated using the average NPP (1693 g/m'/yr) for Florida assuming a
mixed forest type (Pinel Deciduous). The product of photosynthesis was
assumed to be a carbohydrate. such as the sugar, glucose, and oxygen which
was released into the atmosphere. following the subsequent reaction:
6CO] + 6H]0 + light energy»> C6H1206 + 60]
The NPP was assumed to be presented in dry organic material. The total area
needed for the sequestration of 12 mill. tons of C02 using all of these
a5lumptions was found to be 1,082,642 acres.
'--
..I
-
0109 NOTICE
A PARCEL OF LAND LYING IN PORTIONS OF ~
TIONS 13, 14, 15, 23, 24, 25. 26 AND 38 fN
TOWNSHIP 37 SOUTH, RANGE 37 EAST. AU·LY.
ING ANO 8EING IN SAINT LUCIE COUNT\':
FLORIDA. 8EING MORE PARTICULARLY Dt:
SCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: . '
. "
COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF ,
SAID SECTION 36 ALSO BEING THE SOUTJŒAST
CORNER OF TOWNSHIP 37 SOUTH. RANGE 31'
EAST PROCEED SOUTH 8B DEGREES 54' 03"
WEST ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SEC-
TION 36 A DISTANCE OF 140.00 FEET TO A
POINT ON THE PROJECTED WEST RIGHT-OF__
WAY OF THE C·23 CANAL; THENCE NORTH 00
OEGREES 5' 57" WEST A DISTANCE OF 12M'
FEET TO A I" IRON PIPE AT THEINTERSEC'I1ON
OF THE WEST RIGHT-OF-WAY OF THE C-23 CA-
NAL AND THE NORTHWESTERLY RIGHT-OF- ..
WAY LINE OF THE FEC RAIL ROAD; THENCE
CONTINUE NORTH 00 DEGREES 06' 57" WEST
ALONG THE SAID WEST RIGHT .of-WAY OF THE '
C-23 C)\NAL A DISTANCE OF 207.86 FEET TO
THE POINT OF 8EGINNING OF SAID PARCEL OF
LAND; THENCE DEPARTING SAID WEST RIGHt-
OF,WAY OF THE C-23 CANAL SOUTH 8B OE-
GREES 54' 18' WEST A DISTANCE OF 8000
FEET; THENCE NORTH 30 DEGREES 44' is" .
WEST A OISTANCE OF 24,204.73 FEET; THENCE
NORTH 90 DEGREES 00' 00" EAST A DISTANCE'
OF 12,4B7.90 FEET TO A POINT OF THE SAID.
WEST RIGHT-OF·WAY OF THE C-23 CANAL'
THENCE SOUTH 00 OEGREES 07' 12' WEST
ALONG THE WEST RIGHT-OF-WAY OF THE C23'
CANAL A DISTANCE OF 15.B55.41 FEET TO A .
POINT OF INTERSECTION WITH THE NORTH
LINE OF SAID SECTION 36 AND THE WEST
RIGHT-OF·WAY OF THE C-23 CANAL; THENCE
SOUTH 00 DEGREES 05' 57" EAST A DISTANCE
OF 4,847.67 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING
OF THIS DESCRIPTION.
SAID PARCEl CONTAINING 3,000.00 ACRES ..
MORE OR LESS. .
0109 NOnCE
ST. LUCIE COUNTY PLANNING AND
ZONING COMMISSION
PU8L1C HEARING AGENDA
SEPTEM8ER 29. 2005
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
NOTICE is hereby gjven in accordance with Sec.
tion '1.00.03 of the SI. Lucie County Land Devel-
opment Code and in accordance with the provi.
sions of the St. Lucie County Comprehensive
Plan, that the following applicant has requested
that the SI. Lucie County Planning and Zoning
Commission consider the following requests:
I.Florida Power & Light Company, for a Change
in Zoning from the AG·5 (Agricuitural - 1 dul5
acres I Zoning District to the U (Ulilities) Zoning
DistricI for the following described property:
A PARCEL OF LAND LYING IN PORTIONS OF SEC-
TIONS 13, 14,15. 23, 24, 25. 26 AND 36, IN
TOWNSHIP 37 SOUTH, RANGE 37 EAST, ALL L y.
ING AND BEING IN SAINT LUCIE COUNTY,
FLORIDA. BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DE.
SCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF
SAID SECTION 36 ALSO 8EING THE SOUTHEAST
CORNER OF TOWNSHIP 37 SOUTH. RANGE 37
EAST PROCEED SOUTH 88 DEGREES 54' 03'
WEST ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SEC.
TION 36 A DISTANCE OF 140.00 FEET TO A
POINT ON THE PROJECTED WEST RIGHT.OF.
WAY OF THE C-23 CANAL; THENCE' NORTH 00
DEGREES 5' 57" WEST A DISTANCE OF 125.11
FEET TO A I" IRON PIPE AT THE INTERSECTION
Of THE WEST RIGHT-OF·WAY OF THE C.23 CA-
NAL AND THE NORTHWESTERLY RIGHT.OF-
WAY liNE OF THE FEC RAIL ROAD; THENCE
CONTINUE NORTH 00 DEGREES 05' 57" WEST
ALONG THE SAID WEST RIGHT·Of-WAY OF THE
C·23 CANAL A DISTANCE OF 207.65 FEET TO
THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF SAID PARCEL OF
LAND; THENCE DEPARTING SAID WEST RIGHT.
OF-WAY OF THE C-23 CANAL SOUTH 88 DE-
GREES 54' 18" WEST A DISTANCE Of 90.00
FEET.
THENCE NORTH 30 DEGREES 44' 35' WEST A
DISTANCE Of 24,204.73 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 90 DEGREES 00' 00" EAST A DIS-
TANCE OF 12.4B790 FEET TO A POINT OF THE
SAID WEST RiGHT -DF-WAY OF THE C-23 CANAL;
THENCE SOUTH 00 DEGREES 07' 12" WEST
ALONG THE WEST RIGHT-OF·WAY OF THE C.23
CANAL A DISTANCE OF 15.855.41 FEET TO A
POINT OF INTERSECTION WITH THE NORTH
LINE OF SAID SECTION 36 AND THE WEST
RIGHT·OF-WAY OF THE C-23 CANAL; THENCE
SOUTH 00 DEGREES 05' 57" EAST A DISTANCE
OF 4.947.67 FEET TO THE POINT OF 8EGINNING
Of THIS DESCRIPTION.
SAID PARCEL CONTAINING 3000.00 ACRES
MORE OR LESS.
Location:East side of Bluefield Road, approxi.
malely 4.0 miles south of Stale Roed 70 10knch-
obee Roadl.
The PUBLIC HEARING on these items will be hfid
in Ihe Commission Chambers, Roger Poilr.. An-
nex. 3rd Floor, St. Lucie County Adminilrr.tlon
Building, 2300 Virginia Avenue, Fort Pierc:o, Flori-
do an September 28. 2005. beginning et 6:00 P.M.
or 8S Soon thereafter as possible.
The Planning and Zoning Commission is iùthœ-
ized to make a recommendation to the Boerd of .
County Commissioners_ The recommandetlon
could be to approve the petition, approve Ih. JIIo
tition. with condition.. or deny the petition. The
Planning and Zoning Commission could .110 con-
tinue the public hearing from time to lime II may
be necessary. ,
PURSUANT TO Section 286_0105, Floride SleMOI,
If a perSQn decides to appeal any decilion midi
by a board, agency, or commission wilh r"plC!
to any matter considered al a meeting or he.ring.
he will need a record of the proceedingl, end
rhat, for such purposes, he may n..d to eneure
that a verbatim record of the proceedinge ¡I
made, which record includes Ihe testimony ena
evidence upon which the appeal is to be besed.
All interested persons will be given an opportunity
to be heard. Wrinan comments received in.d-
vance of the public hearing will also be conald-
ered. Written commenlS to the Plenning end .
Zoning Commission should be received by the
Counly Planning Division at least 3 deYI prIOr to
the scheduled hearing_ Please call 7721482.2822
if you have any questions or require addltion.'in_
formation.
Location:East side of 81uefield Road, appro"i.
malely 4.0 miles south of State Road 70 (Okeech-
obee Road'.
2.Florida Power & Light Company, for a Condi-
tional Use Permit to allow the operation of an
electrir.. ~eneration plant and ancjIJary uses in the
U (Utilities) Zoning DislriCI for Ihe following de.
scri bed property:
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIOA
IS! Charles Grande, Chairman
PUBliSH OATE: September 19, 2005
1220888
~:~:~m~~:M;:::?~;::::::~¡*:;':::::::::::~~:%::ti;~~:::::;N:U~:::~:::::;:i~W;;~::;i~i$~
----.....
...J.. ""(oJ
'I
I
.¡
.i
I
'I
I
¡
"
. :~
,<
. ~
'-'
.....,
ST. LUCIE COUNTY
CONDITIONAL USE RESPONSE FORM
Section 11.07.01 (C) of the SI. Lucie County Land Development Code provides that where a written
protest against an application for a Conditional Use Permit is signed by the owners of fifty (50) percent or
more of the area within five hundred (500) feet of the property affected by the proposed action, any such
Conditional Use Permit shall not be approved except by the favorable vote of four-fifths (4/5) of all of the
Board of County Commissioners.
The Applicant
Proposes
The Following
Conditional Use:
To allow the operation of an electric generation plan and ancillary uses
in the Utilities Zoning District
East side of Bluefield Road, approximately 4.0 miles south of
State Road 70 (Okeechobee Road).
AG-5 (Agricultural-1 du/5 acres) Zoning District
Regarding Property
Located At:
Currently Zoned:
Please Return To:
SI. Lucie County, Department of Growth .Management
Planning Division - ATTN: Talea O.
2300 Virginia Avenue, Ft. Pierce, FL 34982
Please check only one of the three following statements and retum by: November 7. 2005.
I AM IN FAVOR OF THE PROPOSED CONDITIONAL USE
I AM NOT IN FAVOR OF THE PROPOSED CONDITIONAL USE
I HAVE NO OPINION TO THE PROPOSED CONDITIONAL USE
.X
I certify that, as of the date shown below, I am a property owner within 500 feet of the
proposed Conditional Use.
Name
(Please Print):
)) A \1/ /; Ai CoI N TO.J I T /lU S 7ft tJ,c "is L ) e,c 1f.L.. KA1Vc/¡ M I n (, M70IV tfltt'J /<..../IW$J"
% J;Æ. f. Co 0 l-So.J, .;{D5 ðL/v€- ÁVfllJ/Jf., IOIlr ~T. L¡JqE., FL 34C¡SJ..
. ,
Address:
II LJ D5
Signed:
Date:
Please note that any form returned without a name and address will not be considered. All returned
forms are a matter of public record and available for viewing upon request.
Comments:
)R.
010 E
~W of f..- ïtttJéFtLlftt2.IB ~r-
K ¡{¿f, n ",M7ðrJ ~)l T£.us,r.
.
o
'i3 L.V £.F I t. L.i)
Recei' Bv
FILE NO. FPL Company
MtN (J 2 2005
.-.
.."",
~I Ruden
~I McClosky
145 NW CENTRAL PARK PLAZA
SUITE 200
PORT ST. LUCIE. FLORIDA 34986
(772) 873-5900
FAX: (772) 873-3111
JOHNATHAN.FERGUSON@RUDEN.COM
September 17, 2005
Via Facsimile, E-Mail andV.S.Mail
Katherine Mackenzie-Smith, Esq.
S1. Lucie County Attorney's Office
St. Lucie County
2300 Virginia Ave.
Ft. Pierce, FL 34982
Re: FPL Conditional Vse Permit - Mailed Notice
Dear Katherine:
On Friday my office received a copy of the mailing list compiled by the County and form
letter prepared by the County that was reportedly sent out on Friday, September 16Ù1 to all
property owners listed. If the form letter we received was in fact the form letter mailed, it
appears to be incorrect (a copy is attached). While the County's LDC is ambiguous concerning
when mailed notice is required, it is generally accepted that mailed notice is required for
conditional use permit applications (Section 11.00.03.D.1.a, LDC), but it is not required for
rezonings that involve more than ten contiguous acres (Section 11.00.03.D.2., LDC). However,
the first paragraph of the form letter reads as follows:
"In accordance with the S1. Lucie County Land Development Code, you are
hereby advised that Horida Power & Light has petitioned St. Lucie County for a
Change in Zoning from AG-5 (Agricultural - 5, 1 du/5 acres) Zoning District to
the V (Utilities) Zoning District for the following described property:"
As you can see, there is nothing in the opening paragraph that refers to a conditional use permit
application and, likewise, there is nothing in the remainder of the form letter that refers to a
conditional use permit application. Based on the above, the letter refers to the wrong application.
Fortunately the deadline for mailing notice for the September 29, 2005 P&Z public
hearing is September 19, 2005. Therefore, there is time to correct the above notice and we
request that the County mail a corrected notice on Monday, September 19, 2005 to all of the
parties on the mailing list compiled by the County. As a precaution, we are also going to mail to
PSL:17186:1
RUDEN, McCLOSKY, SMITH, SCHUSTER & RUSSELL, P.A.
CAJtACAS. n. LAUDEIDALf . MIAMI. NAPUS . ORLANDO· PORT ST. LUCIE· SARASOTA· ST. PETERSBURG· TALLAHASSEE· TAMPA. WEST PALM lEACH
"-'
....,¡
Letter to Katherine Mackenzie-Smith, Esq.
September 17, 2005
Page 2
all the property owners on the list a notice of public hearing in essentially the same form as that
provided by the County (a copy is attached).
Also, in addition to mail notice for the conditional use permit, Section 11.00.03.E, LOC,
requires a sign to be posted on or near the property for rezonings and conditional use permits.
Therefore, there are two signs required for this project. Typically the County prepares and posts
the signs. However, in order to make sure that the signs were posted timely (they also had a
September 19th deadline), and with David Kelly's concurrence, FPL picked up and posted the
signs prepared by the County. I asked the FPL employee who posted the signs to proof read the
signs to make sure that they contained all of the required information. Unfortunately he did not
do so until he left the County Public Works yard and had posted the signs. Upon proof reading
the signs he noticed that the sign for the conditional use permit did not state the time of the P&Z
public hearing. This poses a potential problem because Section 11,00.03.A., LDC, states that:
"[e]very required notice shall include: the date, time, and place of the hearing. . .." Therefore,
the conditional use notice sign prepared by the County does not strictly comply with the code
requirement (although there is the rezoning notice sign next to the conditional use sign that does
contain the date and time of the P&Z hearing).
Fortunately, FPL prepared signs, modeled after the typical County notice sign, which
contain all of the required information. The FPL prepared sign for the conditional use permit
public hearing has been added to the sign post holding the County's conditional use sign so that
all of the required information is now available to anyone who wants to stop and read the signs.
Finally, we will be providing the affidavit of posting to David Kelly within the next few days.
If there is a problem with any of the above described actions concerning the notices,
please advise immediately so that we can address it in a timely fashion. Thank you for your
assistance and attention to these matters.
Sincerely,
~.:s;:,¿L-, ~:~~,~
A
/ ¡
, .
'-'
lohnathan A. Ferguson
Enc.
cc: (via facsimile and e-mail)
Doug Anderson, County Administrator
Faye Outlaw, Asst. County Administrator
David Kelly, Planning Manager
(via e-mail)
David Hicks
Rachel Scott
Barbara Línkiewicz
PSL:17186:1
RUDEN, McCLOSKY, SMITH, SCHUSTER & RUSSELL, P.A.
CARACAS. FT. LAUDERDALE. MIAMI. NAI'LES . ORLANDO. PORT ST. LUCIE I SARASOTA. ST. pmRSBUR(; . TALLAHASSEE. TAMPA. WEST PALM BEACH
~
....,
10109 ST-:COUNTYB~~OF=TY
COMMISSIONERS
SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA
November 7,2005
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
NOTICE is hereby given in accordance with Sec-
tion 11.00.03 of the SI. Lucie County Land Devel-
opment Code and in accordance with the pr~vl-
sions of the SI. Lucie County Comprehensive
Plan that the following applicant hes requested
thai the SI. Lucie County 80ard of County Com-
missioners considers the following requests:
I.Florida Power & Light Compa~y, for a Change
in Zoning from the AG-5 (Ag"cult~~~1 . t dul5
acres) Zoning District to the U (Utilities) Zomng
District for the following described property:
A PARCEL OF LAND LYING IN PORTIONS OF SEC-
TIONS '3, '4, 15, 23, 24, 25, 25 AND 36, IN
TOWNSHIP 37 SOUTH, RANGE 37 EAST. ALL L Y_
ING AND 8EING IN SAINT LUCIE COUNTY.
FLORIDA. 8EING MORE PARTICULARLY DE-
SCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF
SAID SECTION 35 ALSO 8EING THE SOUTHEAST
CORNER OF TOWNSHIP 37 SOUTH. RANGE 37
EAST PROCEED SOUTH 89 DEGREES 54' OJ"
WEST ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SEC-
TION 36 A DISTANCE OF 140.00 FEET TO A
POINT ON THE PROJECTED WEST RIGHT.OF-
WAY OF THE C-23 CANAL; THENCE NORTH 00
DEGREES 5' 57" WEST A DISTANCE OF t25.11
FEET TO A '" IRON PIPE AT THE INTERSECTION
OF THE WEST RIGHT-OF-WAY OF THE C-23 CA-
NAL AND THE NORTHWESTERLY RIGHT-OF-
WAY LINE OF THE FEC RAIL ROAD; THENCE
CONTINUE NORTH 00 DEGREES 05' 57" WEST
ALONG THE SAID WEST RIGHT-OF-WAY OF THE
C-23 CANAL A DISTANCE OF 207.65 FEET TO
THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF SAID PARCEL OF
LAND' THENCE DEPARTING SAIO WEST RIGHT-
OF-WAY OF THE C-23 CANAL SOUTH 89 DE-
GREES 54' 18" WEST A DISTANCE OF 90.00
FEET.
THENCE NORTH 30 DEGREES 44' 35" WEST A
DISTANCE OF 24,204.73 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 90 DEGREES 00' 00" EAST A DIS-
TANCE OF 12,487.90 FEET TO A POINT OF THE
SAID WEST RIGHT-OF-WAY OF THE C·23 CANAL;
THENCE SOUTH 00 DEGREES 07' 12" WEST
ALONG THE WEST RIGHT-OF-WAY OF THE C.23
CANAL A DISTANCE OF 15,855.41 FEET TO A
POINT OF INTERSECTION WITH THE NORTH
LINE OF SAiD SECTION 36 AND THE WEST
RIGHT-OF-WAY OF THE C·23 CANAL; THENCE
SOUTH 00 DEGREES 05' 57" EAST A DISTANCE
OF 4,947.57 FEET TO THE POINT OF 8EGINNING
OF THIS DESCRIPTION.
SAID PARCEL CONTAINING 3000.00 ACRES
MORE OR LESS.
Location:£.! .. of BluefleId Road. WlProxl.
lNtelv 4.0 mil.. IOUIh of StñI Road 70 (OItHCh-
obee AO-.lI. .
2.FIorida Power It Light Company, for . Condi.
tional Use Permit 10 allow tha operation of en
electric ~ener.lion plant and ancillery uses in Ihe
U (Utilll'as) Zoning District for Ihe following de-
scribed property:
A PARCEL OF LAND LYING IN PORTIONS OF SEC-
TIONS 13, 14, 15, 23,' 24, 25, 26 AND 36, IN
TOWNSHIP 37 SOUTH, RANGE 37 EAST, ALL L y.
ING AND 8EING IN SAINT LUCIE COUNTY,
FLORIDA. BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DE-
SCRI8ED AS FOLLOWS:
COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF
SAID SECTION 36 ALSO 8EING THE SOUTHEAST
CORNER OF TOWNSHIP 37 SOUTH. RANGE 37
EAST PROCEED SOUTH 89 DEGREES 54' 03"
WEST ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SEC.
TlON 36 A DISTANCE OF 140.00 FEET TO A
POINT ON THE PROJECTED WEST RIGHT-OF-
WAY OF THE C-23 CANAL; THENCE NORTH 00
DEGREES 5' 57" WEST A DISTANCE OF 125.11
FEET TO A I" IRON PIPE AT THE INTERSECTION
OF THE WEST RIGHT·OF-WA Y OF THE C-23 CA-
NAL AND THE NORTHWESTERLY RIGHT-OF-
WAY LINE OF THE FEC RAIL ROAD; THENCE
CONTINUE NORTH 00 DEGREES 05' 57" WEST
ALONG THE SAID WEST RIGHT-OF-WAY OF THE
C-23 CANAL A DISTANCE OF 207.65 FEET TO
THE POINT OF 8EGINNING OF SAID PARCEL OF
LAND; THENCE DEPARTING SAID WEST RIGHT-
OF-WAY OF THE C-23 CANAL SOUTH 89 DE-
GREES 54' 18" WEST A DISTANCE OF 90.00
FEET; THENCE NORTH 30 DEGREES 44' 35"
WEST A DISTANCE OF 24,204.73 FEET; THENCE
NORTH 90 DEGREES 00' 00" EAST A DISTANCE
OF 12.467.90 FEET TO A POINT OF THE SAID
WEST RIGHT·OF-WA Y OF THE C-23 CANAL;
THENCE SOUTH 00 DEGREES 07' 12" WEST
ALONG THE WEST RIGHT-OF-WAY OF THE C-23
CANAL A DISTANCE OF 15,855.41 FEET TO A
POINT OF INTERSECTION WITH THE NORTH
LINE OF SAID SECTION 36 AND THE WEST
RIGHT-OF·WAY OF THE C-23 CANAL; THENCE
SOUTH 00 DEGREES 05' 57" EAST A DISTANCE
OF 4,947.67 FEET TO THE POINT OF 8EGlNNING
OF THIS DESCRIPTION.
SAID PARCEL CONTAINING 3,000.00 ACRES
MORE OR LESS.
Locetion:East side of Bluefield Road, approxi-
mately 4.0 miles south of State Road 70 IOkeech-
ebee Road).
The SPECIAL MEETING on these items will be
held in the Commission Chambers, Roger Poitras
Annex, 3rd Floor, 51. Lucie County Administration
Building, 2300 Virginia Avenue, Fort Pierce, Flori-
da on November 7, 2005, beginning at 6:00 P.M.
or as SOon thereafter as possible. Pleese note Chat
this meeting has been rescheduled from October
25,2005 due 10 hurricane safety precautions.
PURSUANT TO Section 26e.o105. Florida StaCutes,
if a person decides to appeal any decision made
bV a board, agency, or commission with respect
to any matter considered at a meeting or hearing,
he will need a record of the proceedings. and
that, for such purposes. he may need to ensure
that a verbatim record of the proceedings is
made, which record includes the testimony and
evidence upon which the appeal Îs to be based.
All interested persons will be given an oPPOrtunity
to be heard. Wrlnen commenlS received in ad-
vance of the public heering will also be consid-
ered. Written commenls to the SI. Lucie County
Board of County Commissioners should be re-
caived by Board of County Commissioners at
least 3 days prior to the scheduled hearing.
Please call 772462-1594 if you have any questions
or require additional information.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, ST, LU-
CIE COUNTY, flORIDA
ISI FRANNIE HUTCHINSON, Chairman
PUBLISH DATE: October 26, 2005 1255831
¡¡:
:1
..--.----
I !
, I.
t I
reuv..TION.... ~UT)
. . I I I
. , . , .
> §
I~~'
i
. . ¡
:~
<.
~~
Ë~
I
F.
a.~
i
Š
~ B
~ .
~
~ .
Fi I
;¡.
, F
~
m
m ~
~
0
-< Z
Õ r-
z 8
8 2S
z
~ G')
G') ¡ï¡
~ !!1
In
-<
Ii !èš
I d
'"
m P ~
~. ~. I ~
8 ~ 1 0
~ f ~
. z 0
<1 ~
;¡
;IiP!~
z
IÞ
.. Ij ~
h~d
~
~
In
,..
r-
C
n
iñ
~
::0
:J!
e
m
Q
Q
m
Z
m
m~
,...,...
m»
~;u
::!~
Oz
Zt:)
m
i:
m
Z
-t
I
!
¡
¡
J
,
I
I
fI
D
~
j
~
i
.
P&
~~
~i
~~
-i
!
. ¡ Î I I I
(aÆV"TIaOII"~
Ii
~~ª
ª
. . . . . . . . .
(J!LEYAnDNlN~I!I!T)
~I
~Q
;¡!iì
Pij -!
,¡. ~
¡¡
¡
a
<
I I I ¡ ¡ I
Fi
8'
-~
.
)
I
.
-.. _L ___ ....._.._
II i i !/
I :: II
s i I P
IL r,~i
i ij · ~ I
ill
,
I~ !è§
, ëI
01
i.j¡P ~
, 8
z
en
;¡
c:
;n PHI
o
i ~ ' z
h" ~ j
~
en
:e
~
.... ~
c:
n
iñ z=
~ 0
;a
;0 en
"II
;0 :::¡
e m I
~
~ "a I
~ i
z
I F
I
,
~ I
~
.
~
'.fl'J ¡llf frll!
II' ,'¡liE'
~! i ~ ~
II . 1/ ,I III
II I II h! I
II' iii Ii Ill" IIII 'iii
,"HiPIII, IIifl, jl ~I II
III¡! J I' 'I dill'! i i
1,'lIllf ! i! lill:1 i ! i
. I! 14 I
~ '
..
,~\, Ilnl ~ql:~1 Bill""I!!'!"'I'J
~ '\ i f I i .1, !
~i ~j \ ¡II I J ! mu ! II! illi! llf' ",
<~ ª. .. I; . - I 1,lJh I
~~ 2a <§ . ~ i I I i ; II!!! i I. I! ¡" nil ;
. .:. ,..~.! 'I I I
~ª~ ~~ ~\ i }. hll
~~; ~M ~\ I Iiltl
~.
\ ,!IY II III ¡II
¡~ ~:~~~:~~~~~'~OR lip I,I' I;
~. : :\.~ ,1,1 illi "I
~." , , . , II
~~ ~~:: ~ i 'II ¡
I ~ f~i ì!\\ ~ II I~ I
~ '\~
¡ ~\ III"'II'JJ'~I
~ \ \) iI'l iI jl I i r
ª ~ d J ¡I;I "
~ ~ II II I
\ I I! j
I' HI rill" ";!
Jø( J I' 'f 'I
(' I I I
, I
.1
fJ~
.-
,"
If
, II ","1111',1 IliJ
I Ii ¡ilil I ,I
¡' II I/l11 i
¡ II "111,1 '.
I I I f I,
III
I,
"
-~
~~
:g
~:
~g
~~
~<
~,
~~
"
.
~
~
<
~
~
í1
ð
~
"
o~
i;j~
z.
2ª
'II
II
'I,
II·
Iii
il.
I'
'I .11
I'
I'
,I
¡
~2 :
.~ rl
22
~~ ~ , '
.¡; .; " I
~8 i ' :
~l ~ ¡ I
~"tI ...... , :
~.~ ; i !
Š z ,: i
if ~ ,
~ : i
. I ,
r : i
I,
: '
II
"
, ,
"
"
"
"
"
g~ : :
ª.< "
;:: » II
!i; i:
1.1
II
"
"
"
,.
---- ----- --- ------- J :
-----------___--..l
~
ª
"
~
m
j
~
~
~
~
J
~
~
¡ ¡
i ~
~I!t
i ~
I
I
If
Submitt';'or the Public Record for
the NovE:::?rJber 7,2005 Hearing by
Petitioner Florida Power & Light
Re:Proposed Southwest
St. Lucie County Power Plant
.-)
:....... r"ij'. >. /",¡-~" ,'\.'
J' ¡ ~ J j
: i vJ..iJ
,-, i....../"i·
, jf "V
.11 ..{~, ,,-"" ,-_'~-;¡
.1 ~ 1t. V tV!"
LJ,JJWf \
(B C2JiJæEGJJ
A Perspective of Coal-to-Electricity Transformation
Compiled by:
Nelly Spengler
11440 Carlton Road
Fort Pierce, FL 34987
With Contributions from:
Craig Spengler
November 3, 2005
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
We apologize for the delay in the submission of this presentation due to the hurricane Wilma.
Unfortunately, we are currently experiencing a power outage since the hurricane made landfall,
and FP&L projected that we will have electricity by November 22.
Sincerely,
Craig & Nelly Spengler
NOTES ON THIS PRESENTATION:
1. what's in the cdrom:
a. presentation folder: power point presentation data, movie clips and
references
b. windows media player folder: Windows media player version 9 and 10
c. ppt viewer folder: power point viewer for those who does not have the
entire power point software installed in the computer.
I..
...
..
..
..
III
III
...
III
...
1.
2.
.. 3.
... 4.
5.
..
6.
..
.. 7.
..
..
..
III
'-'
\wi
2. We made sure that this presentation and cdrom is free of viruses.
3. Windows Media Player version 9 & 10 are enclosed in the cdrom as well as the
power point viewer in case you do not have Microsoft Power Point software
installed in your computer. Please consult your computer technician before
installing the software as there are prerequisites. You may also go to
http://www.microsoft.com/download for any additional download and system
requirements.
4. Please also make sure that your windows operating system is updated to ensure
better performance and better video playback such as having Direct X YIO and
Windows Media Player Yl 0 installed. Again, please consult your computer
technician before installation of the software as there are prerequisites. We will
Dot be responsible for any damage to your computer.
REQUIREMENTS:
Pentium III-900 or higher, Pentium 4 is preferred.
At least 500 MB of memory to play the video clips and animation.
Works with Windows 98SE, Win 2000, plays best on Win XP. Running it on
Windows 98SE or any slower machine will render the video clips and animations
choppy including the sound.
Sound card and speaker to hear the narration on video clips.
Cdrom to read the files. The presentation runs while on the cdrom, but a better
performance will be achieved if copied to the local computer's hard drive.
(Approximately 156MB of disc space just for the presentation).
The presentation is created to not automatically advance each slides for the
convenience of the viewer, but the video clips will play automatically when slides
are advanced. You can pause and restart the presentation by putting the mouse
cursor or pointer on the lower left comer of the screen, an arrow will appear and
press the arrow and you will be given a choice.
Lastly, if you have difficulty viewing the presentation, please do not hesitate to
give us a call at 954.987.4657 or email usatnps.stl@bugpak.com
We hope our presentation is informative
and that you enjoy it!
III
'-'
-....I
..
..
III
III
TABLE OF CONTENTS
..
45 Minute Power Point Presentation entitled:
..
From Mines to Megawatts - A Perspective of Coal-to-Electricity Transformation
... Article I. Coal
- Etymology and folklore
.. - Composition and creation
- Types of coal
- Uses of coal
III - Harmful effects of coal burning
- Wodd coal reserves
- References
...
Article II. Emissions by Sector
..
Article III. Top Ten Power Plants with Biggest Increase in Pollution: 1995-2003
..
Article IV. Global warming: Impacts on South Florida
Article V. Florida Map of Lands Vulnerable to Sea Level Rise
III
Article VI. Climate Change and Florida
..
-
III
III
...
..
...
...
·
..
...
...
..
·
·
·
...
..
·
·
..
...
...
..
Coal - Wikipedia, thVe encyclopedia
Page 1 of7
-....J
Coal
From Wikipedia, the rree encyclopedia.
Coal is a fossil fuel extracted from the ground by deep mining, coal mining (open-pit mining or strip mining). It is
a readily combustible black or brownish-black sedimentary rock. It is composed primarily of carbon and
hydrocarbons, along with assorted other elements, including sulfur. Often associated with the Industrial
Revolution, coal remains an enormously important fuel and is the most common source of electricity world-wide.
In the United States, for example, the burning of coal generates over half the electricity consumed by the nation.
Contents
· I Etymology and folklore
· 2 Composition and creation
· 3 Types of coal
· 4 Uses
· 4.1 Coal as fuel
. 4.1.1 Gasification
. 4.1.2 Liquefaction
· 4.2 Coking and use of coke
· 4.3 Harmful effects of coal burning
· 5 Coal fires
· 6 World coal reserves
· 7 See also
· 8 External links
· 9 References
Coal
Etymology and folklore
Coal is thought ultimately to derive its name from the Old English col but this actually meant charcoal at thc time;
coal was not mined prior to the late Middle Ages; i.e. aftcr ca. 1000 AD. Mineral coal was referred to as sea-coal,
either bccause it was found on beaches occasionally having fallen from the exposed coal seams above, or because
it was easier to transport by sea rather than on the very poor road system (in London, England there is still a sea
coal roadllane where the coal merchants conducted their business).
It is associated with the astrological sign Capricorn. It is carried by thieves to protect them from detection and to
help them to escape when pursued. It is an element of a popular ritual associated with New Year's Eve. To dream
of burning coals is a symbol of disappointment, trouble, affliction and loss, unless they are burning brightly, when
the symbol gives promise of uplifting and advancement.
Santa Claus is said to leave a lump of coal instead of Christmas presents in the stockings of naughty children.
Composition and creation
Coal consists of more than 50 percent by weight and more than 70 percent by volume of carbonaceous material
(including inherent moisture). Coal is formed from plant remains that have been compacted, hardened, chemically
altered, and metamorphosed by heat and pressure over geologic time. Much coal was formed from ancient plants
that grew in swamp ecosystems. When such plants died, their biomass was deposited in anaerobic, aquatic
environments where low oxygen levels prevented their decay and oxidation (rotting and release of carbon
http:// en. wiki pedia.org/w/index. php ?ti tle=Coal&printable=yes
2005-11-02
Coal - Wikipedia, thVe encyclopedia
..
...,.¡
Page2of7
dioxide). Successive generations of this type of plant growth and death formed thick deposits of unoxidized
organic matter that were subsequently covered by sediments and compacted into carbonaceous deposits such as
peat or bituminous or anthracite coal. Evidence of the types of plants that contributed to carbonaceous deposits
can occasionally be found in the shale and sandstone sediments that overlie coal deposits, and with special
techniques, within the coal itself. The greatest coal-forming time in geologic history was during the Carboniferous
era (280 to 345 million years ago).
..
..
..
Types of coal
III
As geological processes apply pressure to peat over time, it is transformed successively into:
· Lignite - also referred to as brown coal, is the lowest rank of coal and used almost exclusively as fuel for
steam-electric power generation. Jet is a compact form of lignite that is sometimes polished and has been
used as an ornamental stone since the Iron Age.
· Sub-bituminous coal- whose properties range from those of lignite to those of bituminous coal and are
used primarily as fuel for steam-electric power generation.
· Bituminous coal- a dense coal, usually black, sometimes dark brown, oftcn with well-defined bands of
bright and dull material, used primarily as fuel in steam-electric power generation, with substantial
quantities also used for heat and power applications in manufacturing and to make coke.
· Anthracite - the highest rank, used primarily for residential and commercial space heating.
iIIII
...
...
Uses
..
Coal as fuel
... See also Clean coal
Coal is primarily used as a solid fuel to produce heat through
.. combustion.
World coal consumption is about 5,800 million short tons
III annually, of which about 75% is used for electricity production.
The region including China and India uses about 1,700 million
tons annually, forecast to exceed 3,000 million tons in 2025. [I]
iIIII Coal rail cars in Ashtabula, Ohio (http://en.wikipedia.orglwikiICoal#endnote_www.eia.doe.gov.751) The
USA consumes about 1,100 million tons of coal each year, using
90% of it for generation of electricity. Coal is the fastest
.. growing energy source in the world, with coal use increasing by 25% for the three-year period ending in Dec.
2004 (BP Statistical Energy Review June 2005).
.. When coal is used in electricity generation, it is generally pulverized and then burned. The heat produced is used
to create steam, which is then used to spin turbines which turn generators and create electricity. Approximately
40% of the Earth's current electricity production is powered by coal, and the total known deposits recoverable by
.. current technologies are sufficient for 300 years' use at current rates (see World Coal Reserves, below).
Gasification
III
High prices of oil and natural gas are leading to increased interest in "Btu Conversion" technologies such as coal
gasification, methanation and liquefaction.
-
-
http:// en. wikipedia.org/w/index. php ?title=Coal&printable=yes
2005-11-02
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
-
-
-
Coal - Wikipedia, thVe encyclopedia
."",
Page 3 of7
In the past, coal was converted to make coal-gas, which was piped to customers to burn for illumination, heating,
and cooking. At present, the safer natural gas is used instead. South Africa still uses gasification of coal for much
of its petrochemical needs.
Gasification is also a possibility for future energy use, as it generally burns hotter and cleaner than conventional
coal, can spin a more efficient gas turbine rather than a steam turbine, and makes capturing carbon dioxide for
later sequestration much easier.
Liquefaction
Coal can also be converted into liquid fuels like gasoline or diesel by several different processes. The Fischer-
Tropsch process of indirect synthesis of liquid hydrocarbons was used in Nazi Germany, and for many years by
Sasol in South Africa - in both cases, because those regimes were politically isolated and unable to purchase crude
oil on the open market. Coal would be gasified to make syngas (a balanced purified mixture of CO and H2 gas)
and the syngas condensed using Fischer- Tropsch catalysts to make light hydrocarbons which are further
processed into gasoline and diesel. Syngas can also be converted to methanol: which can be used as a fuel, fuel
additive, or further processed into gasoline via the Mobil M-gas process.
A direct liquefaction process Bergius process (liquefaction by hydrogenation) is also available but has not been
used outside Germany, where such processes were operated both during World War I and World War II. SASOL
in South Africa has experimented with direct hydrogenation. Several other direct liquefaction processes have been
developed, among these being the SRC-I and SRC-II (Solvent Refined Coal) processes developed by GulfOil and
implemented as pilot plants in the United States in the \ 960's and 1970's. [21
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal#endnote _ TSRCoalLiquefaction)
Yet another process to manufacture I iquid hydrocarbons from coal is low temperature carbonization (LTC). Coal
is coked at temperatures between 450 and 700°C compared to 800-1000° for metalurgical coke. These
temperatures optimize the production of coal tars richer in lighter hydrocarbons than normal coal tar. The coal tar
is then further processed into fuels. The process was developed by Lewis Karrick, an oil shale technologist at the
U.S. Bureau of Mines in the \920s.[3J (http://en.wikipedia.orglwiki/Coal#endnote_www.rexresearch.com.752)
All of these liquid fuel production methods release CO2 carbon dioxide in the conversion process. CO2
sequestration is proposed to avoid releasing it into the atmosphere. As CO2 is one ofthe process streams,
sequestration is easier than from flue gasses produced in combustion of coal with air, where CO2 is diluted by
nitrogen and other gases.
Coalliqllefaction is one of the backstop technologies that limit escalation of oil prices. Estimates of the cost of
producing liquid fuels from coal suggest that domestic US production offllel from coal becomes cost-competitive
with oil priced at around 35 USD per barrel [4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal#endnote_wwwfindarticles.com.753),
(break-even cost), which is well above historical averages - but is now viable due to the spike in oil prices in
2004-2005. [5] (http://en.wikipedia.orglwikilCoal#endnote _ www.coalpeople.com.754).
Among commercially mature technologies, advantage for indirect coal liquefaction over direct coal liquefaction
are reported by Williams and Larson (2003). Estimates are reported for sites in China where break-even cost for
coal liquefaction may be in the range between 25 to 35 US$/barrel of oil.
Coking and use of coke
Main article: Coke (fuel)
http:// en. wiki pedia.org/w /index. php ?title=Coal& printable=yes
2005-11-02
-
-
..
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Coal - Wikipedia, th\...-c encyclopedia
Page 4 of7
'WI
Coke is a solid carbonaceous residue derived trom low-ash, low-sulfur bituminous coal from which the volatile
constituents are driven off by baking in an ovcn without oxygen at temperatures as high as 1,000 °C (2,000 OF) so
that thc fixed carbon and residual ash are fused together. Coke is used as a fuel and as a reducing agent in
smelting iron ore in a blast furnace. Coke from coal is grey, hard, and porous and has a heating value of24.8
million Btu/ton (29.6 MJ/kg). Byproducts of this conversion of coal to coke include coal-tar, ammonia, light oils,
and "coal-gas".
Petroleum coke is the solid residue obtained in oil refining, which resembles coke but contains too many
impurities to be useful in metallurgical applications.
Harmful effects of coal burning
Combustion of coal, like any other compound containing carbon, produces carbon dioxide (C02), along with
varying amounts of sulfur dioxide (S02) depending on where it was mined. Sulfur dioxide reacts with water to
fonn sulfurous acid. If sulfur dioxide is discharged into the atmosphere, it reacts with water vapor and is
eventually returned to the Earth as acid rain.
Emissions from coal-fired powcr plants represent the largest source of artificial carbon dioxide emissions,
according to most climate scientists a primary cause of global warming. Many other pollutants are present in coal
power station emissions. Some studies claim that coal power plant emissions arc responsible for tens of thousands
of premature deaths annually in the United States alone. Modern power plants utilize a variety of techniques to
limit the harmfulness of their waste products and improve the ef1ìciency of burning, though these techniques are
not widely implemented in some countries, as they add to the capital cost ofthe power plant. To eliminate CO2
emissions from coal plants, carbon sequestration has been proposed but is not yet in large-scale use.
Coal also contains many trace elements, including arsenic and mercury, which are dangerous if released into the
environment. Coal also contains low levels of uranium, thorium, and other naturally-occurring radioactive
isotopes whose release into the environment may lead to radioactive contamination.[6]
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal#endnote_www.ornl.gov. 7 5 5 )[71
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal#endnote_greenwood.cr.usgsgov.756) While these substances are trace impurities, if a great
deal of coal is burned, significant amounts of these substances are released.
If coal liquefaction or gasification is used to make petrochemicals, a great deal of carbon dioxide is produced in
the process. If a carbon tax was introduced and sufficient CO2 was not captured, the economics of such processes
ÌII would be significantly less attractive. However, if sequestration or some other process were used to dispose of this
by-product, fuels produced from this process would be less polluting. Some process do not have a much greater
total impact on carbon dioxide levels than ones refined from petroleum. Others may be less polluting still.
_ Research in this field is ongoing.
-
-
-
-
-
Coal fires
There are hundreds of coal fires burning around the world.18]
(http://en.wikipedia.orglwikiiCoal#endnote_www.coalfire.caf.dlr.de.757) Those burning underground can be difficult to
locate and many can not be extinguished. Fires can cause the ground above to subside, combustion gases are
dangerous to life, and breaking out to the surface can initiate surface wildfires.
Coal seams can be set on fire by spontaneous combustion or contact with a mine fire or surface fire. A grass fire
in a coal area can set dozens of coal seams on fire.l9]
(http://en. wikipedia.org/wikiiCoal#endnote ~resourcescommitteehousegov. 75 8) [101
http:// en. wiki pedia.org/w /index. php ?title=Coal&printab Ic=yes
2005-11-02
ill.
..
..
..
..
..
..
III
..
ill.
III
ill
..
..
ÍIIII
..
III
...
..
Coal - Wikipedia, th\...,:: encyclopedia
~
Page50f7
(http://enwikipediaorg/wiki/Coal#endnote_www.fireblm.gov.58) Coal fires in China burn 120 million tons of coal a year,
emitting 360 million metric tons of carbon dioxide. This amounts to 2-3% of the annual worldwide production of
CO2 from fossil fuels, or as much as emitted from all of the cars and light trucks in the United States. [II]
(http://en . w ikipedia. org/w iki/Coal#endnote _ ehp.niehs.nih.gov. 759) [12] (hltp:llen.wikipcdia.org/wlki/Coal#endnore_ www.itc.n I. 59)
In the United States, a trash fire was lit in the borough landfill located in an abandoned Anthracite strip mine pit
in the portion of the Coal Region called Centralia, Pennsylvania from ] 962. It burns underground today, 40 years
later.
The reddish siltstone rock that caps many ridges and buttes in the Powder River Basin (Wyoming), and in western
North Dakota is called porcelanite, which also may resemble the coal burning waste "clinker" or volcanic
"scoria." [13] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal#cndnotc_www.statc.nd.us.760) Clinker is rock that has been tused by the
natural burning of coal. In the case of the Powder River Basin approximately 27 to 54 billion metric tons of coal
burned within the past three million years. [14] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal#cndnote_www.blm.gov.761) Wild coal
fires in the area were reported by the Lewis and Clark expedition as well as explorers and settlers in the area. [15]
(http://en. wiki pedia.org/wiki/Coal#endnote _ www.wsgs.uwyo.edu.762)
The Australian Burning Mountain was originally believed to be a volcano, but the smoke and ash comes from a
coal fire which may have been burning for 5,000 years.[16]
(http://en. wikipedia.org/w iki/Coal#endnote _ www.nationalparks.nsw.gov.au. 763)
World coal reserves
It has been estimated that, as of ] 996, there is around one exagram (I x 1015 kg) of total coal reserves
economically accessible using current mining technology, approximately half of it being hard coal. The energy
value of all the world's coal is well over 100,000 quadrillion Btu (] 00 zettajoules). There probably is enough coal
to last for 300 years. However, this estimate assumes no rise in population, and no increased use of coal to attempt
to compensate for the depletion of natural gas and petroleum. A recent (2003) study by scientist Gregson Vaux,
which takes those factors into account, estimates that coal could peak in the United States as early as 2046, on
average. "Peak" doesn't mean coal will disappear, but defines the time after which no matter what efforts are
expended coal production will begin to decline in quantity and energy content. The disappearance of coal will
occur much later, around the year 2267, assuming all other factors do not change, which they naturally will.[I71
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal#endnote _ www.fromthewildemess.com . 7(4)
The United States Department of Energy uses estimates of coal reserves in
the region of 1,081,279 million short tons, which is about 4,786 BBOE
(billion barrels of oil equivalent) [18]
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal#endnote _ www.eia.doe.gov.765). The amount of coal
burned during 2001 was calculated as 2.337 GTOE (gigatonnes of oil
equivalent), which is about 46 MBOED (million barrels of oil equivalent per
day) [19] (http://cn.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal#endnote _www.iea.org.766). At that rate
those reserves will last 285 years. As a comparison natural gas provided 51
MBOED, and oil 76 MBD (million barrels per day) during 2001.
US coal regions.
See also
· Major coal producing regions
· Major coal exporters
· Charcoal
· Coal mining techniques
http:// en. wiki pedia.org/w/index. php ?title=Coal&printable=yes
2005-11-02
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
..
-
-
-
..
..
.
.
..
...
..
...
Coal - Wikipedia, th\.r'e encyclopedia
-...",I
Page 6 01'7
· Clean coal
· Coal dust
· Coal-tar
· Coal Measure (stratigraphic unit)
· List of environment topics
· List of rocks
· Fluidized bed combustion
· Energy value of coal
· Granular material
· Future energy development
· Indian coal
· History of coal mining
External links
· MSNBC report on coal pollution health effects in the United States
(http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/51 74391/)
· Clean coal technologies (http://www.uic.com.au/nip83.htm)
. Use of coal gas in fuel cells (http://www.ucsusa.org/CoalvsWind/brief.coal.html)
. Advanced methods of using coal (http://www.jcoal.or.jp/overview_en/gijutsu.html) (Japanese Coal
Energy Center)
References
· Robert H. Williams and Eric D. Larson (December 2003). A comparison of direct and indirect liquefaction
technologies for making fluid fuels from coal. Energy for Sustainable Development VII: 103-129., also
[20] (http://www.ieiglobal.org/ESDV 017N04/dclversussicl.pdf)
1. ^ "International Energy Outlook (http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/coal.html)... Accessed September 9,
2005.
2. ^ Cleaner Coal Technology Programme (October 1999). "Technology Status Report 0 I 0: Coal
Liquefaction (http://www.dti.gov.uk/energy/coal/cfft/cct/pub/tsrOl0.pdf).'' Department of Trade and
Industry (UK).
3. ^ ..http://www.rexresearch.com/karrick/karric-l.htm... Accessed September 9,2005.
4. ^ "Diesel Fuel News: Ultra-clean fuels from coal liquefaction: China about to launch big projects - Brief
Article (http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_mOCYH/is_15_ 6/ai_ 89924477)." Accessed September
9,2005.
5. ^ "Welcome to Coal People Magazine
(http://www.coalpeople.com/old_coalpeople/march03/tiny _tomorrow .htm)." Accessed September 9, 2005.
6. ^ "Coal Combustion (http://www.ornl.gov/info/omlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html)." Accessed
Septembcr 9,2005.
7. ^ "Radioactive Elements in Coal and Fly Ash, USGS Factsheet 163-97
(http://greenwood.cr.usgs.gov/energy/factshts/l63-97/FS- I 63-97.html)." Accessed September 9, 2005.
8. ^ "Sino German Coal fire project
(http://www.coalfire.caf.dlr.de/projectareas/world_wide_distribution_en.html). " Accessed September 9,
2005.
9. ^ "Committee on Resources-Index
(http://resourcescommittee.house.gov/archives/108/testimony /johnmasterson .htm)." Accessed Septem ber
9, 2005.
10. ^ ''http://wv.w.fire.blm.gov/textdocuments/6-27-03.pdf.'' Accessed September 9,2005.
11. ^ "EHP 110-5,2002: Forum (http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/docs/2002/l1O-5/forum.html).'' Accessed September
9,2005.
12. ^ "Overview about lTC's activities in China
(http://www.itc.nl/personal/coalfire/activities/overview.html). " Accessed September 9, 2005.
http:// en. wikipedia.org/w/index. php ?title=Coal&printable=yes
2005-11-02
...."
missions by Sector
Emissions of greenhouse gases result from many of the
industrial, transportation, agricultural, and other activities that
take place in the United States. The following is a description
of the various sectors that emit greenhouse gases.
Energy
Historicany, energy-related activities have accmmted for more than three-quarters
of GWP-weighted greenhouse gas cmissions. Most of these are carbon dioxide
emissions; however. some emissions of methane and nitrous oxide also resuJt
tTom stationary and mobile combustion. Almost all emissions from the energy
scctor rcsuJt from fossil fuel combustion, which includcs thc burning of coal.
natural gas, and petrolcum. Fossil fuel combustion from stationary sources, such
as clectricity generation, reprcsents more than half of energy-related emissions,
while combustion of fossil fuels by mobile sources, such as automobiles, rep-
resents approximatcly onc-third. In addition to fossii fucl combustion-related
activities. carbon dioxide is also emittcd as a rcsult of natural gas t1aring and
biomass burning, and
mcthanc is emitted
through coal mining
as well as the pro-
duction, processing,
transmission. and dis-
tribution of natural gas
and petroleum.
Industrial Processes
Industrial processes emit greenhouse gases as a by-product of various non-
energy related industria] activitics. Manufacture of cement. lime, soda ash,
iron, steel. aluminum. ammonia. titanium dioxide. and ferroalloys produces
carbon dioxidc as a by-product. The consumption of limestone. dolomite, and
carbon dioxide as raw materials in industrial applications also releases earhon
dioxide emissions. The production of petrochemicals and silicon carbide result
in small amounts of methane emissions, while producing nitric and adipic acid
generates nitrous oxide emissions. Emissions of HFCs, PFCs, and SF 6 are
particularly important as substitutes for ozone-depleting substanccs such as
ehlorot1uorocarbons (CFCs). These gases may also be emitted as a result of
aluminum and HCFC-22 production, semiconductor manufacturing, electrical
transmission and distribution, and magnesium production and proccssing.
(".
'-
_0
.......
( )
CO
0:1
~
-
-
"E
OJ
.~ ~
(!)ooro
5::J û5
ot)>>
",,,, ()
.!: C ~
UJ 0 ï::::
:;:)Üc..
-
-
-
-
-
..
-
.
..
..
..
~
Q
.'§
0:1
¡?;
ë3
~
.0
ë5
;>.
.....
..Q
;::
o
U
( )
""
..0:1
o
I
'ã
0:1
~
C)
c:
E
...
IV
3:
IV
.Q
..2
C)
.<::
()
Cõ
Q)
C/J
...
c:
<II
E
c:
...
CII
>
o
C>
~
<II
<II
>-
o
Ii
E
w
~
<II
<II
CII
c:
,¡¡
::¡
m
~
...
o
...
,¡¡
:>
~
....
c:
CII
'0
.¡¡¡
Q)
a::
~
<II
E
o
J:
en
c:
'E
...
..
==
¡;¡
.!!
..Q
C>
t;)
ro
uQ)~
(J) CJ) 0
g¡æ ¡¡¡ ü:
'E' Q) G:5
~. ~ 2 ~ ~I
>, ~ ro if) c..1
-¡¡¡! c: E c: c:o'
.£:)Q)=O
o Q) t) rJ)ßI'
6¡ (5 2 g :J,
5: Q) 0 a. ~I
.8, ¡:: ô.ê a::
~'^^^ 8,
'-"
c:
o
:¡:¡
..
E
...
.£
E
...
()
III
...
c:
o
u
'tiC)
..00
1111'-
col?
._.eN
1II.c1'-
::lEu!")
-
jíñ
CI)~
IV
'tI
.¡:
o
¡¡:
.r:::
....
~
o
en
c:
o
J!J
CJ
IV
c..
.5
C)
c:
'E
...
'"
3=
¡;¡
.!!
o
i3
:æ:
a::
w
]I;;
ro
E
,
w
('0.
ro
'0
'C
o
ü:
.r;
'5
o
if)
c:
m
:J
.8
c:
co
( )
E
m
~ m
:J .-
_ ~ en .
~ol-~õ
Q) !E u.: :J 01
Q.ê: ro m
E( )m"'m
( )'- Q) ( ) ...
.....OQ)a.co
Q)mCñEQ)
o"ECVQ)>'
~( )'O-o
~L- -0
::J'-M::::JO
fJ) :;] .......0 -
t):J _0
-;;; om..-
.ðc:).QL--
00 co:¡J ( )
-;:;., or-'" >. C)
~'N 0 co
ro>-( )g~
.t= .c C)~ "_
;u.æL...û)
Q)m-5~co
~a¡ 0ä;
:J"'ro( ).r;
u O>t) æ-
~~~æg>
"'" C") x .co 'C
~.( ) :J
1i;1?'Oco'O
~tO-~L....
m~150.91
(ij c:Q) ~ -5 8
'0 :JO
O~( )Em
E.¡::;~ Q)
L..QJ-~~
2.D~= 01
:J( )-EQ)
a.mm '0
E CO·- ( )
( )m( )C)
OL..::Icn>.
°gcn_c:
C .- c: 0 0
( )'O( )c:
0- rJ) >-Q)
( ):JC:coQj
0:::88E~
-
co
:5
m
( )
o
'0
ro
.r;
~
01
c:
'0>
c:
co
.r;
o
.~
( )
ro
.ê
õ
...
:J
o
o
if)
a.
(ij
I
c:
CO
t)
c:
:J ~
o 0
>- 0
Nc:
00 E'
t):;::co
u ...
C::JC»
CO U 0
.D( )'"
;50:::c..
It)
ro m It)
c-- en!
( ).S ~ <i' ~
E .91 ,_ N °
c: a.;¡",,",c
°EOM
.: 0 J: -..,
E:t) :gN
W !2.
~ m
( ):J <=
rom Em
E'" mm
= Q)a. - a¡
t) c:c:_
_ E·- ~.!:
Jg 2 ~!E ( )
oQ)=C:o
-'O.DC»E
<!) .:;: .!!! ïñ
::::Þ'- "0
u-6~a¡c:
~""i::_r/) co
-¡¡¡~~'O2
° .D'S..c:
C)Æ 2 0 01
.S :5.!:! 0 15
Q).....uCD.....
.DO( )~"C
~( )5.ro~
oEm'O( )
C:OUJï::::>
.~ £ .!!:! ..Q ~
c»15uLL.( )
.~ u æ.~ 0
E~::-~E
COU( )Q)c:
> ( ) ro I .-
> a. Q) 01
XL.... C
~Q)O>jgE
O~Q)co:J
Ô - ~ .ê :ß
m( )=Õ'"
C:~~-<IÎ
OcoQ)~C:
¡ß ~ Qj..Q Qj
~.c£u=;
( )·~roæa.
;=Q)£-~ en
...... 01 m co -<= c:
o c: .- § .S 'õ
~~~'o>~ 0
Ot)~~,!:.g
"'\
¡:::
.r;
1:: ( )
co E
W 0
.8 I
:æ:
a::
W
o
..I
"'\
..I
:>. Q) ( )E Qj co
-.r; row
I::_:J ~
:Jmo ;>( )
°co> E~
~Q)~ ~~
u~-...~ro
comO( ) u
o 0 :; E ( ) 'C
.~-"O,-Eo .
E '0 ro ro :J ü: è:'
ro( )_~O_:J
;';::Õ( )5ro>ro'E
..::: :> c£w
C a. m E .- °
'-x( )0~2_
~ Q) 0':= o.!:! ~
roQ)Q.C>m"'Cc
.-..... c: Q)
° ro ( ).- 0 ... ( )
Q)r.n.c::+Jc...c:
Q.c:+-':J( )4::-
m ro E m c c.. >-
( )( )o~row.D
- (.) L- Q)
roo......mo( )m
:g( )g>æ°..c:~
o ..c: ._ ( ) ( ) I- 0
-I-~o.r; c
LL. W 0 - .....:..-
.r;=.E...:g2R:
'5 a¡ ( )( )E:J ¡¡¡oo'
0-- 0 ro L-
cn:::'-Cõ°c::
o~":~~O:J
......( )w( )-¡¡¡OO
c-E.r;:J....a
~caL-+-'.....gm
w( )rouoro-
g_m~c~~~
0;;" mro=u( )
Oo~m~o¡¡;
û)moæ~o-
Q)( )O( )W'ro
C»"'Q)o.r;m( )
c»..c: .D 0 a. '0 m
:ë-( )~( )mcc
~ 0 t1I.-
( ):5"C:5Ea.( )
.c 0.......... x ( )
I- .~ ~ 0 ro ( ) 'C
"""
C
'0_ "'C (ij >-......
c: L-t::]
:J_ CO oroo
~2-u t)~.r;
:> gJ .!2 êõ u). g>
( )oe:!! cLL.o
1ij0Q)f.: rom'"
o'OEQí Q)( )£
..1. æ E ~ g ~!!1
E Qu. L-c>m_
mow Q)( )"'m
.!!! '0 ... ~ E u 8 Qj
~C::JU) ,-LO~"'"
.910:J .t1Il'-Oro
-'ã) C)a.Qj ~'O m ~
§ 5:'S c ~ E c m c
J:: u(\']:]ot1loro
.r; ·roQ)CT...O-( )
o( )a.°-<......I'-~O
01 0 ... 0.0
roroE( )( )Q)cro...
( ) E .- c It:: Q) ... W
.D ro:5>-:Jw( )E
mroQ)mrorJ):!!.r;...
mUmco~='¡::;-ro
~ E c»~äHd~ ro ~
~ 0.5 & Q) UJ "C :5 .9
"_ (¡j.!e ::J .I::. Qj 5 Q) Q)
c: '-(/J-Q)\U>-
ro E co ... '0 ... .D .!!1 .D
.r;°0( )c-;;;Q)-2
-J::_....ro~'-Q):J
QJQ)_roøo.3..a..a
... _ m ~ Q) 0 ro þ'c
o .a.Q L.. "'C Q) Q)._ :t::
E ~ Q):J.91 > a.c ro
m Q).e 0 ~E E E ~
cEuc( )mQ) -¡¡¡
ro :J - ( ) > C _ E .-
( »:J>w( )co1::
E( )o ( ) m._ ° ro
m"'~uQ)( ):5oa.
o UJ !:: .I::. L.. .- UJ
m E Q) m ..... .a m:E .-
( ) > Orocc'O
UJ Q) 0 ( ) +oJ L... .- OJ ""C
... E'" ( ).S ( ) m'- 0
~ 8 C)'¡¡¡.r; a. ( ) ~ ~
C) ¡¡¡ .r; -e E .~ ( ) Q)
.- ( ) m 0 ( ) ...
I.DElCcl-:5:5:5
(".
o
,
.......
.......
I
'"
o
o
(".
>-
(ij
~
.91
'0
( )
mw
ro.r;
.D.....
Eu
mC
.~ en
:J -
0!!1
-ro
c ...
00
_0
c....
( )c:>.
-geE
Q):Eg
0.00
W ro ()
'O( )Q)
2=:-¡¡¡
rooo
ømQ
ro~:s
o ä; °
.......r;Q)
m I- .....
~ 2
Q) . m
c:ß~
'00Q)
0::;"0
00'0
C»m-
o~5
c (ij ~
rJ)"'m
.;; .a Q)
._ roU
£c:~
'+-(/)2>
O:!::: (1)
<ë§dj
p.,
'"
~
~
,..el
.....
;::
o
"'I
'"
.....
U
0:1
p.,
.5
---
co
Q
'S
þj
~
ë3
~
o
bb
ê
( )
""
---
;>
o
co
~
-g
""
.~
'ã
~
---
---
ii
.Ë
..
\w'
-...I
ÌIIII
..
The map on the following page is fÌ'om J.G.Titus and C.Richman, 2000, "Maps of Lands
Vulnerable to Sea Level Rise: Modeled Elevations Along the U.S. Atlantic and Gulf
Coasts." Climate Research (in press).
ÌÌII
SUGGESTED CA VEA TS
..
..
Research Papers: "This map is based on modeled elevations, not actual surveys or the
precise data necessary to estimate elevations at specific locations. The map is a fair
graphical representation of the total amount of land below the 1.5- and 3.5-meter
contours; but the elevations indicated at particular locations may be wrong. Those
interested in the elevations of specific locations should consult a topographic map.
Although the map illustrates elevations, it does not necessarily show the location offuture
shorelines. Coastal protection efforts may prevent some low-lying areas ¡rom being
flooded as sea level rises; and shoreline erosion and the accretion of sediment may cause
the actual shoreline to differ ¡rom what one would expect based solely on the inundation of
low land. This map illustrates the land within 1.5 and 3.5 meters of the National Geodetic
Vertical Datum of 1929, a benchmark that was roughly mean sea level in the year 1929 but
approximately 20 cm [or fill in local estimate] below today's sea level. ..
ÌÌII
..
..
..
Publications for the General Public: If possible, the aforementioned caveat should be
printed; but sometimes space constraints will make that impossible. We recommend that as
much of the following be included as possible: "Elevations based on computer models, not
actual surveys. Coastal protection efforts may prevent some low-lying areas from being
flooded as sea level rises. The 1.5-meter contour depicted is currently about l.3-meters
[use local estimate if possible] above mean sea level, and is typically 90 cm [use local
estimate if possible] above mean high tide. Parts of the area depicted in red will be above
mean sea level jòr at least 100 years and probably 200 years [use local estimates if
possible]. The 3.5-meter contour illustrates the area that might be flooded over a period of
several centuries. ..
..
..
ÌÌII
Newspapers and Magazines: The amount of space available for a caption is typically
even less in a newspaper or wide-circulation magazine. We must simply recognize that
those publications are unlikely to explain the difference between elevation and land lost
due to sea level rise, let alone the potential errors. Fortunately, however, magazines and
newspapers tend to publish such small maps that the scale will probably be an order of
magnitude smaller than what we offer here, which substantially reduces the need for a
caveat. The January 1,2000 edition of The New York Times published a few of our maps
after this article was accepted for publication. We found their caveat to be acceptable. With
minor edits, that caveat read: "Regions shown in black are some of the areas that could be
flooded at high tide if global warming causes sea level to rise 2 feet in the next 100 years.
The indicated areas account not only for the effects of global warming, but also for other
effects such as tidal variations and land subsidence. "
ÌÌII
..
..
...
...
...
~
..
..
ÎIII
ill
..
...
..
..
..
..
lilt
..
..
lilt
lilt
..
..
III
-
.....,
\.
ð-
i--.
""
's
)
'<t" &"
. ' .. ..''''.'.'
~:...\; . J:.' ,~
. .,...~_.-... ....... .."
.'~ . .~;.
~. .ì;·'~
;';;If~"'"
..~. ~ " ,-,...
II)
L-
Q)
+-'
Q)
E [¡
...... It)
~ (V)
0
ã) It)
.Q .
......
"-'
..
-
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
....,;
Office of Policy, Planning
and Evaluation
(2111)
EPA 230-F-97-008i
September 1997
ôEPA
Climate Change And Florida
..
..
The earth's climate is predicted to change because human
activities are altering the chemical composition of the atmosphere
through the buildup of greenhouse gases - primarily carbon
dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide. and chlorofluorocarbons. The
heat-trapping property of these greenhouse gases is undisputed.
Although there is uncertainty about exactly how and when the
earth's climate will respond to enhanced concentrations of
greenhouse gases, observations indicate that detectable changes
are under way. There most likely will be increases in temperature
and changes in precipitation, soil moisture. and sea level, which
could have adverse effects on many ecological systems, as well
as on human health and the economy.
..
..
..
The Climate System
..
..
Energy ftom the sun drives the earth's weather and climate.
Atmospheric greenhouse gases (water vapor, carbon dioxide,
and other gases) trap some of the energy ftom the sun, creating
a natural "greenhouse effect." Without this effect, temperatures
would be much lower than they are now, and life as known today
would not be possible. Instead, thanks to greenhouse gases. the
earth's average temperature is a more hospitable 60°F. However,
problems arise when the greenhouse effect is enhanced by
human-generated emissions of greenhouse gases.
-
..
Global wanning would do more than add a few degrees to today's
average temperatures. Cold spells still would occur in winter, but
heat waves would be more common. Some places would be drier,
others wetter. Perhaps more important, more precipitation may
come in short, intense bursts (e.g., more than 2 inches of rain
in a day), which could lead to more flooding. Sea levels would
be higher than they would have been without global warming,
although the actual changes may vary trom place to place because
coastal lands are themselves sinking or rising.
-
..
-
The Greenhouse Effect
..
"'"
...II~
... ~
..", ,.,
..,'"
SOme of the infrarøcl rcWiation passes
through the atmosphere, and some Is
absorbed and re-emltted In an
directions by greenhouse gas
molecules. The effect of this is to warm
the earth's surface and the lower
atmosphere.
Some solar radiation
is reflected by the
earth and the
atmosphere
-
..
..
Source: U.S. Department of State (1992)
..
Emissions Of Greenhouse Gases
Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, human activities
have been adding measurably to natural background levels of
greenhouse gases. The burning of fossil fuels - coal, oil, and
natural gas - for energy is the primary source of emissions.
Energy burned to run cars and trucks, heat homes and businesses,
and power factories is responsible for about 80% of global
carbon dioxide emissions, about 25% of U.S. methane emissions,
and about 20% of global nitrous oxide emissions. Increased
agriculture and deforestation, landfills, and industrial production
and mining also contribute a significant share of emissions. In
1994, the United States emitted about one-fifth of total global
greenhouse gases.
Concentrations Of Greenhouse Gases
Since the pre-industrial era, atmospheric concentrations of carbon
dioxide have increased nearly 30%, methane concentrations have
more than doubled, and nitrous oxide concentrations have risen
by about 15%. These increases have enhanced the heat-trapping
capability of the earth's atmosphere. Sulfate aerosols. a cornmon
air pollutant, cool the atmosphere by reflecting incoming solar
radiation. However, sulfates are short-lived and vary regionally,
so they do not offset greenhouse gas wanning.
Although many greenhouse gases already are present in the
atmosphere, oceans, and vegetation, their concentrations in the
future will depend in part on present and future emissions.
Estimating future emissions is difficult, because they will depend
on demographic, economic, technological, policy, and institu-
tional developments. Several emissions scenarios have been
developed based on differing projections of these underlying
factors. For example, by 2100, in the absence of emissions
control policies, carbon dioxide concentrations are projected to
be 30-150% higher than today's levels.
Current Climatic Changes
Global mean surface temperatures have increased 0.6-1.2°F since
the late 19th century. The 9 wannest years in this century all have
occurred in the last 14 years. Of these, 1995 was the wannest
year on record, suggesting the atmosphere has rebounded trom
the temporary cooling caused by the eruption ofMt. Pinatubo in
the Philippines.
Several pieces of additional evidence consistent with wanning.
such as a decrease in Northern Hemisphere snow cover, a
decrease in Arctic Sea ice, and continued melting of alpine
glaciers, have been corroborated. Globally. sea levels have risen
III
'-'
iIIIII
Global Temperature Changes (1861-1996)
0.6
0.4
0.2
o
ill
~0.2
:"
III
·04
·0.6
·0.8
·1
a..ro...... r:-...... ,si' ~~" .s.,....... 0:.,...... ~:;- OJ~' OJ~" ~~" ~" ~" ~fò.... ~"
......~ ......v 'v "v ~~ ~ ~ " ...... ~ .... " , ....
Year
Source: IPCC (1995), updated
iIIIII
...
4-10 inches over the past century, and precipitation over land has
increased slightly. The frequency of extreme rainfall events also
has increased throughout much of the United States.
III
A new international scientific assessment by the Intergovern-
mental Panel on Climate Change recently concluded that ''the
balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence
on global climate. "
..
Future Climatic Changes
iIIIII
For a given concentration of greenhouse gases, the resulting
increase in the atmosphere's heat-trapping ability can be pre-
dicted with precision, but the resulting impact on climate is more
uncertain. The climate system is complex and dynamic, with
constant interaction between the atmosphere, land, ice, and
oceans. Further, humans have never experienced such a rapid rise
in greenhouse gases. In effect, a large and uncontrolled planet-
wide experiment is being conducted.
i..
ÌIt
ÍIIII
General circulation models are complex computer simulations
that describe the circulation of air and ocean currents and how
energy is transported within the climate system. While uncertain-
ties remain, these models are a powerful tool for studying
climate. As a result of continuous model imprnvements over the
last few decades, scientists are reasonably confident about the
link between global greenhouse gas concentrations and tempera-
ture and about the ability of models to characterize future climate
at continental scales.
III
III
III
Recent model calculations suggest that the global surface temper-
ature could increase an average of 1.6-6.3°F by 2100, with signif-
icant regional variation. These temperature changes would be far
greater than recent natural fluctuations, and they would occur
significantly faster than any known changes in the last 10,000
years. The United States is projected to wann more than the
global average. especially as fewer sulfate aerosols are produced.
ill
ÌIII
The models suggest that the rate of evaporation will increase as
the climate warms, which will increase average global precipita-
tion. They also suggest increased frequency of intense rainfall as
well as a marked decrease in soil moisture over some mid-
continental regions during the summer. Sea level is projected to
increase by 6-38 inches by 2100.
III
ÌIII
""",,¡
Calculations of regional climate change are much less reliable
than global ones, and it is unclear whether regional climate will
become more variable. The frequency and intensity of some
extreme weather of critical importance to ecological systems
(droughts, floods, frosts, cloudiness, the frequency of hot or cold
spells, and the intensity of associated fire and pest outbreaks)
could increase.
Local Climate Changes
Over the last century, average temperatures have increased in
Florida. At Ocala, the 1892-1921 average temperature was
almost 67°F; the 1966-1995 average temperature was over 69°F.
Precipitation over the last hundred years has decreased in the
Keys and parts of south Florida, and increased in central Florida
and the panhandle.
Over the next century, Florida's climate may change even more.
Based on projections given by the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change and results from the United Kingdom Hadley
Centre's climate model (HadCM2), a model that has accounted
for both greenhouse gases and aerosols, by 2100 temperatures in
Florida could increase by 3_4°F (with a range of I-6°F) in spring,
summer, and fall, and by somewhat less in winter. Little change is
projected for precipitation.
The ftequency of extreme hot days in summer is expected to
increase along with the general wanning trend. It is not clear how
severe storms such as hurricanes would change.
Climate Change Impacts
Global climate change poses risks to human health and to
terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. Important economic resources
such as agriculture. forestry. fisheries, and water resources also
may be affected. Wanner temperatures, more severe droughts and
floods, and sea level rise could have a wide range of impacts. All
these stresses can add to existing stresses on resources caused by
other influences such as population growth, land-use changes,
and pollution.
Similar temperature changes have occurred in the past. but the
previous changes took place over centuries or millennia instead
of decades. The ability of some plants and animals to migrate and
adapt appears to be much slower than the predicted rate of
climate change.
Precipitation Trends From 1900 To Present
Trends/1 00 years
+20%.
+10%.
+5%-
-5%0
-10% 0
-20%0
o
Source: Karl et al. (1996)
2
..
"-
Human Health
..
Higher temperatures and increased frequency of heat waves may
increase the number of heat-related deaths and the incidence of
heat-related illnesses. Recent scientific work suggests that 28
people die every year in Tampa from heat-related causes during
the summer. Even if people adjust to climate change, a 3°F
warming could more than double this figure; as many as 68
additional heat-related deaths could occur every year in Tampa
during the summer. The elderly, particularly those living alone,
are at greatest risk.
..
III
III
There is concern that climate change could increase concentra-
tions of ground-level ozone. For example, specific weather
conditions - strong sunl ight. stable air masses - tend to
increase urban ozone levels. While Florida is in compliance with
current air quality standards, increased temperatures could make
remaining in compliance more difficult. Ground-levcl ozone has
been shown to aggravate existing respiratory illnesses such as
asthma. reduce lung function. and induce respiratory inflamma-
tion. In addition, ambient ozone reduces agricultural crop yields
and impairs ecosystem health.
..
..
III
Changing climate conditions also may affect human health
through impacts on terrestrial and marine ecosystems. In particu-
lar, warming and other climate changes may expand the habitat
and infectivity of disease-carrying insects, increasing the poten-
tial for transmission of diseases such as malaria and dengue
("break bone") fever. Although dengue fever is currently uncom-
mon in thc United States, conditions already exist in Florida that
make it vulnerable to the disease. Warmer temperatures resulting
from climate change could increase this risk.
..
..
..
Finally, sea surface warming and sea level rise could increase
health threats from marine-borne illnesses and shellfish poisoning
in Florida. Warmer seas could contribute to the increased
intensity, duration, and extent of harmful algal blooms. These
blooms damage habitat and shellfish nurseries, can be toxic to
humans, and can carry bacteria like those causing cholera. In
turn. algal blooms potentially can lead to higher incidence of
water-borne cholera and shellfish poisoning. Acute poisoning
related to the consumption of contaminated fish and shellfish has
been reportcd in Florida.
III
..
..
Coastal Areas
..
Global sea level rise is one of the most likely effects of global
warming. Along much of the Florida coast. the sea level already
is rising 7-9 inches per century. Because oflocal factors such as
land subsidence and groundwater depletion, sea level rise will
vary by location. For Florida, the sea level is likely to rise 18-20
inches by 2100. As sea level rises, coastal areas in Florida,
particularly wetlands and lowlands along the Gulf and Atlantic
coasts. could be inundated. Adverse impacts in these areas could
include loss ofland and structures. loss of wildlife habitat,
accelerated coastal erosion, exacerbated flooding and increased
vulnerability to storm damage, and increased salinity of rivers,
bays, and aquifers. which would threaten supplies offTesh water.
..
..
III
..
..",
Possible responses to sea levcl risc include building walls to hold
back the sea, allowing the sea to advance and adapting to it, and
raising the land (e.g.. by replenishing beach sand and/or elevating
houses and infrastructure). Each of these responses would be
costly. either in out-of-pocket costs or in lost land and structurcs.
For example. the cumulative cost of sand replenishment to
protect Florida's coast from a 20-inch rise in sea level by 2100 is
estimated at S 1.7-$8.8 billion.
Forests
Trees and forests are adapted to specific climate conditions, and
as climate warms, forests will change. Changes in tree species,
geographic extent, and the health and productivity of forests
could be expected with a warmer climate. If conditions also
become drier, the current range of forests could be reduced and
replaced by grasslands and pasture. Even a warmer and wetter
climate would lead to changes; trccs that are better adapted to
warmer conditions, such as tropical evergreens, would prevail
over time. Under these conditions, forests could become more
dense. These changes could occur during the lifetimes of to day's
children, particularly if they are accelerated by other stresses such
as fire, pests. and diseases. Some ofthese stresses would them-
selves be worsened by a warmer and dricr climate.
The mixed conifer/hardwood forests found in the northern and
panhandle sections of Florida are likely to retreat northward.
These forests eventually could give way to wet tropical forests
such as tropical cvergreen broadleaf forests and dry tropical
savanna. These changes would be accompanicd by a reduction in
forest density. The dry tropical savanna ofthe Florida peninsula
could become more of a seasonal tropical forest with a corre-
sponding increase in forest density. The potential dieback of
forests along the Gulf coast could adversely affect forest-based
recreation and commercial timber.
Water Resources
Water resources are affected by changes in precipitation as well
as by temperature, humidity. wind, and sunshine. Changes in
streamflow tend to magnifY changes in precipitation. Water
resources in drier climates tcnd to be more sensitive to climate
changes. Because evaporation is likely to increase with warmer
climate. it could result in lower river flow and lower lake levcls.
Changes In Forest Cover
Current +10·F, +13% Precipitation
. Broadleaf Forest
II SavannalWoodland
Grassland
Source: VEMAP Participants (1995); Neilson (1995)
3
III
...
..
particularly in the summer. In addition, more intense precipitation
could increase flooding. If streamflow and lake levels drop,
groundwater also could be reduced.
III
A critical factor in Florida's development, especially in southern
Florida, has been water. Although south Florida receives an
annual average of 60 inches of rain, annual evaporation some-
times can exceed this amount. Rainfall variability from year to
year is also high, resulting in periodic droughts and floods.
Competing demands for water - for residences, agriculture, and
the Everglades and other natural areas - are placing stresses on
south Florida's watcr resources.
..
-
..
Higher temperatures increase evaporation, which could reduce
water supplies, particularly in the summer. Saltwater intmsion
from sea level rise also could threaten aquifers used for urban
water supplies. These changes could further stress south Florida's
water resources.
III
Agriculture
..
The mix of crop and livestock production in a state is influenced
by climatic conditions and water availability. As climate warms.
production patterns will shift northward. Increases in climate
variability could make adaptation by farmers more difficult.
Warmer climates and less soil moisture due to increased evapora-
tion may increase the need for irrigation. However, these same
conditions could decrease water supplies. which also may be
needed by natural ecosystems, urban populations, and other
economic sectors.
..
-
..
Understandably. most studies have not fully accounted for
changes in climate variability. water availability, and imperfect
responses by farmers to changing climate. Including these factors
could substantially change modeling results. Analyses based on
changes in average climate and which assume farmers effectively
adapt suggest that aggregate U. S. food production will not be
harmed, although there may be significant regional changes.
..
..
Changes In Agricultural Yield And Production
Yield Production
..
..
20 I
-30 I
-40
I I all
..
il)
OJ
c
co
B -10
1i<
Hay Potatoes Orar:ges Hay Potatoes OrEmgcs
Sugarcane Tomatoes. Gwpcfru,t $(H:¡mCf.)m~ Tomatoes Grapefruit
...
. DT; S'F; Dprecip_ ; -3% . DT; S'F; Dprecip_ = 3%
..
Source: Mendelsohn and Neumann (in press); McCarl (personal
communication)
...
....,/
Florida is one of the leading states in tenns of cash revenue from
farming, with irrigated cropland accounting for the high value of
farm production. Yields of citrus fruits could decrease with
warmer temperatures in the southenunost part of the state
because of a lack of a sufficient donnant period. Changes in
cotton and sorghum production are unclear - increasing CO,
levels and rainfall would be likely to increase yields, but the
shortened growing season brought on by increasing temperatures
could result in plants producing fewer or smaller seeds and fruit,
which would decrease yields. Increases in temperature (about
6°F) and rainfall (10%) are projected to reduce com yields
by 14%.
Unique Ecosystems: The Big Cypress
Swamp, The Everglades, And The Keys
Southern Florida has national treasures in the Big Cypress
Swamp, the Everglades, and the Keys. These three ecosys-
tems are interlinked and have a common history. The Big
Cypress Swamp is part of the broad, shallow river moving
fresh water south into the Everglades. The Keys mark the
last outposts of the Everglades lands. Once hummocks of
higher vegetation set in a prehistoric swamp, they have
struggled against the rising sea. Mangroves on their perim-
eters collect silt and organic material, building a barricade
secure against all but the most severe hurricane winds and
tides. In the Everglades and Big Cypress Swamp, there is a
strong contrast between the seasons. From early spring well
into autumn, they have ample rainfall, averaging 50 inches
per year. Winter is a time of drought and fire, and saltwater
penetrates farther inland.
Already stressed by water diversions, invading species of
plants and animals, and the natural phenomena of drought,
flood, and stonns, these ecosystems will be stressed further
by climate change. A 20-inch sea level rise would cause
large losses of mangroves in southwest Florida. Increased
salinity, resulting from rising saltwater into the Everglades
from Florida Bay, also would damage freshwater ecosystems
containing sawgrass and slough. Communities of wet prairie
also would decline with the rise in sea level.
Climatic conditions in central Florida may become suitable
for subtropical species such as Gumbo-limbo, now confined
to subtropical hummocks in the southern part ofthe penin-
sula and the Keys. Theoretically, such species could move as
far north as Gainesville and Jacksonville, but agricultural
and urban development could preclude such migration.
For further information about the potential impacts of climate
change, contact the Climate and Policy Assessment Division
(2174), U.S. EPA, 401 M Street Sw. Washington, DC 20460.
4
...- --
r ..
- --
'-'
...,
St. Lucie
Waterfront
COlUlcil
Post Office Box 4143
Fort Pierce, Florida 34948
(772) 461-9757
(772) 468-8688 Fax
www.stlwaterfrontcounciI.org
The future of our waterfronts depend on what we do today.
Saint Lucie County Board of County Commissioners
2300 Virginia Avenue
Fort Pierce, FL 34982
~ffiI~~~[Q)
c.c:. ~~.c.
~) 8~l~)
~,A~. ,
RE: Coal Plant - BOCC 1117/05 ~~'f\{j-4-.
Dear Commissioners: '''Y\~ Q
f¥\~ tlt e..
As you are aware the Saint Lucie Waterfront Council has diligently worked to protect the
Indian River Lagoon from further degradation. We urge you to deny Florida Power and
Light's request to build a Coal-Fired Power Plant in St. Lucie County for the protection of
the Indian River Lagoon, "North America's Most Diverse Estuary."
......'" . \\"e
'. · ,\ . I H''''-fD
\ "eCLucJ\' .11,.
~e.,-\. r"\?- \J e, ~RD '\ ~-w \'Y-'L
'~a..*~~s be.. ~ ~
\",:::..~..g~. 'ð.~ \J
November 2, 2005
This valuable economic resource cannot withstand any future damage. As you can see
by the enclosed Mercury Advisory for St. Lucie County we must consider what we are
doing to our Indian River Lagoon and coastal waters. This advisory should not be taken
lightly. Our fishing industry is an important historic and economic element in our county
for both recreational and commercial purposes, It is sad to see that the mercury levels
have increased to such proportions that there are health advisories concerning the
consumption of fish from our Lagoon and coast waters. All of our waterways in the
county eventually effect the Indian River Lagoon and coastal waters. It is extremely
important that the Commission protect our valuable waterways as well as the health and
well being of its residents. Please take time to read the Florida Medical Association, Inc.
Resolution 05-67.
Also enclosed is an educational brochure "Did You Know" filled with scientific facts
regarding our Lagoon and its value. We ask that you review this document before
making a decision on Monday.
Not only is there concern for fallout from emissions but fallout from rail cars hauling coal
and the waste products that will be transported through our county in rail cars.
We remind you that a gas fired plant would be much more desirable and still bring the
revenue a coal fired plant would bring. Money cannot be our only objective in this
important issue.
,j COPY OF THE OFFICIAL REGISTRAT10N AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION MAY BE OBTAINED FROM THE DIVISION OF CONSUMER SERVICES BY CAWNG
TOLL FREE WrfHIN THE STATE. REGISTRATIN DOES NOT IMPLY ENDOURSEMENI: APPROVAL OR RECOMMENDAT10N BY THE STATE.' 1-8()()-135-7352.
'-'
....,
;
November 2, 2005
Page 2 - BOCC Coal Plant 11 J7 /05 from St. Lucie Waterfront Council
Having supplied power for many years, to other counties and perhaps states with
our nuclear plant we have done our due diligence. We find it very interesting that
on September 7, 2005, Madison County listened to its citizens and proceeded
against building a coal-fired plant in their county.
This is an extremely important issue and we urge you to deny Florida Power and
Light's request to build this plant as proposed.
Respectfully submitted,
St. Lucie Waterfront Council
4~)J~~
Delores Hogan Johnson
President
Enclosed:
Florida Fish Consumption Advisory for St. Lucie County
Florida Medical Association, Inc. Resolution 05-67
"Health Risks of Florida's Coal-Burning Electric Power Plants
Did You Know? brochure
Madison County "Coal-Fired Power Plant Not Welcome in Madison County
~
....,I
.~
Troy M. Tippett. MD, PI'eIidrm
PaIrick MJ. HuIIœ, MD.. Pfa_t.E/oct
KorI M. AlIcIIbuIp:r. M.D, Va Pru_,
s...... R. Weal, MD, s.a.....,.
J..... B. Dalla. MD.. Treasrtrwr
Madelyn ¡¡, Buder. MD.. SpoDku
AlanB. PiIIondad, MD.. VløSpuùcer
Denuis S. Alliallo. MD.. 1_. PIlS/ P=_,
FLORIDA MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, INC.
Sandta B. Monham, E/IP 4c CEO
P.O. Box 10269 · Tallahassee, Florida · 32302 . 123 S. Adams St. .32301
(850) 224-6496 · (850) 222-8827-FAX · Internet Address: www.ñnaonline.org
Resolutic¡¡(1J5-67
Health Risks ofFlorida;~ Cóal-Burning Electric Power Plants
Passed FMA House of Delegates September 3,2005
Whereas, Coal-burning power plants emit significant quantities of mercury, a potent toxin that attacks the
human nervous system; nitrogen and sulfur oxides that produce smog; particulates that are especially
dangerous to children and the elderly; and carbon dioxide that is'linked to global warming; and
Whereas, Air pollution increases both asthma attacks and deaths due to heart and lung disease, with
considerable fmancial and human costs to Floridians; and each year in Florida, pollution from power
plants triggers an estimated 28,000 asthma attacks and 2,100 heart attacks while causing 180 deaths in
individuals with lung cancer; and
Whereas, The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Florida Department of Health have issued
health advisories for every lake and river in Florida, as well as for our entire coastline, warning against
eating certain types offish because of the risks of mercury poisoning; and
Whereas, The Census Bureau estimates that Florida's population will experience a 58% increase (from 17
to 27 million) between 2004-2025, requiring significantly more electric power; and
Whereas, There are numerous new coal-burning power plants proposed for Florida over the next decade;
and
Whereas, The Florida Medical Association has adopted policies articulating the specific health hazards of
environmental mercury and of global warming; and
Whereas, We, as physicians, seek to protect children, seniors and people with asthma and other respiratory
illnesses, who are especially vulnerable to air pollution; therefore be it
RESOLVED, That the Florida Medical Association urge state government and utilities to develop
comprehensive energy conservation programs and to adopt improved energy efficiency standards for
businesses, homes, appliances, and building construction, before approving new coal-burning power
plants; and be it further .
RESOLVED, That the Florida Medicál Association urges that all options for meeting Florida's increased
power needs be given careful consideration and full pubIic debate, and that preference be given to the least
polluting options; and be it further . .
,J
RESOLVED, That the Florida Medical Associatfud urge any new coal or fossil fuel power plants that are
constructed in Florida be required to install and maintain equipment with the lowest polluting technology
available at the time of plant construction, and that such controls shall be upgraded as improved
technology becomes available; and be it further
RESOLVED, That the President of the Florida Medical Association write to the Governor, the President of
the Florida Senate, and the Speaker of the House of Representatives communicating the public health risks
associated with coal-burning power plants.
..
.'w'
""'"
...---- -- _.
/'
-
Division of Environmental Health
~ DIVISION DF 8502454250 : aske!1~oh.~~te.fI.y'!s
~ Environmental Health Read Our Siter:na(2 : Send Feedbac~
EH Home About Us Communities Radiation Water Sewage Programs Newsroom
. Bureau of CommÜ~nvironm~ntal l:Iealtb > Florida Fish ConsulTIP-tion Advisorie§
St. Lucie County Advisories
Location Species ¡Women of childbearing IAII Other Individuals
lage. young children (# of meals)
# of mealš\*
Indian River Laaoon All Puffer Fish (Saxitoxin) Do not eat Do not eat
AI Coastal Waters All Puffer Fish (Saxitoxin) Do not eat Do not eat
AI Coastal Waters Almaco Jack One oer month One oer week
A Coastal Waters Atlantic Croaker Two oerweek ITwocer week
AI Coastal Waters Atlantic Soadefish lOne cer week ITwo oer week
AI Coastal Waters Atlantic Stinaray lOne oer month lOne oer week
AI Coastal Waters Atlantic Thread Herring One oer week rrwo œr week
AI Coastal Waters Atlantic Weakfish One cer week rrwo cer week
AI Coastal Waters Black Drum One cer week wo oer week
lAJl Coastal Waters Black Grouoer Jne oer month One cer week
IAI Coastal Waters Blackfin Tuna Do not eat Jne cer month
AI Coastal Waters Bluefish One oer month One cer week
AI Coastal Waters Bluntnose Stinc Rav One oer week Two cer week
AI Coastal Waters Bonefish IOnecer month One oer week
AI Coastal Waters Crevalle Jack lOne oer month One oer week
All Coastal Waters Cobia Do not eat Onecer month
AI Coastal Waters Dolchin IOne-oer week ITwo oer week
All Coastal Waters Fantail Mullet wo oer week ITwo oer week
All Coastal Waters Florida Pomcano Jne oerweek ITwo cerweek
All Coastal Waters GafftOcsail Catfish One-tier month One cer week
All Coastal Waters Gae One œr month One oer week
All Coastal Waters Grav Snaooer Jne oer week Two -œr week
All Coastal Waters Greater Amberiack One cer month One oer week
IAII coastal waters Great Barracuda One cer month Two oer week
IAII Coastal Waters Gulf Flounder lOne oer month ITwo oerweek
IAII Coastal Waters Hardhead Catfish \One cer week ITwo- cer week
IAII Coastal Waters Hoafish lOne cer week ITwo cer week
"'II Coastal Waters King Mackerel 31 or Do not eat Do not eat
more inches
,6J1 Coastal Waters King Mackerel less Do not eat One per month
than 31 inches
All Coastal Waters Ladvfish . One œr month One cer week
"'II Coastal Waters Lane Snaccer One oer month I we oer week
IAII Coastal Waters Little Tunnv Do not eat One oer month
IAII Coastal Waters Lookdown . One oer week ITwo oar week
All Coastal Waters Mutton Snaccer ./ OneDer month ITwo cer week
All Coastal Waters Piafish ,. One œr week ITwooer week
lAJlCoastal Waters Pinfish lOne oer month ITwo oer week
All Coastal Waters Red Drum One oermonth wo oer week
"'II Coastal Waters Red Groucer One oer month wo oer week
"'II Coastal Waters Red Snaooer One oer week wo œr week
"'II Coastal Waters Sand Seatrout One -cer month One œr week
"'II Coastal Waters ScamD One cer month wo cer week
All Coastal Waters ¡Shark. all species Do not eat po not eat
http://www.doh.state.fl.us/environmentlcommunity /fishconsumptionadvisorieslCounties/... 10/13/2005
...~_..- ~ - _..
..
~
I Coastal Waters
Do not eat
II Coastal Waters
II Coastal Waters
II Coastal Waters
I Coastal Waters
I Coastal Waters .
II Coastal Waters
II Coastal Waters
II Coastal Waters
I Coastal Waters
II Coastal Waters
II Coastal Waters
II Coastal Waters
I Coastal Waters
Coastal Waters
Coastal Waters
Coastal Waters
Coastal Waters
Coastal Waters
Coastal Waters
Coastal Waters
er month
er month
er month
r month
er month
er week
er month
er week
er.month
er week
r week
erweek
er week
er week
er month
er month
er week
er month
er month
er week
'--'
* All Other Individuals should eat no more than one six ounce meal per week of Largemouth Bass, Bowfin, or
Gar
from freshwater bodies in Florida not fisted in this brochure.
, /
. ~. f
~~,;-:
http://www.doh.stare.fl.us/environment! community IfishconsumptionadvisorieslCounties/ ... 10/13/2005
"
Contact:
;
..._. ,.... .... "·,,.C.-,',,"
-~:~~r:~~?~' --'~'~:')}1~'''';'. L-':ï·::~,·~:Y~·1~~~,-;,,~:,~:t.~~~~;~~~:~'J;~,:,~~,.:.",~,_",__:
"Keep"Mtdison C;ean" .
Jim Flournoy, 386-590-6467 or Lisa Flournoy. 850-973-8875
IlsaflQ/L17J9y@ya..t!QQ·com .
-".. "',...7".....--.~----_.~.,----._---_.-
"e-~ -_.~~ ~i~_:~<:;.·,;\:':' ",'Y~1"~~;:~~'~:}
"WI
Date: September 7. 2005
Coal-fired Pºw~rPlantNpt VV~lccrrne in t\IIa~H§on COlmty
Madison, FL - September 7, 2005 - The MadiSRn Céunty Commission overwhelmingly passed a
resolution today opposing the construction of an 8çO-tnega watt coal-fired power plant in Madison
County to the cheers of concerned citizens who. packed the board room.
The vote was 4-1 in favor of the resolution against the coal-fired power plant, with only Commissioner
Roy Ellis opposing. '
When the Jacksonville Electric Authority (JEA) met with Madison's city and county leaders on July 25th
to discuss their North Florida Power Project (NFPP) and the possibility of locating the plant in Madison
County. concerned citizens began meeting weekly. forming a coalition called "Keep Madison Clean."
"Within 1 0 days of our first meeting we had over 1 ,000 petitions signed by citizens opposing this caal-
fired power plant in Madison County," said Jim Flournoy, the "Keep Madison Clean" spokesman. "I got
involved because this is my hometown I love to fish here. I have children and I know the dangers of
coal-fired power plants. There is no good reason to welcome this plant into our county, especially
since we would receive no power from it."
On Sunday, September 4. 2005. the Talla/lassee Democrat's AP article entitled "Mercury pollution a
threat to kids' ability to learn." stated: "The :=:PA's new mercury rule delays by at least 10 to 15 years
protections from Increased mercury emISSI~)ns. which end up in rivers and oceans, fish and ultimately
humans. It is too weak and does too little. too late to protect the next generation of students from the
harmful health effects of mercury."
Madison's former Mayor. Jackie Johnson. knows first-hand the hazards associated with welcoming
industry into Maçllson that may leave more Dollution than Jobs "About 30 years ago. Madison
welcomed an industry that provided jobs fa:' our citizens," said Johnson. "When they left town. they left
our wells contaminated and left tax-payers with the clean-up bill, which is still being paid to this day. A
coal-fired power plant is not the answer In Madison And we don't believe it's the answer in Taylor
County [the other site JEA IS considering]. That's too close for us. Coal-fired power plants can only
create further problems in the future. And as much as we want new industry that will create jobs in
Madison. we must first consider the consequences of what the Industry would bring to our county.
along with what it would leave behind wtÌ~n it closes,"
"More coal-fired power plants are not the answer." said Henderson. "Coal-fired power plants are
detrimental to Madison's pristine environment and public'health We must be more progressive and
teach our citizens to use alternative energy like solar p,9wer-and geo-thermaL And, we must teach our
citizens how to conserve·energy" j/ J
Madison medical doctor Dr Michael Stick said, "It [coal] makes life very difficult." He and other local
physicians have warned their patients on me harmful effects coal-fired power plants have on human
Thursday, September 15,2005 America Online: MisQueetoo
·
lives."
......
....."
"Madison County will continue to speak out against this plant." said former Madison County Extension
Agent Rudy Hammrick who recently appeared before the Tallahassee City Commissioners at a public
meeting. "We're your neighbors [Tallahassee]. Tallahassee did not want this plant and we don't want
it either. Remember the Golden Rule [don: support this plRIlt being built in our county, if you are not
willing to build it in Leon County]" "
While JEA continues making offers' to landowners in Madison County. the county is moving quickly to
protect its land and resources. Last year. Madison C~unty's property values increased 12 percent,
while Leon County's only increased eight percent. Madison citizens adamantly oppose this plant in
their county and will not accept the plant locating in another nearby county either.
"Tallahassee citizens must vote against supporting the North Florida Power Project on the
November referendum," said Henderson. "We urge the Tallahassee City Commission to make
the ballot language clear. The voters must not be confused about what they are voting for. A
vote for this project could have a potentially long lasting negative impact on all of our counties
for years to come."
"Keep Madison Clean" encourages concerned citizens in Tallahassee, Taylor, Madison and other
counties to offer their help in defeating this municipality by working with the Clean Air Coalition
(chair@clea_nairpac.com 0, 421-VOTE) In '-aliahassee to distribute Information and educate·
Tallahassee voters.
·People must be made awar2 of the hazards of coal-fired power plants. especially people who like to
fish like I do." said Flournov'ThiS coal-f¡rec: power plant would not be a good neighbor."
"Nestle's Water U SA, a non-polluting company chose Madison because of its pristine environmental
resources." said' Johnson "If Madison County allows industries with high contamination nsks to locate
in Madison County. we gamtJle unnecessarily with our future. losing the ability to attract clean industry.
,Our current safe and clean ",'ater supply would be in Jeopardy, as well as the health of our citizens and
future generations For what') A oaycheck" I don't think so' Thank you JEA. but we don't want it!"
-end-
For more infQrmation contact:
Keep Madison Clean: Jim Flournoy. 386-590-6467 or Lisa Flournoy, 850-973-8875
lisaflournoy@yahoocom
Madison County Board of County COl1)issioners: 850-973-3179
Chairman Ricky Henderson: 850-'1;64-0394
Commissioner Clyde King
Commissioner Alfred Martin
Commissioner Ronnie Moore
Commissioner Roy E¡:is
Former Madison Mayor. Jackie Johnson 850·973-2277
Madison Physician Dr Michae! Stick: 850-973-45¥0 / .'
Former Madison Co. Extension Agent. Mr. Rudy Rammnck 850-973-6554
Clean Air Coalition. Ed Deaton 850-877-6626 or 421-VOTE chair@ç1~ªnairpac_com
"""'",rl"to'H '~"'tu.I"1"\hp", 1" Î"".c:: Â M"\1:!I1';{H\ nnl;np' 1\A;cnllPptnn
AGENDA REQUEST ITEM NO.2""""
DATE: November 7,2005
REVISED
REGULAR 0
PUBLIC HEARING [X]
CONSENT 0 .
PRESENTED BY:
TO:
Board of County Commissioners
SUBMITTED BY (DEPT): Growth Management
.----------r~-- ~ ~----=>
Assistant County Administrator
Consider Draft Resolution 05-385 granting Conditional Use and Major Site
Plan approval for the project to be known as Florida Power & Light - South
West S1. Lucie Power Plant for property located on the east side of Sluefield
Road, approximately 4 miles south of Okeechobee Road.
SUBJECT:
The petitioner, Florida Power and Light has requested Conditional Use and
Major Site Plan approval for the project to be known as Florida Power & Light
_ South West S1. Lucie Power Plant for property located on the east side of
Bluefield Road, approximately 4 miles south of Okeechobee Road.
BACKGROUND:
FUNDS AVAILABLE:
N/A
On September 29, 2005 the S1. Lucie County Planning and Zoning
Commission recommended approval of the Conditional Use and Major Site
Plan by a vote of 4-2 (Mr. McCurdy & Ms. Hammer voted against).
PREVIOUS ACTION:
Staff recommends approval of Draft Resolution 05-385 granting Conditional
Use and Major Site Plan approval for the project to be known as Florida
Power & Light - South West S1. Lucie Power Plant for property located on
the east side of Bluefield Road, approximately 4 miles south of Okeechobee
Road subject to included conditions.
RECOMMENDATION:
COMMISSION ACTION:
IIAPPROVED
o OTHER:
o DENIED
Approved 5-0
Motion to deny,
It ~ L County Attorney
Originating Dept.:
Finance:
JUe::-
CONCU7E:
Á,
Douglas M. Anderson
County Administrator
Coordinationi Signatures
Mgt. & Budget: l~
Environ. Res. Division: __
Purchasing:
Other:
'-"
"-"
Commission Review: November 7,2005
GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT
Planning Division
MEMORANDUM
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Assistant County Administrator
DATE: November 1,2005
SUBJECT: Petition of Florida Power & Light for a rezoning from the AG-1 (Agriculture
1 dwelling unit / 5 acres) zoning district to the U (Utilities) zoning district
for property located on the east side of Bluefield Road approximately 4
miles south of Okeechobee Road
LOCATION: East side of Bluefield Road approximately 4 miles south of Okeechobee
Road
EXISTING ZONING: AG - 5 (Agriculture - 1 dwelling unit/5 acres)
FUTURE LAND USE: AG - 5 (Agriculture - 1 dwelling unit/5 acres)
PARCEL SIZE: Approximately 3000 acres
SURROUNDING ZONING:
The subject property is surrounded by AG-5 (Agricultural 1
du/5 ac) zoning on all sides
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
The existing uses in this area are primarily agricultural with
preserved land (Bluefield Ranch) to the west.
FIRE/EMS PROTECTION:
Station # 11, (Shinn Road) is located approximately 20
miles to the northeast.
UTILITY SERVICE:
Water and sewer service will be provided on site.
TRANSPORTATION IMPACTS:
Right-af-Way
Adequacy:
The existing right-of-way width for Bluefield Road is 50
feet.
The existing right-of-way width for Okeechobee Road is 66
feet
'-"
"-fI
November 1, 2005
Page 2
Subject: Florida Power & Light
Rezoning to U (Utilities) - RZ 05-034
Scheduled Area
Improvements:
The Florida Department of Transportation will be widening
Okeechobee Road (SR 70) out to Berman Road in
Okeechobee County. This work will be accomplished in
phases over the next seven to ten years.
As a part of the application for conditional use, the
applicant has committed to pave Bluefield Road from
Okeechobee Road to its project entrance or beyond if the
county wished paved access to the Bluefield Preserve. The
applicant will also provide for temporary modifications to
the intersection of Bluefield and Okeechobee Roads.
These modifications are intended to provide for safe and
efficient traffic operations through the plant's construction
period.
TYPE OF CONCURRENCY
DOCUMENT REQUIRED:
Certificate of Capacity
...............................................................................
STANDARDS OF REVIEW AS SET FORTH IN SECTION 11.06.03,
ST. LUCIE COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE
In reviewing this application for proposed rezoning, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall
consider and make the following determinations;
1. Whether the proposed rezoning is in conflict with any applicable portions of the
St. Lucie County Land Development Code;
The proposed zoning district is consistent with the St. Lucie County Land Development
Code. The underlying land use for the subject property is AG-5 (Agriculture 1 dwelling
unit / 5 acres). According to Section 11.09.02, Table 11.1, Land Use CateQorv/ZoninQ
District Compatibility Chart, the proposed U (Utilities) Zoning District is considered
compatible with the AG -5 (Agriculture I dwelling unit / 5 acres) land use designation.
2. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the St. Lucie
County Comprehensive Plan;
The subject property is located within an area designated as AG-5 (Agriculture 1
dwelling unit / 5 acres) on the Future Land Use Map. The Future Land Use Element,
Data & Analysis, defines the AG-5 (Agriculture 1 dwelling unit / 5 acres) area as
intended for those areas of the County outside of the planned urban service area which
are associated with agriculture and agriculture related activities. This land use category
provides for a maximum density of 1 dwelling unit / 5 acres. The AG-5 designation is
generally found outside the urban service area.
'-'
....",
November 1, 2005
Page 3
Subject: Florida Power & Light
Rezoning to U (Utilities) - RZ 05-034
In addition, according to the Future Land Use Element, Data & Analysis, Table 1.3, Land
Use DesiQnation/Zoninq District ComDatibilitv Chart, the AG-5 (Agriculture 1 dwelling
unit / 5 acres) Land Use designation is considered compatible with the proposed U
(Utilities) Zoning District.
3. Whether and the extent to which the proposed zoning is inconsistent with the
existing and proposed land uses;
The U (Utilities) Zoning District is consistent with the existing character of the
surrounding area.
4. Whether there have been changed conditions that require an amendment;
Conditions have not changed to require the requested amendment. The applicant has
applied for a conditional use permit to construct and operate a 1700 MW coal fired
electric generation plant.
5. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in
demands on public facilities, and whether or to the extent to which the proposed
amendment would exceed the capacity of such public facilities, including but not
limited to transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply, parks, drainage,
schools, solid waste, mass transit, and emergency medical facilities;
The proposed rezoning, by itself, is not expected to result in significant increased
demands on public facilities.
6. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in
significant adverse impacts on the natural environment;
The proposed change in zoning is not anticipated to create adverse impacts on the
natural environment. Actual construction and operation of the plant will impact the
environment. The extent to which these impacts are adverse is dependent on the action
taken by the applicant to mitigate for the impacts. These actions are discussed as a part
of the application for conditional use.
7. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in an
orderly and logical development pattern specifically identifying any negative
affects of such patterns;
The proposed change in zoning will result in an orderly and logical development pattern
for the surrounding area. Utilities zoning is generally considered compatible in
agricultural areas. This rezoning is associated with a proposed conditional use for a coal
fired electric generation plant.
8. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public interest,
and is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this Code;
The proposed amendment would not be in conflict with the public interest and is in
harmony with the purpose and intent of the 8t. Lucie County Land Development Code.
'-"
.....,
November 1, 2005
Page 4
Subject: Florida Power & Light
Rezoning to U (Utilities) - RZ 05-034
COMMENTS:
The petitioner, Florida Power & Light Company, is seeking a rezoning for an approximately
3000 acre parcel on property located on the east side of Bluefield Road approximately 4 miles
south of Okeechobee Road (SR 70). The petition is accompanied by a petition for a conditional
use permit to construct and operate a 1,700 Megawatt (MW) electric generation plant
Staff recommends approval of Draft Resolution 05-384.
Please contact this office if you have any questions on this matter.
SUBMITTED:
- -,-" ~ ")
------'::::::=5'·--___.
(~ --...
-- --'
Faye Outlaw
Assistant County Administrator
dpk
cc: Assistant County Administrtor
Johnathan Ferguson
File
'-'
-....I
RESOLUTION 05 - 384
FILE NO.: RZ-05-009
A RESOLUTION GRANTING A CHANGE IN
ZONING FROM THE AG-5 (AGRICULTURE 1 DU/5
AC) ZONING DISTRICT TO THE U (UTILITIES)
ZONING DISTRICT FOR CERTAIN PROPERTY IN
ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA.
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of St. Lucie County, Florida, based on
all of the testimony and evidence presented at a public hearing, including but not limited to, the
staff report, all written materials that were part of the record at the public hearing, and all other
referenced materials, has made the following detenninations:
1. Florida Power & Light Company ("FPL") presented a petition ("Petition") for a change
in zoning ITom the AG-5 (Agriculture 1 du/5 ac) Zoning District to the U (Utilities)
Zoning District for the property described in Part A below ("Property"); and
2. On September 29, 2005 the St. Lucie County Planning & Zoning Commission ("P&Z
Commission") held a public hearing on the Petition. Legally sufficient notice was
provided by posting a sign near the Property that listed the dates of the public hearings;
publishing notice at least ten (10) days prior to the public hearing; and notifying by mail
all property owners within one mile of the Property. At the public hearing, after
considering the testimony and evidence submitted, the P&Z Commission voted to
recommend that the St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners ("County
Commissioners") approve the Petition to rezone the Property ITom the AG-5 (Agriculture
1 du/5 ac) Zoning District to the U (Utilities) Zoning District.
3. On November 7, 2005 the County Commission held a public hearing on the Petition.
Legally sufficient notice was provided by posting a sign near the Property that listed the
dates of the public hearings; publishing notice at least ten (10) days prior to the public
hearing; and notifying by mail all property owners within one mile of the Property.
4. The proposed change in zoning district is consistent with the goals, objectives, and
policies of the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Growth Management Plan
("Comprehensive Plan") and is in compliance with the St. Lucie County Land
Development Code ("LDC"), including but not limited to, the standards set forth in
Section 11.06.03, LDC. Specifically, the proposed change in zoning district will not:
A) result in significant adverse impacts on the natural environment; and
B) adversely affect the property values in the area; and
C) be in conflict with the public interest and is in hannony with the purpose
and intent of the LDC.
Page 1 of3
'-t
-....I
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of St.
Lucie County, Florida:
A. The Zoning District Classification for the property described below and owned by Evans
Properties, Inc. is hereby changed fÌ'om the AG-5 (Agriculture 1 du/5 ac) Zoning District
to the U (Utilities) Zoning District:
Property Legal Description:
A parcel of land lying in portions of Sections 13, 14, 15, 23, 24, 25, 26, and 36 in
Township 37 South, Range 37 East, all lying and being in St. Lucie County, Florida.
Being more particularly described as follows:
Commencing at the Southeast comer of said Section 36 also being the Southeast Comer
of Township 37 South, Range 37 East, proceed South 890 54'03" West along the South
Line of said Section 36 a distance of 140.00 feet to a point on the projected West right-of-
way of the C-23 Canal; thence North 00005' 57" West a distance of 125.11 feet to a 1"
Iron Pipe at the intersection of the West right-of-way of the C-23 Canal and the
Northwesterly right-of-way line of the FEC railroad; thence continue North 000 05' 57"
West along the said West right-of-way of the C-23 Canal a distance of 207.65 feet to the
Point of Beginning of said parcel ofland; thence departing said West right-of-way of the
C-23 Canal South 890 54' 18" West a distance of 90.00 feet; thence North 300 44' 35"
West a distance of 24,204.73 feet; thence North 900 00' 00" East a distance of 12,487.90
feet to a point on the said West right-of-way of the C-23 Canal; thence South 000 01' 12"
West along the West right-of-way of the C-23 Canal a distance of 15,855.41 feet to a
point of intersection with the North line of said Section 36 and the West right-of-way of
the C-23 Canal; thence South 000 05' 51" East a distance of 4,947.67 feet to the point of
beginning of this description; said parcel containing 3,000.00 acres more or less.
B. The St. Lucie County Community Development Director is hereby authorized and
directed to cause the change to be made on the Official Zoning Map of St. Lucie County,
Florida, and to make notation of reference to the date of adoption of this Resolution.
AFTER MOTION AND SECOND, THE VOTE ON THIS RESOLUTION WAS AS
FOLLOWS:
Chainnan Frannie Hutchinson
xxx
Vice-Chainnan Doug Coward
xxx
Commissioner Paula Lewis
xxx
Commissioner Chris Craft
xxx
Commissioner Joseph Smith
xxx
Page 2 of3
'-'
'-"
PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED this 7th day of November, 2005.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA
BY
Frannie Hutchinson, Chainnan
ATTEST:
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND
CORRECTNESS:
Deputy Clerk
County Attorney
Page 3 of3
'-"
'-"
BOARD OF
COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS
"~'=f." .'~'eJ·t:' '>I"E"~ ~ "', n
COUNTY"'"
F lOR I D A"""
GROWTH
MANAGEMENT
October 20, 2005
In accordance with the St. Lucie County Land Development Code, you are hereby advised that Florida
Power and Light Company, has petitioned St. Lucie County for a Change in Zoning from the AG-5
(Agricultural - I du/5 acres) Zoning District to the U (Utilities) Zoning District and for a Conditional Use
Pennit to allow the operation of an electric generation plant and ancillary uses in the U (Utilities) Zoning
District, for the following described property:
Location:
East side of Bluefield Road, approximately 4.0 miles south of State Road
70 (Okeechobee Road).
THE PROPERTY'S LEGAL DESCRIPTION IS A V AILABLE UPON REQUEST
A public hearing on the petition wiD be held at 6:00 P.M., or as soon thereafter as possible, on November
7, 2005, County Commissioner's Chambers, St. Lucie County Administration Building Annex, 2300
Virginia Avenue, Fort Pierce, Florida. Note that this meeting has been rescheduled from October 25,
2005 due to hurricane safety precautions. All interested persons will be given an opportunity to be heard at
that time. Written comments received in advance of the public hearing will also be considered. The County
Planning Division should receive written comments to the Board of County Commissioners at least 3 days
prior to a scheduled hearing.
County policy discourages communication with individual County Commissioners on any case outside of the
scheduled public hearing(s). You may speak at a public hearing, or provide written comments for the record.
The proceedings of the Board of County Commissioners are electronically recorded. If a person decides to
appeal any decision made by the Board of County Commissioners with respect to any matter considered at
such meeting or hearing, he will need a record of the proceedings. For such purpose, he may need to ensure
that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record inc\udes the testimony and evidence upon
which the appeal is to be based. Upon the request of any party to the proceeding, individuals testifying
during a hearing will be sworn in. Any party to the proceeding will be granted an opportunity to cross-
examine any individual testifying during a hearing upon request. If it becomes necessary, a public hearing
may be continued to a date-certain.
Anyone with a disability requiring accommodation to attend this meeting should contact the S1. Lucie
County Community Services Director at least forty-eight (48) hours prior to the meeting at (772) 462-
1777 or T.D.D. (772) 462-1428.
If you no longer own property adjacent to the above-described parcel, please forward this notice to the new
owner. Please call (772) 462-1594 if you have any questions.
Sincerely. .
ST. LUCIE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISS~QNERS _ r
Frannie Hutchinson, Chairman ,:' M \ \ ~\'-- ~'---' /1't.~ l \.L\.-2~ ¡ "'-"
JOSE~H E. SMITH. DisrricT No, 1 . DOUG COWAf\D. DisTrict No 2 . PAULA A, LEWIS, Disrrict No,:3 . FRANNIE HUTCHINSON. DiSTrict No 4 . CHf\IS Cf\AFT, DiSTrict No,S
County Administrator - Douglas M. Anderson
2300 Virginia Avenue · Fort Pierce, FL 34982-5652
Administration: (772) 462-1590 · Planning: (772) 462-2822 · GISfTechnical Services: (772) 462-1553
Economic Development: (772) 462-1550 · Fox: (772) 462-1581
Tourist Development: (772) 462-1529 · Fox: (772) 462-2132
www.co.st-Iucie.fl.us
'-'
~
BOARD OF
COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS
~=r:.' ~eJE 'I' 'E" '~.." ' '
COUNTY'),
F LOR I D A"" .
GROWTH
MANAGEMENT
October 11, 200S
In accordance with the St. Lucie County Land Development Code, you are hereby advised that Florida
Power and Light Company, has petitioned St. Lucie County for a Change in Zoning from the AG-S
(Agricultural- 1 du/S acres) Zoning District to the U (Utilities) Zoning District and for a Conditional Use
Permit to allow the operation of an electric generation plant and ancillary uses in the U (Utilities) Zoning
District, for the following described property:
Location:
East side of Bluefield Road, approximately 4.0 miles south of State Road
70 (Okeechobee Road).
THE PROPERTY'S LEGAL DESCRIPTION IS AVAILABLE UPON REQUEST
A public hearing on the petition will be held at 6:00 P.M., or as soon thereafter as possible, on October 25,
2005, County Commissioner's Chambers, St. Lucie County Administration Building Annex, 2300 Virginia
Avenue, Fort Pierce, Florida. All interested persons will be given an opportunity to be heard at that time.
Written comments received in advance of the public hearing wi1l also be considered. The County Planning
Division should receive written comments to the Board of County Commissioners at least 3 days prior to a
scheduled hearing.
County policy discourages communication with individual County Commissioners on any case outside of the
scheduled public hearing(s). You may speak at a public hearing, or provide written comments for the record.
The proceedings of the Board of County Commissioners are electronica1ly recorded. If a person decides to
appeal any decision made by the Board of County Commissioners with respect to any matter considered at
such meeting or hearing, he will need a record of the proceedings. For such purpose, he may need to ensure
that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon
which the appeal is to be based. Upon the request of any party to the proceeding, individuals testifying
during a hearing will be sworn in. Any party to the proceeding will be granted an opportunity to cross-
examine any individual testifying during a hearing upon request. If it becomes necessary, a public hearing
may be continued to a date-certain.
Anyone with a disability requiring accommodation to attend this meeting should contact the St. Lucie
County Community Services Director at least forty-eight (48) hours prior to the meeting at (772) 462-
1777 or T.D.D. (772) 462-1428.
If you no longer own property adjacent to the above-described parcel, please forward this notice to the new
owner. Please call (772) 462-1594 if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
~:~::n~;~t~~::'~:~= 0\ ç~~~ C~~~S~~,~~~~' C/
JOSE¡'H L SMITH. District No, 1 . DOUG COWARD. District No, 2 . PAULA A. LEWIS, District NO.3· FRANNIE HUTCHINSON, DistriCT No.4· CHRIS CRAFT. Distrlcr No.5
(ounry AdministraTor - Douglas M. Anderson
2300 Virginia Avenue · Fort Pierce, FL 34982-5652
Administration: (772) 462-1590 . Planning: (772) 462-2822 · GISlTechnicol Services: (772) 462-1553
Economic Development: (772) 462-1550 · Fox: (772) 462-1581
Tourist Development: (772) 462-1529 · Fox: (772) 462-2132
www.co.st-Iucie.fl.us
\w'
-..I
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION REVIEW: 9/29/05
RZ-05-009
GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT
Planning Division
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Planning Manager 0'<"--
DATE: September 21, 2005
SUBJECT: Application of Florida Power & Light Company, for a Change in Zoning
from the AG-5 (Agricultural 1 du/5 ac) Zoning District to the U (Utilities)
Zoning District.
LOCATION: East side of Sluefield Road, approximately 4 miles south of
SR 70 (Okeechobee Road)
EXISTING ZONING: AG-5 (Agricultural 1 du/5 ac)
PROPOSED ZONING:
U (Utilities)
AG-5 (Agricultural 1 du/5 ac)
FUTURE LAND USE:
PARCEL SIZE:
Approximately 3000 acres
PROPOSED USE:
The purpose of the requested change in zoning is to allow
for the application of Florida Power & Light Company for a
Conditional Use Permit and Major Site Plan approval to
allow the construction of a 1,700 Megawatt (MW) electric
generation plant consisting of two 850 MW units on
approximately 3000 acres.
PERMITTED USES:
Section 3.01.03(W), U (Utilities) identifies the designated
uses, which are permitted by right. permitted as accessory
uses, or permitted through the conditional use process in
the AG-5 (Agricultural 1 du/5 ac) Zoning District. Any use
designated as a "Conditional Use" is required to undergo
further review and approval before that use may be
commenced on the property. Any use not identified in the
zoning district regulations is considered to be a prohibited
use in that district (see Attachment "AA").
SURROUNDING ZONING:
The subject property is surrounded by AG-5 (Agricultural 1
du/5 ac) zoning on all sides.
\w
,..."
September 21 , 2005
Page 2
Petition: Florida Power & Light Company.
File RZ-05-009
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
The existing uses in this area are primarily agricultural with
preserved land (Bluefield Ranch) to the west.
FIRE/EMS PROTECTION:
Station #11, is located approximately 20 miles to the
northeast.
UTILITY SERVICE:
TRANSPORTATION IMPACTS
Water and sewer will be provided on site.
RIGHT-OF-WAY
ADEQUACY:
The existing right-of-way width for Bluefield Road is 50
feet.
The existing right-of-way width for Okeechobee Road is 66
feet.
SCHEDULED
IMPROVEMENTS:
As a part of the application for conditional use, the
applicant has committed to pave Bluefield Road from
Okeechobee Road to its project entrance or beyond if the
county wished paved access to the Bluefield Preserve. The
applicant will also modify the intersection of Bluefield and
Okeechobee Roads.
The Florida Department of Transportation will be widening
Okeechobee Road (SR 70) out to Berman Road in
Okeechobee County. This work will be accomplished in
phases over the next seven to ten years.
TYPE OF CONCURRENCY
DOCUMENT REQUIRED:
Concurrency Deferral Affidavit.
****************************************
STANDARDS OF REVIEW AS SET FORTH IN SECTION 11.06.03,
ST. LUCIE COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE
Staff would note that this petition has been submitted in conjunction with an application for a
conditional use permit to allow for the construction and operation of a 1,700 MW electric
generation plant. The rezoning and conditional use applications require separate hearings and
votes; however, it is staffs experience that it is difficult, if not impossible to separate the issues
through the public hearings. The staff report for the conditional use permit submitted in
conjunction with this application for rezoning contains specific recommended conditions that are
intended to help insure compatibility with this proposed used and other uses in the immediate
'-'
~
September 21,2005
Page 3
Petition: Florida Power & Light Cornpany.
File RZ-05-009
and more distant areas. These conditions are not recommended and cannot be included as a
part of this rezoning. Because it is so difficult to separate these issues during the public hearing,
some of these conditions have been referenced within this staff report.
In reviewing this application for proposed rezoning, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall
consider and make the following determinations;
1. Whether the proposed rezoning is in conflict with any applicable portions of the
St. Lucie County Land Development Code;
The proposed zoning district is consistent with the St. Lucie County Land Development
Code. The underlying land use for the subject property is AG-5 (Agricultural 1 du/5 ac).
According to Section 11.09.02, Table 11.1, Land Use Cateaorv/Zoninq District
Compatibilitv Chart, the proposed U (Utilities) Zoning District is considered compatible
with the AG-5 (Agricultural 1 du/5 ac) land use designation.
According to Section 3.01.03(W) of the St. Lucie County Land Development Regulations
the purpose of the U (Utilities) Zoning District is to provide and protect an environment
suitable for utilities, transportation, and communication facilities, together with such other
uses as may be compatible with utilities, transportation, and communication facilities.
2. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the St. Lucie
County Comprehensive Plan;
The subject property is located within an area designated as AG-5 (Agricultural 1 du/5
ac) on the Future Land Use Map. According to the Future Land Use Element, Data &
Analysis, Table 1-3, Land Use Desiqnation/Zonina District Compatibilitv Chart, the AG-5
(Agricultural 1 du/5 ac) Future Land Use designation is considered compatible with the
proposed U (Utilities) Zoning District.
Further, Comprehensive Plan Policies 1.1.2.3 and 1.1.2.4 anticipate conversion of
Agricultural Lands to other uses. Policy 1.1.2.3 requires preservation of open space as a
part of any future non-agricultural development. Policy 1.1.2.4 requires the "orderly
delivery of services concurrent with the impacts of development" within the agricultural
land use categories.
3. Whether and the extent to which the proposed zoning is inconsistent with the
existing and proposed land uses;
The U (Utilities) Zoning District may be consistent with the existing agricultural/preserve
character of the surrounding area. Conditions placed on the proposed electric generation
plant through the Conditional Use Permit can help to insure this consistency.
4. Whether there have been changed conditions that require an amendment;
\w'
....,
September 21, 2005
Page 4
Petition: Florida Power & Light Company.
File RZ-05-009
Growth in the area and Florida in general require additional sources of electric
generation. There have been no changed conditions that require this particular
amendment to the county's zoning atlas.
5. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in
demands on public facilities, and whether or to the extent to which the proposed
amendment would exceed the capacity of such public facilities, including but not
limited to transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply, parks, drainage,
schools, solid waste, mass transit, and emergency medical facilities;
The intended use for this rezoning is not expected to create significant additional
demands on the public facilities in this area. The rezoning alone does not create any
additional demands on public facilities. Further approvals are required prior to
development of the site.
Information submitted as a part of the submitted conditional use petition indicates the
following:
Traffic impacts for the completed plant are considered minimal. Approximately
180 employees will serve the site in shifts. Construction traffic will create larger
impacts for the period in which the proposed plants are under construction.
These impacts are not expected to cause any roadway to fall below accepted
levels of service. The applicant, through the proposed conditional use, has
committed to improvements to insure that these levels are not exceeded. Impacts
to more distant roadways are possible based on rail deliveries of coal and other
materials. The applicant has agreed to attempt to mitigate this issue through
scheduling deliveries at non peak times. The county and the applicant have
recognized that the Florida East Coast Railroad will ultimately control the delivery
times.
Water and sewer service will not impact public systems as they will be provided
on site.
No significant impacts on other public facilities are expected.
6. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in
significant adverse impacts on the natural environment;
An analysis of the proposed amendment's impacts on the natural environment is
attached. The analysis contains the report and comments of the county's Environmental
Resource Department, the report of an independent consultant retained by the county
assess air quality issues, and a series of conditions recommended for any approval. The
conditions are recommended for inclusion with any approval of the conditional use
permit.
\w
.-..1
September 21. 2005
Page 5
Petition: Florida Power & Light Company.
File RZ-05-009
7. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in an
orderly and logical development pattern specifically identifying any negative
affects of such patterns;
The proposed change in zoning can result in an orderly and logical development pattern
for the surrounding area. The surrounding parcels of property are designated AG-5
(Agricultural 1 du/5 ac) by both the county's Comprehensive Plan and zoning. The U
(Utilities) zoning district has been determined to be compatible in the AG-5 areas.
The issue of compatibility for a use such as an electric generation plant must ultimately
be insured through the analysis of and conditions imposed through the required major
site plan and conditional use permit.
8. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public interest,
and is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this Code;
The proposed amendment to the county's zoning atlas is not in contlict with the public
interest and is in harmony with the purpose and intent of the St. Lucie County Land
Development Code.
COMMENTS
The petitioner. Florida Power & Light Company, has requested this change in zoning from the
AG-5 (Agricultural 1 du/5 ac) Zoning District to the U (Utilities) Zoning District for property
located on the east side of Bluefield Road, approximately 4 miles south of SR 70 (Okeechobee
Road). The indicated purpose of this change in zoning is to allow the applicant to apply for a
conditional use to allow the construction and operation of a 1,700 MW electric generation plant.
The subject property is in an area designated within the Comprehensive Plan as being
compatible with or for the U (Utilities) Zoning District.
Staff has reviewed this petition for rezoning and determined that it conforms to the standards of
review as set forth in the St. Lucie County Land Development Code and is not in conflict with
the goals, objectives, and policies of the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan.
Staff would note that this petition has been submitted in conjunction with an application for a
conditional use permit to allow for the construction and operation of a 1,700 MW electric
generation plant. The rezoning and conditional use applications require separate hearings and
votes; however, it is staff's experience that it is difficult if not impossible to separate the issues
through the public hearings. Several conditions recommended for any conditional use permit
that may be approved have been referenced within this report. These have been referenced for
the convenience of the Planning and Zoning Commission and any other reader. These
conditions are not recommended as a part of any rezoning approval that may be granted.
Staff recommends that you forward this petition to the Board of County Commissioners with a
recommendation of approval.
'-"
'...I
September 21, 2005
Page 6
Petition: Florida Power & Light Company.
File RZ-05-009
Please contact this office if you have any questions on this matter.
dpk
H:lwpIFPL.pz.RZ.memo.doc
cc: County Attorney
Assistant County Administrators
Environmental Resources Director
File
'-'
....¡
Suggested motion to recommend approval/denial of this requested change in zoning.
MOTION TO APPROVE:
AFTER CONSIDERING THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING,
INCLUDING STAFF COMMENTS, AND THE STANDARDS OF REVIEW AS SET FORTH IN
SECTION 11.06.03, ST. LUCIE COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, I HEREBY MOVE
THAT THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMEND THAT THE ST. LUCIE
COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS GRANT APPROVAL TO THE
APPLICATION OF FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY, FOR A CHANGE IN ZONING
FROM THE AG-5 (AGRICULTURAL 1 DU/5 AC) ZONING DISTRICT TO THE U (UTILITIES)
ZONING DISTRICT, BECAUSE.....
[CITE REASON WHY - PLEASE BE SPECIFIC].
MOTION TO DENY:
AFTER CONSIDERING THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING,
INCLUDING STAFF COMMENTS, AND THE STANDARDS OF REVIEW AS SET FORTH IN
SECTION 11.06.03, ST. LUCIE COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, I HEREBY MOVE
THAT THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMEND THAT THE ST. LUCIE
COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DENY THE APPLICATION OF FLORIDA
POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY, FOR A CHANGE IN ZONING FROM THE AG-5
(AGRICULTURAL 1 DU/5 AC) ZONING DISTRICT TO THE U (UTILITIES) ZONING DISTRICT,
BECAUSE.....
[CITE REASON WHY - PLEASE BE SPECIFIC].
\w
>. "'"
c:
ro
a.
E
0 L{)
0
ü ~ 0
N
+oJ '" :1 ~ L6
.c: 0') z.~ ;; rti ~
.2' 0 I-
0 : . (1)
...J ..c
I ~ ;1: E
oð L() ~ ~ E (1)
0 ~ ã.
N ~(\ ~ t (1)
Oç0 CI)
a:: '0
~ ~
~~ ro
Cl.
. ~ ~
~ Cl.
Cl.
ro
i::'
c:
:J
o
U
æ;
>
if
c:
'"
'6
E
p.~ u"'~5
>-
1::
::J
o
U
c:
O€
'"
:;¡;
!:IOU,' I ".~
1....·;;¡Jap··H
õ
o
.
ò
ò
I P_uli
1"""0 ,~.:>
'"
<0
~unoQ aaqo~~aa~o
A Petition of Florida Power . Light Company for a Char._,~ in Zoning from the
AG-5 (Agricultural-1 du/5acres) Zoning District to the U (Utilities) Zoning District.
GLADES CUT-OF
Martin County
RZ 05-009
Legend
~ Subject property
5è~uc:-ic- a.~~:~
firO'Wtli .Nanuennenr :l'.J9artmnrt
N
A
Map prepared September 15, 2005
Zoning
Florida t-'ower & Light Company
GERMANY, CANAl! RD
G-5
GLADES CUT-OF
RlC
CPUB
Martin County
RZ 05-009
Legend
~ Subject property
x-- L~ ¿;;,=~~"-
(irO'WtlÏ Manoennenl" :t7l!.PIZrimett.t
N
A
Map prepared September 15. 2005
'--'
Land Use
Florida Power & Light Company
GERMANY. CANAL' RD
GLADES CUT-OF
CPUB
Martin County
RZ 05-009
Legend
~ Subject property
X:-ÁuvÞe é'~'m9'.~_.
{/rb'WtÆ Manaoement Z19Qrtment
N
Â
Map prepared September 15, 2005
Florida t-'ower & Light Company
RZ 05-009
Legend
~ Subject property
é:o- j . áC ~~
_x" ./ ~t-l?t£- ¿/fJt. j"" _...;.'_'.~_;.......
(¡ro-wtli :ManaunnLnt 7.h:parlment
Map prepared September 15, 2005
\w
-.."I
BOARD OF
COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS
~=r. ~~ EI f "
COUNTY \
FLORIDA
GROWTH
MANAGEMENT
September 16,2005
In accordance with the St. Lucie County Land Development Code, you are hereby advised that Florida Power & Light
has petitioned St. Lucie County for a Change in Zoning from AG-5 (Agricultural- 5. I du/5acres) Zoning District to
the U (Utilities) Zoning District for the following described property:
Location:
East side of Blue field Road, approximately 4 llÚles south of SR 70 (Okeechobee Road)
THE PROPERTY'S LEGAL DESCRIPTION IS A V AILABLE UPON REQUEST
The first public hearing on the petition will be held at 6:00 P.M., or as soon thereafter as possible, on September 29,
2005 County Commissioner's Chamber.~, Sf. Lucie County Administration Building Annex, 2300 Virginia Avenue,
Fort Pierce, Florida. All interested persons will be given an opportunity to be heard at that time. Written conunents
received in advance of the public hearing will also be considered. The County Planning Division should receive written
conunents to the Planning and Zoning Commission at least 3 days prior to a scheduled hearing.
County policy discourages conununication with individual Planning and Zoning Commissioners and County
Commissioners on any case outside of the scheduled public hearing(s). You may speak at a public hearing, or provide
written comments for the record.
The proceedings of the Planning and Zoning Commission are electronically recorded. If a person decides to appeal any
decision made by the Planning and Zoning Commission with respect to any matter considered at such meeting or
hearing, he will need a record of the proceedings. For such purpose, he may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the
proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. Upon the
request of any party to the proceeding, individuals testifying during a hearing will be sworn in. Any party to the
proceeding will be granted an opportunity to cross-exallÚne any individual testifying during a hearing upon request. If it
becomes necessary, a public hearing may be continued to a date-certain.
Anyone with a disability requiring acconunodation to attend this meeting should contact the St. Lucie County
Growth Management Director at least forty-eight (48) hours prior to the meeting at (772) 462-1777 or T.D.D. (772)
462-1428.
If you no longer own property adjacent to the above-described parcel, please forward this notice to the new owner.
Please call (772) 462-1562 if you have any questions, and refer to: File Number: RZ-OS-009.
Sincerely,
ST. LUCIE COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
Charles Grande, Chairman
JOSEPH E. SMITH, District NO.1· DOUG COWARD, District No.2· PAULA A. LEWIS. DIStrict No. J . FRANNIE HUTCHINSON, District No.4. CHRIS CRAFT, District No.5
County Adminisrraror - Douglas M. Anderson
2.300 Virginia Avenue . Forr Pierce. FL .34982-5652
AdminisTraTion: (772) 462-1590 · Planning: (772) 462-2822 · GISfTechnical Services: (772) 462-155.3
Economic Development: (772) 462-1550 · Fax: (772) 462-1581
Tourist Development: (772) 462-1529 · Fax: (772) 462-21.32
www.co.st-Iucie.fl.us
'"
:¡;
àï
o
,
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~r~r~r~~~~~~~~~'~~~~~~~~~~~~~f~ ~~~~~~~~~~8~~~~~
u~~~~~mmmm-~~~m NMm~mmæmNMO~~O~~~_~~( ~MW.W~N~MN~œ~~~~
<-~~~N___r -æNN -----v~~~__ - _~~_{ ~~ ~N-~WNO_MM_N_
~NN V~~_ V ~ W W
U
..J
ð
;i
0-
(f)
o
a.
o
~
u
w
~
0-
S
~
u
2 ~ ~ ~~~ 22~8 8 ~~~~~ß~ßß ß ~ o~~o~o
~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~~~g º ~M~~~~~~~ ~ œ ~8~~~~
1.. , " 1 1 ,,- 'f, "t "t "t "t "t 'í' 'f _ ~
WMm.-O~~MV~~OMWWN~OOOOW~VN¿~~~~~WW~~WWWWØWWWW_MWJ_~~~~
-~V~-~--~~VV~V_-~~~~~~~-~~~----~--8~~WWWWWW_W~~~_~V_V
~~~*~*~~**~~~~~~~~*~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~*~
~~~æ~~~~~~~i~i~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Œ~ii~~~~~iii~~ii~iiiiii
~ ~~ ~~~~ ~£ £ ~ ~ ~
'" '" '" '" '" Ii! á! '" '" '" <J <J <J
¢I Q) W Q) tn Q) Q) QJ Q) CD CI.1 Q) æ ~ æ
m ø - .~ Q)I~ mm~~ = mOOOOOOWmmW m fimm m m
>11~êlêccgB",I~ê II~I ~êBIII~~il~I££££~fi££IIB¡j~I~~~BE
~œQ)~Q)QJQ).Q.Q~~~~Q) ~~~~~~B5~I~CI.1~Q)~~~~~mœjm~mmmmm~mQ)~m~œ~~m~~
Ca.m -1-~~æ~----a.a.~~~~~~",,~~-ma.a.a.a.~a.a.~mmmmmmmma.m.~_a...a..a.
O~~~~~~ëc~~ool~~E~~~n££££~i~~I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~a.~~~a.a.~a.~
a~~8æ~~£i~~~~~~~~ð~~~~~~6~&~~~~~ø~~8~~~~~~~~~~~~&~~æ~æ~
N 0 00 gg22 2g 0 0 0 0
t¡j ~ æ~ ~ ~ '" ~
~ ~~~~ ** ~ ~ '"
W ... ...... ~ ... ... ...
c:: N NN NNNN NN N N N
0- X X X ð ð ð ð X X X ð ð X
(f) 0 o 0 ,ii,ii ,ii 0
0 00 oom mmCDCQ m m m
~ 0 00 O~OO 00 0 0 ~ 0
a. a. a. a. a.a. a. a. a. a. a.
~
o ~
ëo ~~ ëE :EEëë ëE~ ë Œë E ë
~~ ~ ~ == ~ØW -œœ~~ ~~O ~ ~~ ~ ~
E.. 2: ~ ~~ Q~E ~E¡¡¡¡¡¡E EE';; E "C 2:¡¡ E E
~ CD -.::: U;t;) !2Q) âjCUr§ÕQ) - Q) m~~ Q) Q)
Ig~-g>"C"C ~~"C"C"C~",g~ "C"C"C"C~ 1>~~g",~lg .~~~ Ig 8~~gc:: Ig g
C~ffi~i~~Œ~Æ~22ðCC ~2222~~I~s iCC~ ~C~ c œ~.~~~ C i
~~~",r~m~~~rmmmr~~~~oooommæc::r<I~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~<J~~-~~~~
W ro~W æ~æ~~cc~ ~~æmii~~w.~æ ~~ ~~~»>s>ss>~>~~~~o_ _~
w~~",~ð~~~ocoo~ ~~~2:~~~~>EI~£_!icc~CCMC«««<cCcc-c~cicc
~roo~~~C»U2~~crorom~8cccc>_~I'~lft~rororo~roro>£=£~55~5~~5=m=~~§roEOroOro
~~roC Q)~»> mm~c~~m ~~~~Zro I,S'~~~~~~~~>ooo O~o <O~EE~E~
oo··wOø>øww>oo~~ooø····o~ooØOOOO=~OO>O······'·o",.zæmœœmmmm.·œW ~"_m"m"
OzmOO>MOO(f)OUUMNZZ~mMMMM9~0~C::ZZZZmZZo~~~~~~~~Z~~woz",..JZ..JZ
~~OO"'OO"''''~'''''''''O~~~N~OOOOò~~~f5~~~~O~~'''NNNNNNNN~NNO'''~OO~O~
U~~~~~Ñ~~~~~~N~«~~~ÑNN~M~NM««~~~~~~~~~~~~~~æ~~~~~~~<
m
0-
~ '"
Q: '"
¡¡ ~ roro~ ~ U
"C
8 '" " Q)Qj~ c '" ~
I~ E E E <J C 'C
~ ~ iU& '" '" '"
0
U en 00 .., ~ Q
..
o
~
o
~
o
o¡
.,
o
~
o
fì!
c
Z
0-
~
:5
N
o
~
U
0-
(f)
c::
¡¡
Ó
~
U
I~
oJ>
~
I""
U
..J
..J
~
~
(9
ê
"
~
~
a.
N
~
"
.g
~
c::
~
c c "
~ ~ U)
::::::~
ŒJ;~
"
"
~
N
'"
U
oJ>
·E
o
z
E
~
C3
~
jg
E!
~
.9 U
æ"C
i>
~ '"
u.Q
<
õi
.~
'"
Q
o
"C
~
~
'" '" B
II) II) .¡::
E E "
!g!g~
£J
~
1-::
5!
oJ>
~
..J
~
c '"
.I:. .'";::
~~
õi
c
~
'"
ò
o
~
z:
'"
::;
o¡
~ ~~ ~~~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~
00 ~~ øø~w ww ~ 00 00 ~
o 00 0000 00 0 õ õ 0
~ ~~ ~~~~ ~~ ~ U~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~~~ ~~ ££££ ~~~~ ~~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~
~~ 8 ÆB8 ~~ Ir8888 ~~~~ ~~~ ~ ~~i~ ~ ~
~U) 5 ~o~5 ~~ ~§§§§ r_~~~~< «~ ~ u~~< ~ ~
<~~ ~ ü ~ ~ü ~~ ,~uüüü ~IÉ:::æ~~~~ ~~9~~~~~~~~~~g~I~~lo ~ ~
~5'~ ..J ~ ~~~~:55 I~~~~~ ~8~:5555 :5:5;~..J~..J..J..J..J..J:5..J~~1~516 5<J:5
S~£~~,,6CCg~~~ð~~~~~jj§§ ~g~~~~~~ ~~~§i~i~~i~~R~~~~~~~~~
ó~~t~~~~~~~~~~~~~E~8888~~~~i~SSS~ss~€€l€~~€~sl~~~s~~s~5
a~~œ~ð!g~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~øw£ggg~~~~~~~~zz~~~~ro~~~~æ~&~
;
o
a.
'"
."
°5 ~
¡¡: ·E
.2,;;
;; 50
::;·i :::¡
"''''w
§~õ!
~ ó':1;f
~~~~NM~r~~~M8øV~~OM8~~MM8~m~~~~~~~~~g~~8m~~~NV~~_O~~~~
ª~§ê§ªª~ª8§ªê§ªª~ªê~~~~ªf5ªªêªªª§š~§88§§0~§§§8~~~~§ª~ª~
00NO~0~80~~80NO~-8~0~~~~NOO~0~8"'_N~¡¡¡¡¡¡~",f5",f5f5_f5808~N0~8~
882888õ08ooo088õo 8 õõ~88õ8õ08880~8~88888880808~880~
~~~-"'MMM~gg_~M _1i!g N M~~~~~-~-iNMMÑ~ ~NNN-N____N~~N_Ñ
--___M M~NMM _NN_____~_ ~____ NM -N ~M~_N M_~MN__N-
__~M~~~~ NNMMg__M_NNNNNN_ M____ NM;-~~-~_NN~NM~~N~_N~~
õõ~g~~~~~~~~~_~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~M~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-~~-~-I~-~-~~-~-------~~~--~--~--NÑNNNNNNNNNNNNNI~I~NNNNN
~I"" ocr .... oct 'It ~
'"
~
ði
°
W N,,,, - ° '" "'... -I....."
a: ":I~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -: f'-:I .. r--
9-æ~O~M~O
, "'N
:¡
<{
()
~
C/)
o
Q.
o
::J
()
W
~
C/)
o
::J
()
"'~~~"æ:æ¡¡s
(!",,,,O(!,,,,,,,,,
-o;o;--;-"i"i"i
iA,....,......r,U)(O co(ØCO CO
èö'¢v52co~"''''''oa::l
:<J'"'"I<í:<J~~~~'"
"'~~"''''''''''''''''~
-J...J..J..J...J...J.....J...J...J...J
1l.u...lL.1.L.u'lL.u.u.u.u..
'5i3fi
.... ¡¡¡
.. .. ..
! ~~rocnm~.i!
>-"'f!!II",·-EEEoo
I- en... t:' UJ1ñ1õ1üë6 m.,3
-';!.!!1.!!1::> ¡¡Q.a.a.~-
g ;¡Q.Q. g "1ñ1ñ1ñ oC/)
~«'!:'!:««Q)Q)Q)C:'!:
~-OO__",,,,,.::>O
UCI>I.1.LLU)CI»»""')C,.
N
I-
W
W
<r
I-
C/)
o
::J
()
000
"'.,.,
"'''''''
.........
NNN
X X X
000
IDIDID
000
a.a.c..
¡s
æ&j~ æ
E E,~ -!!
Iglglg"O ~
C C c: ~
¡::"O"O ~~~ãi~
w~C:C:~~"O"O"O~~
waCCooc:c:c:::~u
~;gE""~~~j.~
C/) 0" .. ð 0 .. .. .. c:;:
Oro...J-J[[ a:¡ZZZ::IZ
::JO¡¡¡¡¡¡OO~~~8~
Uc....-....a..a.«««r-........
'>=
¡Q
ü:
N
o
::J
()
- --
..
o
,.
....
o
::I
o
..
'"
<::>
,.
on
o
~
«
z
I-
C/)
:s
N
o
::J
U
I;::
'"
c:
ü:
o
::J
()
1-1-1-
"'''''''
CCC
~~~
~~~8
<r<r<r-
www:§c:
~~~~~
« ;:;:;:~~
¡;= 00 :s:s:s~u.
(1).5£ u.u.u.ææ
::5................J:J:J: £
o<r:!11:!11<rc:~~~;:gê
,;:? ¡¡ :. :. i¡¡ i¡¡ 0 0 0 ~ 15
1[1 u.a::c::u.U.W{J)(/)u.....,
o
o
:ë
'"
::;
..
I
Q.
..
....
'ð ~
Ü:Ë
.2~
1ii:¡; 0
::;.;¡ ::;
"'.. w
:Ë1j~
~~ ~
§§§88g~8
o--¡¡¡~ß~5j
_~oo~___
:5õS8õgS<Q
¡____N1<:í1<:í
...............NNN....
::::::::~~~!.."
MC"?MMMN"'N"''''N Q)
N"'NN N «
51 ~I~I~ ~ ~
~g? \~~
'" ''''
w
Q:
()
«
u
-'
«
()
51
~ ~~ ~
fr,....,......nMOM
gg¡g¡~~g:'"
ü~~~"'~~
w
~
'"
o
ðiiLiiicrcri
-....I
'5
"
Q)
'"
>- Ei3>'5
I- C;; II! '" m
Üt:t:~CDOCD
o g¡ g¡ II E!.s E!
aiñûí~~&~
00- I~..
~EEU-gc:-g
W QJ QJ ... ~ :J.£2
w m ml~ :2 f/) .I:.
<r C/) C/)'1ô ~ ;: ~
tñWW¡¡:Q (I)QJ
o Cf.)U)NCD....CD
I~ 8 8 ¡;¡ ¡¡¡ 51 g
..........,....(ØIJ')~
¡::
w
w
<r
I-
¡g
::J
U
~
¡Q
ü:
N
o
::J
Ü
"
"0
c:
::;
~
..
o
g
::;
c:
Q)
"0
::>
c:
«
z
l-
S
N
o
::J
U
I~ ¡r'&
~ Elt ü
ol¡I~I~
=- ro ro ~
O-J..Ja.
¡;
'5
æ
E
~
~
~
o
~
vi vi
.c( Q).~
z I'Ë i
:ï; I§ ê
:s ,!:d:_Q.
> - :¡;,:¡; .. .. ¡; ..
1: 0 .j:; I.~ -æ æ 'Ú :¡
i!a;:~l!JjæJj
~ ~¡:j~~g~
~ 8~!888
·~Q§§8~!§
.-....888§o§
t:~ w ,..., ,..., ..... ,.... ,.... co
(Jr')(")C")r')[t'1M
o<r~~~~~~
à: ~ I~ """I~I;!;"I~I~
~
....,
fØ
F=PL.
æ L.'· a5 'c:c, °t
; II)i;III/\ l'iIWFH" liGHT CDMrANY,/'Oo BOX 14000, JUí\l) /:EACH, FL33408'0420
September 19, 2005
Growth Management Department
Attn.: Talea Owens
2300 Virginia A venue
Fort Pierce, FL 34982
Dear Ms. Owens:
As instructed on the Affidavit fonns, I have enclosed two signed and dated original
Affidavits of Public Notice concerning signs #935 (CU-05-008) and #936 (RZ-05-009).
Please do not hesitate to contact me with any comments or questions.
Very truly yours,
~ II1k
Harris M. Rosen
Attorney for
Florida Power & Light Company
Florida Bar No. 0651710
Phone No. 561-691-7085
Fax No. 561691-7135
o ,'o¡') 00 2U1f, J"
. . ~.. '. w
illll-fJL GfWlI ) '(¡",,'!I'"
......
""""
D
Sian Up Reauest
Attention: Ann Amandro
RZ-05-009
Date sent: 09/14/05
Please post sign before: 09/19/05
Please return signed and dated original to Talea Owens in the Growth Management Department.
Thank you.
ST. LUCIE COUNTY
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE
I, E'DW,.¡12.'b P,e[;'lK7 ,do hereby certify that as Agent for the S1. Lucie County Board of
County Commissioners on the following described property:
East side of Bluefield Road. approximatelv 4 miles south of SR 70 (Okeechobee Road).
I, did on Séf77 / Co . 2005, post in a conspicuous place on this property the following notice:
PUBLIC NOTICE
Public Hearing, Florida Power & Light Company. for a Chanae in Zonina from the AG-5
(Agricultural-1 duJ5 acres) Zonina District to the U (Utilities) Zonina District. to be held before
the 51. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission on 09129/05 @6 P.M. or as soon thereafter
as possible in the County Administration Building Annex, 2300 Virginia Avenue, Fort Pierce, and
the S1. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners in the County Administration Building Annex,
2300 Virginia Avenue, Fort Pierce, on 10/25/05 @ 6 P.M. or as soon thereafter as possible.
~ V 9-/t:.-()j~
Signature Date
Applications are available for review in the Planning Department.
Sign #
tfõþ
L(;Jj)'L ~~
-fn\~
~
\n ð0-
!~
{
""
I~-+tl'~
~
sr. LUCE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COM.
MllSIONERs PUBL.IC HI:AAING AGENDA
OCTOIER :5, 2005
TO WHOt.<IIT MAY CONCERN:
NoTICE: It hweÞy V¡"'1If'I in .ccord.tlClI wj1h s.c.
liOn '1.00.03 01 1M Sl Loti' County Land Oevel-
:~~:~/~': S~~~.i~cçt:~~~IIC:~hp~~~~~7;~
:::'1~~1r.- ~:~~~~:~::~:~.:~~~::~:
ContmIaion eon.¡".,. the fOllOWIng r&Q1.I8II~:
I.Florid. Pow., Ie Ught Comptn.... for. CI1.nge
:~r~n~rnDla~~c:.;5~'5i(~~~I~~:~)- ~~~:
DlIWict for the toIlQY,ing dtc,lbld ~rop.ny.
....",
SAIO PARCEL CONTAINING 3000,00 ACRES
MOR~ OR !.ESS.
L.ocaWn;£,..t lid. of IIlusfi.ld Ro.d, Ippro,l(j.
maeIy 4.0 mi... IOUth of Stilt" Road 70 [Okeech-
<iI* 'h..¡'
2.FIQrld. Po..,. light Company, for.. CDndi.
dONlt UM Pflrmillo allow the oper.'ion of an
~i:J~Il:)Ž= ~:~ :1O:~I~~~I=~n:e
~d",.nv:
A "MCEL OFLAND l VING IN PORTIONS OF SEC-
TIONS 13. 14, 15,23,24,25.21 AND 36, IN
lt1Y¥WSItP 71 SOUTH. RANGE 31 EAST, AlL LY.
ING AND 8EING IN SAINT LUCIE COUNTY,
FLORIDA. BEINq. MORE PAATICULARl Y DE-
SCPIIIEO AS FOtLOWS:
CQMME.N~NG AT THE SOLm£AST CORNER OF
SAID SECTION 31 ALSO BEING THE: sOUntEAST
COANER Of' TOWNSHIP 37 SOUTH, RA.NGE 37
I!ASTPROCEEQ SOUTH 89 DEI:iREES 54' 03"
WEST ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SEC-
T~N 3a A DISTANCE OF 140.00 FEET TO A
POINT 0111 THE PROJECTED WEST RIGHT-OF
WAY OF THE C-23 CA.NAL; THENCE NOATfi 00
OE:GRŒS 5' 61' WEST A DISTANCE OF 125,11
FEET TO A '·IRO~ PIPE AT THE INTERSECTION
OF THe WEST RIGHT-OF-WAY OF THE C.23CA-
HAL "'-NO THE 'NORTHWESTERLY RJGHT-OF-
WAY UN& OF THE FEe -RA.IL ROAD; THENce
CONnNVE N
ALONa THE S
C.23CANAl Â
TIE POINT OF
LAND; THENCE
OF-WAY OF T
GlUES
FEET;
weST
NOFlTH
OF 12.
WEST
lOCltlortE...tside Dr Bluer¡eldRo"d. ~ )'O) I-
;:;"~~~In IOUth of SllIIe Road 70 t kellCh.
'MJè~'DII1MM1temI wtH be held
In the Cðmmf-.iOll Ch.me..... Rpg« Þoitraa M-
n.~ 3.d Floor, SI.luci. County Adl'nil'lilfr.tÎOn
_.JaIóII:I,VI!PA\/MIU" Fo"¡Pierce.Aori_
II lOon itiJJ.::~~inQ 116:00 P,M, 01
PUASUA.NT m s.ction 286.01oa, Florid. SlIMe..
if. peraon dlKides ro appell _.ny dlcisiol'1 midI
bY'1 board, IStI'ney. or comrYIlIl'on WIth r..pe¡;t
:. -:ril":.':d ~:~fl:~e~:"~~=~~~
:~ :~'-::I~'f.oc-:r~ ~; :t:y P::~~~I~~~ur:
mad.. which record includu tt.. lesl,mon)' Ind
h'idera upon which tn. -wul il ta be b...d
AlII~ plrlOtll will be given In opportunity
to a he.td. Wrlt1Jln comments reteived in ad-
venc. Df ~ pubUc hearing witl a &D be cOMkI.
.Nd. WrÎtbin comment. to thl Pllm,ìng el'Kl
Zoning Commiuion .hould be recliv.d b)' Ihe
;:~~::n~rl:°~:~~:137~16l'5N'if
CUm:. Inv Qu..110l'11 or require IIddltlol'llllln-
ØONID OF COUN1Y COMMISSIONERS, ST. LU·
CE COUNl'Y. FlOAIOA.
fSI FftAhNtE HUTCHINSON, Chlirmlln
~
.........
-
0109 NonCE
0109 NOTICE
A PARCEL OF LAND LYING IN PDRTIONS OF SEC-
TIONS 13, 14, 15,23,24,25,26 AND 36,ff< .'
TOWNSHIP 37 SOUTH, RANGE 37 EAST, ALL L y.
ING AND BEING IN SAINT LUCIE COUNTY,
FLORIDA. BEING MORE PARTICULARLY Of.
SCRI8ED AS FOLLOWS:
COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF .
SAID SECTION 36 ALSO BEING THE SOIJTHEAST
CORNER OF TOWNSHIP 37 SOUTH. RANGE 37
EAST PROCEED SOUTH 89 DEGREES 54' 03-
WEST ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SEC-
TION 36 A DISTANCE OF 140.00 FEET TO /II
POINT ON THE PROJECTED WEST RIGHT-Of'.
WAY OF THE C·23 CANAL; THENCE NORTH .00
DEGREES 5' 57" WEST A DISTANCE OF 125.11
FEET TO A 1" IRON PIPE AT THE INTERSECTION .
OF THE WEST RIGHT·OF·WAY OF THE C-23 CA. .
NALAND THE NORTHWESTERLY RIGHT.OF. .
WAY LINE OF THE FEC RAIL ROAD; THENCE
CONTINUE NORTH 00 DEGREES 05' 57" WEST
ALONG THE SAID WEST RIGHT-OF.WAY OF THE .
C-23 CANAL A DISTANCE OF 207.65 FEET TO
THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF SAID PARCel OF
LAND; THENCE DEPARTING SAID WEST RIGHt-
OF-WAY OF THE C-23 CANAL SOUTH 89 De. .
GREES 54' 18" WEST A DISTANCE OF 90.00
FEET; THENCE NORTH 30 OEGREES 44' 36-
WEST A DISTANCE OF 24,204.73 FEET; THENCE
NORTH 90 DEGREES 00' DO" EAST A DISTANCE
OF 12,487.90 FEET TO A POINT OF THE SAID
WEST RIGHT·OF-WAY OF THE C·23 CANAL;
THENCE SOUTH 00 DEGREES 07' 12" WEST
ALONG THE WEST RIGHT·OF-WAY OF THE C.23
CANAL A DISTANCE OF 15,855.41 FEET TO A
POINT OF INTERSECTION WITH THE NORTH
LINE OF SAIO SECTION 36 AND THE WEST
RIGHT·OF·WAY OF THE C·23 CANAL; THENCE
SOUTH 00 DEGREES 05' 57" EAST A DISTANCE
OF 4,947.67 FEET TO THE POINT OF 8EGINNI/iG
OF THIS DESCRIPTION.
SAID PARCEL CONTAINING 3,000.00 ACRES
MORE OR LESS.
',j
ST. LUCIE COUNTY PLANNING AND
ZONING COMMISSION
PU8l1C HEARING AGENDA
SEPTEM8ER 29, 2005
TO WHOM IT MAY CDNCERN:
I; NOTICE is hereby gjven in accordance with Sec.
tion 11.00.03 of Ihe St. Lucie County Land Devel.
opment Code· and in accordance with the pr~v¡-
sions of the St. Lucie County Comprehensive
Plan, that the following applicanl has requested
that the SI. Lucie County Planning and Zoning
Commission consider the following requests:
!.Florida Power 8< Light Company, for a Change
in Zoning from the AG-5 (Agricultural _ 1 d~/5
acres) Zoning Districl 10 the U (Utilities) Zoning
District for (he following described property:
A PARCEL OF LAND LYING IN PORTIONS OF SEC.
TIONS 13, 14,15, 23, 24. 25, 26 AND 36, IN
TOWNSHIP 37 SOUTH, RANGE 37 EAST, ALL L y.
ING AND BEING IN SAINT LUCIE COUNTY,
FLORIDA. BEiNG MORE PARTICULARLY DE-
SCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF
SAID SECTION 36 ALSO BEING THE SOUTHEAST
CORNER OF TOWNSHIP 37 SOUTH. RANGE 37
EAST PROCEED SOUTH 89 DEGREES 54' 03"
WEST ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SEC-
TION 36 A DISTANCE OF 140.00 FEET TO A
POINT ON THE PROJECTED WEST RIGHT-OF-
WAY OF THE C-23 CANAL; THENCE' NORTH 00
DEGREES 5' 57" WEST A DISTANCE OF 125.11
FEET TO A 1" IRON PIPE AT THE INTERSECTION
OF THE WEST RIGHT-OF-WAY OF THE C-23 CA-
NAL AND THE NORTHWESTERLY RIGHT-OF-
WAY LINE OF THE FEC RAIL ROAD; THENCE
CONTINUE NORTH 00 DEGREES 05' 57" WEST
ALONG THE SAID WEST RIGHT-OF-WAY OF THE
C-23 CANAL A DISTANCE OF 207.65 FEET TO
THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF SAID PARCEL OF
LAND; THENCE DEPARTING SAID WEST RIGHT-
OF·WAY OF THE C-23 CANAL SOUTH 69 DE.
GREES 54' 16" WEST A DISTANCE OF 90.00
FEET.
THENCE NORTH 30 DEGREES 44' 35" WEST A
DISTANCE OF 24,204,73 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 90 DEGREES 00' 00" EAST A DIS-
TANCE OF 12.46790 FEET TO A POINT OF THE
SAID WEST RIGHT-OF-WAY OF THE C-23 CANAL;
THENCE SOUTH 00 DEGREES 07' 12" WEST
ALONG THE WEST RIGHT-OF·WAY OF THE C-23
CANAL A DISTANCE OF 15,855.41 FEET TO A
POINT OF INTERSECTION WITH THE NORTH
LINE OF SAID SECTION 36 AND THE WEST
RIGHT-OF-WAY OF THE C-23 CANAL; THENCE
SOUTH 00 DEGREES 05' 57" EAST A DISTANCE
OF 4,947.67 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING
OF THIS DESCRIPTION,
SAID PARCEL CONTAINING 300000 ACRES. .
MORE OR LESS.
Location:East side of 81uefield Road, approxi-
mately 4.0 miles south of State Road 70 (Okeech-
obee Road).
2.FrOflda Power & light Company, for, a Condi-
tional Use Permit to aI/ow the operatIon of an
electric generation p a~1 and ancillary use~ in the
U (Utilities! Zoning DIstrict for the following de-
scribed property:
Location:East side of 81uefield Road. approxi.
mately 4.0 miles south of State Road 70 (Okeech-
obee Road .
The PUBLIC HEARING on these items will be held
In the Commission Chambers, Roger Poitras An-
ne)(, 3rd Floor, St. Lucie County Administratio~
Building, 2300 Virginia Avenue., F~n Pierce, Flori-
da On September 29, 2005, beginning at 6:00 P.M.
or as soon thereaher as possible. .
The Planning and Zoning Commission is author.
¡zed to make a recommendation to the Board of
County Commissioners. The recomméndation
could be to approve the petition. appro....e the peA
tition with conditions, or deny t~e petition. The
Planning and Zoning COmmiss!on coul.d also con-
tinue the public hearing from time to time as may
be necessary.
PURSUANT TO Section 286.0105, Florid. Statutes,
if a person decides to appeal any decision mad.
by a board, agency, or commissi0!1 with res~ect
to any matter considered at a meetmg or ~eanng,
he will need a record of the proceedings. and
that, for such purposes, he may need to .ensure
that a verbatim record of the proceedmgs I.
made, which record includes t~e testimony Inél
evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. .
AJI interested persons will be given an opportunity
to be heard. Written comments received i~ ~d.
vance of the public hearing will also be consid-
ered. Written comments to the PI.anning and
Zoning Commission, should be received by the
County Planning Division at least 3 days prior to
the scheduled hearing. Please call 772/462-28.22
if you have any questions or require additional m.
formation.
..',' :;
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIOA
ISI Charles Grande, Chairman
PUBLISH DATE: September 19, 2005
1220688
~_..-.....~-=-..!
The 24th Annual Chili Cook Off to benefit the Ft. Pierce Exchange Club
CASTL.E. was held October 13 and 14 at the St. Lucie County Fairgrounds.
The employees of the SOCC team ranked number 11 raising $8,023.00 _
$3,000 more than last year! All proceeds go to the CAS.T.L.E., which stands
for Child Abuse Services, Training & Life Enrichment. Their mission is "to
improve the quality of family life and prevent child abuse and neglect by providing
community education, support and resources for parents in need of assistance".
Under the direction of Team Captain Paul Hiott, the employees of the SOCC
have participated in the Chili Cook Off event for 7 years. Along with raising
money for the CAS.T.L.E. the team competes for bragging rights - and this
year came away with the "Attaboy Award" for "exceptional team effort"!
Thank you to all the employees who have donated and volunteered to make this
happen. Departments with employees participating are: Airport, Administration,
Agriculture, Central Services, Code Compliance, Commissioners, Community
Services, County Attorney, Cultural Affairs, Growth Management, Human
Resources, Information Technology, Library, Mosquito Control, Engineering,
Mosquito Control, OMS, Parks & Rec, Public Safety, Utilities, and Veteran
Services
-'\
J~-P-
31ó ~ f5~(Y/
November 7, 2005
Dear Commissioners:
At a recent meeting of the Harbor Advisory Committee, the group gave
considerable Gonsideration to the Florida Power and Light's proposal regarding a
coal fired electrical plant. After presentations on both sides of the issue, a vote
was taken regarding whether or not to oppose the venture. The vote, by a wide
margin, was to oppose, based on the following considerations:
(1) Tourism is an integral part of our region's economy; we are already under
a warning against locally caught fish due to high levels or mercury.
Despite FP&L's testimony as to the improved technology regarding
emissions, we do not believe that any additional mercury is acceptable.
(2) Under FP&L's plan, the coal would come in by sea, though the Ft. Pierce
Inlet is not deep enough to accommodate supplying vessels; this would
mean that coal would come into other ports and be shipped here by rail.
Trains carrying coal would have 125 cars, passing through our county
twice a day, and would block all crossings to North Hutchinson Island
preventing emergency services from reaching those in need. We do not
feel that this is an acceptable risk.
(3) Surrounding counties are utilizing other, cleaner technologies, such as
natural gas. We question why St. Lucie has been singled out for the least
desirable source of electricity.
(4) Finally, we don't need it. St. Lucie County is currently producing far more
that its own energy needs, and we are currently exporting electrical power
to other counties. While we anticipate substantial growth in the next
decade, we have ample time to construct a more environmentally friendly
source of electricity.
Thank you for taking these points into your decision making process.
With best regards,
. --¡.rvf...,~r~0
Mary A. Chapman
Chair, Harbor Advisory Committee
.d---
CONSERVATION ALLIANCE
of St. Lucie County, Inc.
P. O. Box 12515
Fort Pierce, Aorida 34979-2515
"Pledged to protect the water, soil, air, native Dora and fauna. upon which all the earth's creatures depend for survival,"
St. Lucie County Board of Commissioners
2300 Virginia Avenue
Fort Pierce, FL. 34982-5652
November 3rd, 2005
Re. FP&L Proposed Plants
Dear Commissioners:
The Conservation Alliance of St. Lucie County strongly objects to
the proposal from FP&L to build 2 coal fired generating plants in St. Lucie County. We
feel that there should be other areas within the FP&L service area that would be more
suitable for this type of plant and closer to the intended users of the electricity.
St. Lucie County's Indian River Lagoon and the St. Lucie River
are two of the most diverse ecosystems in the USA. They are home to more than 35
endangered and threatened species. The Indian River Lagoon, which is adjacent to all of
St. Lucie County's eastern border, is a complex association of terrestrial, wetland and
estuarine ecosystems which combine to create a complex ecosystem mosaic with high
habitat diversity. The feature which helps distinguish this system from other estuarine
systems, and also accounts for much of the high biological diversity in the Indian River
Lagoon, is its unique geographical location, which straddles the transition zone between
colder temperate, and warmer sub-tropical biological provinces. Here, as perhaps no
where else in the continental United States, tropical and temperate species coexist and
thrive.
This plant, with its present design and location, is a definite hazard
to the future of this system and its inhabitants. We should guard against any additional
pollutant discharges into the environment which could further endanger the future of our
County's most prized asset.
The future growth of St. Lucie County, especially the untouched
western areas, need to be very carefully controlled. You and your fellow Commissioners
have this control You represent the current popuJation of St, Lucie County, not the
developers, not the industrialists, and not the future inhabitants of our County.
Cor 'ally,
0..= 00 CÒ
ÛJ M.rr-ìI\Ì6fro.tor-
Å~' ~¡(\~Jr(khc~
1tcorJ.j~8ea-¿ k~
C ð· f.kbMiP)
@ Printed On Recycled Paper
St. Lucie County
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes
Special Meeting
September 29, 2005
Commission Chambers, 3rd Floor, Roger Poitras Annex
6:00 p.m.
AGENDA
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Stephanie Morgan, Pamela Hammer, John Knapp, Ed Lounds, Ramon Trias, Carson
McCurdy and Kathryn Hensley.
MEMBERS ABSENT:
Charles Grande, Chainnan; Bill Heam, Vice-Chainnan
OTHERS PRESENT:
Mr. David Kelly, Planning Manager; Ms. Heather Young, Assistant County Attorney;
Mr. Hank Flores, Senior Planer; Ms. Diana Waite, Senior Planer; Ms. Sheryl Stolzenbeg,
Senior Planner and Ms. Talea Owens, Senior Staff Assistant.
CALL TO ORDER
The Chainnan called to order the meeting of the St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning
Commission at 6:03 p.m.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL
DISCLOSURES
ANNOUNCEMENT
1
St. Lucie County
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes
Special Meeting
September 29, 2005
Commission Chambers, 3rd Floor, Roger Poitras Annex
6:00 p.m.
Due to the absence of the Chainnan and Vice-Chainnan, Mr. McCurdy was elected by
the Planning and Zoning Commission to be chairman of this meeting.
Mr. David Kelly announced that there are two petitions being presented before the board.
One of the petitions is for rezoning and the other is for a Conditional Use pennit proposal
for a power plant, located in the western part of the County.
Mr. Kelly stated staff will provide a complete overview of both items. He stated they
will open both hearings simultaneously. When reviewing a rezoning and a Conditional
Use on the same item, it becomes impossible to separate them for purposes of discussion.
There will be one combined public hearing, but there will be two separate votes (one on
the rezoning and one for the Conditional Use). For purposes of taking public comments,
both items will be heard together and during the public hearing, speakers may address
either petition or both.
Mr. Kelly announced the procedure of the motion readings. He stated a commissioner
will read a prepared motion either for or against the petition and the board will vote upon
the motion.
The Chainnan gave a brief presentation of the hearing procedures and what to expect
from the hearing.
Chainnan McCurdy announced that a five minute time limit will be set for alJ public
speakers due to the excess amount of people present to speak:
The Planning and Zoning Commission is an agency that makes recommendations to
the Board of County Commissioners on land use matters.
These recommendations are made after consideration of staff recommendation and
information gathered at a public hearing, such as those we will hold today.
The meeting will progress in the following manner:
2
St. Lucie County
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes
Special Meeting
September 29, 2005
Commission Chambers, 3rd Floor, Roger Poitras Annex
6:00 p.m.
· The Chairman will call each item.
· Staff will make a brief presentation on the facts of the request.
· The petitioner will explain his or her request to the Planning and
Zoning Commission.
· Members of the public will be allowed to present information
regarding the request.
· The public portion of the meeting will be closed and the Planning and
Zoning Commission will discuss the request. Further public comment
will not be accepted unless the Planning and Zoning Commission has
specific questions.
· The Planning and Zoning Commission will vote on its
recommendation after its discussion. For legal reasons, the motion
may be chosen and read from a script provided by staff. Motions
both for and against are provided to the Planning and Zoning
Commission members.
· The recommendation is then forwarded to the St. Lucie County Board
of County Commissioners for their consideration and vote, usually
within the next Month.
Once again the Planning and Zoning Commission acts only in an advisory capacity for
the St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners. If you are not happy with the
outcome of this hearing, you will have the opportunity to speak at the public hearing in
front of the St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners.
Due to the excess amount of people attending the meeting, Chairman McCurdy set a five
minute time limit for the public hearing speakers.
3
St. Lucie County
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes
Special Meeting
September 29, 2005
Commission Chambers, 3rd Floor, Roger Poitras Annex
6:00 p.m.
The roll call was made and the Chairman asked if there were any other
announcements to be made.
A few of the P&Z Commission members stated they have spoken with a number of
members from the public and attorneys regarding these petitions.
Chainnan McCurdy announced he owns a FPL stock, however, he feels that this wi1l not
have any influence on the way he votes, in regards to the FPL project.
Mr. Michael Warner stated he is present on the behalf of the Rodriquez family and that
they own a substantial amount of acreage to the southwest ofthe proposed project. He
stated it is owned by a number of different family members. He asked that this meeting
be divided into two different hearings for the benefit and advantage to the applicant.
Mr. David Kelly, Planning Manager stated these are the petitions ofFPL for a Rezoning
and a Conditional Use.
Beginning with the Rezoning petition, Mr. Kelly stated this is the application of Florida
Power and Light Company for a Change in Zoning from the AG-5 Zoning District to the
Utilities Zoning District. The property is located on the eastside of Bluefield Road,
approximately 4 miles south of State Road 70, which is Okeechobee Road.
The proposed zoning is Utilities. He stated the Future Land Use is AG-5. He stated the
parcel size is approximately 3,000 acres. He stated there are 7,000 acres that may be
referenced later.
Mr. Kelly stated the purchase for FPL is about 7,000 acres, wherein a portion of that wi1l
be available to the County and another portion of this wi1l be available to the Water
Management District. He stated FPL's portion is about 3, 000 acres.
Mr. Kelly stated the purpose of the changes is to allow for the application by Florida
Power and Light, for a Conditional Use pennit and a major site plan to allow the
construction of a 1700 Megawatt electric generation plan, which would consist oftwo
850 Megawatt units on the 3,000 acres.
lfthis rezoning is approved then the Utility Zoning District will be the appropriate zoning
and will apply.
Chainnan McCurdy asked what the total acreage involved in rezoning is.
4
St. Lucie County
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes
Special Meeting
September 29, 2005
Commission Chambers, 3rd Floor, Roger Poitras Annex
6:00 p.m.
Mr. Kelly stated approximately 3,000 acres.
Chairman McCurdy asked what the total site owned by FPL is.
Mr. Kelly stated approximately 3,000 acres. He added FPL's entire parcel is to be zoned
in the Utilities.
Rachel Scott, with Florida Power and Light Company stated they do not own the
property, but have an option of7,410 acres. She stated the zoning requests for to have
lower than 3,000 acres.
Chairman McCurdy thanked Ms. Scott.
Mr. Kelly stated primary uses in the area are Agricultural. He added the Bluefield Ranch
Preserve is also located to the west of the subject property and Fire Station # 11 is located
approximately 20 miles to the northeast.
If approved, the applicant will provide their own water and sewer on the site. Staff has
looked at traffic for the issues regarding future traffic impacts. He stated the long term
traffic impacts for the operation of plants, will be minor. However through the
constructional phase, there will be a many workers on site doing construction.
The applicant will be working with the Department of Transportation to provide
transportation improvements to deal with traffic issues.
Mr. Kelly stated the proposed project was submitted in conjunction with the conditional
use. However, the conditions placed on the conditional use are not appropriate for the
rezoning. If the Local Planning Agency wishes to make a motion and place conditions
with the motion, the conditions will only apply to the conditional use.
Staff has looked through the various standards for rezoning and finds it to be consistent
with the Land Development Code and the Comprehensive Plan.
The Utilities Zoning District may be consistent with the existing agricultural preserve
character of the surrounding area. Conditions placed on the proposed electric generation
plant, through the conditional use can help assure the consistency. This occurs in the
zoning report, but is really apart of the conditional use.
5
St. Lucie County
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes
Special Meeting
September 29, 2005
Commission Chambers, 3rd Floor, Roger Poitras Annex
6:00 p.m.
Staff has viewed the possible demands of the proposed project on public facilities. Staff
does not expect significant additional demands in the area.
The water and sewer will not impact public systems, because they will be provided on
site. The traffic impacts are being handled and schools will not be a problem. No other
public facility impacts are expected.
Will it impact the natural environment? Staff has attached a report that deals with the
entire issue of the natural environment.
Concerning logical development patterns:
The proposed change can result in an orderly and logically development pattern of the
surrounding area. The surrounding parcels of property are designated AG-5 and by both
the County's Comprehensive Plan and Zoning, the Utilities Zoning District has been
determined to be compatible in these area.
The issue of compatibility for uses such as an electric generation plant must ultimately be
ensured through conditions.
Staff finds that the proposed project is not in conflict with the public interest and is in
harmony with the purpose and intent of the plan.
The petitioner has requested the change in zoning on land 4 miles south of Okeechobee
Road, along Bluefield Road.
Staffhas reviewed the petition and has determined that it conforms to the standard of
review as set forth in the Land Development Code. There is a tie between the rezoning
and the conditional use and staff recommends approval of the rezoning.
In addition to the proposed project, staff finds that the conditional use is not in conflict
with any applicable portion of the County's Land Development Code.
The second question has to do with adverse impact on your bi-properties. We have to
recognize that a 1700 megawatt plant is going to impact properties in the area.
The effect to which is considered adverse must be handled and can be mitigated by the
site design and the layout, in specific actions taken by the applicant and the County, to
protect nearby and distant properties.
6
St. Lucie County
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes
Special Meeting
September 29, 2005
Commission Chambers, 3rd Floor, Roger Poitras Annex
6:00 p.m.
Staff feels that the applicant has designed the project to minimize the impact in natural
areas. The proposed project provides substantial buffers and brims around the project.
The proposed project makes important water retention areas available to the South
Florida Water Management District and dedicates adjacent areas to the County.
A recommendation of a condition of approval requires County review of the final design
of the buffer and brim areas. It also requires the County to review the area that is
proposed for dedication to adopt it.
The applicant has proposed the use of various technologies to minimize the impact of
plant emissions. An analysis of these efforts is attached as a part of the report, prepared
by an independent consultant.
The air quality specialist that the County retained to review the data received rrom FPL is
Mr. Donald Alias with the County's TP Environmental associates.
In addition to air emissions, the County staff has been concerned with the emission of
light and noise rrom the plant. The applicant has provided infonnation concerning these
issues.
The applicant has projected that the proposed use will comply with the County's noise
ordinance. Staffhas placed a condition of approval that requires County review of the
final lighting design.
Long tenn traffic impacts are expected to be minimal. In addition, the applicant is
dealing with the construction traffic.
Another issue being dealt with is rail traffic. Staff expects rail traffic, providing coal fuel
to the plant, to impact intersections in other portions of the County, as the trains go by.
The applicant will provide more infonnation about the trains, concerning how often they
provide the coal fuel and how long the time period will be.
The applicant has agreed to attempt to minimize the impact by working with the rail
carriers to time the trains so that they will not be in the peak hours.
Staff does not amend any significant impacts on public facilities in the rezoning. Staff
does expect the plant to impact the natural environment.
7
St. Lucie County
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes
Special Meeting
September 29, 2005
Commission Chambers, 3rd Floor, Roger Poitras Annex
6:00 p.m.
Under consistency with local ordinance in the Comprehensive Plan, staff has found that
the plant, with proper conditions, can be consistent with both the Land Development
Code and the Comprehensive Plan. Staffhas attempted to address all impacts that the
plant may have on nearby properties and feel that these impacts can be minimized.
The adequacy of public facilities has been addressed, as well as traffic, water and sewer
issues. Staff also addressed solid waste issues. A plant such as this has solid waste and
byproducts that have to be removed ITom this site.
The applicant has indicted that they will go out in rail cars that bring either the coal or
other products to this site and there will be no additional rails or truck trips to remove
those items ITom the site.
The fire department has indicted that they can deal with this. Schools are not an issue.
The environmental impacts will be dealt with, with the ERD report.
The conditions that have been provided in the staff report indicates that there are 11
environmental conditions and there were 6 recommended road and bridge conditions
provided.
Staff recommends all of the conditions. Staff also recommends approval. Staff feels that
this project can be done in a manner that is safe for the County.
Ms. Hammer asked how the water and sewer services will be provided on site.
Mr. Kelly stated water and sewer for domestic is, well and septic. There is a need for
cooling for the plant and for the first year, it is intended to be a well and after that there
will be additional opportunities for cooling.
Chainnan McCurdy asked if there were questions of staff.
Jonathan Ferguson, an attorney with the law finn of Ruden McKloskey, speaking on the
behalf of the applicant-FPL, stated they have two applications being presented.
One of the applications is for a rezoning 00,000 acres, ITom the AG-5 Zoning Category
to the Utility Zoning Category. The second application is for a Conditional Use pennit,
to site an electric generating plant on the 3,000 acres. FPL, in part oftheir discussion,
will include 7,400 acres, however, the application only include the southern 3,000 acres.
8
St. Lucie County
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes
Special Meeting
September 29, 2005
Commission Chambers, 3rd Floor, Roger Poitras Annex
6:00 p.m.
Mr. Ferguson stated the traffic study was based on 180 full-time employees. Mr.
Ferguson stated they have put together a single presentation that covers all of the
standards that would be applied and evaluated for both applications. However, the
Planning and Zoning Commissioners will be voting on both applications individually.
There will be two different votes, one for the rezoning and another voting on the
Conditional Use.
Mr. Ferguson stated Ms. Rachel Scott, from the Florida Power and Light Company will
be presenting tonight, on the behalf of FPL. All of the various consultants and experts
are available to answer any specific questions.
Ms. Scott will go through the entire presentation and cover all of the various aspects of
the project.
Mr. Ferguson stated they request an opportunity to respond to the public comment, after
the public has had their full opportunity to provide the board with comments.
Chainnan McCurdy asked ifthere any questions of the applicant.
For the record, Mr. Knapp has arrived.
Ms. Rachel Scott, communication manager for the Florida Power and Light Company
stated their intent is to provide a project overview and open up the hearing for questions
and public comments.
Ms. Scott stated there is a coal generating unit in Martin County and it operates well. She
stated when we are planning a project to provide power; it is because of demand and
expense. There is a need to provide a reliable source of power for the customers as well
as an affordable source of power.
In the 1970's we were over relying on a single source of fuel for most of our generation.
Approximately 80% of our generating capacity was coming from oil. For this reason, the
Florida Power and Light Company have embarked on building the St. Lucie Nuclear
units.
Through this process and over the years, they have learned that it is very important to
them that when they are considering a new project, to involve the community in the
discussions and listen to the community as well.
9
St. Lucie County
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes
Special Meeting
September 29, 2005
Commission Chambers, 3rd Floor, Roger Poitras Annex
6:00 p.m.
The topics that they will cover involve the fact that the project was designed for a need to
serve their customers and protect the environment.
Ms. Scott stated she will discuss the review process, to put in context where the zoning
application's role is in this project, in regard to the overall power plant site-ing process
that they go through.
Ms. Scott will also address the need for power and whey there is a need to build a new
power plant. In addition, she will provide and overview of the project itself.
In regard to the overall process, when there is a large power plant similar to the proposed
power plant, the developers have to go through a very extensive application and review
process. This zoning application and Conditional Use requests that is being presented
tonight is the very first step in a very long process. It is a very important step and it
begins locally.
In Florida, a power plant is sited under what is called the power plant site-ing act. In this,
the applicant will file an application to the Florida Department of Environmental
protection. DEP will serve as the coordinating agency and then they will distribute that
application to about a dozen different governmental entities and agencies to review, to
make sure that the applicant is meeting all of their standards in their project.
For example, the application will not only go to St. Lucie County for review, but it will
also go to the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Counsel, South Florida Water
Management District, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, the Corp of
Engineers, EP A and all of the agencies that will have standards or criteria for the design
of a project of this size.
Ms. Scott stated they are area at the very beginning of this process.
FPL has to issue a request for proposal, so that if another power provider can present a
project that can meet this need for power in the timeline that they have identified, and
perfonn it more cost effectively than FPL, then they will be the ones to build a project to
meet that need.
For example, when going through a process to identify a need for a new project, they are
looking at how much power is need for the customers in a IO-year site-ing process. In
10
St. Lucie County
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes
Special Meeting
September 29, 2005
Commission Chambers, 3rd Floor, Roger Poitras Annex
6:00 p.m.
other words, they identify a need for 1700 megawatts of power. This includes the two
850 megawatts that Mr. Kelly spoke about. This is expected to be established beginning
in the summer of20l2.
The first unit will need to come on line in 2012 and the second in 2013. This is how they
start the timeline.
The timeline began by looking at demographic data trom the University of Florida, and
their own data about how much power, their customers are using. By doing this, they are
able to project this need and identify that they will need to meet that need in this time
trame.
Backing up a little, Ms. Scott stated they are aware that these units will take four years
each to construct and they will start unit one, hopefully in the summer 0£2008 and unit
two in the summer of2009. There will be a five-year construction period and then they
will back up trom there to allow for this review application process with the state power
plant site-ing act, and then back up from that to begin here at the Planning and Zoning
Commission with the zoning.
St. Lucie County and the community will be involved in the entire process throughout.
It is very important to understand why FPL has inhered to propose a new power plant.
When FPL does their 1 O-year planning process, they look at how much power they need
ten years into the future.
Ms. Scott stated they are adding about 100,000 customers a year, which is about 100, 000
homes and businesses. In addition to all of the growth in FPL's service territory, the
other thing that is driving the increase need for power is all of us. Those of us, who are
already here, are using more and more power as we are adding electronic devices and
appliances in our homes. These two factors are what are driving the need for additional
power.
Over the past few years, FPL has been building a lot of power plants to try to keep up
with the need to provide reliable power to their customers. FPL's service territory runs
all the way down the east coast of Florida up to Manatee County. FPL's power plants are
spaced throughout the service territory.
It is very important to make sure that the generation is in the area where the customer
growth is taking place. In the past few years, FPL has been building new power plants.
11
St. Lucie County
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes
Special Meeting
September 29, 2005
Commission Chambers, 3rd Floor, Roger Poitras Annex
6:00 p.m.
FPL has added new plants in Manatee County, Lee County, and Volusia County and has
just started construction on a new power plant in Miami Dade County this past summer.
In addition, this summer, FPL has brought on line a new generating unit in Martin
County and their Indiantown site.
FPL has identified a need for additional power in 2009 and 2010 that will be served by a
new power plant that they hope to bring on line in Palm Beach County.
Ms. Scott stated they have a tremendous amount of new power plants coming on line yet
there is a need for more power plants. All of the plants that were mentioned rely on
natural gas, as a primary source of fuel.
For FPL to be sure to have a reliable source of power for their customers, they have to
have a reliable supply offuel. Currently, FPL have about 38% of their generation
capacity coming from natural gas, 18% from oil, about 21 % from nuclear and through
their own coal units and power that they purchase from other coal generating units, about
19% coal.
This ensures that fuel will be available to FPL to provide power, and having a mix of fuel
helps to keep the fuel cost down which is lower than what they would be, if they were
relying on one or two sources of fuel.
Although there is a pretty good mix today, the fact that more natural gas units are being
built, if we continue to rely on natural gas, by 2013, the time that we need this new
amount of power, we would end up with 65% of our generation coming from natural gas.
This is very similar to the situation that we faced in the 70's when we became overly
dependent on oil and needed to bring in another fuel to our mix.
The real concern with having this much dependence on a single source of fuel is one that
we have seen very recently here, with Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Rita.
The results of those hurricanes restricted the amount of natural gas coming out ofthe
Gulf Coast. The stated of Florida's Electrical Liability Counsel has to issue an alert
requesting people to decrease their electric usage.
During those times, at stores like Publix, some of the lights were dim in the store and
there were notices up about the energy shortage.
12
St. Lucie County
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes
Special Meeting
September 29, 2005
Commission Chambers, 3rd Floor, Roger Poitras Annex
6:00 p.m.
The other problem is that there are only two natural gas pipelines coming into Florida,
providing natural gas. These gas pipelines are reaching capacity. We are limited in the
amount of natural gas and are subject to these types of disruptions fÌ'om hurricanes.
The other reason for bringing in coal to supplement their fuel supply is the price of
natural gas. The natural gas prices are sky rocketing and will continue to climb at a very
steep rate.
Coal is also is increasing, but at a much slower pace. The Florida Public Service
Commission asked FPL to consider bringing Coal in to increase the fuel supply to lessen
the risk to the customers from a fuel shortage and try to bring the customer's cost down.
FPL's customers pay the cost offuel directly, The Florida Power and Light Company do
not profit on it, but it is a direct pass through. Since 200, the fuel portion of their
customer's bill has double and is becoming very difficult. Unfortunately, those fuel costs
are going to continue to rise.
When talking about the need to meet customer's demand for electricity ten years down
the line or in the years 2012 and 2013, before FPL decides to go out and build a new
power plant, their system planning group look at the types of conservation programs and
road management programs that was mentioned.
Through their customers, FPL is the leading utility in the Country on conservation. The
systems' planners look at that and figure out how much of the projected power supply
can be off set by conservation programs. They also look at all ofthe variety of fuels that
are available to meet this additional need that the conservation will not off set.
FPL also look at renewable sources such as wind and solar. FPL has a sister subsidiary
called FPL Energy. This is their sister subsidiary that operates outside of Florida in the
unregulated environment and FPL is the largest producer of wind power in the county
and they are the largest producer of solar power in the world.
There is not a steady amount of solar or wind in Florida that is needed to provide reliable
power to their customers. However, FPL is continuing to look at the technologies as they
develop and are looking at doing a wind demonstration project in Florida.
I3
St. Lucie County
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes
Special Meeting
September 29, 2005
Commission Chambers, 3rd Floor, Roger Poitras Annex
6:00 p.m.
In terms of the proposed project, property is bordered on the east by the C-23 canal and it
is about four miles south of stated road 70. The technology that they are proposing is a
very advanced coal generation technology. When FPL recognized that they needed to
bring coal into their mix, their design team went out to see what kind of coal generation is
available today that they could bring in and do it in an environmental protective way that
would be acceptable to the community and would make sense for their customers.
The two units that they are proposing are an advance generation technology and a highly
efficient technology. It would also be coupled with very extensive advance technology
pollution control equipment so that they can be protective of the environment.
Why are we proposing to build and coal plant and why are we proposing to build it
in St. Lucie County?
There are five criteria that were looked at in choosing this site. The first was a need for a
large parcel of land. They needed about a 2500 to 3000 acre site. This allows them to
bring the fuel supply all the way into the plant site. The fuel will be delivered by train
and with this size of a property, they can put in a double rail loop so that as the trains
come into the site, they can be continuously moving and not stopping along the way,
blocking intersections.
There also was a need of multiple water sources. The advantage of this site is that they
have the C-23 Canal on the east and 8 miles south of this site, at the Martin plant in
Indiantown, there is an existing very large generating site that has a very large cooling
pond already there,
They can also put a pipeline down to the site in Martin County and draw water from
there, to use for cooling. Another very important criterion was to put this site as close to
transmission, as possible. This enables us to get out of the power that would be generated
out to their transmission system as efficiently as possible, minimizing the amount of
additional transmission lines that would need to be built. This site is about 3 miles west
oftheir major north-south 500 KV line.
Why this site is so unique?
This site is so unique because it is very close to dual well access. This was an essential
factor in selecting this site. To have a coal project, meeting the needs that were
mentioned, brings in a lower cost fuel for their customers.
14
St. Lucie County
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes
Special Meeting
September 29, 2005
Commission Chambers, 3rd Floor, Roger Poitras Annex
6:00 p.m.
One of the most important ways to bring in lower cost fuel for their customers is to set up
cost competition in the deliver of the fuel itself. By having two competing well lines,
brining the fuel in, allows for the cost of the delivery to be reduced. This also provides
and opportunity to bring the fuel in from the east and the west, about 50% of the time.
Finally, the site needed to be close to where the demand for electricity is taking place,
which is in the south Florida region. 8t. Lucie County is not the only one that is growing.
The center of FPL's customer's demand is in this south Florida area. Therefore it is very
important to have the project site close to the demand area.
When they looked at all of this criteria, the subject site, met the criteria very well. This is
why FPL is proposing this particular property.
They have identified an advanced technology and they identified a site. However, one of
the most important factors that went into designing this project is whether or not the
applicants can bring this new coal fire technology in and do it in a way that would be
protective of the environment.
FPL is one of the cleanest utilities in the United States. They seek to maintain their
position as environmental readers. This is a very important element to the customers in
the community that they serve.
They coal generation available today is about 20% more efficient than older style coal
plants. This means 20% less coal can be burned and there will be 20% less emissions
through the same amount of power.
In addition, there are advanced pollution control technologies available today that would
allow them to minimize emissions to be sure that they can produce this power in a way
that would protect public health and safety and would protect the environment.
One ofthe challenge that we all face when considering a new technology or bringing in
old technologies is the perceptions are based on the idea of old coal plants.
Before the Clean Air Act was implemented, pre-70's, there was not much pollution
control that was used and the emissions were very high. Once the Clean Air Act was
implemented, there was more control technologies developed and as there were more and
more stringent regulations adopted going fOlWard, more technology was developed to
enable power to be produced in a way that could meet those stricter standards.
15
S1. Lucie County
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes
Special Meeting
September 29, 2005
Commission Chambers, 3rd Floor, Roger Poitras Annex
6:00 p.m.
Overtime, there are four different pollution control technologies that are being proposed
to put onto this plant to control sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, particulate and fine
particulate. This pollution control technologies will also control mercury. As a result,
we can see the relative emissions today are very low.
One very important part of the application review process statewide is that the
Department of Environment Protection must issue an air pennit. FPL has to demonstrate
that the project that they are proposing will be very strict air quality standards before they
can obtain a pennit to operate this plant.
There are two different standards that they have set through the Environment Protection
Agency and the Department of Environment. Through the design of the plant, the
generation technology and the pollution control equipment, FPL will need the very strict
standards that were set to protect public health and welfare and air quality and they will
be well below those standards as well.
The Environmental Protection Agency has adopted a new mercury rule this past may.
This is the first time that this limit has been set for coal fire generating plants.
How will the water and waste water be managed at this site?
The site will have the opportunity to take excess stonn water from the C-23 Canal. South
Florida Water Management District as well as the community is critically aware and
concerned about the damage that was seen to the 8t. Lucie Estuary-The Indian River
Lagoon from all ofthe rresh water discharges that are disrupting that serenity balance.
The new generation technology provides an opportunity to recycle the byproducts.
Through the generation and pollution control technologies, there will be two byproducts
that are produced-ash and gypsum.
Ash can be used in the cement industry and Gypsum can be used to produce wallboard.
FPL will provide an on site storage system, in case there was an interruption and a
manufactures ability to take those byproducts.
FPL expects to be able to send all of the byproducts out to be recycled into useful
products but they also have the capability to store it on site if need be.
16
St. Lucie County
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes
Special Meeting
September 29, 2005
Commission Chambers, 3rd Floor, Roger Poitras Annex
6:00 p.m.
In regards to the neighbors and how this project will affect their neighbors, they have
heard that there is a concern about how this plant will impact the rural character of this
area.
Only about 20% of the 3,000 acres will be used for power generation units themselves.
The balance of the site, the 4400 acres, provides a real opportunity.
FPL found that the South Florida Water Management District is very interested in
acquiring 3,000 acres of those 4400 acres to use to complete their comprehensive
Everglades Restoration Program's Indian River Lagoon South Project.
This is a project that was bumping up against some funding issues. FPL has an
opportunity to work with South Florida Water Management District so that they can
acquire those 3,000 acres to complete the Indian River Lagoon South Project, which is
designed to help with the conditions of the St. Lucie Estuary.
On September 14th the South Florida Water Management District's government board
passed a resolution authorizing their staffto enter into negotiations with FPL to acquire
that property.
In regards to the other 1400 acres, FPL has been talking to the County about the
possibility of transferring that property so that it could be used as environmental lands
and public use. About 900 acres can be used for conservations and there is an existing
wetland there that can be protected. The other 500 acres can be used as a public park or
however the County wants to use that property.
Because FPL is proposing to set aside 4400 acres of the 7400 acre site, that that will
indeed protect the rural character of this area. FPL will design the plant site to be
buffered and brimmed and landscaped to protect the character of this area.
How will this project the Blue field Ranch Preservations, being that this site is right
next to it?
There is sensitive land at both the Martin County and St. Lucie County plant sites. FPL
has been able to preserve the sensitive land and it has become a protective habitat for a
lot of threatened and endangered species.
What impacts a new coal plant is going to have on property values?
17
St. Lucie County
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes
Special Meeting
September 29, 2005
Commission Chambers, 3rd Floor, Roger Poitras Annex
6:00 p.m.
These projects do not have an adverse impact on property values. Because they are
proposing to set aside the 4400 acres for environmental lands and public use, the sets up
and additional natural buffer for neighboring properties and hopefully enhances the long
tenn property value in the area.
What about noises?
There is a County noise standard that FPL has to meet.
What about Lighting?
This is a rural area. FPL will be working towards designing the project in a way where
the lighting will be directional and will be shielded to minimize impacts as much as
possible.
What about the Train traffic?
For this project, FPL will need one 125 car-trains of coal delivered to the site everyday.
This train can come in ITom the east or ITom the west. Because of competition, they
expect the train to come 50% of the time from the east and 50% of the time ITom the
west. FPL will also need one 40 car-train oflimestone, every four days. The limestone is
used in the pollution control technology.
In addition to the fact that this site provides the opportunity to put a double rail loop in so
that these trains can be continuously moving until they are within the property. The dual
rail also provides about a 50/50 split of traffic.
Kimberly Horn and Associates did a traffic report analysis. They found in a worst case
scenario that as the trains would come through intersection, the delay time would
between 2 Y2 and 5 Y2 minutes.
They have been working hard to address those traffic concerns and as Mr. Kelly
mentioned, they share those concerns with the rail lines as well.
Benefits and Opportunities
One ofthe benefits is that they are proposing to transfer 4400 acres of the property for
use by the South Florida Water Management District and the Indian River Lagoon South
Project as well as 1400 acres to S1. Lucie County, for environmental and public land use.
18
St. Lucie County
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes
Special Meeting
September 29, 2005
Commission Chambers, 3rd Floor, Roger Poitras Annex
6:00 p.m.
Another benefit is the fact that they will be taking excess storm water from C-23 Canal to
use at the plant, rather than having it discharge to the St. Lucie Estuary.
The other benefits that have potential value to the community are economic benefits.
This project will provide 180 full-time jobs. However during the 5-year construction
period that was mentioned, there will be 1600 construction jobs annually.
Fishkind and Associates looked at the economic indirect impacts as well as the economic
impacts. They found, in addition to the 1600 construction jobs, there will be 1600
indirect construction-related jobs, during the 5-year construction period.
There will also be an infusion of$260 million annually into the local economy every year
during the 5-year construction period. Once the plan is operational, in addition to the 180
full-time jobs, there will be 419 indirect jobs.
The plant is a very large investment. It is a 2.7 billion dollar project. 700 million of that
will be spent on the extensive amount of pollution control equipment. The property tax
value that could come from this plant, over the life of the project (40 years), will be about
1.1 billion dollars. This is approximately 27 million dollars annually. This is tax revenue
that can provide County services, funding for schools, the fire district and all of the
various services that all of the residents of 8t. Lucie County pay for through their
property taxes as well.
In conclusion, throughout the design of this project, they have worked very had to put
together a project design that will bring in a dependable, low cost fuel supply. They also
want to protect the environment.
Chairman McCurdy asked ifthere were questions of the applicant.
Mr. Mundt asked if the applicant has agreed to staff recommending that the activated
carbon injected system be added as a condition.
Mr. David Hicks, senior director ofproject development stated the environmental
protection agency is the Federal Agency that is vested with the responsibility of
protecting human health and setting air quality standards.
The Environmental Protection Agency after extensive research and analysis came up with
two rules in the spring.
19
St. Lucie County
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes
Special Meeting
September 29, 2005
Commission Chambers, 3rd Floor, Roger Poitras Annex
6:00 p.m.
CAM-R is a mercury emission regulation associated with all plants and the research
performance standards on mercury regulations associated with new power plants.
FPL being a leader in environmental stewardship is planning this facility to include $700
million dollars of pollution control equipment.
In addition, FPL has future proofed this plan in this instance by including space for
activated carbon injection or a similar device. To further enhance mercury removal,
above very high standards or very high emissions control rates.
FPL has committed to incorporate activate carbon injection in this plant design, when it
meets several criteria.
Chairman McCurdy asked what the timeline is on gaining the vender's guarantee of the
products.
Mr. Hicks stated he does not have an exact day for that and the existing systems do not
provide those guarantees but they are working hard at those systems.
Mr. Mundt asked if the $276 million is materials and labor that would be purchased
locally.
Ms. Scott stated it will be the service contracts and purchases.
Mr. Ken Koskey stated in regards to the TL handling, they have provided information to
the air consultants that evaluated the concentrations. The actual amount for the project is
very similar to the amounts of other projects, including one in Jacksonville.
Mr. Lounds stated he has concerns about the trains. He asked ifthere will be 140 car-
trains.
Ms. Scott stated the project will require one-round trip delivery. The train will come in
either from the east or the west and will come completely into the property site. It will
unload the fuel in an enclosed housing to minimize any kind of emissions. This will take
about eight hours, and then the train will be available to leave the site and will leave
going the same direction from whence it came. This is for both the coal delivery as well
as the limestone delivery.
Ms. Scott stated it is 125 car-trains for the coal and 40 car-trains for the limestone.
20
St. Lucie County
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes
Special Meeting
September 29, 2005
Commission Chambers, 3rd Floor, Roger Poitras Annex
6:00 p.m.
Mr. Lounds asked how long the train is.
Ms. Scott stated the train is approximately I Y2 miles long.
Mr. McCurdy asked what is the footprint ofthe actual generation facility on this site.
Mr. John Genecko, FPL's project engineer manager stated it will be approximately a total
of200 acres for the infrastructure itself.
Mr. Kelly stated the County does not have to rezone the entire 3,000 acres. He also
added the buffers do not have to be rezoned.
Mr. Trias asked if the applicant has done anymore site planning than what was included
in the packets.
Mr. John Genecko stated the site plan that was included in the packets is the developed
site plan. There are conceptual landscaping plans that were also included in the
application.
Chairman McCurdy opened the public hearing.
Ms. Holly Benz, with the Florida Public Research group stated they are a statewide, non
profit organization and she is at the meeting on behalf of their thousands of members who
are also Florida Power and Light rate payers.
She stated spending billions of dollars to build a traditional pulverized coal plant is the
wrong decision for St. Lucie County.
She stated the coal plant will raise issues regarding soot and fine particle pollution. She
stated the biggest concern regarding coal fired power plants is Nitrogen Oxide and Sulfur
Dioxide because they fonn smog and soot.
Soot and fine particles are some of the most dangerous power plant pollutants. Fine
particles are smaller than the width of a human hair and they can get lodged so deeply in
your lungs that you do not expel them.
21
St. Lucie County
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes
Special Meeting
September 29, 2005
Commission Chambers, 3rd Floor, Roger Poitras Annex
6:00 p.m.
Find particles promote asthma attacks, heart attacks, lung cancer and premature death.
Because this pollution is so dangerous, even at regular levels, the Air Environmental
Protection Agency is considering new stricter health-based standards.
In the additional particulate pollution from a 1700 megawatt, a coal fired power plant can
have some impact on some ofthe areas of ability to meet these new standards.
She stated nitrogen and sunlight and other chemicals in the ozone layer produce smog.
It burns the lungs and makes asthma worse in children and elderly. Children and the
Elderly are the number one victims,
Mercury will be in the fish. Recent test by the EP A stated every fish was contaminated
with mercury. It also showed that 62% or about 2/3 of them had mercury levels that were
higher than what the EP A considers to be a safe level
It only takes about a gram of Mercury to contaminate fish in a 25 acre lake. Mercury
affects children. Mercury comes out of the smoke stack and falls back down into the
lakes and rivers. It then begins making its way through the food chain. During this, a
chemical process takes place and converts this mercury to methyl mercury.
Methyl mercury a fonn of mercury that is most dangerous for humans.
Mercury particularly affects children and fetuses. Those that are exposed to mercury
pollution are at risk for developmental delays, including delays in walking and talking as
well as developing their motor skills.
Health and medical experts including the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Learning
Disability Association of America, the Florida Medical Association and others have all
expressed concern that current laws regulating power plant and mercury pollution are not
strong enough to protect human health.
Electric utilities can emit unlimited amounts of carbon dioxide pollution, which is the
global warning pollutant. This year, the U. S. Senate passed a byproduct resolution
calling for limits on carbon dioxide pollution from the electric utility sector. In a number
of states and utilities, they now include the cost of anticipated carbon dioxide regulations
and their planning process.
There are cleaner, cheaper and healthier options for meeting the power needs here.
22
S1. Lucie County
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes
Special Meeting
September 29, 2005
Commission Chambers, 3rd Floor, Roger Poitras Annex
6:00 p.m.
Dr. Steven Smith stated they are very concerned about the power plant. He stated this is
very large and very significant. He stated they have dialogued and continues to dialogue
the FPL power plant. He stated they recommend that the Planning and Zoning
Commission Board votes no.
Dr. Smith stated FPL is not doing all they can to control the demand and growth. He
stated there is no such thing as clean coal. Coal by definition is dirty. Pulverized coal is
not the best plan for using coal as fuel.
Dr. Smith stated C02 is very significant to the state of Florida because of global warning.
He stated this will impact tourism and the beach economy. He stated he challenges the
Planning and Zoning Board to challenge FPL to come back with a plan that uses the best
available control type management.
Dr. Smith stated in the emissions, there will be over 14 million pounds of Sulfur Dioxide,
1.7 million pounds of particulate matter, 8.2 million pounds of Nitrogen Oxide and over
24 billion pounds of Carbon Dioxide.
Dr. Smith agrees with the previous speaker on the issue of Carbon Dioxide being a
significant issue for Florida because of global warning.
Coal gasification can significantly reduce to particularly to sulfur emissions.
Mr. John Ryan stated he came to Planning as a conservationist and he has been involved
directly as two sidings as a rate payer and as a representer of the interest of the
conservational organization.
He stated they would like to raise a number of issues to protect the public.
One of the reasons why the land is so big is because the power plant is a discharge
facility. He stated whether or not the Planning and Zoning Board decide to approve or
deny this application, he wants the Board to do a regional analysis and provide reasons as
to why the conditions should occur.
Mr. Richard Fermund stated he is an FPL rate payer and a retired engineer. He stated he
used to work for the Florida Power and Light Company. He stated he will talk about
Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCe) and exactly what it is.
23
St. Lucie County
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes
Special Meeting
September 29, 2005
Commission Chambers, 3rd Floor, Roger Poitras Annex
6:00 p.m.
Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) is the alternative that is much cleaner
and can be more economically feasible than coal.
Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle is the chemical conversion of coal to synthetic
gas for combustion in a combined cycle. It is inherently cleaner because coal is not
combusted. Rather, the pollutants are removed with much greater efficiency.
Within the Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle the gas that comes out is fairly
concentrated. It is 30% Hydrogen, 40% CO, and 15% Carbon Dioxide. It has a very
concentrated fume stream and is very easy to remove the mercury down to 99 % +.
This has been done commercially in an eastern culvert plant and has also been tested at
the Tampa plant. It is also easier to remove Carbon Dioxide and use Sulfur. It also
provides future capabilities of the plant.
With the Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle you can generate electricity and use the
same gas to produce petrochemicals, Hydrogen, Ammonia and Methanol.
Mr. Lounds asked if Mr. Fennund can relate the coal consumption between the systems
that he is talking about to what FPL is currently proposing.
Mr. Fennund stated the fuel consumption will be slightly less because the plants are
about the same. Mr. Fennund stated the plant that he suggests will create fewer
pollutants than the plant that FPL proposes to develop.
Ms. Grace Scott stated she is speaking for the St. Lucie County auto bond's society. She
stated the FPL may have improved the operation but it still isn't good enough for St.
Lucie County.
She stated they would like to have a sustainable, clean airway industry. She stated coal
makes industry dirty. She stated there are troubles in using imported oils. She stated she
wants the board to vote no on this project.
Ms. Laurie OdIum stated she is with Auto Bond of Martin County. She stated they are
one of the two of Martin County's local chapters. They are all members of National Auto
Bond and Florida Auto Bond.
She stated they have a two fold mission:
24
St. Lucie County
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes
Special Meeting
September 29, 2005
Commission Chambers, 3rd Floor, Roger Poitras Annex
6:00 p.m.
1. To heighten the awareness about birds and the fragile beauty of the
national environment.
2. To protect the birds and their habitat for the pleasure and enjoyment of
future generations and for ourselves.
She stated their job in Martin County has been protecting and preserving habitats in the
Treasure Coast for humans and wildlife for 40 years,
She stated she is present to speak for the birds that have no choice or a voice of their own
to make the County aware of their homes, their grocery store (the hunting fields) and
their dinner tables.
She stated the birds food supply will change for the worse if the FPL power plant is
approved. She stated we will all be affected by the mercury. Mercury causes heart
attacks in humans. She stated the mercury will wash into our water and drainage system.
The proposed project will affect reproduction capabilities ofthe endangered bald eagle.
Ms. OdIum stated the birds eat fish out ofthe Estuary and that is where the mercury will
drain into. She recommends denial of the proposed project.
Mr. Lounds asked if Ms. OdIum would feel the same ifthe proposed project was
petroleum fired or natural gas fired plant.
Ms. Odium sated they would be most concerns of the emissions of any plant, but they
will not feel as strongly.
Mr. Charles Olsen stated his family bought one of the first houses in Port St. Lucie. He
stated he will focus his comments on the affects that the coal plant will have on St. Lucie
County. He stated he has been studying the impacts of the coal power plant.
Mr. Olsen stated there will be obvious impacts to the wildlife. There will be hidden
impacts to the water system. Endangered species that will be targeted or affected
includes the Bald eagle, the Florida Panther and so on.
Mr. Olsen stated hundreds of millions of dollars are being invested in this project to
preserve it and that will go to waste if the power plant is approved. You don't want to
encourage wild life to come here. There is no such thing as clean coal. There is cleaner
coal, but not clean coal.
25
St. Lucie County
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes
Special Meeting
September 29, 2005
Commission Chambers, 3rd Floor, Roger Poitras Annex
6:00 p.m.
He stated this should be rejected because of its violation of the conservationist.
There will be adverse impacts on adjacent properties. This property is unique, but not for
a power plant. The traffic control is a major issue. There will be the 108 workers going
to and from the area, plus the additional construction workers.
There is also wildlife such as deer, turkeys and panthers that live in the area. He is not in
favor of the proposed project for reasons such as those stated by previous speakers who
spoke against the coal plant because of air pollution, improper use of the land, no impacts
on public facilities, and the affects of the mercury in regards to the fish and children as
well as the endangered species that will be affected.
Chairman McCurdy thanked Mr. Olsen.
Mr. George Calvrose stated the sheer size of this has been unaddressed. He stated he has
concerns about the mercury impact involving this huge industrial facility. This is the
largest power plant in Florida and is one ofthe largest proposed coal fired power plants in
the United States of America.
Florida is under a mercury conservative. Power plants are the greatest source of mercury
something. He stated mercury affects the nervous system. People are exposed to
mercury through consuming fish. He is against approving this project for reasons
identical to the reasons that previous speaker gave in regards to coal not being clean and
its impact on children and the ecosystem.
Mr. Drew Martin stated their concern has to do with the fact that enough is not being
done to conserve energy. He spoke about the preservation of life in the economy. This
power plant will be poisoning the Everglades. The birds in the Everglades are being
destroyed. He spoke about Mercury and its affects on pregnant women and developing
children. Coal is causing severe damage to the ozone layer. Coal comes rrom huge
mountains that are being blown up. Coal mining is very environmentally destructive.
Mr. Martin is against the proposed project for various reasons such as the one stated by
previous speakers who oppose this project due to affect that burning coal has on the
environment and the economy.
Mr. Sam Comber stated in recent months, there has been discussion of impact regarding
125 railroad cars per day crossing Midway Road. This is the amount of coal that FPL
26
St. Lucie County
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes
Special Meeting
September 29, 2005
Commission Chambers, 3rd Floor, Roger Poitras Annex
6:00 p.m.
stated the two proposed units will bum daily. We will be naïve to think that this is the
real ultimate cars per day. FPL's ultimate goal is unknown, but they will have room for
more than two units on the proposed site.
Mr. Comber stated regardless of how many there are ultimately, 125 cars per day is too
many and will close Harbor Branch Road, Wilcox Road and Michigan Street as they
pass. He added the train will cross and close many roads, some of which are the only
accesses to certain areas such as north AlA, which is the only access to North Beach. He
added the proposed site is not appropriate for heavy industry. Mr, Comber is not in favor
of the proposed project.
Mr. Ben Kurmen stated there is a report from the Florida Department of Communications
that was issued in June of2005 which is Florida's Comprehensive Rail Plan. The Florida
Comprehensive Rail Plan is subdivided into two parts, which includes freight trains and
passenger trains.
In both parts, the central issue is about freight and CSX Transportation. CSX
Transportation intends to restructure their operations in Florida. The ultimate line that
FPL talks about is the alternate to the Florida east coast line, wherein they intend to shut
down a rail operation for freight and devote to passenger service. This fits directly into
the state's plan for intra-city transportation.
The rail line is already being used by both of the Amtrak trains that serve Florida daily.
All of the freight traffic coming in on CSX is going to be diverted over to Florida east
coast.
The plan is basically this: all of the freight traffic for south Florida will be coming down
the Florida east coast, including these coal trains. This will not only include the traffic
that the previous speaker addressed, but all of the freight traffic for south Florida coming
down the Florida east coast as well. This also includes the coal trains.
Dr. Barbra Contie stated she is an FPL rate payer. She stated on the behalf of Ann
Vemich-Desivich, she will be submitting her statement as regional director for the
Florida Wildlife Federation to the St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Committee.
Dr. Contie stated history is propelled by decisions made to accommodate the present, but
with unforeseen consequences for the future. The risks of a coal fired energy plant are
not clear and long term dangers are immeasurable.
27
St. Lucie County
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes
Special Meeting
September 29, 2005
Commission Chambers, 3rd Floor, Roger Poitras Annex
6:00 p.m.
Dr. Contie is not in favor of the proposed project because of the various reasons that the
previous speakers stated against the proposed project due to coal-fired plants and it
dangerous effect on humans, mercury and endangered species. She also agreed with the
previous speakers who stated coal is not healthy for the environment.
Dr. Contie also agreed with the previous speakers who spoke against the proposed project
because of global warning and the effect that coal fired plants have on the ozone layer, as
well as how it promotes asthma.
Mr. Patrick Hayes stated FPL offers to contribute land and potential reservoirs which
would benefit very generously the Estuary and our problems with Lake Okeechobee. He
stated this should not be taken lightly. If the development community were to make as
half as generous an offer as FPL has, we probably would not need this plant today. He
stated he will not comment as to whether or not this project should be approved or
denied.
Mr. William Summers stated he is a very strong proponent of many environmental issues
that come before us across the state. He is particularly concerned, interested and sponsor
those environmental programs particularly in the Treasure Coast.
He states he is a very strong proponent of the Indian River Lagoon project. He stated he
wants this to be approved. He stated he commends FPL for this project because he feels
that this is a major step and it should not be taken lightly.
Ms. Karen Smith, Director of the Martin-St. Lucie County Service Center for the South
Florida Water Management District speaking on behalf of the South Florida Water
Management District stated the Indian River Lagoon is very important in regards to
restoring the St. Lucie Estuary.
One ofthe critical components of the Indian River Lagoon plan is the construction of the
C-23 and C-24 reservoirs. She added that there was still no treatment in the canals. She
stated the C-23 and C-24 canals are located in St. Lucie County and are not connected to
Lake Okeechobee. However, as a result of room use, both of these canals are the primary
source of Phosphorus to the Estuary.
The South Florida Water Management District currently does not have funds for the
Traditional Land Acquisition for the C-23 and C-24 projects.
28
St. Lucie County
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes
Special Meeting
September 29, 2005
Commission Chambers, 3rd Floor, Roger Poitras Annex
6:00 p.m.
Ms. Smith stated approval of the St. Lucie County power plant site will also allow the
South Florida Water Management District to enter into an agreement to purchase a
significant service that the tax payers are funding. Three quarters are needed to build the
C-23 and C-24 reservoirs in storm water treatment areas.
This will allow the District to accelerate construction of the project with the completion
date much earlier than projected. The C-23 and C-24 projects are interval to improving
the needs of the Estuary.
Without the ability to enter into an agreement with FPL, these reservoirs may not be
around in much longer. This is truly a once in a lifetime opportunity. The South Florida
Water Management District respectfully request that the Planning and Zoning Board vote
in favor of agenda item one and two of the Florida Power and Light Company's petition
for a Conditional Use Permit and a Change in Zoning.
Chairman McCurdy thanked Ms. Smith.
Mr. Knapp asked Ms. Smith to address the issue with the mercury and its impact that the
plants will have in the area.
Ms. Smith stated South Florida Water Management District does not regulate air
emissions for power plants, and further explanation on the mercury issue needs to be
consulted with the expertise that regulate air emissions.
Mr. Knapp stated there is mercury in the water now which is a major issue in the clean up
of Lake Okeechobee. With the plants, more mercury will be added into the water system.
Mr. Knapp asked Ms. Smith if she is okay with the increase mercury not destroying their
efforts to restore the Everglades.
Ms. Smith stated she is specifically saying their agency does not have the expertise in that
area and further consulting on the research of mercury and its impact in that area needs to
be consulted with FPL and the air emission experts.
Mr. Stan Brunson stated he would like to second the comments that were made in favor
of the Indian River Lagoon addition for land. He stated the savings to the state would be
an a approximate $40 million dollar difference between the 3,000 acres and the 17
thousand dollars in acres and 3500 dollars in acres wherein the land would be valued out.
29
St. Lucie County
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes
Special Meeting
September 29, 2005
Commission Chambers, 3rd Floor, Roger Poitras Annex
6:00 p.m.
Mr. Brunson stated for further review and discussions on the mercury issues, there area
experts at the Water Management District that do a lot of monitoring on the ground level
and within the water.
Mr. Brunson stated a seminar was conducted by South Florida Water Management
District's mercury expert, Dr. Darren Rumbolt and he talked a lot about mercury deposits
that are in the Everglade.
Mr. West Carlton stated family's concern is about their properties. He stated the
properties have been in their family for about 100 years. He stated he has concerns about
where the powerlines will go. He stated he is concerned about their property value.
Mr. Mike Monahan, the Director of Law Enforcement for the St. Lucie County Sheriffs
Office, stated this project will have an effect on law enforcement in our community. He
stated the sheriffs are concerned with the train issues.
Mr. Monahan stated FPL told the sheriff that the train will never stop rolling. Each
crossing will be approximately five minutes long. He spoke about the Rail road tracks
and all of the road ways that it will cut off. He stated no one can control the time in
which the train will come through. He added the crossings of parallel US 1 through Fort
Pierce will have a great impact for the worse on Downtown Fort Pierce and the east of
USl.
Mr. Monahan stated the sheriff has to attend to many calls in the city and the train and its
ongoing services can inter with getting to certain areas, due to the fact that the train cut
off multiple roads at once.
Mr. Monahan stated the train can close US 1, Edwards Road, Oleander and possibly
Sunrise at the same time.
Carl Revosy stated he lives in Port St. Lucie. He stated he is a chemical engineer by
background experience. He stated there are better businesses for supplying sources of
light. He agreed with the various previous speakers who spoke against the
contaminations and pollutions that will derive through the use the coal fired plants.
Mr. Revosy recommends that this petition is tabled.
Mr. David Skyles, the president of the St. Lucie County Chambers of Commerce stated
they recommend approval of the project. He stated they have well researched the project
30
St. Lucie County
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes
Special Meeting
September 29, 2005
Commission Chambers, 3rd Floor, Roger Poitras Annex
6:00 p.m.
and weighed the pros and cons. Their Governmental Affairs and Economic Development
committees have spent many hours reviewing this project by FPL.
He stated they recommend approval ofthe zoning change, as well as this project being
sent to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval.
He stated they have attended many meetings and presentations done by FPL. They have
reviewed the County's environmental report, as well as FPL report. They have met with
a private consultant that specializes in fossil energy who provided the alignment for their
reVl ew.
They believe that FPL has good intentions for St. Lucie County. Mr. Skyles stated they
are in favor of this project.
Mr. Steve Maleski stated they has worked for the US department of energy under the
Fuel Use Act and they research and environmental and coal transportation study on
moving coal to power plants in Florida.
He stated he is in favor of coaL However, he recommends that the issue is tabled because
further research needs to be done. He stated he does not understand why the Coal
Gasification Combined Cycle technology is not being used. He stated this technology
has been worked on since the 1980's and it has been true and successful.
Mr. Maleski stated he has concerns about the railroads and their impacts on the traffic.
He added there will be problems with the coal flying off of the wagons as they pass by.
Ms. Kathy Shown stated she have concerns about the noise that will derive fÌ'om the
cooling fans that will be used to cool the water. She stated she feels that this project is
not the best fit for this location, for this county.
Mr. Randy Verring stated he supports the coal burning plant because of its benefits and
contributions to the County. It will provide a great source of power to the economy,
especially in times of hurricanes such as that which took place in the Gulf States.
Mr. Bob Simons stated he feels that the power that FPL proposes is for export. He is
against this project for the reasons mentioned before by the previous speakers who are
not in favor of this project because of its impact on the economy, endangered species and
pollution to the air. He also feels that the location of the proposed project is not a good
place to put a coal fired plant.
31
St. Lucie County
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes
Special Meeting
September 29, 2005
Commission Chambers, 3rd Floor, Roger Poitras Annex
6:00 p.m.
Mr. Vince Barry stated he supports the FPL project. He stated he has lived here for 18
years. He stated they moved from Lafayette, Indiana. When they lived in Indiana, they
relied on FPL to supply them with low cost, safe, reliable electricity. He added FPL has
never failed to fulfill that responsibility.
Mr. Barry stated he has children who live in distant states who also agree that FPL has
never failed to fulfill their responsibility. He added FPL is a good company and provides
dependable, uninterruptible electricity. He stated he fully supports the St. Lucie County
Florida Power and Light Company project.
Attorney Michael Winer stated he is here on the behalf of the Rodriquez family. He
stated here speaks on the behalf of Daniel Rodriquez, Silvia Rodriquez, Diego Rodriquez,
Daniel Rodriquez Jr., Silvia Rodriquez Jr., and Rosanna Rodriquez.
The Rodriquez family own 4000 acres immediately to the south of the 7000 acres. He
stated the Rodriquez family feels that the application to rezone is not consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan and violates State Statue Section 1.63.3.1.9.1.4
Mr. Winer stated the Future Land Use Code stated the only alternative that this zoning
district can change to is residential, not power plants.
Mr. Winer stressed his client's concerns of the proposed project breaking numbers state
and county laws, which he will discuss before the Board of County Commissioners.
He stated consistency is more than being compatible. He stated if the County buys this
project, then this will allow for the use of a power plant being placed anywhere in the
County, including in the backyards of homes.
He stated ifthe County grants FPL a Conditional Use permit, they have no control over
the Conditional Use permit, even under conditions.
Mr. Winer closed stating this project requires ajudicial hearing because the applicant is
breaking federal and state laws.
Mr. Philip Stickles stated is against the FPL project. He stated it is too close to his home.
He is against this project and agrees with the previous speakers who are not in favor of
this project because of coal and its negative impacts on the economy. Coal releases
mercury when it is burned. He also has concerns about the light.
32
St. Lucie County
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes
Special Meeting
September 29, 2005
Commission Chambers, 3rd Floor, Roger Poitras Annex
6:00 p.m.
Chairman McCurdy closed the public hearing.
The meeting took a five minute break.
Mr. Jonathan Ferguson stated they will only address the critical issues that were brought
up by the audience. He stated an electric generating plant is an appropriate and allowable
use in the Utilities Zoning District.
Mr. Ferguson also stated the County established a power plant as a Conditional Use so
that it can not be placed anywhere, but only in the proper zoning district.
Rachael Scott stated their senior director of project development will discuss the
evaluation that he researched in regards to Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle
technology. Mr. Richard Zwoloch will talk about the evaluation that he did in regards to
potential impacts ofthis project on the nearby lands. Dr. Chris Tea will talk about the
mercury issues that are a mercury issues that are of great concern to this community.
Mr. David Hicks stated the Florida Power and Light Company thoroughly evaluated all
of the generating technologies, including IGCC (Integrated Gasification Combined
Cycle).
There have been five IGCC (Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle) plants build in the
world. One was a complete failure and the other four are all small, less than 300
megawatts demonstration projects characterized by very high capital cost, very large
government sub utilities and very low availabilities. He added one of these is a coal
plant.
Mr. Richard Zwoloch stated the effect of the project site is a citrus grove. He stated
citrus grove is not prime habitat for endangered species, nor a good habitat for most
wildlife.
Although the site is 3,000 acres in size, only approximately 200 acres are going to be
occupied by a foot printed cool to generate the facilities. He stated a lot of the acreage
will be in uses that are very compatible with agricultural type activities in open land,
which includes the storm water reservoirs as well as all of the buffers.
33
St. Lucie County
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes
Special Meeting
September 29, 2005
Commission Chambers, 3rd Floor, Roger Poitras Annex
6:00 p.m.
Dr. Christopher Teaf stated they have incorporated four separate elements of technology
that is designed for this plant to deal with the removal of the mercury. This cost about
700 billion dollars.
He stated mercury does not go up and come back down. It operates in an environment
where it uses a long ranged, global transport system. He stated 95% to 99% of the
mercury that comes to St. Lucie County does not come from here, but from Africa,
China, Eastern Europe and places that are far from here.
Mr. Ferguson concluded stating they have met the County's standards and have balanced
everything that the County needed to recommend approval of the rezoning and the
Conditional use permit, along with the conditions that were included in the staff report.
Mr. Ferguson stated they agree with the staff report and respectfully request that their
application for a rezoning and conditional use for an electric generating plant permit is
forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval for
both applications.
Mr. Trias asked where the power is going to be used.
Ms. Scott they all contribute power to FPL's system for delivery to customers
throughout.
Chairman McCurdy asked how seriously the nuclear option was considered.
Ms. Scott stated nuclear power is something that they certainly look at. The reason why
they are not proposing a nuclear plant here is because ofthe time frame. They need the
1700 megawatt power plant to serve their customers' needs beginning in the summer
2012. With a nuclear plant, the process would take longer.
Nuclear power plants have not been built for a while because there is a delay in licensing.
She stated the balance of this site would be used for supporting functions or facilities for
those generating units.
The rezoning Motion:
Ms. Hammer motioned that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend that the St.
Lucie County Board of County Commissioners deny the application of the Florida Power
34
St. Lucie County
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes
Special Meeting
September 29, 2005
Commission Chambers, 3rd Floor, Roger Poitras Annex
6:00 p.m.
and Light Company for a Change in Zoning from the AG-l (AgricuIturalldu/5acres)
Zoning District to the U (Utilities) Zoning District.
This motion failed because it did not have a second.
Ms. Morgan motioned that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend that the 8t.
Lucie County Board of County Commissioners grant approval to the application of the
Florida Power and Light Company for a Change in Zoning from the AG-5 (Agricultural)
Zoning District to the U (Utilities) Zoning District because she feels that this will be a
benefit to 8t. Lucie County and it is consistent with the County's Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Mundt seconded the motion.
The role call was made:
Mr. Trias voted for the motion.
Mr. Lounds voted for the motion.
Mr. Knapp voted for the motion.
Ms. Hammer voted against the motion and stated, "Our 8t. Lucie County Comprehensive
Plan's overall goal, Goall.l states that it is our job to ensure that the highest quality
living environment possible through a mixture ofland uses reflecting needs and desires
ofthe local residents and how they want their community to develop. The goal shall be
implemented by strictly enforcing building, zoning and development codes, based on the
objectives and policies that will enhance 8t. Lucie County's natural an man made
resources while minimizing any damage or threat or degradation to the health, safety and
welfare of the County's citizens, native wildlife and environment, through incompatible
land uses."
Mr. Mundt voted for the motion.
Ms. Morgan voted for the motion.
Chairman McCurdy voted against the motion.
The Conditional Use permit motion:
35
St. Lucie County
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes
Special Meeting
September 29, 2005
Commission Chambers, 3rd Floor, Roger Poitras Annex
6:00 p.m.
Ms. Morgan motioned that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend that the St.
Lucie County Board of County Commissioners grant approval to the application of the
Florida Power and Light Company for a Conditional Use pennit to allow the operation of
a 1700 megawatt electric generation plant in the Utilities Zoning District, subject to all of
the conditions that have been entered.
Mr. Lounds stated he would second this motion ifFPL will address the issues that were
brought forth, concerning the railroad conditions, the transmittal lines across private
property concerning the homeowners, Mr. Olsen's conditions and the enhance pollution
controls that they have requested.
Mr. Ferguson stated absolutely.
Mr. Lounds seconded the motion.
The roll call:
Mr. Trias voted for the motion.
Mr. Mundt voted for the motion.
Mr. Knapp voted for the motion.
Ms. Hammer voted against the motion.
Mr. Lounds voted for the motion.
Ms. Morgan voted for the motion.
Chainnan McCurdy voted against the motion.
These applications will be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a
recommendation of approval.
ADJOURNMENT
This meeting was adjourned at 12:00 A.M.
36
St. Lucie County
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes
Special Meeting
September 29, 2005
Commission Chambers, 3rd Floor, Roger Poitras Annex
6:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted:
Approved by:
Talea Owens, Sr. Staff Assistant
Charles Grande, Chairman
37