United States
Region 4
.,
Environmental Protection 345 Courtland Street, NE EPA 904/9-93-001 B {/
Agency Atlanta, GA 30365 November 1993
Appendix to the
Environmental
Impact Statement
Final
Cedar Bay Cogeneration Project
Jacksonville, Florida
-------
-------
0
APPENDIX A
DRAFT NPDES PERMIT NO. FL0061204
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 5, Library ;PL-12J)
77 West Jackson Boulevard, 12th Floor
Chicago, IL 60604-3590
-------
-------
PERMIT NO. FL0061204
Minor Non-POTW
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION IV
AUTHORIZATION TO DISCHARGE UNDER THE
NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM
In compliance with the provisions of the Clean Water Act, as
amended (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.; the "Act"),
Cedar Bay Cogeneration, Inc.
7475 Wisconsin Avenue
Bethesda, Maryland 20814
is authorized to discharge from a facility located at
Cedar Bay Cogeneration Facility
9469 Eastport Road
Duval County ; "
Jacksonville, Florida 32218
to receiving waters named
•
Broward River
in accordance with effluent limitations, monitoring
requirements, and other conditions set forth herein., Thf
permit consists of this cover sheet, Part I 3 pages, Part II
1& pages, Part III 2. pages and Part IV 8 pages.
This permit shall become effective on
This permit and the authorization to discharge shall
expire at midnight,
DRAFT
0 3 1993
Date Issued W. Ray Cunningham, Director
Water Management Division
A-l
-------
; : ' Page 1-1
Permit No. FL0061204
•:=r-.!;*'•• ' '!-. PART:-I - •:-•-••- • " ~ .\\ -' • • _ .
A. EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS-- -FINAL —r ; :•; ! :-.; ; : ".'•
1. During the period beginning on the effective date of this permit and lasting through the term of
this permit, the permittee is authorized to discharge - ground runoff, roof and yard drain
discharges from the Yard Area Runoff Pond Outfall 003 to the Broward River.
Such discharges shall be limited and monitored by the permittee as specified below:
PARAMETERS DISCHARGE LIMITATIONS MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
Daily Maximum Measurement Frequency Sample Type
Flow, MGD Report I/Day of Discharge Weir measurement (t
Total Suspended Solids, mg/1 Report I/Day of Discharge Grab x~"'
2. The pH shall not be less than 6.0 standard units nor greater than 8.5 standard units and shall
be monitored I/day of discharge.
3. There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts nor
shall the effluent cause a visible sheen on the receiving water.
4. Monitoring requirements are not applicable during periods of no discharge.
5. Samples taken in compliance with the monitoring requirements specified above-shall be taken at
the following location(s): point(s) of discharge from the Yard Area Pond to the Broward River :
prior to mixing with any other waste stream.
TO
\
\
-------
Page 1-2
••;.,•; '! '.;,--.;... -Permit No* FLO 0612 04
PART I
B. EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS - FINAL • v.' •••-- !"••'• -- r
,-.'-,. ...'. .- - -V ,,.:-..'•• ..
1. During the period beginning on the effective date of this permit and lasting through the term
of this permit, the permittee is authorized to discharge from Outfall 008 - Coal, Limestone,
and Ash Storage Areas Runoff Retention Basin:effluent to the1 Broward River. ;r: - -,
Such discharges shall be limited and monitored by the permittee as specified below:, ,
PARAMETERS DISCHARGE LIMITATIONS MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
Instantaneous Maximum Measurement Frequency Sample Type
Flow, MGD Report 1/Day of Discharge Weir
measurement
Total Suspended Solids, mg/1 501 I/Day of Discharge Grab
2. The pH shall not be less than 6.0 standard units nor greater than 8.5 standard units, and shall
be monitored once per day of discharge by grab sample.
3. There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts nor
shall the effluent cause a visible sheen on the receiving water.
4. Samples taken in compliance with the.monitoring requirements specified above'shall be taken at
the following location(s): point(s) of discharge from the Coal, Limestone, and Ash Retention
Basin prior to mixing with any other waste stream.
- ' : . : • " \
1 This limitation is only applicable to flow, resulting from.the 10-year, 24-hour storm event, or
less. •' .'''"'." ..'-" ' ' -"':v ' vv"' ' , ; •' .... V ''.,'.
.',,, ..:<••• rvl '•:•;'•••. •'• •; • • •''" !'•!>• ••••;•••:•• .••;••:• .:.•••.;.... <•),_. -.;-..[. -•',/- .
-------
Page 1-3
Permit No. FL0061204
PART I
C. SCHEDULE OF COMPLIANCE
1. The permittee shall achieve compliance with the effluent
limitations specified for discharges in accordance with the
following schedule: " ,•
a. Operational Level Attained Commencement of Discharges
t b. Best Management Practices Plan (Part. IV)
(1) Develop Plan No later than 6 months after
the effective date of the
permit •
(2) Implement Plan.. No later than 18 - months after
.,'-- the effective date of the
permit
v a; Submittal.of EPA Form 2C...../.. .No lat^r than 2 years from
: the commencement of *
discharge
2_ No later than 14 calendar days following a date identified in the
above schedule of compliance, the permittee shall submit either a
report of progress or., in the case of specific actions being ;,
required by identified dates, a written notice of compliance or
noncompliance. In the latter case, the notice shall include the
cause of noncompliance, any remedial actions taken, and the
probability of meeting the next scheduled requirement.
-------
Part II
Page II-l
PART II
STANDARD CONDITIONS FOR "NO DISCHARGE" NPDES PERMITS
SECTION A. GENERAL CONDITIONS
^^••^^^^••^^^^^^^"•^••"•^•^^^^^^••^^^^^—•^"^^•"^^^•^^^^^^•"l» ^
1. Duty to Comply
The permittee must comply with all conditions of this permit. Any permit
noncompliance constitutes a violation of the Clean Water Act and is grounds
for enforcement action; for permit termination, revocation and reissuance, or
modification; or for denial of a permit renewal application.
2. Penalties for Violations of Permit Conditions
Any person who violates a permit condition is subject to a civil penalty not
to exceed $25,000 per day of such violation. Any person- who willfully
violates permit conditions is subject to a fine of not less than $5000 nor
more than $50,000 per day of violation, or by imprisonment for not more than 3
years, or both. Any person who negligently violates permit conditions is
subject to a fine of not less than $2500 nor more than $25,000 per day of
violation, or by imprisonment for not more than 1 year, or both.
3. Duty to Mitigate
The permittee shall take all reasonable steps to minimize or orevent any
violation of this permit which has a reasonable likelihood of adversely
affecting human health or the enviroment.
4. Permit Modification
After notice and opportunity for a hearing, this permit may be modified,
terminated or revoked for cause including, but not limited to, the following:
a. Violation of any terms or conditions of this permit;
b. Obtaining this permit by misrepresentation or failure to disclose
fully all relevant facts;
c. Information newly acquired by the Agency indicating that any
condition poses a threat to human health or the environment.
A-5
-------
Part II
Page II-2
If the permittee believes that any past - planned activity would be cau^e f-,-
modification or revocation and reissuance under 40 CFR 122.62, the permtr«»«
must report such information to the Permit Issuing Authority. The SSnitta'
of a new application may be required of the permittee. The filing of I
request by the permittee for a permit modification, revocation and reisluanc-"
or termination or a notification of planned changes or anticipated
noncompliance, does not stay any permit condition. anticipatea
5. Civil and Criminal Liability
Except as provided in permit conditions on "Bypassing" Section a
B~3JndJ^SetS\ SeCti°n 3' PaCagraph B'4' "otSng 7n thermi
be
Civil °r criminal Cities f «
Oil and Hazardous Substance Liability
Nothing in this permit shall be construed to preclude the institution of any
legal action or relieve the permittee from anv responsibilities, liabiliti^
?h ^t S t0 WhlCh thS P*™"66 is or «*Y * subject unde ^ Sect ^Sn 311 of
7. State Laws
Nbthing in this permit shall be construed to preclude the institution of any
legal action or relieve the permittee from any responsibilities, liabilities
nn PUrSUant t0 any Applicable State law or
under authority preserved by Section 510 of the Act.
8. Property Rights
The issuance of this permit does not convey any property rights of any sort
or any exclusive privileges, nor does it authorize any injury to private
property or any invasion of personal rights, nor any infringement of Federal
State or local laws or regulations.
9- Oishore or Offshore Construction
This permit does not authorize or approve the construction of any onshore or
offshore physical structures or facilities or the undertaking of any work in
any waters of the United States (including wetlands).
-------
Part II
Page II-3
10. Severability
The provisions of this permit are severable, and if any provision of this
permit, or the application of any provision of this' permit to any
circumstance, is held invalid, the application of such provision to other
circumstances, and the remainder of this permit, shall not be affected thereby.
11. Duty to Provide Information
The permittee shall furnish to the Permit Issuing Authority, within a
reasonable time, any information which the Permit Issuing Authority may
revest to determine whether cause exists for modifying, revoking and
reissuing, or terminating this permit or to determine compliance with this
permit. The permittee shall also furnish to the Permit Issuing Authority upon
request, copies of records required to be kept by this permit.
SECTION B. OPERATION AMD MAINTENANCE OF POLLUTION CONTROLS
1. Proper Operation and Maintenance
The permittee shall at all times properly operate and maintain all facilities
and systems of treatment and control (and related appurtenances) which are
installed or used by the permittee to achieve compliance with the conditions
of tnis permit. Proper operation and maintenance also includes adequate
laboratory controls and appropriate quality assurance procedures. This
provision requires the operation of back-up or auxiliary facilities or similar
systems which are installed by a permittee only when the operation is
necessary to achieve compliance with the conditions of the permit.
2. Need to Halt or Reduce not a Defense
It shall not be a defense for a permittee in an enforcement action that it
would have been necessary to halt or reduce the permitted activity in order to
maintain compliance with the condition of this permit.
3. Bypass of Treatment Facilities
a. Definitions
(1) "Bypass9 means the intentional diversion of waste streams from any
portion of a treatment facility, which is not a designed or
established operating mode for the facility.
-------
Part II
Page II-4
(2> nf^!r! p*operty dama9e" means substantial physical daraqe ^o
K^I y' 9e t0 the treatment facilities which causes then *o
r^s2^retn^rt ' °r sabstantial and permanent loss of natural
a bypass Severe^ reas°nabdly ** expected to occur in the absence of
b. Notice
^H JS ! d bypass- If the Permittee knows in advance of the
iSl i. S*1*33' lfc Sha11 SUbmit Prior notice' ^ possible at
least ten days, before the date of the bypass; including *n
evaluation of the anticipated quality and effSTof the
Permittee shall submit notice of an
c. Prohibition of bypass.
(1) SS " Prohibited and
^SS " Proibited and t^ Permit Issuing Authority may take
enforcement action against a permittee for bypass, unless:
(a) The bypass was unavoidable to prevent loss of life
personal injury, or severe property damage;
(b) There were no feasible alternatives to the bypass (e q
maintenance of sufficient reserve holding capacity, the use
ZLSO?1**! tlea?"nt facilities< retention of untreated
wastes, waste hauling, maintenance of a sufficient spare
parts inventory, maintenance of an emergency power supoly,
or maintenance during normal periods of equipment downSrri
etc.). This condition is not satisfied if adequate back-up
equipment should have been installed in the exercise of
reasonable engineering judgment to prevent a bypass which
occurred during normal periods of equipment downtime or
preventive maintenance; and
(c) The permittee submitted notices as required under Paragraph
b. of this section.
(2) H? **!!*}* JO*?9 *"tb°rity may, within its authority, approve
an anticipated bypass, after considering its adverse effects, if
the Permit Issuing Authority determines that it will meet the
three conditions listed above in Paragraph c.(l) of this section.
-------
Part II
Page II-5
4. Upsets
"Upset" means an exceptional incident in which there is unintentional and
temporary noncompliance with technology-based permit effluent limitations
because of factors beyond the reasonable control of the permittee. An
upset does not include noncompliance to the extent caused by operational
error/ improperly designed treatment facilities, inadequate treatment
facilities, lack of preventive maintenance, or careless or improper
operation. An upset constitutes an affirmative defense to an action
brought for non-compliance with such technology-based permit limitation if
the requirements of 40 CFR 122.41(n)(3) are met. (Note that this
provision does not apply to water quality-based requirements.)
5. Removed Substances
This permit does not authorize discharge of solids, sludge, filter
backwash, or other pollutants removed in the course of wastewater
t reatment.
SECTION C. INSPECTION AND ENTRY.
The permittee shall allow the Permit Issuing Authority, or an authorized
representative, upon the presentation of credentials and other documents as
may be required by law, to:'
a. Enter upon the permittee's premises where a regulated facility or
activity is located or conducted, or where records must be kept under
the conditions of this permit;
b. Ifeve access to and copy, at reasonable times, any records that must
be kept under the conditions of this permit; and
c. Inspect at reasonable time any facilities, equipment (including
monitoring and control equipment), practices, or operations regulated
or required under this permit; and
d. Sample or monitor at reasonable times, for the purposes of assuring
permit compliance or as otherwise authorized by the Clean Water Act,
any substances or parameters at any location.
-------
Part: II
Paae II-6
*" in
~
SECTION D. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
1. Change in Discharge
The permittee shall give notice to the Permit Issuing Authority as soon as
possible of any planned physical alterations or additions to the n^nrd^ed
facility. Notice is required only when the alteration or addition
change the method of disposal. <««ir._ >n
2. Anticipated Noncompliance
The permittee shall give advance notice to the Permit Issuing Authority o'
planned change in the permitted facility or activity which may r<--ult
noncompliance with permit requirements. Any maintenance of facilitie^" w^-h
might necessitate unavoidable interruption of operation, shall be sc^u^ed
during noncritical water quality periods. """ ~
3. Transfer of Ownership or Control
A permit may be automatically transferred to another party if:
a. The permittee notifies the Permit Issuing Authority of the proposed
transfer at least Sundays in advance of the proposed transfer date;
b. The notice includes a written agreement between the existing *nd new
permittee containing a specific date for transfer of penut
responsibility, coverage, and liability between them; and
c. The Permit Issuing Authority does not notify the existing permittee
of his or her intent to modify or revoke and reissue the permit If
this notice is not received, the transfer is effective on th/datp
specified in the agreement mentioned in paragraph b.
4. Twenty-Four Hour Reporting
The permittee shall orally report any noncompliance which may endanger health
or the environment within 24 hours from the time the permittee becomes aware
of the circumstances. A written submission shall also be provided within 5
days of the time the permittee becomes aware of the circumstances The
written submission shall contain a description of the noncompliance and its
cause, an estimate of the volume discharged and the name of the receiving
stream, the period of noncompliance, including exact dates and times; and if
the noncompliance has not been corrected, the anticipated time it is »xpected
to continue, and steps taken or planned to reduce, eliminate, and prevent
reoccurrence of the noncompliance. The Permit Issuing Authority may vecbally
waive the written report, on a case-by-case basis, when the oral reco-t is
made.
A-
-------
Part II
Page I1-7
The following violations shall be included in the 24 hour report:
a. An unanticipated bypass which results in a discharge to waters of the
U.S.
b. Any upset which results in a discharge to waters of the U.S.
5. Other Noncompliance
The permittee shall report in narrative form, all instances of noncompliance
not previously reported under Section D, Paragraphs D-2 and D-4. The reports
shall contain the information listed in Paragraph D-4.
6. Duty to Reapply
If the permittee wishes to continue an activity regulated by this permit after
the expiration date of this permit, the permittee must apply for and obtain a
new permit. The application should be submitted at least 180 days before the
expiration date of this permit. The Permit Issuing Authority may grant
permission to submit an application less than 180 days in advance but not
later than the permit expiration date.
•
Where EPA is the Permit Issuing Authority, the terms and condition^ of this
permit are automatically continued in accordance with 40 CFR 122.6, only where
the permittee has submitted a timely and complete application for a renewal
permit and the Permit Issuing Authority is unable through no fault of the
permittee to issue a new permit before the expiration date.
7. Signatory Requirements
All applications, reports, or information submitted to the Permit Issuing
Authority shall be signed and certified.
a. All permit applications shall be signed as follows:
(1) For a corporation: by a responsible corporate officer. For the
purpose of this Section, a responsible corporate officer means:
(1) a president, secretary, treasurer or vice president of the
corporation in charge of a principal business function, or any
other person who performs similar policy - or decision-making
functions for the corporation, or (2) the manager of or.e or more
manufacturing production or operating facilities employing more
than 250 persons or having gross annual sales or expenditures
exceeding $25 million (in second quarter 1980 dollars), if
authority to sign documents has been assigned or de] gated to
the manager in accordance with corporate procedures.
A-u
-------
Part II
Page II-8
(2)
For a partnership or sole proprietorship: by a general partner
or the proprietor, respectively; or
(3) For a municipality, State, Federal, or other public agency by
either a principal executive officer or ranking elected official!
b. All reports required by the permit and other information requested by
the Permit Issuing Authority shall be signed by a person described
above or by a duly authorized representative of that person A
person is a duly authorized representative only if:
(1) Ihe authorization is made in writing by a person described above;
(2) The authorization specifies either an individual or a position
having responsibility for the overall operation of the regulated
facility or activity, such as the position of plant manager
operator of a well or a well field, superintendent, position of
equivalent responsibility, or an individual or position havinq
overall responsibility for environmental matters for the
company. (A duly authorized representative may thus be either a
named individual or any individual occupying a named position.);
and
(3) The written authorization is submitted to the Permit Issuinq
Authority. • *
c. Certification. Any person signing a document under paragraphs (a) or
(b) of this section shall make the following certification:
"I certify under penalty of law that this document and all
attachments were prepared under my direction or supervision in
accordance with a system designed to assure that qualified
personnel properly gather and evaluate the information
submitted. Based on my inquiry of the person or persons who
manage the system, or those persons directly responsible for
gathering the information, the information submitted is, to the
best of ray knowledge and belief, true, accurate, and complete
I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting
false information, including the possibility of fine and
imprisonment for knowing violations."
-------
Part II
Page II-9
8. Availability of Reports
Except for data determined to be confidential under 40 CFR Part 2, all reports
prepared in accordance with the terms of this permit shall be available for
public inspection at the offices of the Permit Issuing Authority. As required
by the Act, permit applications, permits and effluent data shall not be
considered confidential.
9. Penalties for FalaJ' i<..aL .on__ot reports
The Clean Water Act provides that any person who knowingly makes any false
material statement, representation, or certification in any record or other
document submitted or required to be maintained under this permit, including
monitoring reports or reports of compliance or noncompliance, or who knowingly
falsifies, tampers with, or renders inaccurate any monitoring device or method
required to be maintained under the Clean Water Act, shall, upon conviction,
be punished by a fine of not more than $10,000 or by imprisonment for not more
than 2 years, or by both.
SECTION E. DEFINITIONS
1. Permit Issuing Authority *
The Regional Administrator of EPA Region IV or his designee, unless at some
time in the future the State receives the authority to administer the NPDES
program and assumes jurisdiction over the permit; at which time, the Director
of the State program receiving authorization becomes the issuing authority.
2. Act
"Act" means the Clean Water Act (formerly referred to as the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act) Public Law 92-500, as amended by Public Law 95-217,
Public Law 95-576 and Public Law 100-4, 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.
3. Calendar Day
A calendar day is defined as the period from midnight of one day until
midnight of the next day. However, for purposes of this permit, any
consecutive 24-hour period that reasonably represents the calendar day may be
used for sampling.
A
-------
-------
Page III-l
Permit No. FL0041173
Part III
Other Requirements
A. Reporting of Monitoring Results
Monitoring results obtained for each calendar month shall be
summarized and reported on a Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR) Form
(EPA No. 3320-1). These forms shall be submitted after each calendar
quarter and postmarked no later than the 28th day of the month
following the completed calendar quarter. (For example, data for
January-March shall be submitted by April 28.) Calendar quarters are
January-March, April-June, July-September, and October-December.
Signed copies of these, and all other reports required by Section D
of Part II, Reporting Requirements, shall be submitted to the Permit
Issuing Authority at the following address:
Environmental Protection Agency
Region IV
Enforcement Section
Water Permits and Enforcement Branch
Water Management Division
345 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, GA 30365
If no discharge occurs during the reporting period, sampling
requirements of this permit do not apply. The statement "No
Discharge" shall be written on the DMR form. If, during the term of
this permit, the facility ceases discharge to surface waters, the
Permit Issuing Authority and the State shall be notified immediately
upon cessation of discharge. This notification shall be in writing.
B. Reopener Clause
This permit shall be modified, or alternatively, revoked and reissued
to comply with any applicable effluent standard or limitation, or
sludge disposal requirement issued or approved under Sections
301(b)(2)(c) and (D), the effluent standard or limitation, of sludge
disposal requirement so issued or approved:
(1) Contains different conditions or is otherwise more stringent
that any condition in the permit; or
(2) Controls any pollutant , or disposal method not in the
permit.
The permit as modified or reissued under this paragraph shall contain
any other requirements of the Act then applicable.
C. Polychlorinated Biphenyl Compounds
There shall be no discharge of polychlorinated biphenyl compounds,
such as those commonly used for transformer fluid.
-------
Page III-2
Permit No.
FL0041173
D. Erodible Material Storage
The permittee shall not store coal, soil, nor other similar erodible
materials in a manner in which runoff is uncontrolled, nor.conduct
construction activities in a manner which produces uncontrolled
runoff unless such uncontrolled runoff has been specifically approved
by the Director. "Uncontrolled" shall mean without sedimentation
basin or other controls approved by the Director. This permit may be
modified to include limitations for the discharge from such
facilities, when installed.
E. Detection Limits
If the results for a given sample analysis are such that any
parameter is not detected at or above the minimum level for the test
method used, a value of zero will be used for that sample, and the
permittee shall report "NODI=B" on the Discharge Monitoring Report
(DMR) Form (EPA No. 3320-1). For eacfci quantitative sample value that
is not detectable, the test method, as well as the minimum level for
the analytical test method selected, shall be attached to and
submitted with the DMR. The permittee shall then be considered to be
in compliance with the appropriate effluent reporting requirement.
F. Combined Waste Streams
In accordance with 40 CFR Section 423.12(12), in the event that waste
streams from various sources are combined for treatment or discharge,
the quantity of each pollutant or pollutant property attributable to
each controlled waste source shall not exceed the specified
limitation for that waste source.
G. Unauthorized Discharges
Except as specifically permitted for Outfall 003 and 008, there shall
be no point source discharge of any wastes to waters of the United
States, or to any waste stream which enters such waters.
-------
Page IV-1
Permit No. FLOO
PART IV
BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES/POLLUTION PREVENTION CONDITIONS
A. GENERAL CONDITIONS
In accordance with Section 304(e) and 402(a)(2) of the Clean Water Act
(CWA) as amended, 33 U.S.C. §§ 1251 et seq., and the Pollution
Prevention Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. SS 13101-13109, the permittee must
develop and implement a plan for utilizing practices incorporating
pollution prevention measures. References to be considered in
developing the plan are "Criteria and Standards for Best Management
Practices Authorized Under Section 304(e) of the Act," found at 40 CFR
125, Subpart K and the Waste Minimization Opportunity Assessment
Manual, EPA/625/7-88/003.
1. Definitions
a. The term "pollutants" refers to conventional,
non-conventional and toxic pollutants.
b. Conventional pollutants are: biochemical oxygen demand
(BOD), suspended solids, pH, fecal coliform bacteria and oil
& grease.
c. Non-conventional pollutants are those which are not defined
as conventional or toxic, such as phosphorus, nitrogen or
ammonia.
d. Toxic pollutants include, but are not limited to: a) any
toxic substance listed in Section 307(a)(1) of the CWA, any
hazardous substance listed in Section 311 of the CWA, or
chemical listed in Section 313(c) of the Superfund
Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986; and b) any
substance (that is not also a conventional or
non-conventional pollutant) for which EPA has published an
acute or chronic toxicity criterion.
e. "Pollution prevention" and "waste minimisation" refer to the
first two categories of EPA's preferred hazardous waste
management strategy: first, source reduction and then,
recycling»
f. "Recycle/Reuse" is defined as the the minimization of waste
generation by recovering and reprocessing usable products
that might otherwise become waste; or the reuse or
reprocessing of usable waste products in place of the
original stock, or for other purposes such as material
recovery, material regeneration or energy production.
g. "Source reduction" means any practice which: i) reduces the
amount of any pollutant entering a waste stream or otherwise
released into the environment (including fugitive emissions)
prior to recycling, treatment or disposal; and ii) reduces
the hazards to public health and the environment associated
with the release of such pollutant. The term includes
A -n
-------
Page IV-2
Permit No. FLOO
equipment or technology modifications, process or procedure
modifications, reformulation or redesign of products,
substitution of raw materials, and improvements in
housekeeping, maintenance, training, or inventory control.
It does not include any practice which alters the physical,
chemical, or biological characteristics or the volume of a
pollutant through a process or activity which itself is not
integral to, or previously considered necessary for, the
production of a product or the providing of a service.
h. "BMP3" means a Best Management Plan incorporating the
requirements of 40 CFR S 125, Subpart K, plus pollution
prevention techniques associated with a Waste Minimization
Assessment.
i. "Waste Minimization Assessment" means a systematic planned
procedure with the objective of identifying ways to reduce
or eliminate waste.
2« Best Management Practices/Pollution Prevention Plan
The permittee shall develop and implement a BMP3 plan for th£
facility which is the source of wastewater and storm water
discharges covered by this permit. The plan shall be directed
toward reducing those pollutants of concern which discharge to
surface waters and shall be prepared in accordance with good
engineering and good housekeeping practices. For the purposes of
this permit, pollutants of concern shall be limited to toxic
pollutants, as defined above, known to the discharger. The plan
shall address all activities which could or do contribute these
pollutants to the surface water discharge, including process,
treatment, and ancillary activities.
3. Signatory Authority & Management Responsibilities
The BMP3 plan shall be signed in accordance with Item II.D.12.
and shall be reviewed by the plant engineering staff and plant
manager. A copy of the plan shall be retained at the facility
and shall be made available to the permit issuing authority upon
request.
The BMP3 plan shall contain a written statement from corporate or
plant management indicating management's commitment to the goals
of the BMP3 program. Such statements shall be publicized or made
known to all facility employees. Management shall also provide
training for the individuals responsible for implementing the
BMP3 plan.
A-
-------
Page IV-3
Permit No. FLOO
4. BMP3 Plan Requirements
a. name & description of facility, a map illustrating the
location of the facility & adjacent receiving waters, and
other maps, plot plans or drawings, as necessary;
b. overall objectives (both short-term and long-term) and scope
of the plan, specific reduction goals for pollutants,
anticipated dates of achievement of reduction, and a
description of means for achieving each reduction goal;
c. a description of procedures relative to spill prevention,
control & countermeasures and a description of measures
employed to prevent storm water contamination;
d. a description of practices involving preventive maintenance,
housekeeping, recordkeeping, inspections, and plant
security;
e. the description of a waste minimization assessment performed
in accordance with the conditions outlined in Section 5
below, results of the assessment, and a schedule for
implementation of specific waste reduction practices;
5. Waste Minimization Assessment
A waste minimization assessment (WMA) shall be conducted for this
facility to determine actions that could be taken to reduce waste
loadings and chemical losses to all wastewater and/or storm water
streams as described in Part IV.B of this permit. It shall
address both short-term and long-term opportunities for
minimizing waste generation at this facility, utilizing at a
minimum, applicable criteria selected from Part IV.B: Required
Components of a Waste Minimization Assessment, particularly for
high volume and/or high toxicity components of wastewater and
storm water streams. Initially, the WMA should focus primarily
on actions that could be implemented quickly, thereby realizing
tangible benefits to surface water quality. Long term goals and
actions pertaining to waste reduction shall include investigation
of the feasibility of eliminating toxic chemical use, instituting
process changes, raw material replacements, etc.
Implementation of Results: The permittee shall implement each
waste reduction practice recommended by the WMA as soon as
practicable. Any waste reduction practices which are identified
but will not be implemented shall be described in the required
Pollution Prevention plan summary or proqress/update reports,
along with the factors inhibiting their adoption. Any waste
reduction practices which cannot be implemented immediately shall
be described in the Pollution Prevention plan.
A-fl
-------
Page IV-4
Permit No. FLOO
Timeframe; The permit issuing authority does not herein
establish a time limit for completion of the WMA; the study may
be conducted throughout the term of this permit. However, a
suggested target completion date is six months after the
effective date of the permit, so that the WMA results and
recommended waste reduction practices may be incorporated into
the BMP3 plan. Continual studies toward minimizing waste are
encouraged.
Practices which reduce pollutant loading in wastewater or storm
water discharges with a consequent increase in solid hazardous
waste generation, decrease in air quality, or adverse affect to
groundwater shall not be considered waste reduction for the
purposes of this assessment*
6- Best Management Practices & Pollution Prevention Committee
Recommended;
A Best Management Practices Committee (Comittee) should be
established to direct or assist in the implementation of the BMP3
plan. The Committee should be comprised of individuals within
the plant organization who are responsible for developing the
BMP 3 plan and assisting the plant manager in its implementation,
monitoring of success, and revision. The activities and
responsibilities of the Committee should address all aspects of
the facility's BMP3 plan. The scope of responsibilities of the
Committee should be described in the plan.
7. Employee Training
Employee training programs shall inform personnel at all
levels of responsibility of the components & goals of the BMP3
plan and shall describe employee responsibilities for
implementing the plan. Training shall address topics such as
good housekeeping, materials management, recordkeeping &
reporting, spill prevention & response, as well as specific
waste reduction practices to be employed. Training should
also disclose how individual employees may contribute
suggestions concerning the BMP3 plan or suggestions regarding
Pollution Prevention. The plan shall identify periodic dates
for such training.
8. Plan Development & Implementation
The BMP3 plan shall be developed and implemented 6 months
after the effective date of this permit, unless any later
dates are specified by the Director. Any portion of the WMA
which is ongoing at the time of development or implementation
shall be described in the plan. Any waste reduction practice
A'2-O
-------
Page IV-5
Permit No. FLOO
which is recommended for implementation over a period of time
shall be identified in the plan, including a schedule for its
implementation.
9. Submission of Plan Summary & Progress/Update Reports
a. Plan Summary;
Not later than 2 years after the effective date of the
permit, a summary of the BMP3 plan shall be developed and
maintained at the facility and made available to the
permit issuing authority upon request. The summary
should include the following: a brief description of the
plan/ its implementation process, schedules for
implementing identified waste reduction practices, and a
list of all waste reduction practices being employed at
the facility. The results of waste minimization
assessment studies already completed as well as any
scheduled or ongoing WMA studies shall be discussed.
*
b. Progress/Update Reports:
Annually thereafter for the duration of the permit
progress/update reports documenting implementation of the
plan shall be maintained at the facility and made
available to the permit issuing authority upon request.
The reports shall discuss whether or not implementation
schedules were met and revise any schedules, as
necessary. The plan shall also be updated as necessary
and the attainment or progress made toward specific
pollutant reduction targets documented. Results of any
ongoing WMA studies as well as any additional schedules
for implementation of wast ' reduction practices shall be
included.
- - v
c. A timetable for the various plan requirements follows:
Timetable for BNP3 Plan Requirements*
REQUIREMENT TIME FROM EFFECTIVE DATE OF
THIS PERMIT
Complete WMA 6 months
Develop & Implement Plan 6 months
Develop Plan Summary 2 Years
A-21
-------
Page IV-6
Permit No. FLOO
Progress/Update Reports 3 years, and then
annually thereafter
The permittee shall maintain the plan and subsequent
reports at the facility and shall make the plan available
to the Permit Issuing Authority upon request.
10. Plan Review & Modification
If following review by the Director, or authorized
representative, the BMP3 plan is determined insufficient,
he/she may notify the permittee that the BMP3 plan does not
meet one or more of the minimum requirements of this Part.
Upon such notification from the Director, or authorized
representative, the permittee shall amend the plan and shall
submit to the Director a written certification that the
requested changes have been made. Unless otherwise provided
by the Director, the permittee shall have 30 days after such
notification to make the changes necessary.
The permittee shall modify .the BMP3 plan whenever there is a
change in design, construction, operation, or maintenance,
which has a significant effect on the potential for the x
discharge of pollutants to waters of the United States or if
the plan proves to be ineffective in achieving the general
objectives of reducing pollutants in wastewater or storm water
discharges. Modifications to the plan may be reviewed by EPA
in the same manner as described above.
11. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS
These conditions will be incorporated according to Best
Professional Judgement (BPJ) for specific areas in which
standard conditions may not address.
B. REQUIRED COMPONENTS OF A WASTE MINIMIZATION ASSESSMENT
1. Plant Water Balance
The WMA shall include an overall plant water balance, as well as
internal water balances, as necessary. This information shall be
used to determine any opportunities for water conservation or
reuse/recycling and to determine if and where leakages might
occur.
2. Material and Risk Assessment
A materials & risk assessment shall be developed and shall
include the following:
A-22
-------
Page IV-7
Permit No. FLOO
a. identification of the types & quantities of materials used
or manufactured (including by-products produced) at the
facility;
b. identification of the location & types of materials
management activities which occur at the facility;
c. an evaluation of the following aspects of materials
compatibility: containment & storage practices for
chemicals, container compatibility, chemical mixing
procedures; potential mixing or compatibility problems; and
specific prohibitions regarding mixing of chemicals;
d. technical information on human health and ecological effects
of toxic or hazardous chemicals presently used or
manufactured (including by-products produced) or planned for
future use or production;
e. analyses of chemical use & waste generation, including
overall plant material balances and as necessary, internal
process balances, for all pollutants. (When actual
measurements of the quantity of a chemical entering a
wastewater or storm water stream are not readily available,
reasonable estimates should be made based on best
engineering judgment.) The analyses shall address reasons
for using particular chemicals, and measures or estimates of
the actual and potential chemical discharges via wastewater,
wastewater sludge, storm water, air, solid waste or
hazardous waste media.
3. Pollutant Reduction Methods
The WMA shall include, at a minimum, the following means of
reducing pollutant discharges in wastewater streams or of
otherwise minimizing wastes:
a. process related source reduction measures, including any or
all of the following, as appropriate:
1) production process changes;
2) improved process controls;
3) reduction of off-spec materials;
4) reduction in use of toxic or hazardous materials;
5) chemical modifications and/or material purification;
6) chemical substitution employing non-toxic or less toxic
alternatives; and
7) equipment upgrades or modifications or changes in
equipment use.
A -2.3
-------
Page IV-8
Permit No. FLOO
b. housekeeping/operational changes, including waste stream
segregation, inventory control, spill & leak prevention,
equipment maintenance; and employee training in areas of
pollution prevention, good housekeeping, and spill
prevention & response;
c. in-process recycling, on-site recycling and/or off-site
recycling of materials;
d. following all source reduction & recycling practices,
wastewater treatment process changes, including the use of
new or improved treatment methods, such that treatment
by-products are less toxic to aquatic or human life; and
e. other means as agreed upon by the permit issuing authority
and the permittee.
4. Storm Water Evaluation
For storm water discharges and instances where storm water enters
the wastewater treatment/disposal system or is otherwise
commingled with wastewater, the WMA shall evaluate the following
potential sources of storm water contamination, at a minimum:
a. loading, unloading and transfer areas for dry bulk materials
or liquids;
b. outdoor storage of raw materials or products;
c. outdoor manufacturing or processing activities;
d. dust or particulate generating processes;
e. on-site waste and/or sludge disposal practices.
The likelihood of storm water contact in these areas and the
potential for spills from these areas shall be considered in the
evaluation. The history of significant leaks or spills of toxic
or hazardous pollutants shall also be considered.
Recommendations for changes to current practices which would
reduce the potential for storm water contamination from these
areas shall be made, as necessary.
-------
w,
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION IV jyj_ QV 1993
DRAFT
345 COURTLAND STREET. N.E.
ATLANTA. GEORGIA 3O365
Statement of Basis
Application for
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
Permit to Discharge to Waters of the
United States
NPDES No.: FL0004117
Facility Name: Cedar Bay Cogeneration Facility
Location: 9469 Eastport Road
Duval County
Jacksonville, Florida 32218
Receiving Stream: Broward River (freshwater)
Classification: Class III Waters
Use Designation: Recreation, Propagation and Maintenance of a
Healthy, Well-Balanced Population of Fish and
Wildlife
Permit Writer: Karrie-Jo Shell
Facility Description:
This facility is a coal-fired, steam electric generating facility
(SIC Code 4911). This cogeneration facility is designed to provide
up to 380,000 pounds per hour of process steam to an adjacent paper
mill, as well as 250 megawatts (net) of electricity for revenue.
Wastewaters consist of storm water runoff from the material storage
area (includes coal, ash, and limestone storage and handling areas)
and runoff from the yard area (includes areas around the power block
and cooling tower). Wastewaters are treated by sedimentation in two
onsite retention ponds.
Bases for Permit Conditions:
Outfall 003
(Ground Runoff and, Roof & Yard Drain Discharges)
Flow and Total Suspended Solids; Monitoring and reporting
requirements are based on best professional judgement (BPJ), and are
consistent with Section 308(a) of the Clean Water Act of 1987 (CWA).
pH: Based on Florida Administrative Code (FAC) Section 17-302.560(32)
(dated 1/5/93).
A-25
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
-2-
122-44'd>
-------
APPENDIX B
STATE OF FLORIDA'S
FINAL ORDER APPROVING MODIFICATION
OF CERTIFICATION SETTLEMENT
AGREEMENT AND CONDITIONS
OF CERTIFICATION
-------
-------
BEFORE THE GOVERNOR AND CABINET
STATE OF FLORIDA
SITTING AS THE SITING BOARD
IN RE:
POWER PLANT SITE CERTIFICATION
OF CEDAR BAY COGENERATION
PROJECT, PA-88-24
DOAH Case No. 88-5740
OGC Case No. 88-1089
FINAL ORDER APPROVING MODIFICATION OF CERTIFICATION
On June 17, 1992, the Siting Board entered an Order
Instituting Modification Proceedings with respect to the power
plant site certification issued February 18, 1991, to AES Cedar
Bay, Inc., and Seminole Kraft Corporation for the Cedar Bay
Cogeneration Project in Jacksonville. The certification
modification proceedings were docketed as DOAH Case No. 88-5740.
*
On or about April 13, 1993, all parties to the modification
proceedings before DOAH executed a Settlement Stipulation dated
April 12, 1993, which resolved all disputed issues of fact and
law among the parties. On April 14, 1993, a Joint Agreed Motion
to Relinquish Jurisdiction based upon the Settlement Stipulation
was filed by the Department on behalf of all parties. On April
28, 1993, the assigned DOAH Hearing Officer, Robert T. Benton II,
entered an order relinquishing jurisdiction of the proceeding to
the Board for the purpose of taking final agency action in the
matter.
The Siting Board, having reviewed the terms of the Settlement
Stipulation and otherwise having been fully advised as to this
matter, concludes that the Stipulation effects an appropriate
resolution of the controversy over the site certification for the
e>
-------
operation vill comply vith toe non.proceaural ^^
cedar Bay generation Project. The Board believes that this
resolution is consistent vith the public interest and vith the
intent of the Board as expressed in its Order of June „. 1992
The revised Conditions of Certification agreed to
-attached as Appendix A iffiplenent ^ ^
to the project and assure that construction and
l comply vi
agencies of jurisdiction.
Accordingly, the Board ORDERS:
;;-Jhvert:fioation for the ceaa
a* 24. .ssued re.ruary 18, 1991, is HODIFIED.
certlflcation contained in Appendix A shaZl henceforth apply to
govern construction and operation of the Cedar Bay Cogeneration
Pro3ect „ accordance vith Section <03.5ll, Florida stafcutes
(Supp. 1992).
2- The certification is further MODIFIED to reflect that the
n-. Of certificate holder AES Cedar Bav, Inc. has been changed
to cedar Bay Cogeneration, Inc.
to ttis order has toe right to
9 bv .pursuant to section
»92, by flllng . Notioe of Appe
Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, vith the cler* of the
Department of Environmental Regulation and office of General
counsel, 2600 Blair stone Road, Tallahassee, rlorida 32399-2400;
and by filing . copy 0£ the Notice of Appeai< accompaniea
the applicable filing fees, vith the appropriate District Court
°* Appeal. The Notice of Appeal nust be filed vithin 30 days
2
6-2
-------
from the date this Order is filed with the Clerk of the
Department of Environmental Regulation.
DONE AND ORDERED this JJ^ day of May, 1993, in Tallahassee,
Florida, pursuant to the vote of the Governor and Cabinet,
sitting as the Siting Board, at the duly constituted Cabinet
meeting on May 11, 1993.
BY THE GOVERNOR AND CABINET,
SITTING AS THE^SITING BOARD
Chiles, ^Governor
(3-3
-------
CERTIFICATE OF SERVTPB
I DO HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the
u-s-
Gary Sams, Esq.
Hopping Boyd Green & Sams
P O Box 6526
Tallahassee FL 32314
Terry Cole, Esq.
Scott Shirley, Esq.
Oertel Hoffman Fernandez & Cole
P O Box 6507
Tallahassee FL 32314-6507
Gregory K. Radlinski, Esq.
City of Jacksonville
600 City Hall
220 E Bay St
Jacksonville FL 32202
M.B. Adelson, IV
Assistant General Counsel
Douglas Bldg MS-35
3900 Commonwealth Blvd
Tallahassee FL 32399-3000
Jim Antista, General Counsel
Florida Game & Fresh Water
Fish Commission
620 s Meridian Rd
Tallahassee FL 32399-1600
Lucky Osho, Esq.
Department of Community Affairs
2740 Centerview Dr
Tallahassee FL 32399-2100
Earl M. Barker, Esq.
Slott & Barker
334 East Duval St
Jacksonville, FL 32302
Lawrence N. Curt in, Esq.
Holland & Knight
P O Drawer 810
Tallahassee FL 32302
this
Rob Vandiver, General Counsel
Mike Palecki, Chief
Bureau of Electric & Gas
Florida Public Service Cpmms
101 E Gaines St
Tallahassee FL 32399-0850
James A. Heard, Esq.
2902 Independent Sq
Jacksonville FL 32202
Lisa B. Cooper, Esq.
Margol & Pennington
76 Laura St
Jacksonville FL 32202
Nancy B. Barnard, Esq.
St Johns River Water
Management District
P 0 Box 1429
Palatka FL 32178-1429
day of May, 1993.
STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT
OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION
RICHARD T. DONELAN,
Assistant General Counsel
Twin Towers Office Bldg
2600 Blair Stone Rd
Tallahassee FL 32399-2400
Telephone: 904/488-9730
-------
STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
AES CEDAR BAY,INC., and )
SEMINOLE KRAFT CORPORATION, )
Petitioners, )
VS. ) DOAH CASE NO. 88-5740
STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF )
ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION, )
Respondent, )
and )
CITY OF JACKSONVILLE, )
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS, )
PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, ST. )
JOHNS RIVER WATER MANAGEMENT )
DISTRICT, JACKSONVILLE ELECTRIC )
AUTHORITY, CHARLES W. BOSTWICK, )
WILLIAM C. BOSTWICK, BARNETT )
BANKS TRUST COMPANY, N.A., IMESON )
INTERNATIONAL PARK, INC., and )
INDUSTRIAL PARK DEVELOPMENT )
CORPORATION, CITIZENS COMMITTEE, )
INC., SIERRA CLUB, FLORIDA )
AUDUBON SOCIETY, THE DUVAL )
AUDUBON SOCIETY, INC., and )
STAFFORD CAMPBELL, )
Intervenors. )
SETTLEMENT STIPULATION
The parties in this and related proceedings, Cedar Bay
Cogeneration, Inc. ("CBC") (formerly known as AES Cedar Bay, Inc.),
Seminole Kraft Corporation ("SK"), the Florida Department of
Environmental Regulation ("DER"), St. Johns River Water Management
District ("SJRWMD"), City of Jacksonville, the Citizens' Committee,
Inc. (including all of its members, who are listed on Attachment A
6-5
-------
hereto), William C. Bostwick, Sierra Club, Florida Audubon Society,
The Duval Audubon Society, Inc., and Stafford Campbell, as
indicated below by their signatures or the signatures of their
counsel or representatives (collectively "the Parties"), enter into
the following settlement stipulation and agreement (Agreement),
which shall be binding on themselves and their members, principals,
successors and assigns. Persons signing on behalf of a group,
organization, or legal entity represent that they have all
necessary power and authority to execute this agreement and to bind
said group, organization, or legal entity and its members.
A. Purposes
1. The intent of this Agreement is to resolve fully and
finally, and with prejudice, all disputes, issues or other matters
arising in the above-styled proceeding and in all related
permitting proceedings or appeals at the federal, state, regional
and local levels arising out of, or related to, the certification
of, the petition for modification of certification of, or the
permitting of, the Cedar Bay Cogeneration Project ("CBCP" or
"Project") and its construction and operation in a manner binding
on the parties to this Agreement. This Agreement resolves all
issues which were raised or could have been raised in this
proceeding or any other proceeding, including but not limited to
the issue of use of natural gas in the Project or the Project's
satisfaction of federal, state, regional and local environmental or
other regulations. The parties will not seek administrative or
judicial review, or seek revocation of, any certification or permit
-------
for the Project which is consistent with the terms of this
Agreement. This Agreement neither waives nor expands the rights
available to any Party under existing law to seek enforcement or
any other remedy for violation of this Agreement, the conditions of
certification, or any state or federal permit for facts occurring
after the date of this Agreement.
2. Each Party hereby requests, intending to be bound by its
individual execution of this Agreement, that the Florida Power
Plant Siting Board (Siting Board) enter a Final Order Approving
Modification of Site Certification that contains the Conditions of
Certification attached hereto as Attachment B and the provisions of
this Agreement contained in Paragraphs 3 through 6 inclusive. All
other provisions of this Agreement which are not included in the
modified certification or other related permit shall be
independently binding on the parties hereto. Furthermore, the
parties agree that the findings implicit and explicit in this
document establish that, if operated in compliance with the
certification and applicable permits, the CBGP as now proposed plus
the package boilers now proposed by SKC fully satisfy the Florida
Electrical Power Plant Siting Act, all applicable federal, state,
regional and local environmental requirements, and the Siting
Board's Order Initiating Modification Proceedings, dated June 17,
1992, and are associated with, n[o]n balance,** fewer "environmental
impacts" than are associated with the SKC recycling operation
without the CBCP as now proposed.
-------
B. Conditions of Certification
3. A revised Condition of Certification No. XXVIII shall be
included in the Conditions of Certification as contained in
Attachment C hereto.
4. An additional condition of certification No. II.A.B.C.
shall be included in the Conditions of Certification, as follows:
Compliance tests shall be performed for mercury (Hg),
beryllium (Be), and lead (Pb) until three consecutive tests
(including, if successful, the initial compliance test) are
within the annual emission limits specified in Condition
II.A.3. above. Such tests shall occur, as necessary, in the
first, fifth and tenth years and additional successive five
year intervals following commercial operation of the Project.
5. Revised Conditions of Certification No. II.A.6 and II.A.9.
to address the use of Continuous Emissions Monitors for determining
compliance with emissions limits for sulfur dioxide, nitrogen
oxides, carbon monoxide and opacity shall be included in the
Conditions of Certification, as follows:
6. Compliance with the emission limits shall be
determined by EPA reference method tests included in the July
l, 1992 version of 40 CFR Parts.^60. and 61, Rule 17-297,
F.A.C., and listed in Condition No. II.A.8 of this permit or
by equivalent methods after prior written DEP approval. In
addition, compliance with the emission limitations in
Condition No. II.A.3 for CO, NO,, and SO2 and with the opacity
requirements in Condition No.II.A.5 shall be determined with
the Continuous Emission Monitoring Systems (CEMs) identified
in Condition No. II.A.9.
9. CBCP shall install, certify, calibrate, operate, and
maintain continuous emission monitoring systems for opacity,
SO2, NOZ, CO, and 02 or C02, pursuant to all applicable
requirements of Rule 17-296.800, F.A.C., Chapter 17-297,
F.A.C., 40 CFR 60 Subpart A, 40 CFR 60 Subpart Da, 40 CFR 60
Appendix B, and 40 CFR 60 Appendix F. These CEMs shall be
used to determine compliance with the emission limitations in
Condition No. II.A.3 for CO, NO,, and S02 and with the opacity
-------
requirements in Condition No. II.A.5. The permittee may elect
to install, certify, calibrate, operate, and maintain multiple
span continuous emission monitoring systems for sulfur dioxide
and nitrogen oxides providing certification tests and
calibrations are performed for each span. Each of the
continuous emission monitoring systems for sulfur dioxide and
nitrogen oxides shall continuously record data on a span that
satisfies the requirements of 40 CFR 60.47a. Any exception to
the above must be specifically authorized by DEP in writing
and in accordance with state and federal regulations.
6. Revised Conditions of Certification II.D. and II.E. to
address Seminole Kraft Corporation's annual emissions from its new
package boilers and actions to dismantle or render inoperable SK's
existing power and bark boilers following surrender of the air
permits for those boilers shall be included in the Conditions of
Certification as follows:
D. Contemporaneous Emission Reductions
This certification and any individual air permits issued
subsequent to the final order of the Board certifying the
power plant site under section 403.509, F.S., shall require
that the following Seminole Kraft Corporation sources be
permanently shut down and made incapable of operation, and
shall turn in their operation permits to the Division of Air
Resources Management's Bureau of Air Regulation, within 30
days of written confirmation by DER of the successful
completion of the initial compliance tests on the CBCP
boilers: the No. 1 PB (power-boiler)*/ the No. 2 PB, the No.
3 PB, the No. 1 BB (bark boiler), and the No. 2 BB. RESD
shall be specifically informed in writing within thirty days
after each individual shut down of the above referenced
equipment. Within one year of surrender of operating permits
as provided above, SK shall have completed the following steps
to ensure compliance with this condition:
Remove all oil guns;
Remove motors and selected conveyor parts in wood feed
system for bark boilers;
Dismantle stacks;
Disconnect boiler feedwater pumps;
Sever fuel line connections; and
-------
Remove fan motors.
These sources shall not, under any circumstances, be
restarted, refurbished or re-permitted as new or existing
sources, at the SK or CBCP site.
This requirement shall operate as a joint and individual
requirement to assure common control for purpose of ensuring
that all commitments relied on are in fact fulfilled.
E. SK Steam Boiler Emissions
1. This certification and any individual air permits
issued by the Department subsequent to the final order of the
Board certifying the power plant site under Section 403.509,
Florida Statutes, shall incorporate the following limitations
on the total tonnage of the specified criteria pollutants
allowed to be emitted annually by any natural gas-fired boiler
or combination of boilers constructed and operated by SK to
provide up to 375,000 Ibs/hr. of steam for use in its recycled
paper process:
Tons Per Year
CO 553
NO, 310
S02 25, except as provided in E.2 below.
2. In the event that the ceiling for S02 is expected to
be exceeded due to unavailability of natural gas caused by
factors beyond the control of SK, SK may notify the Department
that it must exceed the ceiling as provided herein; and
emissions of S02 during the period of such curtailment shall
not be counted against the yearly emissions ceiling of 25 tons
unless administrative proceedings result in a finding that the
exceedance was within Seminole Kraft's control. In no event
shall the annual emissions of S02 from the steam boilers
referenced above exceed a ceiling of 41 tons per year.
3. The notice shall include a statement of reasons for
the request and supporting documentation, and shall be
published by SK, without supporting documents, in a newspaper
of general circulation in Jacksonville as defined in section
403.5115(2), Florida Statutes. The filing and publication of
the notice no later than 7 days following the date of
exceedance shall preclude any finding of violation by DER
until final disposition of any administrative proceedings.
C. Other Environmental Provisions
7. As an incentive to achieve lower sulfur dioxide emissions
than permitted under the Conditions of Certification, CBC shall pay
-------
annually to the City of Jacksonville, Land Acquisition Trust Fund,
$400 for each ton of sulfur dioxide emitted in excess of 2208 tons
per calendar year from the CBCP's three circulating fluidized bed
boilers, combined, up to the total annual permitted sulfur dioxide
emissions for the Project; provided, however, that any taxes,
charges or fees payable under an applicable regulatory program on
account of emissions above 2208 tons per year but below the maximum
permitted annual emissions'shall be deducted from the $400 per ton
payable under this provision. The annual sulfur dioxide emissions
from the CBCP's CFB boilers for purposes of this provision shall be
determined based on continuous emissions monitoring data for the
calendar year. The amount of any such payments due for a calendar
year shall be determined by March 1st of the following year and be
paid to the City of Jacksonville, Land Acquisition Trust Fund, by
May 1st. Any annual emissions of sulfur dioxide above 2208 TPY
but below the maximum permitted annual emissions shall not
constitute a violation of the Conditions of Certification or of
this Agreement.
8. As an incentive to achieve lower nitrogen oxide emissions
than permitted under the Conditions of Certification, CBC shall pay
annually to the City of Jacksonville, Land Acquisition Trust Fund,
$200 for each ton of nitrogen oxides emitted in excess of 1948 tons
per calendar year from the CBCP's three circulating fluidized bed
boilers, combined, up to the total annual permitted nitrogen oxide
emissions for the Project; provided, however, that any taxes,
charges or fees payable under an applicable regulatory program on
-------
account of emissions above 1948 tons per year but below the maximum
permitted annual emissions shall be deducted from the $200 per ton
payable under this provision. The annual nitrogen oxide emissions
from the CBCP's CFB boilers for purposes of this provision shall be
determined based on continuous emissions monitoring data for the
calendar year. The amount of any such payments due for a calendar
year shall be determined by March 1st of the following year and be
paid to the City of Jacksonville, Land Acquisition Trust Fund, by
May 1st. Any annual emissions of nitrogen oxides above 1948 TPY
but below the maximum permitted annual emissions shall not
constitute a violation of the Conditions of Certification or of
this Agreement.
9. CBC agrees to donate to the City of Jacksonville the sun
of $575,000 within 30 days after commencement of commercial
operation. Of this sum, $350,000 shall be earmarked for
construction of a new fire station east of the rail line in the
vicinity of the intersection of Main St. and Busch Dr. to improve
response times for emergency vehicles to reach the residential
areas near the Project site. The other $225,000 shall be earmarked
for the purchase of one (1) mobile air quality monitoring van, for
use by the City of Jacksonville Department of Regulatory and
Environmental Services to monitor ambient air for concentrations of
non-criteria pollutants. The City of Jacksonville shall use its
best efforts to acquire such an air quality monitoring van for a
purchase price less than $225,000. If the City is successful in
8
-------
acquiring such a van for less than $225,000, the remaining funds
shall be applied toward the construction of the new fire station.
10. CBC agrees to provide onsite and off site improvements to
mitigate impacts across the Broward River from noise and light
created by the Project. Such improvements shall be done in
accordance with the landscape plan for the Project as approved by
the City of Jacksonville on April 2, 1993. During the first three
years of commercial operation, CBC, after consultation with the
Citizens' Committee, Inc., will provide further mitigation for
noise and light impacts by providing additional onsite or offsite
improvements including improvements to the CBCP, which are intended
to reduce such impacts; however, no such further improvements and
related services,including consulting fees,shall exceed a total
cost of $120,000. Any such improvements to the Project shall not
occur if such mitigation would cause any adverse impacts to,
including filling of, wetlands; require adverse modifications of
the stormwater management system or ponds; or cause a violation of
the conditions of certification, applicable law or the City of
Jacksonville's landscape ordinance.
11. The Project shall be constructed in conformance with the
conceptual Site Plan attached hereto as Attachment D. This site
plan represents the facilities that are currently to be constructed
and operated pursuant to the Site Certification, as modified
pursuant to these proceedings and this Agreement, and the locations
of those facilities. Any future modifications to this Site Plan
shall be made in accordance with applicable law and regulations.
-------
12. The parties agree that CBC will not be required to pursue
a federal National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
or other permit for a surface water discharge permit for any Phase
II water treatment system as referenced in the Siting Board's Order
Instituting Modification Proceedings, dated June 17, 1992. No such
Phase II water treatment system is proposed and any prior proposal
has been withdrawn in favor of the CBCP's zero discharge system.
13. The parties hereto agree not to oppose the issuance of
any NPDES permit for the Project for the discharge of storm water
or runoff caused by extreme rainfall events from the yard area and
storage area runoff ponds as shown on Attachment D, provided that
the proposed discharge is consistent with the data previously
submitted on or about April 4, 1993 to DER, SJRWMD, and the City of
Jacksonville in support of the Petition for Modification of
Certification. For purposes of this agreement, an extreme rainfall
event is defined as 1) a 50 year/24 hour storm for runoff from the
storage area; 2) a 22 year/24 hour storm for runoff from the yard
area when the CBCP turbine generator is operating; or 3) a 12
year/24 hour storm for runoff from the yard area when the CBCP
turbine generator is not operating.
14. The parties agree that there is no basis to require the
preparation or completion of an environmental impact statement
(EIS) for the Project and that the parties will not request that
such an EIS be completed or prepared.
15. Any proposal to plant trees as an offset of carbon
dioxide emissions from the Project, as proposed by a previous owner
10
.6-4
-------
of the stock of CBC, is satisfied by the improvements made pursuant
to the modified conditions of certification and this Agreement.
16. Seminole Kraft stipulates that the issuance of the
i
original certification for the CBCP consumed all creditable
emissions resulting from the shutdown of Seminole Kraft's existing
bark and power boilers. Any creditable emissions resulting from
the shutdown of the kraft recovery boilers, lime kilns, smelt
dissolving tanks and slaker No. 3 shall be determined as provided
in Rule 17-212.400(a), F.A.C. and any permit issued for SK's three
proposed package boilers; but SK acknowledges that no creditable
emissions remain for sulfur dioxide.
17. The Project and the Seminole Kraft recycling mill are
independent sources of air emissions. Accordingly, neither shall
be entitled to receive further air emission credits or offsets
based upon the operating performance of the other below its air
emission limits established in the attached Conditions of
Certification or any air permit nor shall there be enforcement
taken against one of these parties for violations of legal
requirements by the other of these two parties.
D. Other Provisions
18. With respect to the first public announcement of this
settlement agreement, the timing and wording of the first release
of this Agreement will be reserved to the City of Jacksonville, the
Sierra Club, Audubon Societies, Stafford Campbell and the Citizens'
Committee, after consultation on such timing and wording with
representatives of CBC and Seminole Kraft. Nothing released is to
11
-------
be derogatory of any party to this Agreement, nor inconsistent with
the terms of this Agreement. Subsequent releases may be made by
any party to this Agreement at its option, but in all instances
shall be consistent with the terms of this Agreement.
19. The Parties agree to cooperate in obtaining final action
by the Siting Board on the proposed modification as expeditiously
as possible. The Parties agree that any presentation which they
may make to the Hearing Officer and the Siting Board shall be
consistent with the terms, provisions and spirit of this Agreement
and with the modified conditions of certification. The parties
further agree to consult with one another in advance of the meeting
of the Siting Board concerning any presentation they may make to
the Board.
20. The Citizens' Committee Inc., Sierra Club, Florida
Audubon Society, Duval Audubon Society, and Stafford Campbell agree
to return no later than April 30, 1993 to counsel for CBC and SK,
respectively, all copies of all documents which are subject to any
confidentiality agreement in this case. -------
21. Within 30 days following final action by the Siting Board
approving the modifications of site certification, CBC will state
in writing to the United States Environmental Protection Agency
that it will operate the Project in compliance with Section II of
the Conditions of Certification attached hereto and Paragraph 5 of
this Agreement as though those provisions were incorporated into
the existing air permit for the Project and accepts them as
12
-------
federally enforceable. CBC will contemporaneously provide a copy
of this letter to the other Parties to this Agreement.
22. As an element of this Agreement, CBC has provided the
Certificate attached as Attachment E.
23. All Parties waive any right to appeal, to challenge or to
take other judicial or administrative action to oppose, in any
forum available, the issuance of a final revised air permit for the
Project which contains permit conditions that are substantially
equivalent to the Conditions of Certification contained in Section
II of the conditions of certification in Attachment B hereto and
the additional provisions of Paragraph 5 herein. The Parties
reserve and do not waive the right to challenge or otherwise oppose
any final revised air permit for the Project that contains
conditions substantially different from those addressed by section
II of the conditions of certification and Paragraph 5 of this
Agreement.
24. This agreement may be executed in multiple counterparts.
13
6-17
-------
PING BOYD GREENS Sfl TEL:904-222-3898 May 14,93 10:24 No.006 P.02
04/U/M 18:1T »904 «90 1318 OFF CEN OOWSBL
KUEREFORB, the partie* hereto tlgnify their ratification of
Settlement Stipulation toy affixing their signature heretoi
Staff o
Cititena' Coamittee/ Zno.
Byt
Barbara Brpward, Pread
Datet 44/3/Kf
Sierra Club, Florida Audubon
Society, The Duval Audubon
Society,
Attorney
Cedar Bay Cmneration, Xno.
^^^
T
c*ry ». eaag, Attorney
Date i
City of
B:
Datet
iu
•cott^snirley, Attorney^
Date i
Florida'Departaent of
Richard T. Donelatr
Aasistant Genera). Counsel
Date
St. Johns River Water
Hanageaent District
Charles H.. Bovtwiok
Datet
14
-------
04/13/93 16:44 C904 630 1316
OFF GEN COUNSEL
12)003/003
The Ketate of William c.
Bostwick and Barnett Banks
Trust Company, N.A.
15
-------
SETTLEMENT STIPULATION
ATTACHMENT A
ALL MEMBERS OF CITIZENS' COMMITTEE
-------
O«. 12. 93 li:2 O.A.M wMARGOL. A. I»CNNZNOTON J> O 2
ATTACHMENT A
STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
AES CEDAR BAY, INC. and SEMINOLE
KRAFT CORPORATION,
Petitioner*.
vs.
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL
REGULATION,
Respondent,
and
CITY OF JACKSONVILLE, DEPARTMENT OF CASE NO. 88-5740
COMMUNITY AFFAIRS, PUBLIC SERVICE
COMMISSION, ST. JOHNS RIVER WATER
MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, JACKSONVILLE
ELECTRIC AUTHORITY, CHARLES w.
BOSTWICK, WILLIAM C. BOSTWICK,
BA^
-------
O *. 12. 63 li:2O .A.M •* M A R G O L. &. PXNNXNGTON
i
1. Barbara Broward, President
2. Jack B. Lee, Vice President
3. Charles. L Daniels, Vice President
4. William C. Val Bostwick, Jr., Secretary
5. Dorothy D. Mathias, Treasurer
FURTHER, THE AFFIANT SAYETH NOT.
Swom to and subscribed before me
this 12th day of April, 1993.
\VsP r f] i y j t^
SSgnatuW of Notary Public "0
Mararet A Z.
Name of Notary (ry?*, M.I* ot &«
Commission Number
My Commission Expires
NOTARY PUBLIC, STATE OF FLORIDA
My commtttsn «xplr« Ab-g. 30. 1993
•ended tnru ^(ttirMn . B*eM Ajtnoy
LISA BARCLAY Coorar—
-------
SETTLEMENT STIPULATION
ATTACHMENT B
CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION
APRIL 7, 1993
(These Conditions of Certification, which have been
updated, are not included here. They are available
on request from Reinz Mueller, Chief, Environmental
Policy Section; FAB-4; U.S. EPA Region IV; 345 Courtland
Street, NE; Atlanta, GA 30365)
-------
-------
. (
State of Florida Department of Environmental Protection
CBCP/Seminole Kraft Corp.
Cedar Bay Cogeneration Project
PA 88-24A
(Revised 4/12/93)
CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE NO.
Z. GENERAL 1
XI. -\IR * 1
A. Emission Limitations for CBCP Boilers 1
1. Fluidized Bed Coal Fired Boilers (CFB) 1
2. Coal Fired Boiler Controls 3
3. Flue Gas Emissions 3
4. Ammonia (NH) Slip from* Exhaust Gases 4
5. Visible Emissions 4
6. Compliance with permit limits 4
7. CFB subject 4
8. Compliance Tests 4
9. Continuous Emission Monitoring 5
10. Operations Monitoring 6
11. Reporting for each CFB . 6
12. Submitting Changes for. Approval 7
13. All Records of Documentation File 7
Minimum Years
14. Permittee Subject to Provisions of 7
Rule 17-210.700
15. Permittee Subject to Provisions of 7
Rule 17-210.650
16. Permittee Subject to Provisions of 7
Rule 17-4.16Q
B. CBCP Material Handling and Treatment 8
C. Requirements for the Permittees 10
D. Contemporaneous Emission Reductions 11
E. SK Steam Boiler Emissions 12
III. WATER DISCHARGES . ' 13
A. Plant Effluents and Receiving Body of Water 13
1. Discharge of Cooling System 13
2. Zero Discharge Plan 13
3. Receiving Body of Water 13
4. Point of Discharge 13
5. Chemical Wastes from CBCP 13
6. SKC Shut Down Through Cooling System 13
7. Storm Water Runoff 14
8. Sanitary Wastes 15
B. Water Monitoring Programs 15
-------
IV. GROUND WATER 17
A. Water Well Construction Permit 17
B. Well Criteria, Tagging and Operating Plan 17
• -—C. Maximum Annual Withdrawals . is
D. Water Use Transfer 18
E. Emergency Shortages 18
—F. Monitoring and Reporting 18
—G. Ground Water Monitoring Requirements 20
H. Leachata 21
Z. Water Use Audit 22
—J. Water Conservation Awareness Program 22
V. CONTROL MEASURES DURING CONSTRUCTION 23
A. Storm Water Runoff * 23
B. Sanitary Wastes 23
C. Environmental Control Program 23
D. Construction Dewatering Effluent . 24
VT. SAFETY 24
VII. SCREENING 24
VTII. TOXIC, DELETERIOUS, OR HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 24
ZZ. SOLZD WASTE STORAGE AND DISPOSAL 24
Z. CHANGE ZN DISCHARGE 25
ZZ. NONCOMPLZANCB NOTIFICATION 26
XII. FACILITIES OPERATION . 26
ZZZZ. ADVERSE ZXPACT 26
XIV. RIGHT OF ENTRY 26
XV. REVOCATION OR SUSPENSION 27
XVI. CIVIL AND CRIMINAL LIABILITY 27
XVTI. PROPERTY RIGHTS 27
XVIII. 8EVERABILZTY 27
XVTV. DEFINITIONS 28
ZZ. REVIEW OF SZTE CERTIFICATION 28
ZZZ. MODIFICATION OF CONDITIONS 28
ZZZZ. FLOOD CONTROL PROTECTION 28
ZZZZZ. EFFECT OF CERTIFICATION 29
-------
XXXV. NOISE 29
& XXV. USB OF WATER TOR COOLINO PURPOSES 29
XXVI. ENFORCEMENT 30
XXVZZ. ENDANGERED AND THREATENED 8PECZES 30
^.XXVXXX. ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE LAND ACQUISITION 30
XXIX. TRANSFER OT CERTIFICATION 35
6-27
-------
Modified 4/12/93 PA 88-24A
STATE 07 PLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
CEDAR BAY COGENERATION, INC./8EMINOLE KRAFT CORP.
CEDAR BAY COGENERATION PROJECT
PA 88-24A
CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION
When a condition is intended to refer to both Cedar Bay
Cogeneration, Inc. (CBC) and Seminole Kraft Corp., the tern
"CBC/SK" or "permittees'* will be used. When a condition is
intended to refer to the "Cedar Bay Cogeneration Project" the
terms "Cedar Bay Cogeneration Project", "CBCP", or "Project"
will be used.
Where a condition applies only to Cedar Bay Cogeneration, Inc.
the term Cedar Bay Cogeneration, Inc."(CBC) or the term
"permittee," where it is clear that "CBC" is the intended
responsible party, will be used. Similarly, where a condition
applies only to Seminole Kraft Corp., the term "Seminole Kraft
Corp." or the abbreviation "SK" or the term "permittee," where
it is clear that SK is the intended responsible party, will be
used. The Department of Environmental Protection may be
referred to as DEP or the Department. RESD represents the City
of Jacksonville, Regulatory and Environmental Services
Department. SJRWMD represents the St. Johns River Water
Management District.
I. GENERAL
The construction and operation of CBCP shall be in
accordance with all applicable provisions of at least the
following regulations of the Department: Chapters 17-210
through 17-297, 17-302, 17-4, 17-256 (Opening Burning), 17-601,
17-702, 17-312, 17-532, 17-550, 17-555, 17-25, 17-610, 17-660,
and 17-772, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.) or their
successors as they are renumbered. '
ZI. AIR
The construction and operation of CBCP shall be in
accordance with all applicable provisions of Chapters 17-210
through 17-297, F.A.C. In addition to the foregoing, CBCP
shall comply with the following conditions of certification as
indicated.
A. Emission Limitations for CBCP Boilers
1. Fluidized Bed Coal Fired Boilers (CFB)
a. The maximum coal charging rate of each CFB
shall neither exceed 104,000 lbs/hr., 39,000 tons per month (30
consecutive days), nor 390,000 tons per year (TPY). This
reflects a combined total of 312,000 lbs/hr., 117,000 tons per
month, and 1,170,000 TPY for all three CFBs.
-------
Modified 4/12/93 PA 88-24A
b. The maximum charging rate to each of two
CFBs of short fiber recycle rejects from the SK recycling pro-
cess shall not exceed 210 yd3/day vet and 69,588 yd3/yr wet.
This reflects a combined total of 420 yd3/day vet and 139,176
yd3/yr vet for the tvo CFBs that fire recycle rejects. The
third CFB vill not utilize recycle rejects, nor vill it be
equipped with handling and firing equipment for recycle rejects.
c. The maximum heat input to each CFB shall
not exceed 1063 MMBtu/hr. This reflects a combined total of
3189 MMBtu/hr. for all three units.
d. The sulfur content of the coal shall not
exceed 1.2% by weight on an annual basis. The sulfur content
shall not exceed 1.7% by veight on a shipment (train load)
basis.
e. Auxiliary fuel burners shall be fueled only
with No. 2 fuel oil with a maximum sulfur content of 0.05% by
veight. The fuel oil shall normally only be used for startups.
During commercial operation the maximum annual oil usage shall
not exceed 1,900,000 gals./year. The maximum heat input from
the fuel oil shall not exceed 380 KKBtu/hr. for each of the
CFBs.
f. The CFBs shall be fueled only with the
fuels permitted in Conditions II.A.la, Ib, and le above. Other
fuels or wastes shall not be burned without prior specific
written approval of the Secretary of DEP pursuant to condition
XXI, Modification of Conditions.
g. The CFBs may operate continuously, i.e.,
8760 hrs/yr, but shall not exceed 25.98 x 10* MMBtu/yr total
annual heat input.
h. To the extent that it is consistent with
Condition II.A.lb. and the following, CBCP shall burn all of
the short fiber rejects generated by Seminole Kraft in
processing recycled paper. No less than ninety (90) days prior
to completion of construction, CBCP shall submit a plan to DEP
for conducting a 30-day test burn within one year after initial
compliance testing. That test burn shall be designed to
ascertain whether the CFBs can burn the rejects as supplemental
fuel without exceeding any of the limitations on emissions and
fuel usage contained in Condition II.A. and without causing any
operational problems which would affect the reliable operation
(with customary maintenance) of the CFBs and without violating
any other environmental requirements. CBCP shall notify DEP
and the Regulatory and Environmental Services Department (RESD)
at least thirty (30) days prior to initiation of the test burn.
The results of the test burn and CBCP's analysis shall be
reported to DEP and to the RESD within forty-five (45) days of
completion of the test burn. DEP shall notify CBCP within
thirty (30) days thereafter of its approval or disapproval of
any conclusion by CBCP that the test burn demonstrated that the
rejects can be burned in compliance with this Condition of
Certification.
-------
Modified 4/12/93
PA 88-24A
2. Coal Fired Boiler Controls
The emissions from each CFB shall be controlled using
the following systems:
a. Limestone injection and fuel sulfur limitations,
for control of sulfur dioxide and acid gases.
b. Baghouse, for control of particulate matter.
c. CBCP shall conduct a test to determine whether
substantial additional removal of mercury can be obtained through
a carbon injection system for mercury removal, as described in
Exhibit 74 of the administrative record for the Lee County
Resource Recovery Facility, which feeds carbon reagent into the
CFB exhaust stream prior to the baghouse. Within one hundred
eighty (180) days after initial compliance testing, CBCP shall
conduct a test on one CFB to compare mercury emissions to the
atmosphere with and without carbon injection. The test program
will include the testing of carbon injection between the boiler
and the fabric filter. Carbon forms to be tested may include
activated carbon with or without additives and pulverized coal
with or without additives. After consultation with the DEP,
RESD, and EPRI, CBC shall submit a mercury control test protocol
to DEP for approval by December 1, 1993. Results of the test
shall be submitted to the DEP within 90 days of completion.
d. Selective Non-catalytic Reduction (SNCR) for
control of NOx.
e. Good combustion characteristics, which are an
inherent part of the CFB technology, for control of carbon
'monoxide and volatile organic compounds.
3. Flue gas emissions from each CFB shall not
exceed the following:
Emission Limitations
Ibs/hr. T*Y TPY for 3 CTBs
troo. xubaub
''NOX-
SO5
/
woe •
PM .
H2S04 mist
Fluorides
Lead
Mercury
Beryllium
^.^9 / rw^-f» •- *•
0.175, *
0.17 J
0.24 .
0.20
0.015
0.018
0.018
4.66C-04
7.44e-04
6.03e-05
2.89e-05
8.70e-06
_•_ Ad 0 g ^-K^. •
186 ! ,
180.7 J
255.1 *
—
16.0
19.1
19.1
0.50
0.79
0.06
0.03
0.01
758
736.1
—•
866
65
78
78
2.0
3.2
0.26
0.13
0.04
2273
2208
~~
2598
195
234
234
6.1
9.7
0.78
0.38
0.11
[Note: TPY represents a 93% capacity factor.]
-------
Modified 4/12/93 . PA 88-24A
/,\ Eight-hour rolling average, except for initial and annual
compliance tests and the CEM certification, when 1-hour
standard applies.
(a) Thirty-day rolling average.
(3) Three-hour rolling average.
(4) Twelve-Month rolling average (MRA) .
4. Ammonia (KH3> slip' from exhaust gases shall not
exceed 10 ppmvd when burning coal at 100% capacity and 30 ppmvd
when burning oil.
5. Visible emissions (VE) shall not exceed 20% opacity
(6 min. average) , except for one 6 minute period per hour when VE
shall not exceed 27% opacity pursuant to 40 CFR 60.42a.
6. Compliance with the emission limits shall be
ined by EPA reference method tests included in the /July
.dete
19921 version of 40 CFR Parts 60 and 61, Rule 17-297, F.A.C., ana
"listed in Condition No. II. A. 8 of this permit or by equivalent
methods after prior written DEP approval. In addition, compliance
with the emission limitations in Condition No. II:A.3 for CO, NOX
and S02 and with the opacity requirements in Condition No. II. A. 5
shall be determined with the Continuous Emission Monitoring Systems
(CEMs) identified in Condition No. II. A. 9.-
7. The CFBs are subject to 49 CFR Part 60, Subparts A
and Da; except that where requirements within this certification
are more restrictive, the requirements of this certification shall
apply.
8. Compliance Tests for each CFB
a. Initial and subsequent compliance tests for PM/PMio,
SO?, NOx, CO, VOC, lead, fluorides, ammonia, mercury, beryllium and
H2S04 mist shall be conducted in accordance with 40 CFR 60.8 (a),
(b), (c), .(d), (e), and (f ) .
b. Annual compliance tests shall be performed for PM,
CO, S02 and NOx, commencing no later than 12 months from the
initial test.
c. Compliance tests shall be performed for mercury
(Hg) , beryllium (Be) , and lead (Pb) until three consecutive tests
(including, if successful, the initial compliance test) are within
the annual emission limits specified in Condition II. A. 3. above.
Such tests shall occur, as necessary, in the first, fifth and tenth
years and additional successive five year intervals following
commercial operation of the Project.
d. Initial and annual visible emissions compliance
tests shall be determined in accordance with 40 CFR 60.11(b) and
(e).
e. The compliance tests shall be conducted between
90-100% of the maximum licensed capacity and firing rate for each
permitted fuel.
-------
Modified 4/12/93 • PA 88-24A
f. The following test methods and procedures of Rule
17-297, F.A.C., and 40 CFR Parts 60 and 61 or other DEP approved
methods with prior DEP approval, in writing, shall be used for
.compliance testing:
(1) Method 1 for selection of sample site and sample traverses.
<2) Method 2 for determining stack gas flow rate.
(3) Method 3 or 3A for gas analysis for calculation of percent 02
and C02*
(4) Method 4 for determining stack gas moisture content to convert
the flow rate from actual standard cubic feet to dry standard cubic
feet.
(5) Method 5 or Method 17 for particulate matter.
(6) Method 6, 6C, or 8 for S02.
(7) Method 7, 7A, 7B, 7C, 7D, or 7E for nitrogen oxides.
(8) Method 8 for sulfuric acid mist.
(9) Method 9 for visible emissions, in accordance with 40 CFR
60.11 and Appendix A.
(10) Method 10 for CO.
(11) Method 12 for lead.
(12) Method 13A or 13B for fluorides.
(13) Method 19 for sulphur dioxide removal efficiency pursuant to
40 CFR 60.48a.
(14) Method 18 or 25 for VOCs.
(15) Method 101A or EPA Method 29 for mercury.
(16) Method 104 for beryllium.
(17) Method 201 or 201A for PM10 emissions.
(18) Ammonia (NHs) Method to be determined by the Department.
9. Continuous Emission Monitoring for each CFB
CBCP shall install, certify, calibrate, operate, and maintain
continuous emission monitoring systems for opacity, SO2, NOX, CO,
and 02 or CO?, pursuant to all applicable requirements of Rule
17-296.800, F.A.C., Chapter 17-297, F.A.C., 40 CFR 60 Subpart A, 40
CFR 60 Subpart Da, 40 CFR 60 Appendix B, and 40 CFR 60 Appendix F.
These CEKS shall be used to determine compliance with the emission
limitations in Condition No. II.A.3 for CO, NOX, and SO2 and with
6
-------
Modified 4/12/93 PA 88-24A
the opacity requirements in Condition No. II.A.5. The permittee
nay elect to install, certify, calibrate, operate, and maintain
multiple span continuous emission monitoring systems for sulfur
dioxide and nitrogen oxides providing certification tests and
calibrations are performed for each span. Each of the continuous
emission monitoring systems for sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides
shall continuously record data on a span that satisfies the
requirements of 40 CFR 60.47a. Any exception to the above must be
specifically authorized by DEP in writing and in accordance with
state and federal regulations.
a. CEMS data shall be recorded and reported in
accordance with Chapter 17-297, F.A.C., and 40 CFR 60.49a and 60.7.
A record shall be kept for periods of startup, shutdown and
malfunction.
b. A malfunction means any sudden and unavoidable
failure of air pollution control equipment or process equipment or
of a process to operate in a normal or usual manner. Failures that
are caused entirely or in part by poor maintenance, careless
operation or any other preventable upset condition or preventable
equipment breakdown shall not be considered malfunctions.
c. The procedures under 40 CFR 60..13 shall be followed
for installation, evaluation and operation of all CEMS.
d. Opacity monitoring system data shall be reduced to
6-minute averages, based on 36 or more data points, and gaseous
CEMS data shall be reduced to 1-hour averages, based on 4 or more
data points, in accordance with 40 CFR 60.13(h).
e. For purposes of reports required under this
certification, excess emissions are defined as any calculated
average emission concentration, as determined pursuant to Condition
No. II.A.11 herein, which exceeds the applicable emission limit in
Condition No. II.A.3.
f. The permittee is subject to all applicable
provisions of Rule 17-4.130, Plant Operation-Problems.
10. Operations Monitoring for each CFB
a. Devices shall be installed to continuously monitor
and record steam production, and flue gas temperature at the exit
of the control equipment.
b. All coal and No. 2 fuel oil usage shall be recorded
on a 24-hr (daily) basis for each CFB. Recycle rejects usage on a
volumetric basis shall be estimated and recorded for each 24-hour
period in which rejects are burned.
11. Reporting for each CFB
a. A minimum of thirty (30) days prior written notifi-
cation of compliance testing shall be given to DEP's N.E. District-
office and to the RESD office, in accordance with 40 CFR 60.8.
6-33
-------
Modified 4/12/93 PA 88-24A
b. In accordance with Rule 17-297.570, F.A.C., the
results of compliance test shall be submitted to the RZSD office
within 45 days after completion of the last test run.
c. The owner or operator shall submit excess emission
reports to RZSD, in accordance with Rule 17-210.700, F.A.C., and 40
CFR 60.7(c) and (d). The reports shall include the following:
(1) The magnitude of excess emissions computed in
accordance with 40 CFR 60.13(h), any conversion factors used, and
the date and time of commencement and completion of each period of
excess emissions (40 CFR 60.7(c)(l)>.
(2) Specific identification of each period of
excess emissions that occurs during startups, shutdowns, and
malfunctions of the furnace boiler system. The nature and cause of
any malfunction (if known) and the corrective action taken or
preventive measures adopted (40 CFR 60.7(c)(2)).
(3) The date and time 'identifying each period
during which the continuous monitoring system was inoperative
except for zero and span checks, and the nature of the system
repairs or adjustments (40 CFR 60.7(c) (3))..
(4) When no excess emissions have occurred or the
continuous monitoring system has not been inoperative, repaired, or
adjusted, such information shall be stated in the report (40 CFR
60.7(c)(4)).
(5) The owner or operator shall maintain a file of
all measurements, including continuous monitoring systems
performance evaluations; monitoring systems or monitoring device
calibration; checks; adjustments and maintenance performed on these
systems or devices; and all other information required by this
permit recorded in a permanent form suitable for inspection (40 CFR
60.7(e)).
d. Annual and quarterly reports shall be submitted to
RZSD as per Rule 297.500, F.A.C.
12. Any change in the method of operation, fuels
utilized, equipment, or operating hours or any other changes
pursuant to Rule 17-212.200, F.A.C., defining modification, shall
be submitted for approval to DEP's Bureau of Air Regulation.
13. All records of documentation shall be kept on file
for a minimum of 3 years pursuant to Rule 17-4.160(4), F.A.C.
14. The permittee is subject to all applicable
provisions of Rule 17-210.700, F.A.C., Excess Emissions.
15. The permittee is subject to all applicable
provisions of Rule 17-210.650, F.A.C., Circumvention.
16. The permittee is subject to all applicable~
provisions of Rule 17-4.160, F.A.C., Permit Conditions.
-------
Modified 4/12/93 PA 88-24A
B. CBCP - Material Handling and Treatment
1. The naterial handling and treatment operations
including coal and limestone unloading buildings, coal and
limestone reclaim hoppers, coal crusher house, limestone dryer, fly
and bed ash silos, ash pelletizer, pellet curing silo, coal and
limestone day silos, conveyors, storage areas and related
equipment, may be operated continuously, i.e. 8760 hrs/yr, except
that the limestone crushers/dryers may be operated for a maximum of
11 hours per day (maximum of 2920 hrs/yr) at maximum capacity.
2. The material handling/usage rates for coal,
limestone, fly ash, and bed ash shall not exceed the following:
Handling/Usage Rate
Material TPM 1ZX
Coal 117,000 1,170,000
Limestone 27,000 320,000
Fly Ash 28,000 336,000
Bed Ash 8,000 88,000
Note: TPM is tons per month based on 30 consecutive days,
TPY is tons per year.
3. The VOC emissions from the maximum No. 2 fuel oil
utilization rate of 240 gals/hr., and 700,800 gals/year for the
limestone dryers; and 8000 gals/hr., and 1,900,000 gals/year for
the three boilers are not expected to be significant.
4. Material handling sources shall be regulated as
follows:
a. The material handling and treatment area sources
with either fabric filter or baghouse controls are as follows:
Coal Crusher Building
Coal Silo Conveyor
Limestone Pulverizer/Conveyor
Limestone Storage Bin
Bed Ash Hopper
Bed Ash Silo
Fly Ash Silo
Bed Ash Bin
Fly Ash Bin
Pellet Vibratory Screen
Pelletizing Ash Recycle Tank
Pelletizing Recycle Hopper
Cured Pellet Recycle Conveyor
Pellet Recycle Conveyor
The emissions from the above listed sources are subject
to the particulate emission limitation requirement of 0.003 gr/dscf
(applicant requested limitation which is more stringent than what
is allowed by Rule 17.296.711, F.A.C.). Since these sources are
RACT standard type, then a one-time verification test on each
-------
Modified 4/12/93 PA 88-24A
source shall be required for PM mass emissions to demonstrate that
the baghouse control systems can achieve the 0.003 gr/dscf. The
performance tests shall be conducted using EPA Method 5 pursuant to
Rule 17-297, F.A.C.,and 40 CFR 60, Appendix A (July, 1991 version).
b. The PM emissions from the following process,
equipment, and/or facility in the material handling and treatment
area sources shall be controlled using vet suppression/removal
.techniques as follows:
Coal Car Unloading
Ash Pellet Hydrator
Ash Pellet Curing Silo
Ash Palletizing Pan
The above listed sources are subject to a visible
emission (VE) and a particulate matter (PM) emission limitation
requirement of 5% opacity and 0.01 gr/dscf (applicant requested
limitation, which is more stringent than what is allowed by rule),
respectively, in accordance with Rule 17-296.711, F.A.C. Initial
and subsequent compliance tests shall be conducted for VE and PM
using EPA 9 and 5, respectively, in accordance with Ruj,a 17-297,
F.A.C., and 40 CFR 60, Appendix AITjuly, 1991 versionT.]
5. Visible Emissions (VE) shall not exceed 5% opacity
from any source in the material handling and treatment area listed
in Condition II. B.4., in accordance with Rule 17-296.711(2)(a),
F.A.C. After the compliance tests have been performed, neither DEP
nor RESD will require particulate matter mass tests in accordance
with EPA Method 5 unless the VE limit of 5% opacity is exceeded for
a given source, or unless DEP or RESD, based on other information,
has reason to believe the particulate emission limits are being
violated in accordance with Rule 17-297.620(4), F.A.C.
6. All sources subject to visible emissions and
particulata matter mass emissions performance tests shall conduct
them concurrently, except where inclement weather interferes.
7. The maximum emissions from each of the limestone
dryers while using oil shall not exceed the following (based on
AP-42 factors, Table 1, 3-1, Industrial Distillate, 10/86):
Estimated Limitations
Pollutant
PM/PMio
S02
CO
NOX
voc
Ibs/hr.
0.24
0.85
0.60
2.40
0.05
TPY
0.32
1.15
0.81
3.25
0.06
TPY for 2
0.64
2.3
1.62
6.5
0.12
drv«rs
Visible emissions from the dryers shall not exceed 5%
opacity.
8. The maximum sulfur content of No. 2 fuel oil shall
not exceed 0.05% by weight. The maximum firing rate of No. 2 fuel
oil for each limestone dryer shall not exceed 120 gals/hr., or
-------
Modified 4/12/93 *A 88-24A
350 400 qals/year. This reflects a combined total fuel oil firing
rate of 240 gals/hr., and 700,800 gals/year, for the two dryers.
9. Initial and annual PM and Visible Emission
compliance tests for all the emission points in the material
handling and treatment area, including but not limited to the
sources SDftci£ied_inthi» permit, shall be conducted in accordance
with theVuly 1, 1991)version of 40 CFR 60, Appendix A, using EPA
Methods 5 and 9, respectively.
10. Compliance test reports shall be submitted to RESD
within 45 days of test completion in accordance with Rule
17-297.570 Of the F.A.C.
' 11. Any changes in the method of operation, raw
materials processed, equipment, or operating hours or any other
changes pursuant to F.A.C. Rule 17-212.200, defining modification,
shall be submitted for approval to DEP's Bureau of Air Regulation
(BAR).
C. Requirements For the Permittees
1. Beginning one month after certification, CBCP shall
submit to RESD and DEP's BAR, a quarterly status report briefly
outlining progress made on engineering design and purchase of ma}or
equipment, including copies of technical data pertaining to the
selected emission control devices. These data should include, but
not be limited to, guaranteed efficiency and emission rates, and
major design parameters such as air/cloth ratio and flow rate. The
Department may, upon review of these data, disapprove the use of
any such device. Such disapproval shall be issued within 30 days
of receipt of the technical data.
2. CBCP shall report any delays in construction and
completion of the project which would- delay-commercial operation by
more than 90 days to the RESD office.
3. Reasonable precautions to prevent fugitive
particulate emissions during construction, such as coating of roaas
and construction sites used by contractors, regrassing or watering
areas of disturbed soils, will be taken by CBCP. CBCP is subject
to all applicable provisions of Rule 17-296.310(3), F.A.C.,
Unconfined Emissions of Particulate Matter.
4. Fuel shall not be burned in any CBCP unit unless the
control devices are operating properly, pursuant to 40 CFR Part 60
Subpart Da.
5. The maximum sulfur content of the No. 2 fuel oil
•utilized in the CFBs and the two unit limestone dryers shall not
exceed 0.05 percent by weight. Samples shall be taken^ox^each fuel
«n «Mp«?nt%*e*ivftd and shall be analvzed^for^snl f\ir content ana
Keating value!—Records of the analyses shall be kept a minimum of
tKree years to be available for DEP and RESD inspection.
6-37
in
-------
Modified 4/12/93 PA 88.-24A
6. Coal fired in the CFBs shall have a sulfur content
not to exceed 1.7 percent by weight on a shipment (train load)
basis. Coal sulfur content shall be determined and recorded in
accordance with 40 CFR 60.47a.
7. CBC shall maintain a daily log of the amounts and
-types of fuel used and copies of fuel analyses containing •
information on sulfur content and heating values.
8. CBCP shall provide stack sampling facilities as
required by Rule 17-297.345 F.A.C. ?
9. Prior to commercial/operation of each source, the
permittee shall submit to the(B~AlT)a standardized plan or procedure
that will allow that permittee^ttr monitor emission control
equipment efficiency and enable the permittee to return
malfunctioning equipment to proper operation as expeditiously as
possible.
• 10. All CBCP records of documentation shall be kept on
file for a minimum of three years pursuant to Rule 17-4.160(14),
F.A.C.
D. Contemporaneous Emission Reductions
This certification and any individual air permits issued
subsequent to the final order of the Board certifying the power
plant site under 403.509, T.S., shall require, that the following
Seminole Kraft Corporation sources be permanently shut down and
made incapable of operation, and shall turn in their operation
permits to the Division of Air Resources Management's Bureau of Air
Regulation, within 30 days of written confirmation by DEP of the
successful completion of -the initial compliance tests on the CBCP
boilers: the No. 1 PB (power boiler), the No. 2 PB, the No. 3 PB,
the No. 1 BB (bark boiler),and the No. 2 BB. RESD shall be
specifically informed in writing withiiv thirty.days after- eaclv ^
individual shut down of the above referenced equipment. Within one
year of surrender of operating permits as provided above, SK shall
have completed the following steps to ensure compliance with this
condition:
Remove all oil guns
Remove motors and selected conveyor parts in wood feed
system for bark boilers
Dismantle stacks
Disconnect boiler feedwater pumps
Sever fuel line connections
Remove fan motors
These sources shall not, under any circumstances, be
restarted, refurbished or re-permitted as new or existing sources,
at the SK or CBCP site.
This requirement shall operate as a joint and individual
requirement to assure common control for purpose of ensuring that
all commitments relied on are in fact fulfilled.
3-3*
11
-------
Modified 4/12/93 PA 88-24A
E. SK Steam Boiler Emissions
1. This certification and any individual air permits
issued by the Department subsequent to the final order of the Board
certifying the power plant site under Section 403.509, F.S., shall
incorporate the following limitations on the total tonnage of the
specified criteria pollutants allowed to be emitted annually by any
natural gas-fired boiler or combination of boilers constructed and
operated by SK to provide up to 375,000 Ibs/hr of steam for use in
its recycled paper process:
Teas Per Year
CO 553
NOX 310
SO2 25, except as provided in (2) below
2. In the event that the ceiling for S02 is expected to
be exceeded due to unavailability of natural gas caused by factors
beyond the control of SK, SK may notify the Department that it must
exceed the ceiling as provided herein; and emissions of SO2 during
the period of such curtailment shall not be counted against the
yearly emissions ceiling of 25 tons unless administrative
proceedings result in a finding that the exceedance was within
Seminole Kraft's control. In no event shall the annual emissions
of S02 from the steam boilers referenced above exceed a ceiling of
41 tons per year.
3. The notice shall include a statement or reasons for
the request and supporting documentation, and shall be published by
SK, without supporting documents, in a newspaper of general
circulation in Jacksonville, as defined in Section 403.5115(2),
F.S. The filing and publication of the notice no later than 7 days
following the date of exceedance, shall preclude any finding of
violation by DEP until final dispositionof any administrative
proceedings.
12
-------
Modified 4/12/93 . PA 88-24A
III. WATER DISCHARGES
Any discharges into any waters of the State during
construction and operation of CBCP shall be in accordance with all
applicable provisions of Chapters 17-301, 17-302 and 17-660,
F.A.C., and40 CFR, Part 423, Effluent Guidelines and Standards for
Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source Category, except as
provided herein. Also, CBCP shall comply with the following
conditions of certification:
A. Plant Effluents and Receiving Body of Water
For discharges made from the CBCP power plant site the
following conditions shall apply:
1. CBCP shall not discharge any cooling system,
demineralizer regeneration, floor drainage or other process
wastewaters from the operation of the CBCP facility into any waters
of the State. CBCP shall install a closed-loop cooling water
svstem in accordance with technical specifications set forth in the
Zero Discharge System Plan submitted by CBCP to the Department.
2. Pursuant to the Zero Discharge Plan, CBCP shall make
available to Seminole Kraft up to 500 gpm of reclaimed water that
has been treated to a quality satisfactory for use in Seminole
Kraft's cooling tower.
3. Receiving Body of Water - The receiving bodies of
water for storm water discharges have been determined by the
Department to be those waters of the St. John's River (during
construction only) or the Broward River and any Ot5".^f". „..
affected which are considered to be waters of the State within the
definition of Chapter 403, Florida Statutes (F.S.).
4. Point of Discharge (POD) - The point of discharge
has been determined by the Department to be wherethe storm water
effluent physically enters the waters of the State in the St.
John's River (during construction) via Outfall OSN 001 and Broward
£v^r (during construction and operation) via Outfall OSN 003 and
OSN 008.
5. Chemical Wastes from CBCP - All low volume wastes
(demineralizer regeneration, floor drainage, labs drains, and
similar wastes) and chemical metal cleaning wastes shall be
collected and treated in the the zero discharge treatment system or
disposed of off-site.
6. Seminole Kraft Corporation (SKC) shall shut down the
mill's once through cooling system within 10 days after vrittjn
notification by DEP of the successful completion of the initial
Compliance tests on the CBCP boilers conducted pursuant to ,
Condition II.A.7. SKC shall inform the DEP Northeast District
Office of the shutdown and surrender all applicable operating
permits for that facility within 21 days of such notification.
-------
Modified 4/12/93 PA 88-24A
7. Storm Water Runoff
a. Construction - During construction there shall
be no discharges from the stormwater basins for storms less
than the ten-year, twenty four-hour storm event. Any discharge
from the storm water runoff collection system from a storm
event less than the once in ten year, twenty-four hour storm
shall meet the following limits and shall be monitored at OSNs
003 and 008 by a grab sample once per discharge, but not more
often than once per week:
Discharge Limits
Effluent Chaxaeteristie * Instantaneous Kaziaum
Flov (MGD) Report
TSS (mg/1) ' 50
pH 6.0-9.0
All applicable discharge limitations, described in Part X of
the NPDES permit (FL0041173) for stormwater discharges during
the period of construction from this facility, shall apply
under this permit and be reported to the Department as part of
the Monthly Operation Report.
b. Operation
1. Yard Area Runoff - During normal plant
operation, necessary measures shall be used to settle, filter,
treat or absorb silt-containing or pollutant-laden storm water
runoff to limit the suspended solids to 50 mg/1 or less at OSN
003 during rainfall periods greater than the 22-year, 24-hour
rainfall. During periods of operation when the CBCP is
off-line, these necessary measures, as specified above, shall
be used during rainfall periods greater than a 12-year,. 24-hour
storm. The discharge shall comply with all the monitoring
requirements for Yard Area Runoff specified in Part I of NPDES
Permit FL0041173 for this facility.
2. Storage Area Runoff - During operation there
shall be no discharges from the stormwater basins for storms
less than the fifty-year, twenty four-hour storm event. Any
discharge from the storm water runoff collection system from a
storm event less than the once in 50 year, twenty-four hour
storm shall meet the limits in 7.a. above and shall be
monitored at OSN 008 by a grab sample once per discharge, but
not more often than once per week. The discharge shall comply
with all the monitoring requirements for the Coal, Limestone,
and Ash Storage Area specified in Part I of NPDES Permit
.FL0041173 for this facility.
c. Control measures shall consist at the minimum of
filters,sediment traps, barriers, berms or vegetative planting.
Exposed or disturbed soil shall be protected as soon as
possible to minimize silt, and sediment-laden runoff. The pH
shall be kept within the range of 6.0 to 9.0 in the discharge
to the St. Johns River and 6.5 to 8.5 in the Broward River.
1 A
-------
Modified 4/12/93 -PA 88-24A
d. Special consideration must be given to the
control of sediment laden runoff resulting from storm events
during the construction phase. Best management practices
erosion controls should be installed early during the
construction period so as to prevent the transport of sediment
into surface waters which could result in water quality
violations and Departmental enforcement action. Revegetation
and stabilization of disturbed areas should be accomplished as
soon as possible to reduce the potential for further soil
erosion. Should construction phase runoff pose a threat to the
water quality of state waters, additional measures such as
treatment of impounded runoff or by the use of turbidity
curtains (screens) in on-site impoundments .shall be immediately
implemented with any releases to state waters to be controlled.
e. It is necessary that there be an entity
responsible for maintenance of the system pursuant to Section
17-25.027, F.A.C.
f . Correctional action or modification of the system
will be necessary should mosquito problems occur.
g. CBC shall submit to DEP with copy to RESp and the
SJRWMD, erosion control plans for the entire construction
project (or discrete phases of the project) detailing measures
to be taken to prevent the off site discharge of turbid waters
during construction. These plans must also be provided to the
construction contractor prior to the initiation of
construction.
h. All swale and retention basin side slopes shall
be seeded and mulched or sodded within thirty days following
their completion and a substantial vegetative cover must be
established within ninety days of seeding.
8. Sanitary wastes from CBCP shall be collected and
routed for treatment to the SKC domestic wastewater treatment
plant.
B. Water Monitoring Programs
1. Necessity and extent of continuation of
monitoring programs may be nodif ied in accordance with
Condition No. XXI, Modification of Conditions.
2. Chemical Stormwater Monitoring - The parameters
described in Condition III. A. shall be monitored during
discharge as described in condition III A. commencing with the
start of construction or operation of the CFBs and reported
quarterly to the Northeast District Office.
3. Coal, Ash, and Limestone Storage Areas
a. Runoff from the coal pile, ash and lime stone
storage areas shall be retained on-site during normal
operations up to the 50-year, 24-hour storm event. Monitoring
15
-------
Modified 4/12/93
PA 88-24A
of metals, such as iron, copper, zinc, mercury silver, and
aluminum, shall be done once a month during any month when a
discharge occurs at OSNs 003 or 008.
b. Stormvater from the storage area runoff pond
shall be sampled the first time each month there is a discharge
to the cooling tower pretreatment system under the operating
conditions approved herein. Samples shall be taken for 12
separate months and analyses performed as specified in
Condition 5 below.
4. The ground water levels shall be monitored
continuously at selected wells as approved by the SJRWMD.
Chemical analyses shall be made on samples from all monitored
wells identified in Condition IV.F. and IV.G. below. The
location, frequency and selected chemical analyses shall be as
given in Condition IV.F and IV.G. The ground water monitoring
program shall be implemented at least one year prior to
commercial operation of the CFBs. The chemical analyses shall
be in accord with the latest edition of Standard Methods for
the Analysis of Water and Wastewater. The data shall be
submitted within 30 days of collection/analysis to the SJRWMD.
5. The reclaimed water transferred to Seminole Kraft
for cooling tower make-up water shall be monitored for the
following parameters:
Flow (gallons per minute)
pH (standard units)
Iron (mg/L)
Total Copper (ug/L)
Zinc (mg/L)
Mercury (ug/L)
Silver (ug/L)
Aluminum (mg/L)
Cadmium (ug/L)
Arsenic (ug/L)•
Antimony (mg/L)
Continuous/Flow Meter
Weekly/Meter or Grab
Monthly/Grab
Monthly/Grab
Monthly/Grab
Monthly/Grab
Monthly/Grab
Monthly/Grab
Monthly/Grab
Monthly/Grab
Monthly/Grab
16
-------
Modified 4/12/93 PA 88-24A
XV. GROUND WATER
A. Water Well Construction Permit
Prior to the construction, modification, or
abandonment of a production well for the SK paper mill,
Seminole Kraft must obtain a Water Well Construction Permit
from the SJRWMD pursuant to Chapter 40C-3, F.A.C. Construction,
modification, or abandonment of a production well will require
modification of the SK consumptive use permit when such
construction, modification or abandonment is other than that
specified and described on SK's consumptive use permit
application form. The construction, modification, or
abandonment of a monitor well specified in Condition IV.H. will
require the prior approval of the Department. All monitor
wells intended for use over thirty days must be noticed to RESD
prior to construction or change of status from temporary to
permanent.
B. Well Criteria, Tagging and Wellfield Operating
Plan
Leaking or inoperative well casings, valves, or
controls must be repaired or replaced by SK as required to
eliminate the leak or make the system fully operational.
Failure to make such repairs will be cause for deeming the well
abandoned in accordance with Chapter 17.21.02(5), F.A.C.,
Chapter 373.309, Florida Statutes and Chapter 366.301 (b), and
.307 (a), Jacksonville ordinance Code. Wells deemed abandoned
will require plugging according to state and local regulations.
A SJRWMD-issued identification tag must be
prominently displayed by SK at each SK withdrawal site by
permanently affixing such tag to the pump, headgate, valve or
other withdrawal facility as provided by Section 40C-2.401,
Florida Administrative Code. The SK must notify the SJTWMD in
the event that a replacement tag is needed.
SK must develop and implement a Wellfield Operating
Program within six (6) months after construction of wells or
start-up of the CBCP. This program must describe which wells
are primary, secondary, and standby (reserve); the order of
preference for using the wells; criteria for shutting down and
restarting wells; describe CBCP and SKC responsibilities in the
operation of the well field, and any other aspects of well
field management operation, such as who the well field operator
is and any other aspects of wellfield management operation.
This program must be submitted to the SJRWMD and a copy to RESD
within six (6) months of certification and receive SJRWMD .
approval before the wells may be used to supply water for the
Cedar Bay Cogeneration plant.
17
-------
Modified 4/12/93 . PA 88-24A
C. Maximum Annual Withdrawals
CBCP's maximum annual use from the Floridan aquifer
may not exceed 530.7 million gallons. Maximum daily use from
the Floridan aquifer for the CBCP may not exceed 1.45 million
gallons. The use of potable water from the Floridan aquifer
for cooling purposes is prohibited. The use of potable water
from the Floridan aquifer for control of fugitive dust
emissions is prohibited when alternative water sources are
available, such as treated wastewater, shallow aquifer wells or
stormwater. The use of Floridan aquifer potable water for the
sole purpose of waste stream dilution is prohibited.
D. Water Use Transfer
The SJRWMD must be notified, in writing, within 90
days of the transfer of this certification. All transfers are
subject to the provisions of Section 40C-2.351, F.A.C., which
state that all terms and conditions of the permit shall be
binding of the transferee.
£. Emergency Shortages
Nothing in this certification is to be construed to
limit the authority of the SJRWMD to declare a* water shortage
and issue orders pursuant to Section 373.175, Florida Statutes,
or to formulate a plan for implementation during periods of
water shortage, pursuant to Section 373.246, Florida Statutes.
In the event a water shortage, is declared by the District
Governing Board, the CBCP shall adhere to water shortage
restrictions as specified by SJRWMD to the extent the
restrictions apply to all other similar users.
F. Monitoring and Reporting
l.a. The permittee shall maintain records of total
daily use by the CBCP on a monthly basis for each year ending
on December 31st. These records shall be submitted to the
SJRWMD on Form EN-3 by January 31st of each year.
b. Prior to beginning water usage, all points where
water is delivered from the SKC water supply or wastewater
system for use at CBCP must be equipped with totalizing flow
meters. Such meters must maintain a 95% accuracy, be
verifiable and be installed according to the manufacturer's
specifications.
c. CBCP must maintain the required flow meter(s).
In case of failure or breakdown of any meter or other flow
measuring device, the SJRWMD must be notified in writing within
5 days of its discovery. A defective meter must be repaired or
replaced within 30 days of its discovery.
18
-------
Modified 4/12/93 . PA 88-24A
d. Total withdrawals from each monitored source
must be recorded continuously, totalled monthly, and reported
.to the SJRWMD at least every six months from the initiation of
the monitoring using SJRWMD Form No. EN-50.
•. CBCP must have all flow meters checked for
accuracy once every 3 years within 30 days of the anniversary
date of commencement of operation of the CBCP, and recalibrated
if the difference between the actual flow and the meter reading
is greater than 5%. SJRWMD Form No. EN-51 must be submitted to
the SJRWMD within 10 days of meter inspection and calibration.
2. Water quality samples shall be taken by SK in
May and October of each year from each SK .production well. The
samples shall be analyzed by a DEP certified laboratory for the
following parameters:
Magnesium Sulfate
Sodium Carbonate
Potassium Bi-Carbonate (or alkalinity
if pH is 6.9 or lower)
Chloride Calcium
All major ion analyses shall be checked for anion/cation
balance and must balance within 5 percent prior to submission.
It is recommended that duplicates be taken to allow for
laboratory problems or loss. The sample analyses shall be
submitted to the SJRWMD by May 30 and October 30 of each year.
3. Legal uses of water existing at the time of
certification application may not be significantly adversely .
impacted by the consumptive use for the CBCP. If unanticipated
significant adverse impacts occur, the consumptive use shall be
subject to modification in whole or in part to curtail or abate
the adverse impacts, unless the impacts can be mitigated by
CBCP.
4. Off-site land uses existing at the time of
certification application may not be significantly adversely
impacted as a result of the consumptive use for the CBCP. If
unanticipated significant adverse impacts occur, the
consumptive use shall be subject to revocation or modification
in whole or in part to curtail or abate the adverse impacts,
unless the impacts can be mitigated by CBCP.
5. During the seventh year following issuance of
this certification order, CBCP shall submit a report to SJRWMD,
DEP, and RESD demonstrating compliance with these conditions of
certification, Chapter- 373, Florida Statutes, and the Rules of
SJRWMD and DEP, applicable to the consumptive use of water.
Compliance shall be demonstrated with rules and statutory
provisions in effect at that time.
19
-------
Modified 4/12/93 PA 88-24A
SJRWMD shall evaluate the report and notify DEP in a
report of any issues regarding compliance with this
certification and applicable rules and statutory provisions,
including whether the consumptive use of vater for the CBCP
complies with those provisions of Chapter 272, Florida
Statutes, and DEP's and SJRWMD's rules applicable to its
consumptive use and whether any conditions of certification
oust be amended, added or deleted in order to insure that the
referenced rules and statutory provisions are complied with.
SJRWMD shall respond within 30 days of receipt of CBCP's report
as to whether or not it contains information sufficient to make
a determination as to compliance with the referenced rules and
statutory provisions. Thereafter, DEP shall notify CBCP and
RESD within ninety (90) days after DEP's determination that
CBCP's report is sufficient. Section 40C-1.610, F.A.C., shall
apply. An opportunity for hearing pursuant to Section 120.57,
Florida Statutes, shall be afforded any party. In any hearing
requested pursuant to this condition of certification, the
burden of demonstrating compliance shall be on CBCP. The
continued consumptive use of water for the CBCP shall be
dependent upon CBCP demonstrating and presenting sufficient
data to establish that its consumptive use meets the referenced
rules or statutory provisions. The Board hereby delegates to
the Secretary the authority to enter final orders regarding
this condition in the event an administrative hearing is
requested.
G. Ground Water Monitoring Requirements
After consultation with the DEP, RESD, and SJRWMD,
CBCP shall install a monitoring well network to monitor ground
water quality horizontally and vertically through the aquifer
above the Hawthorn Formation. Ground water quantity and flow
directions will be determined seasonally at the site through
the preparation of seasonal water table-contour maps, based
upon water level data obtained during the applicant's
preoperational monitoring program. From these maps and the
results of the detailed subsurface investigation of site
stratigraphy, the water quality monitoring well network will be
located. A ground water monitoring plan that meets the
requirements of Section 17-522.600(3), F.A.C., shall be
submitted to the Department's Northeast District Office for
review. Approval or disapproval of the ground water monitoring
plan shall be given within 60 days of receipt. Ground water
monitoring shall be required at CBCP's palletized ash storage
area, each sedimentation pond, and each coal pile storage area,
and SK's new lime mud storage area. Insofar as possible, the
monitoring wells may be selected from the existing wells and
piezometers used in the permittees preoperational monitoring
program, provided that the wells construction will not preclude
their use. Existing wells will be properly sealed in
accordance with Chapter 17-532, F.A.C., whenever they are
abandoned due to construction of facilities. The water samples
collected from each of the monitor wells shall be collected
immediately after removal by pumping of a quantity of water
6-47
20
-------
Modified 4/12/93 PA 88-24A
equal to at least three casing volumes. The water quality
analyses shall be performed monthly during the year prior to
commercial operation and quarterly thereafter. No sampling or
analysis is to be initiated until receipt of written approval
of a site-specific quality assurance project plan (QAPP by the
Department. Results shall be submitted to the RESD and the DEP
NE District by the fifteenth (15th) day of the month following
the month during which such analyses were performed prior to
commercial operation, or by the 30th day of the month following
the calendar quarter such analyses were performed after start
of commercial operation. Testing for the following
constituents is required around unlined ponds or storage areas:
TDS cadmium-
Conductance ' Zinc
pH Copper
Redox Nickel . '
Sulfate Selenium
Sulfite Chromium
Color Arsenic
Chloride . Beryllium
Iron Mercury
Aluminum . Lead
Gross Alpha
Conductivity shall be monitored in wells arbund all
lined solid waste disposal sites, coal piles, and wastewater
treatment and sedimentation ponds.
H. Leachate
1. Zone of Discharge
Leachate from CBCP's coal storage piles, SK's
lime mud storage area or CBCP's sedimentation ponds shall not
cause or contribute to contamination of waters of the State
(including both surface and ground waters) in excess of the
limitations of Chapter 17-302, and 17-520, F.A.C., beyond the
boundary of a zone of discharge extending to the top of the
Hawthorn Formation below the waste landfill cell or pond rising
to a depth of 50 feet at a horizontal distance of 200 feet from
the edge of the storage pile, landfill or ponds, or .rising to
the boundary of the site, as appropriate.
21
-------
Modified 4/12/93 . -PA 88-24A
2. Corrective Action
When the ground water monitoring system shows a
potential for this facility to cause or contribute to a.
violation of the ground water quality standards of Chapter
17-520, F.A.C., at the boundary of the zone of discharge, the
appropriate ponds or coal pile shall be bottom sealed,
relocated, or the operation of the affected facility shall be
altered in such a manner as to assure the Department that no
violation of the ground water standards will occur beyond the
boundary of the zone of discharge.
I. Water Use Audit
At the end of the second year of production
withdrawals, CBCP must have conducted an audit of the amount of
water used in the various operational processes, landscaping
practices and domestic facilities. If the audit results
indicate losses of water due to leakage, a leak detection
analysis must be conducted and submitted to the SJRWMD and a
leak repair program must be implemented.
J. Water Conservation Awareness Program
Prior to beginning water usage, CBCP must
implement and submit to the SJRWMD an employee awareness
program (including such measures as posting signs regarding
water conservation and reporting leaks) concerning water
conservation. <-—
-------
Modified 4/12/93 PA 88-24A
V. CONTROL MEASURES DURING CONSTRUCTION
A. Storm Water Runoff
During construction, appropriate measures shall be
used -to settle, filter, treat or absorb silt-containing or
pollutant- laden storm water runoff to limit the total
suspended solids to 50 mg/1 or less and pH to 6.0 to 9.0 at OSN
003 during rainfall events that are lesser in intensity than
the 10-year, 24-hour rainfall, and to prevent an increase in
turbidity of more than 29 NTU above background in waters of the
State.
Control measures shall consist at the minimum of
sediment traps, barriers, berms or vegetative planting.
Exposed or disturbed soil shall be protected as soon as
possible to minimize silt- and sediment-laden runoff. The pH
shall be kept within the range of 6.0 to 9.0 at OSN. 003.
Stormwater drainage to the Broward River shall be monitored as
indicated below:
Monitoring Point Parameters Frequency Sample Type
* Storm water drainage BODS, TOC, sus- ** **
to the Broward River pended solids,
from the runoff turbidity, dis-
treatment pond solved oxygen,
pH, TKN, Total
phosphorus ,
Fecal Coliform,
Total Colifonn
Oil and grease ** **
*Monitoring shall be conducted at suitable points for
allowing a comparison of the characteristics of preconstruction
and construction phase drainage and receiving waters;
**The frequency and sample type shall be as outlined in a
sampling program prepared by the applicant and submitted at
least ninety days prior to start of construction for review and
approval by the DEP Northeast District Office. The District
Office will furnish copies of the sampling program to the RESD
and SJRWMD and shall indicate approval or disapproval within 60
days of submittal.
B. Sanitary Wastes
Disposal of sanitary wastes from construction
toilet facilities shall be in accordance with applicable
regulations of the Department and the RESD.
C. Environmental Control Program
CBCP shall establish an environmental control
program under the supervision of a qualified person to assure
that all construction activities conform to good environmental
23
-------
Modified 4/12/93 PA 88-24A
practices and the applicable conditions of certification. A
written plan for controlling pollution during construction
shall be submitted to DEP and RESD within sixty days of
issuance of the Certification. The plan shall identify.and
describe all pollutants and waste generated during
construction and the methods for control, treatment and
disposal. CBCP shall notify the Department's Northeast
District Office and RESD by telephone within 24 hours if
feasible if unexpected harmful effects or evidence of
irreversible environmental damage are detected by it during
construction, shall immediately report in writing to the
Department, and shall within two weeks provide an analysis of
the problem and a plan to eliminate or significantly reduce
the harmful effects or damage and a plan to prevent
reoccurrence.
D. Construction Dewatering Effluent
There shall be no discharge of construction
dewatering effluent,
VI. 8A7ETT
The overall design, layout, and operation of the
facilities shall be such as to minimize hazards to humans and
the environment. Security control measures shall be utilized
to prevent exposure of the public to hazardous conditions.
The Federal Occupational Safety and Health Standards will be
complied with during construction and operation. The Safety
Standards specified under Section 440.56, F.S., by the
Industrial Safety Section of the Florida Department of
Commerce will also be complied with.
VII. SCREENING
The CBCP shall provide screening of the site to the
extent feasible through the 'use of aesthetically acceptable
structures, vegetated earthen walls and/or existing or planted
vegetation.
VTZZ. TOXIC, DELETERIOUS, OK HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
The spill of any toxic, deleterious, or hazardous
materials shall be reported in the manner specified by
Condition XI, Noncompliance Notification.
ZZ. SOLID 1ABTB STORAGE AMD DISPOSAL
CBCP shall be responsible for arranging for the
proper storage, handling, disposal, or reuse of any solid
waste generated by the CBCP facility. Solid waste produced by
the operation of the CBCP facility shall be removed from site
and disposed of in a permitted disposal facility, with the
exception of bottom ash and fly ash. Bottom ash and fly ash
will be pelletized, or made into aggregate form, and either •
-------
Modified 4/12/93 PA 88-24A
shipped back to the nine utilizing the trains to deliver the
coal, or sold as an additive to concrete, or utilized by
companies specializing in the marketing and utilization of
combustion by-products. The bottom ash and fly ash shall not
i>e disposed of in a landfill within Duval County. If the CBCP
decides to dispose of the bottom ash or fly ash by other than
returning it to the mine, they shall notify RESD and DEP.
Prior to removal and disposal of spent lime mud and pond
tailings, the CBCP shall determine whether those wastes are
hazardous under 40 CFR 26 and 17-730, F.A.C. If wastes are
determined to be hazardous, they shall be disposed of in
accordance with Chapter 17-730, F.A.C., after consultation
with the DEP and RESD. If not hazardous, disposal shall be to
a landfill designed to ensure compliance with groundwater
quality criteria as contained in Chapters 17-3, and 17-730
F.A.C. All solid wastes disposed of on site shall comply with
the provisions of Chapter 17-701, F.A.C. Ground water
monitoring in accordance with 17-4, and 17-520, F.A.C. shall
be implemented at the lime mud disposal site.
At least ninety (90) days prior to disposal or use
of any sludge generated by pretreatment of reclaimed Seminole
Kraft wastewater or zero wastewater discharge system, CBCP
shall report to DEP and RESD concerning the chemical
characterization of any such sludge. DEP reserves the right
to require additional sampling and analysis as necessary to
ensure that the above-cited regulations are complied with.
Prior to any such sludge disposal, CBCP shall obtain a letter
of acceptance from a permitted disposal site. On or before
the last day of the first year of commercial operation, and
each year of commercial operation thereafter, CBCP shall
report to DEP and RESD concerning the composition and quantity
of sludge generated by the zero water discharge system and the
method of disposal, including name and location of facilities
handling, treating, storing, and/or disposing of said sludge
waste.
»
X. CEAMGE IN DISCHARGE
All discharges or emissions authorized herein to
CBCP shall be consistent with the terms and conditions of this
certification. The discharge of any pollutant not identified
in the application or any discharge more frequent than, or at
a level in excess of, that authorized herein shall constitute
a violation of this certification. Any anticipated facility
expansions, production increases, or process modification
which will result in new, different or increased discharges or
expansion in steam generating capacity will require a
submission of new or supplemental application to DEP's Siting
Coordination Office pursuant to Chapter 403, F.S.
6-52-
25
-------
Modified 4/12/93 PA 88-24A
ZZ. KOHCOKFLZAKCB NOTIFICATION
If, for any reason, either permittee does not comply
with or will be unable to comply with any limitation specified
in this certification, the permittee shall notify the DEP's
Northeast District Office and RESD office by telephone as soon
as possible but not later than the first DEP working day after
the permittee becomes aware of said noncompliance, and shall
confirm the reported situation in writing within seventy-two
(72) hours supplying the following information:
A. A description and cause of noncompliance; and
B. The period of noncompliance, -including exact
dates and times; or, if not corrected, the anticipated time
the noncompliance is expected to continue, and steps being
taken to reduce, eliminate, and prevent recurrence of the
noncomplying event.
ZZZ. FACZLZTZE8 OPERATION
Each permittee shall at all times maintain in good
working order and operate as efficiently as possible all of
its treatment or control facilities or systems 'installed or
used by the permittee to achieve compliance with the terms and
conditions of this certification. Such systems are not to be
bypassed without prior Department (Northeast District)
approval and after notice.to RESD except where otherwise
authorized by applicable regulations.
ZZZZ. ADVERSE IKPACT
Each permittee shall take all reasonable steps to
minimize any adverse impact resulting from its noncompliance
with any limitation specified in this certification,
including, but not limited to, such accelerated or additional
monitoring as necessary to determine the nature and impact of
the noncomplying event.
ZZY. RIGHT 07 ENTRY
The permittees shall allow the Secretary of the
Florida Department of Environmental Protection and/or
authorized DEP representatives, and representatives of the
RESD and SJRWMD, upon the presentation of credentials: •
A. To enter upon the permittee's premises where, an
effluent source is located or in which records are required to
be kept under the terms and conditions of this permit; and
B. To have access to and copy all records required
to be kept under the conditions of this certification; and
C. To inspect and test any monitoring equipment or
monitoring method required in this certification and to sample
any discharge or emissional pollutants; and
6-53
26
-------
Modified 4/12/93 PA 88.-24A
D. To assess any damage to the environment or
violation of ambient standards.
E. SJRWMD authorized staff, upon proper
identification, will have permission to enter, inspect, and
observe permitted and related CBCP facilities in order to
determine compliance with the approved plans, specifications,
and conditions of this certification.
F. RESD authorized staff, upon proper
identification, will have permission to enter, inspect, sample
any discharge, and observe permitted and related facilities in
order to determine compliance with the approved plans,
specifications, and conditions of this certification.
XV. REVOCATIOH OR SUSPENSION
This certification may be suspended, or revoked
pursuant to Section 403.512, Florida Statutes, or for
violations of any Condition of Certification.
XVI. CZVZL AND CRZXZNAL LIABILITY
This certification does not relieve either permittee
from civil or criminal responsibility or liability for
noncompliance with any conditions of this certification,
applicable rules or regulations of the Department, or Chapter
403, Florida Statutes, or regulations thereunder.
Subject to Section 403.511, Florida Statutes, this
certification shall not preclude the institution of any legal
action or relieve either permittee from any responsibilities
or penalties established pursuant to any other applicable
State Statutes or regulations.
XVII. PROPERTY RIGHTS .
The issuance of this certification does not convey
any property rights in either real or personal property,
tangible or intangible, nor any exclusive privileges, nor does
it authorize any injury to public or private property or any
invasion of personal rights, nor any infringement of Federal,
State or local laws or regulations. The permittees shall
obtain title, lease or right of use to any sovereign submerged
lands occupied by the plant, transmission line structures, or
appurtenant facilities from the State of Florida.
XVIII. SEVERABXLXTY
The provisions of this certification are severable,
and, if any provision of this certification or the application
of any provision of this- certification to any circumstances is
held invalid, the application of such provision to other
circumstances and the remainder of the certification shall not
be affected thereby.
27
-------
Modified 4/12/93 • PA 88-24A
ZVZV. DEFINITIONS
The meaning of terms used herein shall be governed
by the definitions contained in Chapter 403, Florida statutes,
and any regulation adopted pursuant thereto. In the event of
any dispute over the meaning of a term used in these general
or special conditions which is not defined in such statutes or
regulations, such dispute shall be resolved by reference to
the most relevant definitions contained in any other state or
federal statute or regulation or, in the alternative, by the
use of the commonly accepted meaning as determined by the
Department.
ZZ. REVIEW OF BITS CERTIFICATION
A. The certification shall be final unless revised,
revoked, or suspended pursuant to lav. At least every five
years from the date of issuance of this certification or any
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Control Act
Amendments of 1972 for the plant units, the Department shall
review all monitoring data that has been submitted to it or
it's agent(s) during the preceding five-year period for the
purpose of determining the extent of the permittee's
compliance with the conditions of this certification of the
environmental impact of this facility. The Department shall
submit the results of its review and recommendations to the
permittees. Such review will be repeated at least every five
years thereafter.
ZZI. MODIFICATION OF CONDITIONS
The conditions of this certification may be modified
in the following manner:
A. The Board hereby delegates to the Secretary the
authority to modify, after notice and opportunity for hearing,
any conditions pertaining to consumptive use of water,
reclaimed water, monitoring, sampling, ground water, surface
water, mixing zones, or variances to water quality standards,
zones of discharge, leachate control programs, effluent
limitations, air emission limitations, fuel, or solid waste
disposal, right of entry, railroad spur transmission line,
access road, pipelines, or designation of agents for the
purpose of enforcing the conditions of this certification.
B. All other modifications shall be made in
accordance with Section 403.516, Florida Statutes.
XIII. FLOOD CONTROL PROTECTION
The plant and associated facilities shall be
constructed in such a manner as to comply with the Duval
County flood protection requirements.
-------
Modified 4/12/93 • PA 8B-24A
ZZZZZ. EFFECT OF CERTIFICATION
Certification and conditions of certification are
predicated upon design and performance criteria indicated in
the application. Thus, conformance to those criteria, unless
specifically amended, modified, or as the Department and
parties .are otherwise notified, is binding upon the applicants
in the preparation, construction, and maintenance of the
certified project. In those instances where a conflict occurs
between the application's design criteria and the conditions
of certification, the conditions shall prevail.
ZXZV. VOZ8B
To mitigate the effects of noise produced by the
steam blowout of steam boiler tubes, each permittee shall
conduct public awareness campaigns prior to such activities to
forewarn the public of the estimated time and duration of the
noise. The permittees shall comply with the applicable noise
limitations specified in Environmental Protection Board Rules
or The City of Jacksonville Noise Ordinance.
ZZV. UBS OF HATER FOR COOLING PURPOSES
The CBCP shall use reclaimed wastewater from the
Seminole Kraft paper mill (in addition to any wastewater
generated by the CBCP that is suitable for reuse for that
purpose) for cooling water supply. In the event of disruption
of SKC reclaimed wastewater «s the cooling water makeup source
for Cedar Bay, Inc., Cedar Bay, Inc. will utilize the water
retained in SKC's holding basins or other non-potable sources
of water as cooling water makeup.
in At least 90 days prior to beginning commercial
operation, Cedar Bay Cogeneration, Inc.- shall, submit- to the -
Department a report concerning the actual measured pollutant
characteristics of reclaimed water to be obtained from the
Seminole Kraft paper mill. Such report shall be based on
approved analytical results from four monthly samples obtained
directly from the Seminole Kraft waste stream to be tied in
with the CBCP cooling system, and shall include the
concentrations of BODS, COD, total organic carbon, total
suspended solids, ammonia, pH, oil and grease, calcium,
magnesium, sodium, potassium, alkalinity as mg of CaCO3,
sulfate, chloride, nitrate, fluoride, silica, chlorine,
phosphate (total) as P, cyanide, iron, manganese, aluminum,
nickel, zinc, copper, cadmium, chromium, beryllium, arsenic,
selenium, antimony, mercury, barium, silver, lead, thallium,
phosphorus, and TKN. Where applicable, wastewater sampling
and analyses conducted by SKC under the terms of operation
permit number 1016-200147 may be used to meet the terms of
this condition. Any other sampling and analyses submitted
under the terms of this permit shall be in accordance with a
Department-approved Quality Assurance Plan. Results of all
testing and sampling specified above shall be submitted to the
Department within 30 days of testing.
29
-------
Modified 4/12/93 PA 88-24A
Seminole Kraft's generation, treatment, or discharge
of its vastewater is not covered by this site certification,
and the permitting of Seminole Kraft's generation, treatment,
or discharge of its vastevater does not require Siting Board
approval.
XXVI. EN70RCEXENT
A. The Secretary may take any and all lawful
actions as he or she deems appropriate to enforce any
condition of this certification.
B. Any participating agency (federal, state, local)
may take any and all lawful actions to enforce any condition
of this certification that is based on the rules of that
agency. Prior to initiating such action the agency head shall
notify the Secretary of that agency's proposed action.
C. RESD may initiate any and all lawful actions to
enforce the conditions of this certification that are based on
the Department's rules> after obtaining the Secretary's
written permission to so process on behalf of the Department.
XXVII. ENDANGERED AND THREATENED SPECIES
Prior to start of construction, CBCP shall survey
the site for endangered and threatened species of animal and
plant life. Plant species on the endangered or threatened
list shall be transplanted to an appropriate area if
practicable. Gopher Tortoises and any commensals on the rare
or endangered species list shall be relocated after
consultation with the Florida Came and Fresh Water Fish
Commission. A relocation program, as approved by the FGFWFC,
shall be followed.
XXVIII. ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE LAND ACQUISITION
a. Periodic Payments
1. As a condition of this certification, CBCP
shall be required to make periodic monetary contributions for
the purpose of funding a program for the acquisition and
management of environmentally sensitive lands in Duval County,
Florida. These payments shall be made to The Nature
Conservancy, Inc., in trust for the State of Florida, to be
used as provided in Section B below; and to the City of
Jacksonville Environmental Land Acquisition Trust Fund, to be
used as provided in Section C below.
2. The two million dollar payment made by or on
behalf of the AES Corporation to The Nature Conservancy, •
Inc.,(TNC) on or about June 16, 1992, shall be deemed to be
the first of two periodic payments, totaling 4.5 million
dollars, which the CBCP is obligated to make to TNC under
this condition. The second periodic payment, 2.5 million
'dollars, shall be transmitted within 48 hours of the date on
•
6-57
30
-------
Modified 4/12/93 PA 88-24A
which the CBCP commences commercial operation. TNC shall hold
all funds received from CBCP or on behalf of CBCP in trust for
the State of Florida.
3. Commencing on the anniversary of the second
payment required by subsection (2) above, and continuing each
year for 30 years thereafter, a payment of $300,000 shall be
submitted to the City of Jacksonville for each year that the
CBCP remains in commercial operation. Each annual payment
shall be transmitted within 48 hours of the anniversary of the
date on which commercial operation commenced at CBCP, and
shall be deposited in the Jacksonville Environmental Land
Acquisition Trust Fund (JELATF) established by S 110.362 of
the Jacksonville Ordinance Code.
4. Any failure to achieve timely transmission of a
periodic payment required by this condition shall be grounds
for revocation of the certification.
5. All funds attributable to the periodic payments
required by this condition shall be received, held, disbursed,
and expended in conformance with the applicable provisions of
this Condition.
6. The express intent of this Condition is to
assure that these periodic payments fund the acquisition of
lands possessing substantial ecological value to the ecosystem
of the St. Johns River watershed; and that lands acquired with
funds provided under this condition be managed to retain or
enhance the ecological values for which they were acquired.
Funds made available under this Condition shall not be used
for the development of urban recreational facilities which
conflict with the natural resource values of a site.
Prohibited facilities include ball fields or courts,
playgrounds, and other developed amenities which are not
dependent on ecological conditions for their existence and
which are not ancillary to public access for recreational
enjoyment of the available natural resources.
7. Properly managed natural resource-based
recreation which does not degrade the ecological values of a
site shall be encouraged through the development of
appropriate management plans which shall be approved by the
Department for any tract purchased under this Condition.
Management of any site shall be consistent with the
acquisition criteria specified in this Condition and shall be
coordinated with other managers of natural lands in the
region, such as the Department, the St. Johns River Water
Management District, the National Park Service, the Division
of Forestry, and the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish
Commission.
8. Funds aade available under this Condition nay
be used to participate in existing public and private
environmental land acquisition programs such as the
Conservation and Recreational Lands Program (CARL) , Save Our
Rivers (SOR) , Florida Communities Trust (FCT) , Land
31
-------
Modified 4/12/93 PA 88-24A
Acquisition Trust Fund (LATF), Preservation 2000, The Nature
Conservancy, and other similar programs consistent with the
intent behind this condition.
b. Land Acquisition Process: State of Florida
1. All land acquisition and management activities
funded by the certification for the use and benefit of the
State of Florida or its designee shall be undertaken in
accordance with the process established by this Section.
2. The Nature Conservancy (TNC) shall serve as the
agent for acquisition of any parcel of land purchased with
funds made available under this condition.. The Department and
TNC shall enter into an -agreement which incorporates the
provisions of this Condition and such other provisions not
inconsistent with this Condition that the Department finds
necessary to assure that this Section is properly implemented
in the public interest. The agreement shall specify the duties
and responsibilities of the parties with respect to the
retention and disbursement of funds received to assure an
accurate accounting and audit trail.
3. There shall be a six member Land Acquisition
and Management Advisory Council (LAMAC) comprising two
representatives appointed by each of the following
governmental entities: the Department, the St. Johns River
Water Management District, and the City of Jacksonville. TNC
shall appoint a representative to serve as chair of the LAMAC.
The LAMAC shall hold one or more public hearings for the
purpose of receiving public input as to lands potentially
suitable for acquisition under this Section. Following
appropriate public input, the LAMAC shall report its findings
to the Department.
4. After review of the LAMAC report, TNC shall
identify and list as many land acquisition options as it deems
practicable. A copy of the list shall be submit-ted to each of
the entities represented on the LAMAC. In establishing this
list, TNC shall consider:
a. the regional environmental importance of each
parcel of property, taking into account its proximity to water
bodies and other publicly-held land;
b. the extent of wildlife habitat and diversity on
each parcel and the effect of its acquisition on regional
efforts towards wildlife conservation; and
c. the potential of each parcel for environmental
enhancement, restoration, and natural resource-based
recreational uses.
The LAMAC shall review and approve the land acquisition
options list before any parcels are acquired under this
condition.
-------
Modified 4/12/93 PA 88-24A
5. Following approval of the list, TNC shall
initiate selection of parcels to be acquired. In selecting
parcels for acquisition, preference shall be given to parcels
located near the CBCP site, including parcels within or
adjacent to the Timucuan Ecological and Historical Preserve
managed by the National Park Service. Preference shall also
be given to the selection of larger parcels which can be
.purchased using contributions from other entities to
supplement funds available under this condition. After
approval by the Secretary of the Department of a proposed
acquisition, the parcel shall be purchased by TNC in trust for
the State of Florida.
6. Title to any parcel purchased under this
condition shall-ultimately vest in a governmental entity
following a determination by the Secretary of the Department,
after consultation with the LAMAC, as to how the property can
be managed most appropriately in the public interest. It is
understood that title to a newly-purchased parcel may
initially vest in TNC pending this determination and transfer
of the title to an appropriate government entity or entities
for management. The Siting Board hereby delegates to the
Secretary of the Department the authority to select the
governmental entity or entities most suitable to hold title
and manage any property purchased under this condition. Upon
notification from the Department that the selection has
occurred, TNC shall forthwith execute a transfer of title to
the designated entity or entities.
7. TNC shall be entitled to receive reimbursement
from funds held by it under this Condition for any costs
related to the performance of an acquisition under this
Section. TNC may expend on an annual basis up to two per cent
of the purchase price of a parcel to which it holds interim
title to defray expenses associated with management of that
parcel until title can be transferred as specified in
subsection (6).
8. TNC is hereby authorized to explore and enter
into financing arrangements which will allow the expected
proceeds of the periodic payments required under this
condition to be capitalized for immediate utilization in land
acquisition or for appropriate installment payments in the
event that it is possible to defer full payment for a parcel
over a number of years. CBCP shall cooperate to the maximum
extent in assisting TNC to achieve such alternate financing
arrangements for the benefit of the public as may be
practicable.
. c. Land Acquisition Process: City of Jacksonville
1. All land acquisition and management activities
funded by Section A.3 of this Condition for the use and
benefit of the City of Jacksonville or its designee shall be
undertaken in accordance with the process established by this
Section.
33
-------
Modified 4/12/93 PA 88-24A
2. The Real Estate Division of the City of
Jacksonville Public Works Department or another appropriate
governmental entity shall serve as the agent for acquisition
of any parcel of land purchased with funds made available
under this Condition. The Department and the City of
Jacksonville shall enter into an agreement which incorporates
the provisions of this Condition and such other provisions not
inconsistent with this Condition that the Department finds
necessary to assure that this Section is properly implemented
in the public interest. The agreement shall specify the duties
and responsibilities of the parties with respect to the
retention and disbursement of funds received to assure an
accurate accounting and audit trail.
3. The City of Jacksonville, acting through the
Jacksonville Environmental Land Selection Committee (JELSC)
established by Mayoral Executive Order 85-81, as amended by
Executive Order 91-147, pursuant to S 110.362 of the
Jacksonville Ordinance Code, shall identify and list as many
land acquisition options as it deems practicable. In
establishing its list, JELSC shall consider:
a. the regional environmental importance of each
parcel of property, taking into account its proximity to water
bodies and other publicly-held land;
b. the extent of wildlife habitat and diversity on
each parcel and the effect of its acquisition on regional
efforts towards wildlife conservation; and
c. the potential of each parcel for environmental
enhancement, restoration, and natural resource-based
recreational uses.
d. the goals, objectives, and policies of the
Conservation/Coastal Management element of the City's
Comprehensive Plan, as amended.
A copy of the JELSC list, as it may be amended from
time to time, shall be supplied to the Department and to the
St. Johns River Water Management District. JELSC shall furnish
a copy of the list upon its initial preparation and after any
subsequent amendment thereto.
4. Lands to be acquired under this Section with
funds made available in whole or in part under this Condition
may be acquired only with the concurrence of the Jacksonville
City Council and the Department. In selecting parcels for
acquisition, preference shall be given to parcels located near
the CBCP site, including parcels within or adjacent to the
Timucuan Ecological and Historical Preserve managed by the
National Park Service. Preference shall also be given to the
selection of larger parcels which can be purchased using con-
tributions from other entities to supplement funds available
under this condition. After approval by the Department and
the City Council of a proposed acquisition, the parcel shall
be purchased by the City.
6-61
-------
Modified 4/12/93 PA 88-24A
'5. With the approval of the Department and the
City Council, title to land acquired under this Section may be
sold or transferred to a governmental entity to facilitate
effective and beneficial management of the parcel. Any funds
received by the City as a result of sale or transfer of
property previously acquired under this Section shall be
deposited in the JELATF and remain subject to the provisions
of this.Condition.
6. Any funds paid by CBCP to the JELATF in
fulfillment of this Condition or in accordance with any other
Condition of Certification may be used for the purpose of
managing lands acquired under this Section.-
7. The City of Jacksonville is hereby authorized
to explore and enter into financing arrangements which will
allow the expected proceeds of the periodic payments available
under this Section to be capitalized for immediate utilization
in land acquisition and management or for appropriate
installment payments in the event that it is possible to defer
full payment for a parcel over a number of years. CBCP shall
cooperate to the maximum extent in assisting the City to
achieve such alternate financing arrangements for the benefit
of the public as may be practicable.
8. Sale or transfer of any parcel acquired under
this Section shall be subject to a reversionary interest
retained by the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement
Trust Fund. In the event that the property ever ceases to be
used and managed for environmental purposes consistent with
this Condition, ownership of the property shall immediately
revert to the State of Florida.
ZZZZ. TRANSFER OF CERTIFICATION
If the Cedar Bay Cogeneration Project is sold or
legally transferred to another owner, notice of such sale or
transfer shall immediately be submitted to the Florida
Department of Environmental Protection and the agency parties
to this certification by the previous certification holder
(permittee) and the assignee. Included in the notice shall be
the identification of the entity responsible for compliance
with the Certification. Any assignment or transfer shall
carry with it the full responsibility for the limitations and
conditions of this Certification. .
35
-------
SETTLEMENT STIPULATION
*
ATTACHMENT C
CONDITION OF CERTIFICATION XXVIII
-------
ATTACHMENT C
XXVIII Environmentally Sensitive Land Acquisistion
A. Periodic Payments
1. As a condition of this certification, CBCP shall be required
to make periodic monetary contributions for the purpose of
funding a program for the acquisition and management of
environmentally sensitive lands in Duval County, Florida. These
payments shall be made to The Nature Conservancy, Inc., in trust
for the State of Florida, to be used as provided in Section B
below; and to the City of Jacksonville Environmental Land
Acquisition Trust Fund, to be used as provided in Section C
below.
2. The two million dollar payment made by or on behalf of the
AES Corporation to The Nature Conservancy, Inc.,(TNC) on or about
June 16, 1992, shall be deemed to be the first of two periodic
payments, totalling 4.5 million dollars, which the CBCP is
obligated to make to TNC under this condition. The second
periodic payment, 2.5 million dollars, shall be transmitted
within 48 hours of the date on which the CBCP commences
commercial operation. TNC shall hold all funds received from
CBCP or on behalf of CBCP in trust for the-State of Florida.
3. Commencing on the anniversary of the second payment required
by subsection (2) above, and continuing each year for 30 years
thereafter, a payment of $300,000 shall be submitted to the City
of Jacksonville for each year that the CBCP remains in commercial
operation. Each annual payment shall be transmitted within 48
hours of the anniversary of the date on which commercial
operation commenced at CBCP, and shall be deposited in the
Jacksonville Environmental Land Acquisition Trust Fund (JELATF)
established by $ 110.362 of the Jacksonville Ordinance Code.
4. Any failure to achieve timely transmission of a periodic
payment required by this condition shall be grounds for
revocation of the certification.
5. All funds attributable to the periodic payments required by
this condition shall be received, held, disbursed, and expended
in conformance with the applicable provisions of this Condition.
6. The express intent of this Condition is to assure that these
periodic payments fund the.acquisition of lands possessing
substantial ecological value to the ecosystem of the St. Johns
River watershed; and that lands acquired with funds provided
under -this condition be managed to retain or enhance the
ecological values for which they were acquired. Funds made
available under this Condition shall not be used for the
development of urban recreational facilities which conflict with
the natural resource values of a site. Prohibited facilities
include ball fields or courts, playgrounds, and other developed
amenities which are not dependent on ecological conditions for
their existence and which are not ancillary to public access for
-------
recreational enjoyment of the available natural resources.
^.
7 Properly managed natural resource-based recreation which does
not degrade the ecological values of a site shall be encouraged
through the develoment of appropriate management plans which
shall be approved by the Department for any tract purchased under
this Condition. Management of any site shall be consistent with
the acquisition criteria specified in this Condition and shall be
coordinated with other managers of natural lands in the region,
such as the Department, the St. Johns River Water Management
District, the National Park Service, the Division of Forestry,
and the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission .
8. Funds made available under this Condition may be used to
participate in existing public and private environmental land
acquisition programs such as the Conservation and Recreational
Lands Program (CARL), Save Our Rivers (SOR), Florida Communities
Trust (FCT), Land Acquisition Trust Fund (LATF), Preservation
2000, The Nature Conservancy, and other similar programs
consistent with the intent behind this condition.
B. Land Acquisition Process: State of Florida
1. All land acquisition and management activities funded by the
certification for the use and benefit of the State of Florida or
its designee shall be undertaken in accordance with the process
established by this Section.
2. The Nature Conservancy (TNC) shall serve as the agent for
acquisition of any parcel of land purchased with funds made
available under this condition. The Department and TNC shall
enter into an agreement which incorporates the provisions of this
Condition and such other provisions not inconsistent with this
Condition that the Department finds necessary to assure that this
Section is properly implemented in the public interest. The
agreement shall specify the duties, and-responsibilities.of the
parties with respect to the retention and disbursement of funds
received to assure an accurate accounting and audit trail.
3. There shall be a six member Land Acquisition and Management
Advisory Council (LAMAC) comprising two representatives appointed
by each of the following governmental entities: the Department,
the St. Johns River Water Management District, and the City of
Jacksonville. TNC shall appoint a representative to serve as
chair of the LAMAC. The LAMAC shall hold one or more public
hearings for the purpose of receiving public input as to lands
potentially suitable for acquisition under this Section.
Following appropriate public input, the LAMAC shall report its
findings to the Department.
4. After review of the LAMAC report, TNC shall identify and list
as many land acquisition options as it deems practicable. A copy
of the list shall be submitted to each of the entities
represented on the LAMAC. In establishing this list, TNC shall
consider:
-------
a. the regional environmental importance of each parcel of
property, taking into account its proximity to water bodies and
other publicly-held land;
b. the extent of wildlife habitat and diversity on each
parcel and the effect of its acquisition on regional efforts
towards wildlife conservation; and
c. the potential of each parcel for environmental
enhancement, restoration, and natural resource-based recreational
uses.
The LAMAC shall review and approve the land acquisition options
list before any parcels are acquired under this condition.
5. Following approval of the list, TNC shall initiate selection
of parcels to be acquired. In selecting parcels for acquisition,
preference shall be given to parcels located near the CBCP site,
including parcels within or adjacent to the Timucuan Ecological
and Historical Preserve managed by the National Park Service.
Preference shall also be given to the selection of larger parcels
which can be purchased using contributions from other entities to
supplement funds available under this condition. After approval
by the Secretary of the Department of a proposed acquisition, the
parcel shall be purchased by TNC in trust for the State of
Florida.
6. Title to any parcel purchased under this condition shall
ultimately vest in a governmental entity following a
determination by the Secretary of the Department, after
consultation with the LAMAC, as to how the property can be
managed most appropriately in the public interest. It is
understood that title to a newly-purchased parcel may initially
vest in TNC pending this determination and transfer of the title
to an appropriate government entity or entities for management.
The Siting Board hereby delegates to the Secretary of the
Department the authority to select the governmental entity or
entities roost suitable to hold title and manage any property
purchased under this condition. Upon notification from the
Department that the selection has occurred, TNC shall forthwith
execute a transfer of title to the designated entity or entities.
7. TNC shall be entitled to receive reimbursement from funds
held by it under this Condition for any costs related to the
performance of an acquisition under this Section. TNC nay expend
on an annual basis up to two per cent of the purchase price, of a
parcel to which it holds interim title to defray expenses
associated with management of that parcel until title can be
transferred as specified in subsection (6).
8. TNC is hereby authorized to explore and enter into financing
arrangements which will allow the expected proceeds of the
periodic payments required under this condition to be capitalized
for immediate utilization in land acquisition or for appropriate
installment payments in the event that it is possible to defer
full payment for a parcel over a number of years. CBCP shall
6
-------
cooperate to the maximum extent in assisting TNC to achieve such
alternate financing arrangements for the benefit of the public as
may be practicable.
C. Land Acquisition Process: City of Jacksonville
1. All land acquisition and management activities funded by
Section A.3 of this Condition for the use and benefit of the City
of Jacksonville or its designee shall be undertaken in accordance
with the process established by this Section.
2. The Real Estate Division of the City of Jacksonville Public
Works Department or another appropriate governmental entity shall
serve as the agent for acquisition of any parcel of land
purchased with funds made available under this Condition. The
Department and the City of Jacksonville shall enter into an
agreement which incorporates the provisions of this Condition and
such other provisions not inconsistent with this Condition that
the Department finds necessary to. assure that this Section is
properly implemented in the public interest. The agreement shall
specify the duties and responsibilities of the parties with
respect to the retention and disbursement of funds received to
assure an accurate accounting and audit trail.
3. The City of Jacksonville, acting through the Jacksonville
Environmental Land Selection Committee (JELSC) established by
Mayoral Executive Order 85-81, as amended by Executive Order
91-147, pursuant to $ 110.362 of the Jacksonville Ordinance Code,
shall identify and list as many land acquisition options as it
deems practicable. In establishing its list, JELSC shall
consider:
a. the regional environmental importance of each parcel of
property, taking into account its proximity to water bodies and
other publicly-held land;
b. the extent of wildlife habitat and diversity on each •
parcel and the effect of its acquisition on regional efforts
towards wildlife conservation; and
c. the potential of each parcel for environmental
enhancement, restoration, and natural resource-based recreational
uses.
d. the goals, objectives, and policies of the
Conservation/Coastal Management element of the City's
Comprehensive Plan, as amended. •
A copy of the JELSC list, as it may be amended from time to time,
shall be supplied to the Department and to the St. Johns River
Water Management District. JELSC shall furnish a copy of the list
upon its initial preparation and after any subsequent amendment
thereto.
4. Lands to be acquired under this Section with funds made
available in whole or in part under this Condition may be
-------
acquired only with the concurrence of the Jacksonville City
Council and the Department. In selecting parcels for
acquisition, preference shall be given to parcels located near
the CBCP site, including parcels within or adjacent to the
.Timucuan Ecological and Historical Preserve managed by the
National Park Service. Preference shall also be given to' the
selection of larger parcels which can be purchased using
.contributions from other, entities to supplement funds available
;under this condition. After approval by the Department and the
City Council of a proposed acquisition, the parcel shall be
:purchased by the City.
5. With the approval of the Department and the City Council,
title to land acquired under this Section may be sold or
transferred to a governmental entity to facilitate effective and
beneficial management of the parcel. Any funds received by the
City as a result of sale or transfer of property previously
acquired under this Section shall be deposited in the JELATF and
remain subject tp the provisions of this Condition.
6. Any funds paid by CBCP to the JELATF in fulfillment of this
Condition or in accordance with any other Condition of
Certification may be used for the purpose of managing lands
acquired under this Section.
7. The City of Jacksonville is hereby authorized to explore and
enter into financing arrangements which will allow, the expected
proceeds of the periodic payments available under this Section to
be capitalized for immediate utilization in land acquisition and
management or for appropriate installment payments in the event
that it is possible to defer full payment for a parcel over a
number of years. CBCP shall cooperate to the maximum extent in
assisting the City to achieve such alternate financing
arrangements for the benefit of the public as may be practicable.
8. Sale or transfer of any parcel acquired under this Section
shall be subject to a reversionary interest retained by the Board
of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund In the event
that the property ever ceases to be used and managed for
environmental purposes consistent with this Condition, ownership
of the property shall immediately revert to the State of Florida.
-------
SETTLEMENT STIPULATION .
ATTACHMENT D
SITE PLAN FOR CEDAR BAY COGENBRATXON PROJECT
-------
ATTACHMENT D
« •! I il« I 'I •"
h hi 5!
• •• •• •• 9 9 9*99 9999999 999 » •
I ,ii it n 11 :;it mini HI :, i: :
i.j.n.n n 11 :ii« -. t.'iin m ,.. 11.:.,.,„..:.
DOU
l.'Vfl
afco N
-------
APPENDIX C
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT/
STATE ANALYSIS REPORT
CEDAR BAY COGENERATION PROJECT
MAY 1990
-------
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
AND STATE ANALYSIS REPORT
Cedar Bay Cogeneration Project
AES/Cedar Bay/ Incorporated
Jacksonville, Florida
(X) Draft
( ) Final
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV
345 Courtland Street, NE
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
Florida Department of Environmental Regulation
Power Plant Siting Section
2600 Blair Stone Road
Tallahassee, Florida 32301
1. Type of Action: Administrative (X)
Legislative ( )
2. Description of Action
Applied Energy Services/Cedar Bay, Inc. (AES-CB) proposes to
construct and operate a new source cogeneration facility known
as the Cedar Bay Cogeneration Project (CBCP). This facility
will consist of three circulating fluidized bed (CFB) boilers
which will produce 225 megawatts (MW) of electricity for sale to
Florida Power and Light Company (FPL) and 640-, 000 pounds per
hour of process steam for sale to the Seminole Kraft (SK) paper
mill. These facilities will be located on a 35 acre site
adjacent to the existing SK paper mill in northern Duval County,
Florida. AES-CB has applied to the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (USEPA) and the Florida Department of
Environmental Regulation (FDER) for permits necessary to operate
and construct the proposed facility.
This joint document has been prepared to satisfy both the
requirements of USEPA under the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA) and of FDER under the Florida Power Plant Siting
Act. The USEPA Region IV Administrator has determined that CBCP
discharges of wastewater from construction and operation will be
a New Source as defined by Section 306 of the Clean Water Act.
The CBCP will require a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) Permit. Issuance of this Permit would be a major
Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human
environment and subject to the provisions of NEPA.
-------
Consequently, the USEPA decided that an Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) should be prepared. Because under the Power
Plant Siting Act FDER is required to prepare a State Analysis
Report (SAR) containing information similar to that required in
an EIS/ USEPA and FDER have entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding agreeing to prepare a single document. This joint
document, referred to as the SAR/EIS, will meet the
responsibilities of both agencies.
The determination of need for a new steam electric generating
facility in Florida is the responsibility of the Florida Public
Service Commission (FPSC). On June 30, 1989, the FPSC granted
AES-CB and SK their petition for Determination of Need in the
FPSC Order No. 21491. The order stated that the CBCP was a
qualifying facility pursuant to the Public Utility Regulatory
Policies Act of 1978 (PURPA) regulations and that AES-CB has
negotiated a contract with FPL for the sale of capacity and
energy at less than the statewide avoided cost. This being the
case, the FPSC determined that CBCP is the most cost-effective
alternative. The discussion of the conservation criterion
concluded that, since cogeneration is not necessarily a
conservation method, conservation and other demand-side
alternatives as envisioned by Florida Energy Efficiency and
Conservation Act are not germane to qualifying facility needs
determination.
It is recognized that the FPSC order satisfies their own
responsibilities in evaluating the need for the CBCP. However,
this does not preclude the EIS process, which requires a clear
definition of need for a project in order to evaluate a
No-Action alternative and the alternative means of satisfying
the need. After evaluating relevant documents prepared by the
FPSC and the Florida Electric Power Coordinating Group (FCG), it
has been determined that for this SAR/EIS the need for the
project will be based on the following: 1) need for additional
base load capacity of 225 MW for increased reliability in
service, 2) need for displacement of the future consumption of
2.2 million barrels of oil per year or equivalent volume of
natural gas, and 3) need for 640,000 pounds per hour
(pounds/hour) of process steam for use by the SK paper mill.
It is proposed that the CBCP be constructed on the site of the
existing SK paper mill in northern Duval County. The site is
owned by SK. The total existing paper mill site consists of 425
acres. The new cogeneration facilities will occupy
approximately 35 acres at the site and is to be located west of
the existing mill and east of the Broward River and the mill
lime settling ponds. The area to be occupied by the
cogeneration plant is currently used for storage of lime mud
from the mill and construction debris. A rail yard is located
to the north and west of the proposed plant site. Due to
previous disturbances, there is little vegetation on site. The
existing vegetation is mostly grasses, weeds, and shrubs.
-------
The proposed plant will consist of three 75 MW CFB boilers, a
single steam turbine driven electrical generator, steam
pipelines to supply the SK paper mill, mechanical draft cooling
tower, coal handling facilities, coal and limestone storage
facilities, stormwater runoff control ponds and a 138 kilovolt
(KV) transmission line to transfer the power from the plant to
the JEA and FPL power network systems. An interconnection from
the CBCP to the JEA electric power grid will be made by
constructing the transmission line from the cogeneration plant
to the JEA's Eastport substation, which is located directly
southeast and adjacent to the paper mill.
Initial site preparation will require the relocation of an
estimated 230,000 cubic yards of the lime mud which has been
stored on the plant site. The lime mud will be placed in a lime
mud storage area in the northwestern portion of the SK
property. Construction of the storage area will include a
geomembrane cap and seeded earth cover.
Construction of the proposed plant and its associated disposal
areas will disturb or eliminate approximately 30 acres of poor
quality, previously disturbed wildlife habitat. Since paper
mill operations have cleared most of the area already, and
thereby reduced the value of this community as a habitat for
wildlife, additional destruction of these areas will certainly
hasten the demise of the biota associated with these areas.
The units are planned for coal-fired operation; however,
provisions are being made in the design to allow for burning of
wood waste as well. Based on a study of availability of coal
sources east of the Mississippi River, there are practical
sources of coal adequate to meet the plant's needs over the
anticipated life of the project (approximately 1,105,000 tons
per year). Coal is to be delivered to the site by train using
the existing CSX railroad lines. The rail spur runs northwest
to southeast on the site.
The air quality control system is designed on a "worst case"
basis assuming the maximum sulfur (3.3 percent) and ash (18
percent) content in the coal and a minimum heating value (10,500
BTU/pound) . The emission of air pollutants from the CBCP site
are limited by Chapter 17-2, FAC, and by the New Source
Performance Standards as imposed by the USEPA. In order to
comply with these regulations, AES-CB proposes to utilize washed
coal with a fluidized limestone bed to control emission of
sulfur oxides. Particulate matter will be controlled by a
fabric filter. It is estimated that approximately 354,000 tons
per year of fly ash and 88,000 tons per year of bed ash could be
generated. This material is to be disposed of by the coal
supplier at an approved disposal location outside the State of
Florida or sold to the building materials industry.
111 0-3
-------
When all of the units are operating at 100% of rated capacity,
the plant will consume 145 tons per hour of coal and will emit
1,913 pounds per hour of nitrogen oxides. The stack height of
425 feet will assist the control equipment in reducing ambient
air quality impacts by insuring dispersion and dilution of air
pollutants before the pollutants reach ground level at some
distance from the site. Only during rare meteorological
conditions will stack emissions reach the ground close to the
plant.
The primary source of water for the plant will be groundwater
from the Floridan aquifer. Fresh groundwater or reclaimed water
from Jacksonville sewage treatment plants will be used as makeup
to the recirculating cooling water system. Cooling towers will
be located at the south end of the CBCP plant area. The maximum
discharge temperature of cooling tower blowdown is expected to
be 95 degrees Fahrenheit.
Wastewater from the construction and operation of the CBCP will
originate from a number of sources such as cooling tower"
blowdown, boiler blowdown, metal cleaning wastes, sanitary
wastes, site runoff, construction dewatering, and low volume
wastes such as demineralizer blowdown, floor drains and
laboratory wastes. All of the wastewater, except excess
stormwater runoff, will be disposed of, after necessary
treatment or pretreatment, via existing paper mill treatment and
discharge facilities. An erosion and sediment control plan has
been developed to minimize construction related runoff impacts.
3. Malor Plant Systems Alternatives
Alternative Sites
AES-CB stated in their Site Certification Application (SCA) that
the proposed site for the CBCP was an ideal construction site
because of its proximity to the steam customer, the SK paper
mill, and because the industrial nature of the proposed site (an
IH, heavy industrial, zone) has been extensively disturbed by
previous industrial use over the last 35 years. Even though the
CBCP is in "compliance with local zoning ordinances, it must also
be found to be consistent with the North District Plan (NDP),
prepared by the planning department of the City of
Jacksonville. Assuming that the project conforms to the NDP and
acknowledging that an alternative site would lengthen the steam
delivery line, thereby increasing heat loss and reducing plant
fuel use efficiency, further evaluation of alternative sites was
determined not to be necessary.
Air Pollution Control Systems
Air emissions control system alternatives ^ere evaluated
considering the state of the art of emission control technology,
IV
-------
environmental impacts/and economics. Major sulfur dioxide
(802) control alternatives included proper CFB boiler design
and operation in conjunction with low sulfur coal, a pulverized
coal (PC) boiler followed by a wet limestone scrubber system,
and a PC boiler followed by a lime spray dryer system. Based on
economics, energy, and environmental considerations, a CFB
boiler system designed to meet a 90 percent removal requirement
appears to represent Best Available Control Technology •(BACT).
Particulate control alternatives included fabric filters and
electrostatic precipitators. The fabric filters were chosen
because of the high particulate control rate. Alternatives to
controlling nitrogen oxides (NO.,) emissions include proper
boiler design and operation, selective catalytic reduction
(SCR), and selective noncatalytic reduction (SNRC, or Thermal
DeNOx) control technologies. SNRC is the preferable
alternative for NOX control unless it can be shown clearly
that it does not represent BACT.
Cooling Systems
Cooling systems alternatives included the heat dissipation
system, the water source, and the discharge receiving body. The
primary use of water at the CBCP will be for evaporation in the
heat dissipation system. Alternatives examined for the heat
dissipation system include once-through cooling, dry and wet-dry
cooling towers, wet natural draft cooling towers, and mechanical
draft cooling towers. Based on energy and economic
considerations, rectangular mechanical draft cooling towers were
chosen. Use of surface water, groundwater, recycled wastewater,
and reclaimed water (municipal wastewater treatment plant
effluent) were the alternatives examined for the cooling water
source. The CBCP will use groundwater from the Floridan aquifer
as its primary water source and draw from existing SK wells. At
the time the City of Jacksonville can provide treated wastewater
of sufficient quality, the CBCP will use reclaimed water in the
cooling towers, with groundwater used only as a backup. AES-CB
has agreed to the St. Johns River Water Management District's
(SJRWMD) condition that calls for the use of reclaimed water.
Cooling water discharge alternatives include discharge to the
Broward River, recycling of treated cooling water, or discharge
via SK's existing outfall into the St. Johns River. Discharge
through the existing outfall is the chosen alternative.
Water/Wastewater Systems
Because of the high quality and low volume of water needed for
potable water uses, no alternative to groundwater use is
proposed for secondary water uses. The primary use of water
will be for make-up to the cooling system, as described above.
Cooling tower blowdown will be routed directly to the existing
SK St. Johns River outfall. Surface runoff and yard drains
during both construction and operation will be directed to
retention ponds after which it will be routed to the existing SK
treatment system or directly to the St. Johns River outfall.
v C-S
-------
One recommended alternative is addition of sand/gravel filters
in the retention ponds for improved removal of silt. All other
wastewater will be routed to the existing SK wastewater
treatment facilities. Wastewater from construction dewatering
will be treated by AES before discharge to the existing SK
once-through cooling system. Excess runoff from storms
exceeding the 10-year, 24-hour rainfall event may be discharged
to the Broward River.
Solid. Waste Systems
Alternatives were considered for disposal of high volume solid
wastes, which for the CBCP include bed ash and fly ash.
Alternatives to disposal of bed ash include wet sluicing to a
lined ash pond, wet sluicing to dewatering bins with landfill
disposal, mechanical ash removal with landfill disposal, and
pelletizing with disposal by the coal supplier outside of
Florida (or sold within the building industry). Alternatives to
disposal of fly ash include wet sluicing to an ash pond for
disposal, vacuum conveyance with landfill disposal, and
pelletizing with disposal by the coal supplier. Disposal
outside the State of Florida by the* coal supplier (or sold
within the building industry) is the chosen alternative for both
types of ash.
4. Alternative Means of Satisfying the Need for the Project
Part 1502.14, Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (40
CFR 1502.14) of the implementation regulations for NEPA require
that all reasonable alternatives to the proposed action be
considered in the EIS process. The determination of need for
the CBCP is based on the need for additional electricity
generating capacity and for the displacement of future oil
consumption. Analyses of alternative means of satisfying the
need for the project are to determine if the proposed project
represents the lowest cost and most environmentally sound ,
alternative available to provide electric power to FPL, to
displace future oil and/or natural gas consumption, and to
provide process steam for use by the SK paper mill. The FPSC
did not consider any alternatives to fulfill these requirements
during their evaluation of need for this project. Subsequently,
the FCG's 1989 Generation Expansion Planning Studies document
was used as the basis for alternative development for this
SAR/EIS. The alternatives were selected based on their ability
to meet the following objectives:
* the alternative must supply at least 225 MW of electric
power;
* the alternative must displace at least 2.2 million barrels
of oil consumption or natural gas equivalent; and
-------
* need for 640/000 pounds/hour of process steam for use by
the SK paper mill.
Based on these criteria,.the following five alternative power
systems plus the No Action Alternative were developed for
evaluation in the SAR/EIS.
Alternative 1 - Purchase of Power
The purchase of power is dependent on the availability of power
from an outside utility and the availability of power
transmission. As documented in the FCG's 1989 Generation
Planning Studies, in September 1985, a detailed study of the
economic viability of additional transmission capacity into the
state of Florida was completed. This study evaluated the
cost-effectiveness of constructing additional transmission
facilities in order to raise the transfer capability above the
current 3,200 MW level. The study reaches the conclusion that
it is unlikely that additional transfers from either the
Southern.Company or the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) above
the existing 3,200 MW transfer cap'ability would be economical
given the current fuel price outlook. Also, a sensitivity
analysis showed minimal reliability benefit from an increase in
transfer capability.
Alternative 2 - Residential Solar Hot Water Heaters
Under this alternative, it is assumed that FPL would sponsor a
retrofitting of solar water heaters for 50% of all new and 10%
of all existing customers in its service areas. Each solar
water heater unit is expected to replace the use of
approximately 2,100 kilowatt-hour (KWH) of electricity per year
at the end of the installation period. This replacement would
save FPL approximately 2.4 million barrels of oil per year. The
solar water heaters would displace oil-fired generating
capacity, and would generate no air pollutants, wastewater
discharges, or solid wastes. In addition, they would require no
increase in groundwater consumption. The implementation of the
solar water heater program would also be expected to boost
employment by about 1,650 new jobs for each year of the program
in the area of manufacturing and installation of these units.
The use of these units, however, would require provision for
backup power sufficient to meet peak demand in case weather
conditions render them ineffective for an extended period of
time. Other disadvantages of this alternative include the
complexity of coordination and implementation efforts, the
questionable reliability of the heaters, and the large amount of
maintenance required.
.. c-i
vn '
-------
Alternative 3 - Construction of a Combustion Turbine Power Plant
with Coal Gasification
FPL or the applicant would build a combustion turbine power
facility with a capacity of 225 MW at the proposed project
site. The facility would be comprised of three 75 MW gas
turbine generators with Heat Recovery Steam Generators (HRSG).
Fuel for the facility would be generated in a fully integrated
coal gasification system. Gasification is the process by which
coal is converted into a combustible gaseous fuel for
consumption. The coal gasification process generates a low BTU
gas to be burned in the gas turbines. This is considered a
"clean coal technology" in that coal is gasified, the gas
generated is then scrubbed of particulates and ammonia and then
the sulfur is removed. The coal gas can be a substitute fuel
for natural gas. This type of power plant has the ability to
meet air emissions restrictions. The installation of a
combustion turbine would not be economically feasible unless the
low pressure steam produced by the HRSG is utilized in some
process. Disadvantages of this alternative include: it
involves a highly complex refining process; the technology is
just starting to come out of the demonstration stage to
commercial viability; it may have problems with high CO2
emissions; and it requires a high level of maintenance.
Alternative 4 - Construction of a Combined Cycle Coal
Gasification Power Plant
FPL or the applicant would build a combined cycle coal
gasification power facility with a capacity of 225 MW at the
proposed project site. Gasification is the process by which
coal is converted into a combustible gaseous fuel for
consumption. The facility would be comprised of a gasification
combined cycle plant with two 114 MW combined cycle units and a
gasification unit. Each combined cycle unit would consist of
two gas turbines with associated HRSGs and one steam turbine.
The condenser cooling system would require a freshwater source
to cool through evaporation and heat transfer. Primary plant
stack emissions would be S02 and NOj. The combined cycle
technology has many advantages: relatively low investment
requirements, phased construction/ high operating efficiency and
fuel flexibility (natural gas, fuel oil, or gas derived from
coal), and ability to meet air emissions restrictions.
Disadvantages of this alternative include: it involves a highly
complex refining process; the technology is just starting to
come out of the demonstration stage to commercial viability; it
may have problems with high CO2 emissions; and it requires a
high level of maintenance.
C-%
-------
Alternative 5 - Construction of a Conventional Coal-Fired Power
Plant
FPL or the applicant would build a conventional coal-fired power
plant with a capacity of 225 MW at the same site as the proposed
project. The facility would comprise a single pulverized
coal/high pressure boiler with a steam turbine generator set.
Current design practices relative to NOX would need to be
incorporated in the boiler and burner designs. These units are
highly efficient and are capable of burning low-cost widely
available coal. However, operation of such a plant would
require expensive pollution control facilities to avoid major
environmental impacts on air quality.
5. Summary of the Manor Environmental Impacts of the Proposed
Project and the Alternatives
Proposed Project
The construction of the rail spur and new lime mud disposal area
will affect some of the resident gopher tortoise (Gopherus
polvphemus) population. It should be noted that the den of a
gopher tortoise is extremely important as a retreat or
hibernaculum to no less than 30 vertebrate and invertebrate
species, and many of these organisms rely exclusively on the
tortoise burrow for shelter. It may be necessary to relocate
gopher tortoise populations as well as some of the associated
species.
During plant construction, Class III water quality standards
will be met in the discharge of dewatering effluent during
construction of the CBCP, except for copper. With respect to
copper, the effluent will be treated to achieve a quality at
least as good as existing ambient water quality in the Broward
River and will be better than the existing copper concentrations
in the St. Johns River. Accordingly, FDER has recommended that
a two year variance be granted for copper.
Runoff from unusable spoil material and lime mud which is to be
stockpiled on the north end of the SK site could potentially
affect surface water quality and/or groundwater quality.
Details on how and where this runoff will be directed has not as
yet been provided by AES-CB.
The major operation impacts of the proposed project primarily
affect air resources, the water quality of the St. Johns and
Broward Rivers, and groundwater resources in the area. No
violation of National Ambient Air Quality Standards or
Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) increments is
projected for the Jacksonville area or the Okeefenokee Swamp in
-------
response to operation of the CBCP. In fact, the project as
proposed will result in overall reductions in ambient air
quality impacts.
Operation of CBCP will increase emissions of carbon dioxide.
Carbon dioxide is one of several "greenhouse" gases which
collectively function to retain heat energy, effectively warming
the earth's surface.
During operation of CBCP, pollutant concentrations in the
wastewater discharge to the St. Johns River are projected to
comply with Class III water quality criteria, except for iron.
With respect to iron, the cooling tower will concentrate iron
present in well water since iron concentrations occur naturally
in the Floridan aquifer. The background level of iron in the
St. Johns River frequently is above the Class III standard of
0.3 milligrams per liter. The iron proposed to be discharged is
essentially equivalent to concentrations which presently exist
in the St. Johns River. Accordingly, a variance for iron has
been recommended by FDER.
m
Some drawdown of the Floridan Aquifer and increased long-term
potential for chloride intrusion in the Aquifer would result
from groundwater withdrawals at CBCP. Due to existing drought
conditions the water pressure in artesian wells has dropped
significantly. Artesian and pumped wells close to the site
could experience slight reductions in flow or yield. The SJRWMD
has reviewed the proposed groundwater withdrawals and concluded
that the withdrawals would not cause saline water intrusion or
aggravate any of the existing saline water intrusions. SJRWMD
also stipulated that at the time the City of Jacksonville can
provide treated wastewater of sufficient quality, the CBCP will
use reclaimed water in the cooling towers, with groundwater used
only as a backup. AES-CB has agreed to the SJRWMD's condition
that calls for the use of reclaimed water,.
Alternatives
The No Action Alternative, the Purchase Power Alternative, and
Alternative 2 (Residential Solar Water Heaters) appear to have
little to no environmental impacts during construction and
operation. This is misleading for the Purchase Power
Alternative because the evaluation only addressed local impacts
and not impacts at the site of purchase power generation which
in turn could be as significant as those impacts created by the
proposed project.
Alternative 2 appears to have a positive impact during
construction because of the creation of jobs. Construction and
installation would create localized noise and traffic problems
at the individual residences for this alternative but thse
impacts would be extremely minor in comparison to the power
plant alternatives. Although not environmental considerations,
-------
the complexity of coordination and implementation efforts and
the questionable reliability of the heaters must be considered
in the evaluation of this alternative.
Impacts for the power plant alternatives (Alternatives 3, 4, and
5) during construction and operation are similar to those
expected for the CBCP.
6. Mitigation Measures for the Proposed Project
Several measures which would be employed to mitigate the
potential impacts of the proposed project on the surrounding
environment were identified during the environmental review
process. The relocation of affected animals (gopher tortoises)
will be done in consultation and conformance with the Game and
Freshwater Fish Commission requirements. Construction- related
impacts on air resources will be mitigated by employing suitable
fugitive dust and burning emission controls. Impacts of
construction on water resources can be mitigated by
implementation of a comprehensive erosion and sediment control
plan and effective treatment of wa'stewater discharges. Addition
of sand/gravel filter systems to the retention ponds for
improved removal of silt is recommended. A sedimentation pond
will be provided for construction impacted runoff. A
physical/chemical treatment system will be required for plant
dewatering wastes. Treatment by this system is needed to reduce
copper/ iron, zinc, and other metals.
Operation-related impacts will be controlled to the best extent
practicable. Recirculating cooling towers (with dechlorination)
will be used to treat waste heat; sedimentation for stormwater
runoff; reuse for boiler blowdown; neutralization and/or oil
removal as pretreatment followed by further treatment in the SK
industrial waste treatment system (IWTS) for low volume wastes;
offsite disposal and/or physical/chemical treatment for metal
cleaning wastes; and sedimentation followed by further treatment
in the SK IWTS for coal, limestone, and ash storage area
runoff. CBCP will use high quality treated wastewater in the
cooling towers when it becomes available, in lieu of
groundwater. Air emissions will be controlled with fabric
filters and boiler design. Fugitive coal dust, limestone dust,
fly ash, and spent limestone will be controlled with water spray
dust suppression systems, enclosed conveyors, and fabric filters
(filters for coal dust only at conveyor transfer points). Total
suspended particulates in the cooling tower drift will be
controlled by the use of drift eliminators and by limiting the
cycles of concentration in the cooling system. AES has set
aside money as part of the CBCP to plant trees in order to
mitigate carbon dioxide "greenhouse" effects.
C-ll
-------
7. Unresolved Issues
Numerous changes to the project scope and the SK mill processes
have occurred during the preparation of this EIS. The following
unresolved issues need to be addressed before completion of the
FEIS and issuance of the NPDES permit.
Air Quality
It is unclear at this time whether SNCR should represent BACT
for the AES boilers. Therefore, it is important that all
available information concerning the proposed level of BACT and
the SNCR alternative be submitted by AES prior to the issuance
of the FEIS. This information should include, among other
things, a comparative analysis between the AES boilers and other
CFB's which have been required to install SNCR. This analysis
should document any differences in energy, environmental, or
economic concerns, between the facilities so that a final BACT
recommendation can be made.
Erosion and Sediment Control Plan .
Revisions to the Erosion and Sediment Control Plan submitted by
AES-CB will be necessary before it is consistent with
requirements of Part III.D of the draft NPDES permit and can be
considered an acceptable Plan. Specific concerns include:
absence of inspection, monitoring and reporting requirements;
potential runoff from the lime mud storage area; potential
runoff from unusable material which is to be stockpiled on the
north end of the SK site; and apparently inadequate size of the
Yard Area Runoff Pond.
SK Conversion to Recycled Paperboard
SK is planning to convert their facilities to accommodate
recycled paperboard, replacing wood as a raw material in their
operations. SK conversion to recycled paperboard will
significantly reduce the SK waste flow and will change the
characteristics of the combined SK/CBCP effluent from that which
has presently been provided in the SCA. Reevaluation of the
waste flow is needed in the FEIS. In addition, it is unclear
whether or not wood wastes will be burned at CBCP after
conversion to recycled paperboard. This could affect air
quality evaluations. Clarification is needed before issuance of
the FEIS.
Toxicity of CBCP Waste Stream
Some agreement will have to be established between AES-CB and SK
as to how resolution of future toxicity problems will be
effected, should they occur, if CBCP wastes discharged into the
SK system prove to be more toxic than presently anticipated and
-------
result in the SK effluent being acutely toxic. Present
evaluation indicates that additional treatment and/or dilution
in the SK treatment system may render the combined waste not
acutely toxic. However, the SK manufacturing process is being
modified and dilution flow will decrease in the future. SK is
(and will remain) subject to toxicity monitoring of the total
effluent exiting its treatment system. In addition, facilities
at SK (some of which may have been in operation for 10'to 20
years or more) may be approaching useful life expectancy. EPA
has no assurance that SK will be in operation over the useful
lifetime of the CBCP. Assurances on these points prior to FEIS
issuance are desirable.
Waste Effluent Treatment Systems
Details on treatment systems proposed for dewatering wastes and
metal cleaning wastes (both chemical and nonchemical) have not
been provided by AES-CB and therefore cannot be evaluated to
determine if adequate treatment can be provided to meet NPDES
requirements. A thorough description of these treatment systems
is needed prior to FEIS issuance.
Groundwater
The SJRWMD required AES-CB to use the USGS groundwater flow and
transport models to perform a hydrologic investigation to
determine the impacts of the proposed withdrawals on existing
legal users and the impacts to the groundwater resources
itself. Concerns relating to the limitations of this modeling
effort include the following: 1) large grid size used may have
masked significant localized effects; 2) normal faults neglected
in the model could possibly, on a smaller scale, allow chloride
contamination to increase in the upper water bearing zone; 3)
apparently existing pumpage rates were used rather than the full
permitted pumpage rates for the existing permitted uses; and 4)
assumption of constant head boundary conditions could bias the
piezometric head in the upper water bearing zone. It is
recommended that sensitivity analyses be conducted to evaluate
the effects of these concerns. Results of these analyses need
to be included in the FEIS. In addition, if estimates of
anticipated future applications for groundwater withdrawals are
available, it is recommended that this information be included
in the analysis described above.
xm
c
-------
8. USEPA's Preferred Alternative and Recommended Action
It is anticipated that AES-CB and SK will resolve the
outstanding environmental issues associated with the CBCP.
Based on preliminary findings, USEPA tentatively proposes to
issue the NPDES Permit with conditions (See Appendix B, Draft
NPDES Permit). CBCP appears to be an economically advantageous
project for Jacksonville, its citizens, and FPL and it.
customers. Not only does it displace oil and/or natural gas,
but by providing steam to the SK paper mill, it allows for
removal of old boilers, thereby producing a net decrease in
emissions of air pollutants. In addition, it provides
additional generating capacity for the utilities which would
have to be constructed at a later time as system demand rises
and older units are phased out of use. Given the advantages
offered by CBCP and pending resolution of the outstanding
issues, USEPA finds the proposed project, CBCP, to be the
preferred alternative. The environmentally preferable
components of CBCP are:
* Ambient air guality will be improved in the Jacksonville
area and in the Okeefenokee Swamp area.
* Thermal water discharges as a result of the existing SK
once-through cooling system will be significantly reduced.
Elimination of this system will also eliminate entrainment
and impingement of aquatic species into the SK cooling
system.
* Existing contamination near the site will be cleaned up,
or monitored for potential remedial actions, as appropriate.
* Utilizing a previously impacted industrial site makes
impacts on wildlife and wildlife habitat from the project
minimal.
It must be noted that based on the initial findings of this
SAR/EIS, various system alternatives to the proposed project are
available which appear to be environmentally sound as well as
economically feasible. These are:
* SNRC is the preferable alternative for NOX control
unless it can be shown clearly that it does not represent
BACT.
* At the time the City of Jacksonville can provide treated
wastewater of sufficient guality, the CBCP will use
reclaimed water in the cooling towers, with groundwater used
only as a backup. AES-CB has agreed to the SJRWMD's
condition that calls for the use of reclaimed water.
* The addition of sand/gravel filters in the retention ponds
for improved removal of silt is a viable alternative.
xiv
C-\\
-------
9. FDER's Recommendations
FDER has recommended certification of the Cedar Bay Project.
This recommendation is based on the following rationale:
1. Replacement of old pulp mill facilities by the- CBCP will
reduce existing ambient air quality impacts.
2. Relocation of old lime mud piles to a proper area could
alleviate an existing situation causing a violation of
groundwater quality standards and reduce an additional
loading of heavy metals to the St. Johns Estuary.
3. Discharges from the SK wastewater treatment system can
contribute contaminants to the St. Johns River which already
contains excessive amounts of those contaminants. Proper
operation of the wastewater treatment facility, use of
mixing zones and approval of variances for some metals would
allow certification to be granted.
*
If the Cedar Bay Cogeneration Project should receive State of
Florida Certification, FDER recommends that the Conditions of
Certification (Appendix D) be imposed to ensure that the
construction and operation of the CBCP is in conformance with
the applicable standards, regulations and laws of this State and
that the facility have minimal adverse impact on the
environment.
015
XV
-------
-------
APPENDIX D
PERMIT NO. PSD-FL-137 AND
FINAL DETERMINATION
-------
-------
28*- '" 8 1 18:1Z FROM OiH.FtftND C LfltJ FIRM
'*
PftGE.802
.V - _
^-1
-
Florida Department of Environmental Regulation
Twin Towers Office Bldg. • 2600 Blair Stone Road • Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400
* Ctf°1 **• Brownct
Uwton Chile*. Governor .
March 28, 1991
CERTIFIED HAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
.Mr* Jeff Swain . •
AES/Cedar Bay Inc.
loot North 19th Street
Arlington, Virginia 22209
Dear Kr. swain: . . .
Ret AES/Cedar Bay Inc.
Cogeneration Project, PSD-FL-137
Please find enclosed the above referenced permit. You have the right
to petition for an administrative bearing pursuant to Section 120.57,
Florida Statutes, within 14 days of receipt of this permit or file a
Notice of Appeal pursuant to Rule .9.110, Florida Rules of Appellate
Procedure, within 30 days from the date this permit is filed with the
ClerX of the Department. Further, you may request a public hearing.
Such request must be submitted within 30 days of receipt of this
permit.
If you have.any questions, please call Barry Andrews at (904)488-1344
or write to me at the above address.
Sincerely,
J>.s&
ancy, P.E.
c. H.
Chief
Bureau of Air Regulation..
CHF/kt
enclosure
cc: J. Harper, EPA
A. Kutyna, KE District
K. Kurts, BESD
T. Cole, Oertel & Hoffman
D-\
-------
(Wont)
D-2-
-------
MAR
28:'S1 18:17 FROM O.H.FtftND C LAW FIRM
PAGE.083
Florida Department of Environmental Regulation
TWin Tbwcr, Office Bldg. • 2600 Blair Stone Ho*. • Tallahassee, Florida 32399-24OO
Carol M. Browne. Secretary
Uwton CMte, Governor
vuab«rt
j&6/C*6ar Bay, Xac,
looi sort* i»th street
•Arlington, Y* 2220»
Project! Cogeneration Project
follows: . .
and operated by AE$. Cedar Bay, Inc.
lo^lortdi Power" i Light aswell as low pressure process steam for
the Seminole Kraft Corporation.
Kitarooen ox ides will be controlled by the 9°od ---
SSalteristici which are an inherent part of the CFB technology,
filters. ' - . •
Construction 'shall be in accordance with the permit application and
aSottional information submitted except as otherwise noted in the
Specific Conditions.
Attachments:
88-24 and its
1. Power plant site certification
associated attachments, dated January 19, 1990.
2. Letter from EPA dated March 27, 1991.
3. DER's Final Determination dated March 28, 1991.
-------
MAR 28?'.91 16:18 FROM O.H.F.ftND C LAW FIRM PAGE.
COHDZTZOK8S
•
•1. The terms, conditions, requirements, limitation*, and
restrictions set forth in this permit are "Permit Conditions" and
are binding'and enforceable pursuant to Sections 403.161, 403.727,
or 403..859 through 403.861, Florida Statutes. The permittee is
placed on • notice that the Department will review this permit
periodically and may initiate enforcement action for any violation
of these conditions.
2. This permit is valid only for the specific processes and
operations applied for ' and indicated, in the approved drawings or
exhibits. Any unauthorized deviation from the approved drawings,
exhibits, . specifications, or conditions of this permit may
constitute grounds for revocation and enforcement action by the
Department.
3. As provided in Subsections 403.087(6) and 403.722(5), Florida
Statutes, *• the issuance of this permit does not convey any vested
rights or any exclusive privileges, neither does it authorize any
injury to public or- private property or any invasion of personal
rights, -nor any infringement of federal, state or local laws or
regulations. This permit .is .not a waiver of or approval of any
other "~Department permit that may be required for other aspects of
the total project which are- not addressed in the permit.
4. This permit conveys no title to land or water, does not
constitute State recognition or acknowledgement of title, and does
not constitute authority for the use of submerged lands unless
herein provided and the necessary title or leasehold interests have
been obtained from the State. Only the Trustees of the Internal
Improvement Trust Fund may express State opinion as to title.
5. This permit does not relieve the-permittee from liability for
harm or injury to human health or welfare,..animal, or plant life, or
property caused by the construction or operation of this permitted
.source, or from penalties therefore; nor does it allow the permittee
to cause pollution in contravention of Florida Statutes and
Department rules, unless specifically authorized by an order from
the Department.
6. The permittee shall properly operate and maintain the facility
and systems of treatment and control (and related appurtenances)
that are installed or used by the permittee to achieve compliance
with the conditions of this permit, as required by Department rules.
This provision includes the operation of backup or auxiliary
facilities or similar systems when necessary to achieve compliance
with the conditions of the permit and when required by Department
rules.
-------
MAR 2B:f91 IB: 18 F.ROM O.H.F.AND C LAW FIRM PAGE.BBS
PZRXXTTEBs Permit HO. AC J>BI>-rL-137
AB8/cedax Bay Inc. County i i>uval
OZHZR&L COHDXTI0H8I
7. The permittee, by accepting this permit, specifically agrees to
allow authorised Department personnel, upon presentation of
credentials or ether documents as may be required by law and at a
reasonable time, -access to the premises, where the permitted
activity is located or conducted tot
a. Have access to and copy any. records that must be kept under
the conditions of the permit;
b. Inspect 'the facility, equipment, practices, or operations
regulated, or required under this permit; and
c. Sample or monitor any . substances or 'parameters at any.
• location reasonably necessary to assure compliance with this
permit or Department rules. .
* * *• * *
Reasonable time may depend on the nature of the concern being
Investigated.
8. If, for any reason, the permittee does not comply with or will
be unable to comply with any condition or limitation specified in
this permit, the permittee shall immediately provide the Department
'with the following information:
a i a description of and cause of non-compliance; and
b. the period of noncompliance, including dates and times? or,
If not corrected, the anticipated time the non-compliance is
expected to continue, and steps being taken to reduce,
eliminate, and prevent recurrence of the non-compliance.
The permittee shall be responsible for any and all damages which may
result and nay be subject to enforcement action by the Department
for penalties or for revocation of this permit.
9. In accepting this permit, the permittee understands and agrees
that all records, notes, monitoring data and other information
relating to the construction or operation of this permitted source
which are submitted to the Department' may be used by the Department
as evidence in any enforcement case involving the
permitted source arising under the Florida statutes or Department
rules, except where such use is proscribed by Sections 403.73 and
403.111, Florida Statutes. Such evidence shall only be used to the
extent it is consistent with the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure
and appropriate evidentiary rules.
10. The permittee agrees to comply with changes in Department rules
and Florida Statutes after a reasonable time for compliance,
Page 3 of 13
-------
MftR 2B.'*91 18:19 FROM O.HtF.ftND C LflU FIRM PAGE.886
Permit Ho. AC PSD-FL-137
AXfi/Cedar Bay Inc. county: Duval
XL COHDXTXOXfll
provided, however, the permittee does not valve any other rights
granted by Florida Statutes or Department rules.
11. This permit is transferable only upon Department approval in
accordance with Florida Administrative Code Rules 17-4.120 and
17-30.300, F.A.C., as applicable. The permittee shall be liable for
any non-compliance of the permitted' activity, until the transfer is
approved by the Department.
1*2. This.permit or a copy thereof shall be kept at the work site of
the permitted activity.
13. This permit .also constitutes: ' . •
(x) Determination of Best Available Control Technology (BACT)
(x) Determination of Prevention of Significant Deterioration
(PSD)
(x) Compliance with New Source Performance Standards
14. The permittee shall comply with the following:
a. Upon request, 'the permittee shall furnish all records and
plans required under Department rules. During enforcement
actions, the retention period for all records will be
extended automatically unless otherwise stipulated by the
Department.
b. The permittee shall hold at the facility or other location
designated by this permit records of all monitoring
information (including all calibration and maintenance
records and all original strip chart recordings for
continuous monitoring instrumentation) required by the
permit, copies of all reports required by this permit, and
records of all data used to complete the application for
this permit. These materials shall be retained at least
three years from the date of the sample, measurement,
report, or application unless otherwise specified by
Department rule.
,c. Records of monitoring information shall include:
- the date, exact place, and time of sampling or
measurements;
- the person responsible for performing the sampling or
measurements;
- the dates analyses were performed;
- the person responsible for performing the analyses;
- the analytical techniques or methods used; and
- the results of such analyses.
P-fc
Page 4 of 13
-------
MftR 28.-'91 18:19 FROM OtHiF.ftND C LflU FIRM PAGE.BB7
PEEJCITOIJ . Permit KO. AC PSD-PL-1J7 .
Asa/cedar »ay Inc. couatyt mival
General Conditions:
15. Khen requested by the Department, the permittee •hall vithin a
reasonable time furnish any information required by lav which is
needed to determine compliance with the permit. If the permittee
becomes aware that relevant facts were not submitted or were
incorrect in the permit application or in any report to the
Department, such facts or information shall be corrected promptly.
* .
• •
SFlCXrXO CONDITIONS I
1. The construction and operation of AESCB shall be' in accordance
with all applicable provisions of Chapters 17-2, *«*;c;; .ln
addition to the foregoing, AESCB shall comply with. the following
conditions of certification as
A. . Emission Limitations 'for AZS Boilers
1. Fluidized Bed Coal Fired Boilers (CFB)
a. The maximum coal charging rate of each CFB shall neither
exceed 104,000 Ibs/hr, 39,000 tons per month (30 consecutive
days), nor 390,000 tons per year (TPY) . This reflects a
combined total of 312,000 Ibs/hr, 117,000 tons per month, and
1,170,000 TPY for ail three. CFBs.
b. The maxisum wood waste (primarily bark) charging rate to the
No. 1 and No. 2 CFBs each shall neither exceed 15,653 Ibs/hr,
nor 63,760 TPY. This reflects a combined total of 31,306
Ibs/hr, and 127,521 TPY for the No. 1 and No. 2 CFBs. The No. 3
CFB will not utilire woodwaste, nor will it be equipped with
vood waste handling and firing equipment.
c. The maximum heat input to each CFB shall not exceed 1063
XMBtu/hr. This reflects a combined total- of 3189 «KBtu/hr for
. all three units . .
d. The sulfur content of the coal shall not exceed 1.7% by
weight on an annual basis. The sulfur content shall not exceed
3.3% by weight on a shipment (train load) basis.
• e. Auxiliary fuel burners shall be fueled only with natural gas
or No. 2 fuel oil with a maximum sulfur content of 0.3% by
weight. The fuel oil or natural gas shall be used only for
startups. The maximum annual oil usage shall not exceed 160,000
gals/year, nor shall the maximum annual natural gas usage exceed
22.4 KMCF per year. The iriaximuro heat input from the fuel oil or
gas shall not exceed 1120 KKBtu/hr for the CFBs.
-------
MflR 28 .-'91 18:20 FROM O.H.F.ftND C LAW FIRM
pflGE.eee
juts/Cedar Bay Inc.
permit »o. xc
Countyi Duval
f.. The CFBs shall be fueled only with the fuel* permitted in
Condition* la, Ib, and le above. Other fuel* or waste* «hall
not be burned without prior specific written approval of the
Secretary of DER pursuant to condition XXI, Modification of
conditions.
• »•
g. The CFBs may operate continuously, i.e, 8760 hrs/yr.
2. Coal Fired Boiler Controls
The emissions from each CFB shall be controlled using the
folloving systems:.
a. Limestone injection, for control of sulfur dioxide.
b. Baghouse, for control of particulate.
3. Flue gas emissions from each CFB shall not exceed the following:.
Emission Limitations
•PPV TPY for 3 CTB5
CO
NOX
S02
VOC
PM .
HoSO4 mist
Fluorides
Lead .
Mercury
Beryllium
0.19
0.29
0.60 (3-hr avg.)
0.31 (12 KRA)
e/ois
O.020
0.020
0.024
0,086
"0.007
0.00026
0.00011
202
308.3
637.8
329.5
16.0
21.3
21.3
25.5
91.4
7.4
0.276
0.117
823
1256
•-
1338
££
87
86
103
374
30
1.13
0.5
2468
3767
—• •
4015
121
260
257
308
1122
91
3.
1-
4
5
Uote: TFY represents a 93% capacity factor. MRA refers to a twelve
month rolling average.
4. .Visible emissions (VE) shall not exceed 20% opacity (6 min.
average), except for one 6 minute period per hour when VZ shall not
exceed 27% opacity.
5. Compliance with the emission limits shall be determined by EPA
reference method tests included in the July 1, 1988 version of 40
CFR Parts 60 and 61 and listed in Condition No. 7 of this permit or
by equivalent methods after prior DER approval.
P-S
Pace 6 of 13
-------
MAR 28 '91 18:20 FROM O.H.F.AND C LflU FIRM PAGE.809
PERXITTZZJ Permit Ho. AC P8D-FL-1J7
&BS/Cedar Bay Inc. County: Duvel
6. The CTBs are subject to 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart Da; except that
where requirement* within this certification are more restrictive,
the requirements of this certification shall apply.
7. Compliance Tests for. each CFB
a. Initial compliance, tests for PK/PM10, S02, NOx, CO, VOC,
lead, fluorides, mercury, beryllium and H2S04 mist.shall be
conducted in accordance with 40 CFR 60.8 (a), (b), (d), (e), and
(*)•
*
" b. Annual compliance tests shall be performed for PM, S02 and
NOx, commencing no later than 12 months from the initial test.
c. Initial and annual visible emissions compliance tests -shall
be determined in accordance with 40 CFR 60.11(b)
and (•)« '
. •
d. The compliance tests shall be conducted between 90-100% of
the maximum liscensed capacity and firing rate of each permitted
fuel. '
e. The following test methods and procedures of 40 CFR Parts 60
and 61 or other DER approved methods with prior DER approval
shall be used for compliance testing:
(1) Method 1 for selection of sample site and sample traverses.
(2) . Method 2 for determining stack gas flow rate. •
(3) Method 3 or 3A for gas analysis for calculation of percent 02
and CO2.
(4) Method 4 for determining stack gas'moisture content to convert
the flow rate from actual standard cubic feet to dry standard
cubic feet.
(5) Method 5 or Method 17 for particulate matter.
(6) Method 6, 6C, or 8 for 502.
(7) Method 7, 7A, 7B, 7C, 7D, or 7E for nitrogen oxides.
(8) Method 8 for sulfuric acid mist.
(9) • Method 9 for visible emissions, in accordance with 40 CFR
60.11.
(10) Method 10 for CO.
(11) Method 12 for lead.
(12) Method 13B for fluorides.
(13) Method 25A for VOCs.
(14) Method 101A for mercury.
(15) Method 104'for beryllium.
"D-6!
Page 7 of 13
-------
MAR 28. '91 18:21 FROM O.H.FtflND C LftU FIRM PftGE.BIB
PSMCXTTZII Permit »o. xc pflD-n,-i37
.AW/Cedar Bay mo. county t Duval
• • •
•8.- -continuous Emission Monitoring for each CFB AESCB shall _
Continuous. Emission Monitors (CEMS) to determine coppUance. CEKS
for opacity, SO2, NOx, CO, and 02 or C02, shall be installea, •
calibrated, maintained and operated for each unit, in accordance
vith 40 CFR 60.47a and 40 CFR 60
Appendix F.
a. 'Each continuous emission monitoring system (CEMS) shall meet
performance specifications of 40 CFR 60, Appendix B.
' b. CEMS data shall be recorded and reported in accordance with
Chapter 17-2, F.A.C., and 40 CFR 60. A record shall be kept for
periods of .startup, shutdown end malfunction.
c. A malfunction means any sudden and
pollution control equipment or process equipment to JP«^e *n *
normal or usual manner. Failures that are caused entirely or in
part by poor maintenance, careless operation or any^ ^°^vaftlim
preventable upset condition or preventable equipment breakdown
shall not be considered malfunctions.
d. The procedures under 40 CFR 60.13 shall be followed for
installation, evaluation and operation of all CEKS.
«. Opacity monitoring system data shall be reduced to
Jveragts, based on 36 or more data points, and gaseous CEKS data
shall be reduced to 1-hour averages, based on 4 or more data
points, in accordance with 40 CFR 60.13(h).
" f . For purposes of reports required under this certification,
eicess emissions are defined as any calculated Average «i»««J
concentration, as determined pursuant to Condition No. "herein,
which exceeds the applicable emission limit in Condition No. 3.
9. operations Monitoring for each CFB
a. Devices shall be installed to continuously monitor and record
steam production, and flue gas temperature at the exit of the
control equipment.
b. The furnace heat load shall be maintained between 70% and
100% of the design rated capacity during normal operations.
c. The coal, bark, natural gas and No. 2 fuel oil usage shall be
recorded on a 24-hr (daily) basis for each CFB.
P-10
pace S of 13
-------
MflR 28 '31 18:22 FROM OtH.F.RND C LflU FIRM PftGE.Bll
PZRXXTTZEl • Strait Ko. XC PSD-FL-137
ftZ8/cedar Bay mo. county: Duval
ip. Reporting .for each CFB
» A miniaua of thirty (30) days prior notification of compliance
Jest shSlTSe givenlS DERI'S HIE. District office and to the BESD
' (Bio-Svironmental. Services Division) office, in accordance with
40 CFR 60. •
b. The results of compliance test shall be submitted to the BESD
office vithin 45 days after completion of the test.
e »rhe owner or operator shall submit excess emission reports to
' IES£ iHSorlanlfwith 40 CFR 60. The report shall include the
following:
(1) The magnitude of excess emissions computed in accordance with
40 CFR 60.13(h), any conversion factors used, and the date and time
of commencement and completion of each period .of excess emissions
(2) Specific identification of each period of excess emissions that
occurs during startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions of the /Jjrnace
boiler system. The nature and cause of any malfunction (if known)
and the corrective action taken or preventive measured adopted
(60.7(C.)(2)).
(3) The date and time identifying each period during which the
continuous monitoring system was inoperative except for zero and
span checks, and the nature of the system repairs or adjustments
(60.7 (e) (3)).
(4) Khen no excess emissions have occured or the continuous
monitoring system has not been inoperative, repaired, or adjusted,
such information shall be stated in the report (60.7(c) (4)) .
(5) The owner or operator shall maintain a file of all
.measurements, including continuous monitoring systems performance
evaluations; monitoring systems or monitoring device .calibration;
checks; adjustments and maintenance performed on these systems or
devices; and all other information required by this permit recorded
in a permanent form suitable for inspection (60.7(d)).
*
d. Annual and quarterly reports shall be submitted to BESD as
per F.A.C. Rule 17-2.700(7).
11. Any change in the method of operation, fuels utilized,
equipment, or operating hours or any other changes pursuant to
F?A.C. Rule 17-2.100, defining modification, shall be submitted for
approval to DER's Bureau of Air Regulation.
P-U
Page 9 of 13
-------
MAR 28 '91 16:22 FROM O.H.FtftND C LAU FIRM PAGE.BIS
PZBXITTZIl Permit HO. AC PfiD-FL-137
JUBS/Cedar Bay X&e. Couatyz Duval
• B« AES - Katerial Handling and Treataent
* •
1. The material handling and treatment operations nay be
continuous, i.e. 8760 hrs/yr.
2. The material handling/usage rates shall not exceed the
following:
Handling/Usage Rate
flaggy jp 1 TPK TPY
Coal 117,000 1,170,000
Limestone 27/000 320,000
Fly Ash 28,000 • 336,000
Rfd Ash 8.000 88,000
Mote: TFK is tons per. month based on 30 consecutive days, TPY is
tons per year.
3. The VOC emissions from the maximum Mo. 2 fuel oil utilization
rate of 240 gals/hr, 2,100,000 gals/year for the limestone dryers;
and 8000 gals/hr, 160,000 gals/year for the three boilers are not
expected to be significant.
4.' The maximum emissions from the material handling and treatment
area, Where baghouses are used as controls for specific sources,
shall not exceed those listed below (based on AP-42 factors):
.Particulate Emissions
Coal Rail Unloading
Coal Belt Feeder
Coal Crusher
Coal Belt Transfer
Coal Silo
Limestone Crusher
Limestone Hopper
Fly Ash Bin
Bed Afih Hopper
Ash Silo
Common Feed Hopper
Ash Unlcader
neg
neg
0.41
neg
neg
0.06
0.01
0.02
0.06
0.06
0.03
0.01
neg
neg
1.78
neg
neg
0.28
0.03
0.10
0.25
0.25
0.13
0.06
The emissions from the above listed sources and the ,li»estone dryers
are subject to the particulate emission limitation requirement of
0.03 gr/dscf . However, neither DER nor BESD will require
particulate tests in accordance with EPA Method 5 unless the
Page 10 of 13
-------
MftR 28 '91 18:23 FROM O.H.F.ftND C LAUI FIRM
PRGE.B13
particuiate •mission limit, are being violated.
with r.A.c. Chapter 17-
Tabll 1, 3-1, industrial Distillate,
Estimated Limitations
Pollutant
PK/PKio
CO ' • •'
NOx
VOC
ifag rwr
0.25
5.00
0.60
2.40
0.05
Ufa ^r.i
1.1
21.9
'2.6
10.5
0.2
L^^B^K^i^fl^
2.2
43.8
5.2
21.0
A A
SLvi
in
1. 4-1. In*»trUl 10/86.
7. ate •»!»» Ho. 2 «u.l oil tiring «*. «« «!*
5fi°;rs«r5fi5S:
»,. for «ch Intone dryer
not exceed 16,800 CF .per hour, or 147 KMCF per year
8. initial and annual Visible Emission compliance tests for all the
emission points in the material handling and £jatojntar.a,^^
including but not limited to the sources specified in this permit,
SaUbe" Conducted in accordance with the July 1. 1988 version of 40
CFR 60, using EPA Method 9.
9. Compliance test reports shall 'be ^,^0^
days of test completion .in accordance with Chapter
the F.A.C.
. ' Any .changes in the method of operation, raw
• _ • _ A. ^*_ —._^.«.«.^ *s w^^w v»^*i^>»c r\^r n^v
submitted for approval to
Bureau of Air Regulation
D-i3
Pace 11 of 13
-------
MRR 2B..'S1 18:23 FROM O.H.F.ftND C LftU FIRM PAGE.014
PERMITTEE: Permit MO. AC PSD-rL-137
JUtf/Cedar Bay Inc. Countyt Duval
C. Requirements For the Permittees
1. Beginning one »onth after certification, AESCB shall submit to BESD
and DER's BAR, -a quarterly status report briefly outlining progress
nade.on engineering design and purchase of major equipment, including
copies of technical data pertaining to the selected emission control
devices. These data should include, but not be limited to, guaranteed
efficiency and emission rates, and major design parameters such as
air/cloth ratio and flow rate. The Department may, upon reviev of
these data, disapprove the use of any such device. Such disapproval
•hall be issued within 30 days of receipt of the technical data.
2. The permittees shall report any delays in construction and
completion of the project which would delay commercial operation by
more than 90 days to.the BESD office.
3. Reasonable precautions to prevent fugitive particulate emissions
during construction, such as coating of roads and construction sites
used by contractors, regressing or watering areas of disturbed soils,
will be taken by the permittees.
4. Fuel shall .not be. burned in any unit unless the control devices are
operating properly/ pursuant to 40 CFR Part 60 Subpart Da.
5. The maximum sulfur content of the Ho. 2 fuel oil utilized in the
CFBs and the two unit limestone dryers shall not exceed 0.3 percent by
weight. Samples shall be taken of each fuel oil shipment received and
shall be analyzed for sulfur content and heating value. Records of the
analyses shall be Kept a minimum of two years to be available for DER
and BESD inspection. •
6. Coal fired in the CFBs shall have a sulfur content not to exceed
3.3 percent by weight. Coal sulfur content shall be determined and
recorded in accordance with 40 CFR 60.47a.
7. AESCB shall maintain a daily log of the amounts and types of fuel
used and copies of fuel analyses containing information on sulfur
content and heating values.
8. The permittees shall provide stack sampling facilities as required
by Rule 17-2.700(4) FAC.
9. Prior to commercial operation of each source, the permittees shall
each submit to the BAR a standardized plan or procedure that will allow
that permittee to monitor emission control equipment efficiency and
enable the permittee to return malfunctioning equipment to proper
operation as expeditiously as possible.
Page 12 of 13
-------
MflR 28 '91 18:13 FROM O.HiF.flND C LftU FIRM PAGE.084
PZSXXTTE2* permit So. &o PBD-TL-WT
JLEfi/cedar Bay Inc. County i Duval
D. Contemporaneous Emission Reductions
This certification and any individual air permits issued subsequent to
the final order, of the Board certifying the power plant sit* under
403.509, F.S., shall require, that the following Eeminole Kraft
Corporation sources be permanently shut down and made incapable of
operation, and shall turn in their operation permits to the Division of
Air. Resources Management's Bureau of Air Regulation, upon completion of
.the initial compliance tests on the AESCB boilers: the No. 1 PB (power
boiler), the No. 2 FB, the No. 3 PB, the Ho. 1 BB (bark boiler), and the
No. 2 BB. BESD shall be specifically informed in writing within thirty
days after each individual shut down of the above referenced equipment.
This, requirement shall operate as a joint and individual requirement to
assure common control for purpose of ensuring that all commitments
relied on are in fact fulfilled.
Issued this day
of /Hfti/-J? _ , 1991
STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT
OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION
Carol M. Browner, Secretary
Page 13 of 13
-------
HRR 28 "9.1 18:24 FROM O.Mil-tHNU c ci-iw rir\it
Attachment 1
Ateilable Upon Request
-------
MflR 28 '91 18:24 FROM O.H.F.ftND C LftU FIRM PAGE.B16
.Attachment 2
17
-------
MflR 28.. '£1 18:24 FROM OtH^jAND C LftU^FIRM. ^ ^ ^ ____ PftGE^l?
UNITED 5'. ATES CNVmONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
HC& ION IV .
4APT-AEB
COURTUANO STHECT. NJL.
ATLANTA.. CEOW&I*
Clair H. Fancy, P.E., Chief
of Air Regulation
Fa'gulation . •
vin Towers Office Building-
2«00 Blair Stone Road
VAllahAs»e», Florida . 32399-2400
jai '-Preilainary. Oeteraination for XES/Cedar Bay (PBD-FL-137)
DWLT Hr. raneyt * •
pftckaye as requested end luve the following cca«aent«.
Tbe public notice submitted in the packaje ww f
Site Certification Process. The^otice J
with the Site Certification Hearing
public notice axe e-e *ello%cet
1. The notice states that DER has b**n ^ranted ad ele
EPA to carry out the PSD review process. AS you knov,
a SIP approved state rather than a delegated state.
'
AES/Cedar Bey. As detailed to you in our letter of
November 14, 1989, and as acknowledged on page 33 of your _
preliminary determinationf netting of emissions^fcetw
Kraft and ASSCB is not applicable. Thus, the a.ncrew
consumption reported in the public notice .
t
not correct.
-------
riri rt c.o
-2-
•
The determination of BACT aede by PER included conbuetion controls to
limit MO. eaieeions and a 602 renov&l efficiency of 90% resulting
in «aie«Ion llaite of 0.29 15 »0X/KHDTO end 0,31 Ib S02/KKBTU.
Thes* littits fere higher than what is currently being permitted even
for pulverized coal boilera. Me believe that NOX e,dd-on controls
are technically feasible for this project and that S02 •niseion*
could be reduced through the use of lover eulfur coal and thruugh
• increasing the removal efficiency. However, due to the circumstances
involved in thia project, we vill defer to the decision of DER for
this
* . .
If you have any questions on these coasnents, please contact
. . Gregg Vorley of »y staff at (<04) 347»2S04.
Sincerely yours,
\ -•
inston A. .Smith/ .Director
Air, >esticides , and. Toxics
Management
-------
18:13 FROM O.H.F.flND C LflU FIRM PftGE.003
Final Determination
AES/Cedar Bay Inc.
Cogeneration Project
Duval County, Florida
Permit No: PSD-FL-137
Florida Department of Environaental Regulation
Division of Air Resources Managenent
Bureau of Air Regulation
March 28,.1991
-------
MPR 28;'SI 18:16 FROM O.HtFiftND C LftU FIRM PAGE.0BS
Final Determination
AES/Cedar Bay, Xnc.'s PSD permit application (part of the Power Plant
Siting application) , has been reviewed by the Division of Air
Resources Management. Comment* received from EPA Region IV dated
March 27, 1991 (see attachment 2) are addressed below.
notice
The EPA questioned vhy the notice was published on the sane date that
fche Site Certification Hearing was scheduled to begin, thereby not
providing a 30 day notice and comment period.
Notice vas published originally on December 8, 1989, for a January 8,
1990 hearing. A copy of the proposed Kotice was sent to Region IV on
December 1, 1989 for review. No comments were received regarding the
increment consumptions reflected in the Kotice sent to EPA. The
hearing was then postponed fron January 8, 1990 to February 5, 1990.
The hearing then had to be continued on February 20, 1990 for which
the Notice was published on February 12, 1990. In addition, public
access hearings were held on February 7, 1990 and February 21, 1990
for nonparty members of the public. The public always has the right
to speak. Only if they intervene as a formal party do they need an
attorney as required by Florida law.
Analsis
The Department agrees vith EPA that add-on NOx controls are
technically feasible for the AES/Cedar Bay project. The decision to
•establish the NOx limitation at 0.29 Ib/MKBtu was based on the overall
benefits that would be obtained from the construction of the
Regeneration facility (the additional cost of SNCR would cause the
project to become financially unfeasible). The circulating fluidized
bed (CFB) boilers will replace older boilers which have higher
emissions per heat input. In addition, the 0.29 Ib/MMBtu limitation
was judged to be the most stringent limitation placed on a coal fired
boiler which does not have add-on NOx controls.
For sulfur dioxide, the pepartment evaluated the cost of switching to
a lower sulfur coal and determined, that such a cost was prohibitive.
It should be noted that the decision .to limit the average annual
sulfur content to 1.7 percent is well below the initial proposal of
3.3 percent by the applicant. With regard to the control efficiency,
the Department believes that 90 percent efficiency is reasonable for
the CFB design.
D-2.
-------
\ §
N
-------
APPENDIX E
FLORIDA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
ORDER GRANTING DETERMINATION
OF NEED AND
ORDER APPROVING SECOND AMENDED
COGENERATION AGREEMENT
-------
-------
BEFORE THE FLORIDA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSIpy P f^ p ,
*" ^ s V r Q
In re: Petition of AES Cedar Bay, Inc. ) DOCKET NO. 88^47.2-EQ
and Seminole Kraft Corporation for ) *- 0 1989
determination of need for the Cedar ) ORDER NO. 21491 u^
Bay Cogeneration Project. ) rx,-.^
1 * ) ISSUED: 6-fi>£B9 ,
— ^ <-"%,„
The following Commissioners participated in the
disposition of this matter:
MICHAEL McK. WILSON, Chairman
THOMAS M. BEARD
BETTY EASLEY
GERALD L. GUNTER
JOHN T. HERNDON
ORDER GRANTING DETERMINATION OF NEEQ7 f
BY THE COMMISSION:
On November 10, 1988, AES Cedar Bay, Inc. (AES) and
Seminole Kraft Corporation (Seminole Kraft) filed a need
determination application with the Department of Environmental
Regulation (DER) and a petition for determination of need with
this Commission pursuant to the provisions of the Florida
Electrical Power Plant Siting Act (Siting Act), Sections
403.501-.517, Florida Statutes.
In its petition, AES has requested that it be allowed to
build a 225 MW circulating fluidized bed coal qualifying
facility (QF) located at an existing industrial site adjacent
to and on the property of the Seminole Kraft paper mill in
Jacksonville, Florida. All of the electricity produced by this
QF will be sold to Florida Power and Light Company (FPL) under
the terms of a negotiated agreement. ''On December 13, 1988,
this agreement was submitted to the Commission for approval in
Docket No. 881570-EQ.
On January 4, J.989,,,the .Statf .filed a jnotion to impleed
FPL as an indispensable party in this docket. This motion was
denied by the prehearing officer on January 30, 1989, in Order
No. 20671. The direct testimony of Gerald J. Gorman, Kerry. G.
Varkonda, Lawrence A. Stanley, and Dennis W. Bakke was filed on
March 13, 1989. The direct testimony of Jeffrey V. Swain and
Myron R. Rollins was filed on March 14, 1989 and March 15,
1989, respectively. The direct testimony of Juan E. Enjamio
and Joseph C. Collier was filed on March 17, 1989 anu March 20,
1989, respectively. All of these witnesses submitted testimony
on behalf of AES and Seminole Kraft.
This docket was heard in conjunction with Docket No.
881570-EQ, Florida Power and Light's petition for approval of
its cogeneration agreement with AES, on April 24 and 25, 1989
before the full Commission and was subsequently voted on at the
agenda conference of June 6, 1989.
In evaluating a petition for determination of need, we are
bound by the statutory requirements of Sections 403.507(1)(b)
and Section 403.519, Florida Statutes, as well as our rules
implementing those sections, Rules 25-22.080-.081, Florida
Administrative Code. Section 403.519 was passed in 1980 as
part of the Florida Energy Efficiency and Conservation Act
jZ - I - DOCUM£MT f-Ttf-SEr.-n !-"E
06508 JUN30 82
=PSC-RECOP.DS/REPORT!K3
-------
ORDER NO. 21491
DOCKET NO. 881472-EQ
PAGE 2
-
passage in 1973. "9 Act ""-"wit to its initial
determinations'"^ bTinUi.i.". '*""1 • " all°"
'
-
question If power plant yn^ C°nm,fsion in deciding the
sulied hi ,HCal 9enerati"3 capacity to be
Slant TH/ P^Posed electrical power
of Vh. "P°rt may inclu
-------
ORDER NO. 21491
DOCKET NO. 881472-EQ
PAGE 3
AES has negotiated a long-term contract for coal supply,
coal transportation and coal waste disposal with Costain.
Additionally, bark from the kraft mill will be available to
supply a supplemental source of fuel approximately 5% of the
time. .Further, there are plentiful United States and
international reserves of limestone which are acceptable for
sulfur dioxide capture. AES intends to enter into a long-term
contract for its purchase and has no reason to believe that
such contract will not be easily obtained at a reasonable
price. Thus we find that this project **itll--provide adequate
electricity to FPL and peninsular Florida at a reasonable, cost-
Cost-teff-active' aTternative 1
The circulating fluidized bed boilers are the first to be
constructed in Florida for the production of electricity. This
project is a QF pursuant to our rules and AES has negotiated a
contract at less than statewide avoided cost for the sale of
firm capacity and energy to FPL which falls within the current
subscription limit of 500 MW. That being the case, this
Commission has already found- the proposed QF to,.be« tbft^most
cost-effective alternative available^*
•Conservation fl
In previous QF need determination cases, we have concluded
that "cogeneration is a conservation ^neeaure*" In re: Petition
of Hillsborough County for determination of need for a solid
waste-fired cogeneration power plant. 83 F.P.S.C. 10:104, 105
(1983); In re; Petition of Pinellas County for determination of
need for a solid waste-fired cogeneration power plant, 83
F.P.S.C. 10:106, 107 (1983); In re: Petition by Broward County
for determination of need for a solid waste-fired electrical
power plant, 85 F.P.S.C. 5:67, 68 (1985); In re: Petition by
Broward County for determination of need for a solid
waste-fired electrical power plant, 86 F.P.S.C. 2:287, 288
(1986). We have rethought this position. Traditionally,
conservation in the electric industry has been thought of in
two ways: an increase in fuel efficiency and a reduction in
demand. The first, increased fuel efficiency, is a net
reduction in the amount of fuel used to provide the same amount
of electricity. The second, a reduction in electric demand,
often peak-hour demand, results in the deferral of additional
plant construction. The legislative intent of FEECA,
366.80-.85, Florida Statutes, to reduce "the growth rates of
electric consumption and weather-sensitive peak demand"; to
increase "the overall efficiency and cost-effectiveness of
electricity and natural gas production and use"; and to
conserve "expensive resources, particularly petroleum fuels"
reflects this understanding of conservation. Section 366.81,
Florida Statutes.
However, as the testimony by Witness Bakke indicates,
there is a recognition in the industry - that>*«og«n»eration does
not "conserve" fuel* In the traditional -sense, it merely
utilizes fuel to "deliver a service at the least cost." In
some instances the fuel efficiency of a cogeneration unit will
be the factor that makes a cogeneration project a
cost-effective means of producing power, but that is not
necessarily the case. The price of the electricity produced by
-------
ORDER NO. 21491
DOCKET «,. 881472.EQ
a cogeneration Unih
noncogeneration unit-* -C°Uld be lower than
steam produced by tJf nVmply be«use the „"«
Produces a oreaf / QF and so^ to the
Conservation Vnd "otj"1 , of P«fit
by -«BCAf- « 'denand-sld
to
• comPa"ble
°C the
high and
reduction
£S,.«!"«*>« .tiP-l-tlo. entered into by the
e r.
nd used internally inth^Very boilers
1H replace existing Paper min
Cedar Bay project.
AES
Therefore, it is
E-f
-------
PAGE 5
.?»«-»
oj_t
ORDERED that t^7«(
MW recovery boiler oy
further furnished to the
by Section
,,„,. nor*. «—•• emission
By ow.*_.«"111»<>r!!lJ±_..uB—'
this
(SEAL)
SBr
E-S
-------
-------
BEFORE THE FLORIDA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
In re- Petition for approval of amended , DOCKET «,.
cognation agreement between ™?f ! &a£Ak ii0. 2SS1
Power & Light Company and AES ceaar B«y, ;
Inc. ) ISSUED: 10-23-90
^ £ollowing^^nIrT^cIp'ated in the disposition of
this matter:
THOMAS M. BEARD
BETTY EASLEY
GERALD L. GUNTER__
FRANK S. HES3ERSHIj.ri
oEDJ^EEMS^om^mm^f^^^^1^
RVTWF.EN FT-raTHA POWF.R & LIG"T cunr^
AES CEDAR RAY, INC.
BY THE COMMISSION:
-» -•"
22.029, Florida Administrative Code.
PASE BACKGROUND
„„
""' '
On August 10, 1990, Florida Power
a petition for approval of
Purchase of Firm Capacity
and Florida Power & Light
revision is necessary in order to
the AES Cedar Bay facility in
Cedar Bay, Inc.
that this second
to economically
FPL requests
£-7
-------
ORDER NO. 23651
DOCKET NO. 900686-EQ
PAGE 2
based on AES Cedar Bay's financial stability; (3) no costs in
excess of full avoided costs are likely to be incurred by FPL over
the initial term of the Amended Agreement; (4) all payments for
energy and capacity made by FPL pursuant to the Amended Agreement
may be recovered from FPL's customers; (5) FPL shall not be
required to resell the energy and capacity purchased pursuant to
the Amended Agreement to another electric utility as long as their
retention is the best interest of FPL's ratepayers; and, (6(the
AmenLd Agreement is consistent with the "determination of need
granted by the Commission by Order No. 21491 issued on June 30,
1989.
The Commission's current rules on the approval of negotiated
contracts require the comparison of the contract to^the fPBUff^
standard offer contract. The standard offer contract that was in
iffeiF^FThe-time this contract was entered into was basecI on a
1995 500 MW coal unit. This comparison was provided by AES and the
Amended Agreement is shown to be below the ^^^Ltttion FPL
value of the standard offer contract. As part of ^s petition FPL
provided a comparison of the Original and the Amende^Agreement to
show that the Amended Agreement is pro3ected to £e slightly below
the Original Agreement on a cumulative present worth ^aslS' ™®
fiaures provided by AES and FPL coincide and are shown on
Attachment A. We find that the amendments to the agreement are
virtually revenue neutral and are less than the value of applicable
standard offer contract.
The Ordinal - Amendment stated that the initial .committed
capacity of toe facility>vill be "at-least 180 MW ^^^fj*^
than 2SQ MW." This agreement was considered in concert with the
necS Vi^ination proceeding for this project. The Amended
iareere-1 c-ntains identical language. At the time of the need
alt^VV:^:." proceeding, it was anticipated that the steam
r^uVre^s of seminole Kraft would limit the electrical output of
the ^'"facility to approximately 225 MW. Since tne ^nguage xn
the an^deo T^c-Wr^t aliens for a range of committed capacity
!£V fr- ^ or-ioinal acrec-ment, we find that the Amended
^c-ee:::snt~:s'corsis.^nt with the determination of need grantea by
to Order Kc. 21
conrract- petition) we
t. ?.)'id. binding it-
-------
ORDER NO. 23651
DOCKET NO. 900686-EQ
PAGE 3
-
fa) The purchase can reasonably be
expected to result in the economic
deferral or avoidance of capac^y
construction from a statevid0
perspective ;
(b) The cumulative present worth of the
payments for firm energy and
capacity are no greater than the
cumulative present value of the
deferral of the statewide avoided
unit; and
(c) The agreement contains adequate
security provisions to protect
ratepayers in the event AES Cedar
Bay fails to perform pursuant to the
terms of the agreement.
As previously stated, this Second Amended Agreement
for payments for Energy and capacity which have ^^^^f
present value of less than the applicable standard offer c°"tract
The Second Amended Agreement appears to contain greater security
;™Hoionc; for FPL's ratepayers than the original agreement. The
result in the economic deferral or avoidance of additional capacity
construction by Florida utilities from a statewide perspective."
^therefore find that this amended agreement meets the criteria of
Rule 2^-17.083(2) and that payments for energy and capacity made by
pursuant to the Amended Agreement may be recovered from FPL's
customers .
Since the agreement (1) contains adequate security for FPL's
rateoavers- (2) has a cumulative net present value of less than the
amicable' standard offer contract, (3) is consistent with'the
-------
ORDER NO. 23651
DOCKET NO. 900686-EQ
PAGE 4
determination of need granted by the Commission in Order No. 21491,
we find that the Amended Agreement is reasonable, prudent and in
the best interest of FPL's ratepayers.
A finding that FPL should not be required to resell the
capacity and energy is not necessary or appropriate to make a
determination concerning the merits of this contract amendment. As
stated in Order No. 22424 "the question of whether FPI- 1S J^i^
to resell, and if so, at what price, is best addressed by this body
when such a transaction takes place or a substantially affected
person alleges that such a transaction should have taken place.
Based on the foregoing, it is
ORDERED by the Florida Public Service Commission that the
petition filed by Florida Power & Light Company for the approval of
the Amended Cogeneration Agreement with AES Cedar Bay, Inc. should
be and is hereby granted. It is further
ORDERED that this Order shall become final unless an
appropriate petition for formal proceeding is received by the
Division of Records and Reporting, 101 East Gaines Street,
Tallahassee, Florida 3239S-0870, by the close of business on the
date indicated in the Notice of Further Proceedings or Judicial
Review.
By ORDER of ".he Florida Public Service Commission, this
23rd day vrf OCTOBER / 1120 •
_ TRIBBLE/
Division of Records and Reporting
( S E A L )
RVE
£-10
-------
ORDER NO. 23651
DOCKET NO. 900686-EQ
PAGE 5
NOTICE OF FURTHER PROCEEDTNGS OR JUDICIAL REVIEW
The Florida Public Service Commission is required by Section
120 59(4) Florida Statutes, to notify par-cies of an/
administrative hearing or judicial «vi~ of O«.™ ««» that
is available under Sections 120.57 or 120.68,
is avalae uner ec . .,
well as the procedures and time limits that apply. This notice
should not be construed to mean all requests for an adninist i«r,.ve
hearing or judicial review will be granted or result in the relief
sought.
The action proposed herein is preliminary in nature and will
not become effective or final, except as provided by Rule > 25-
22.029, Florida Administrative Code. Any P***™ ™°****£*£^
interests are affected by the action proposed by this order i..ay
file a petition for a formal proceeding, as provided b* Rule ,o
22 029U r Florida Administrative Code, in the form provided by
Rule 25-22 036(7) (a) and (f ) , Florida Administrative Code This
pe^t'on 2m2us\3 be 'received by the Director, ^vision of Records and
Reuorting at his office at 101 East Games Street, Tallahassee,
Florida 32399-0870, by the close of business on
November 13. 1990 _ -
in the absence of such a petition, this order shall become
effective on the day subsequent to the above date as provided by
^^25-22.029(6) , Florida Administrative Code, and as reflected in
a subsequent order.
Any objection or protest filed in this docket before the
issuance date of this order is considered abandoned unless it
satisfies the foregoing conditions and is renewed within the
specified protest period.
If this order becomes final and effective on the date
described above, any party adversely affected may request judicial
review by the Florida Supreme Court in the case of an electric, gas
or telephone utility or by the First District Court of Appeal in
the case of a water or sewer utility by filing a notice of appeal
with the Director, Division of Records and Reporting and filing a
copy of the notice of appeal and the filing fee with the
appropriate court. This filing must be completed within thirty
(30) days of the 'effective date of this order, pursuant to Rule
e -
-------
ORDER NO. 23651
DOCKET NO. 900686-EQ
PAGE 6
9.110, Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure. The notice of appeal
must be in the form specified in Rule 9.900(a), Florida Rules of
Appellate Procedure.
-------
ORDER NO. 23651
DOCKET NO. 900686-EQ
PAGE 7
ATTACHMENT A
SUMMARY OF PAYMENTS PURSUANT TO
FPL/AES AMENDED_CONTRACT_^$_000^
YEAR
1990
1991
1992
1993
. 1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
1995
STANDARD
OFFER ORIGINAL
CONTRACT AGREEMENT
$0
$0
$0
$75,936
$81,947
$74,213
$78,770
$83,655
$88,757
$94,228
$100,054
$106,180
$112,715
$119,921
$127,316
$135,081
$143,376
$152,201
$161,588
$171,513
$182,106
$193,235
$205,183
$217,788
$231,168
$245,370
$260,445
$276,447
<* f\
§0
?o
$65,831
$68,701
$71,776
$75,038
$78,353
$81,873
$85,465
$89,511
$93,094
$96,498
$101,044
$105,660
$110,500
$115,696
$121,249
$126,890
$132,888
$139,395
$146,124
$153,094
$143,357
$150,720
$159,642
$167,468
$176,586
AMENDED
AGREEMENT
$0
bO
$68*, 584
$71,652
$74,906
$78,714
$81,726
$85,310
$89,347
$92,922
$96,320
$100,854
$105,460
$110,288
$115,471
$121,009
$126,637
$132,620
$139,109
$145,320
$152,772
$143,015
$150,355
$159,249
$167,051
$176,140
NPV (1990) $805,811
$670,926
$669,648
-------
-------
APPENDIX F
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION
RESPONSE TO FAA FORM 7460-1
-------
-------
03-29-1993 15:58 9047511008 CEDAR BAV p. 02
HSS222J2L RoutfwrnlUolon P.O. Box20638
ottanspcrtoiion
Federal Aviation
Mr* Kerry VorKonda
Plant Manager
AEB Cedar Bay, lac,
9469 Eactport Road
Jacksonville, PL 3221B
Dear Mr. VorKonda!
We have completed a feasibility atudy which determined that an instrument
p^n^T CI/P) t0 the Jack"nvme International Ai?£rti. feasible?
wallftA"d °*.r°2r pr%°Acd non-federal nondirectional radio beacon
as submitted on PAA Pom 7460-1, dated August 9, 1991, and the latest
.Sclosed! t0ber "' 1W1* - A «W of the respon.; to the .xeSSed
Yon are authorited I to proceed with the establishment of the facility.
V3 «h,°,uld4^ »«« M a reference for Jitin«7and
*«t«"«ti«»of this facility may chan8e your obligations
» and
i! .i» r *0 -
Also, revision of the airport layout plan may be necessary. For further
information, contact the Orlando, Plori da .Airports Di strict 'Office at (407) W8-
tech"lclant «** |a« • concept and performance examination to
to Bake •rruvemenci for the txuinatioiu and in.pectlon.
SS*]«tlMI '"ttlt« '" »" technician and confltMtloi. ly APS
*•
Sincerely,
i» -^-^
.
K. 8. Imsand
Manager, Resource and Planning Branch
Enclosure
eet
Mr. Pete Norgeot
11401 Lanar Location P6B4
Overland Park, KS 66211
-------
03-29-1993 15:55 904751100B
*. &0 NOT REMOVE CARBONS
CEDAR BAY
P. 03
FormAppmnaoua Wo. 212MCKH
NOTTCEOFPROPOSEDCONSTRUCTWNORALTERATION \^<""tt^Hu
91>ASO-1842-Qg
t. CempMt Ditariptten of Stnwtura
(XW«kBcMrf«0*IM'
tKlftnfa.Ja^i^y.y 1ppp
•
Cedar Bay, inc.
le, PL. 32218
"I
l«ii««CHrifT«M,Mfl«-.
ikaom
Within City7
MnH(iMlM
Twintea Antenna for
Nondlrectional Beacon
1 R
60
^szsssassti^^
See Prior Subaittala ret Aeronautical Study f 88-ASO-1414-OE
. . ^^ * 91-ASO-1414-OE
••"—•• "»w *i mm tuni NCUM ^^^^^^
Kerry VarXonda. ni»n» Manac
^
f*A Form 7440-1 (4«}aUPEm£DES PREVIOUS HXTIOM
-------
APPENDIX G
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT
OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION
REVIEW OF THE PROPOSED MODIFICATION
OF CERTIFIED ELECTRIC POWER PLANT
SITE
-------
-------
;Olj Florida Department of Environmental Regulation
Twin Towers Office Bldy. • 2600 Blair Stone Road • Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400
i Chiks. Governor
March 25, 1993
Mr. Robert T. Bent on, II
Division of Administrative Hearings
The Desoto building
1230 Apalachee Parkway
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550
Re: Cedar Bay Cogeneration Project, PA 88-24A
DOAH Case No. 88-5740 EPP
Dear Mr. Benton:
Enclosed, please find a copy of the Department of
Environmental Regulation's Review of the Proposed
Modification of Certified Electric Power Plant Site for the
Cedar Bay Cogeneration Project.
Sincerely,
Hamilton S. Oven, P.E.
Administrator, Siting
Coordination Office
cc: All Parties
-------
-------
STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION
REVIEW OF PROPOSED MODIFICATION OF
CERTIFIED ELECTRIC POWER PLANT SITE
FOR
CEDAR BAY COGE^ERATION PROJECT
CASE NO. PA 88-24A
Siting Coordination Office
Office of the Secretary
Tallahassee, Florida
MARCH 25, 1993
Gr-3
-------
-------
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I DO HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the
foregoing document has been sent by U.S. Mail or by Hand Delivery
to the following listed persons:
Terry Cole, Esq.
Scott Shirley, Esq.
Oertel Hoffman Fernandez & Cole
P O Box 6507
Tallahassee FL 32314-6507
Lucky T. Osho, Esq.
Department of Community Affairs
2740 Certerview Dr
Tallahassee FL 32399-2100
Jim Antista, General Counsel
Florida Game & Fresh Water
Fish Commission
620 S Meridian Rd
Tallahassee FL 32399-1600
William C. Bostwick, Esq.
2034 University Blvd W
Jacksonville FL 32217-2016
Nikki Clark, Esq.
The Capitol, Rm 210
Tallahassee FL 32399-0001
Lawrence N. Curtin, Esq.
Holland & Knight
P O Drawer 810
Tallahassee FL 32302
Gregory K. Radlinski, Esq.
City of Jacksonville
600 City Hall
220 E Bay St
Jacksonville FL 32202
M.B. Adelson, IV, Esq.
Assistant General Counsel
Douglas Bldg MS-35
3900 Commonwealth Blvd
Tallahassee FL 32399-3000
Rob Vandiver, General Counsel
Mike Palecki, Chief
Bureau of Electric & Gas
Florida Public Service Comms
101 E Gaines St
Tallahassee FL 32399-0850
James A. Heard, Esq.
4741 Atlantic Blvd
Suite C
Jacksonville FL 32207
Rufus Pennington, Esq.
• Margol- &• Pennington -
76 Laura St, Suite 1702
Jacksonville FL 32202
Raymond Ehrlich, Esq.
Holland & Knight
2000 Independent Sq
Jacksonville FL 32202
-------
Certificate of Service (continued)
Wayne E. Flowers, Esq.
General Counsel
St Johns River Water
Management District
P O Box 1429
Palatka FL 32178-1429
Gary P. Sams, Esq.
Julie B. Rome, Esq.
Hopping, Boyd, Green & Sams
P.O. Box 6526
Tallahassee FL 32314
this
day of March, 1993.
STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT
OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION
r\
RICHARD T. DONELAN, JR.
Assistant General Counsel
Twin_Tavters ..Of £ice..Bldg.
2600 Blair Stone Rd
Tallahassee FL 32399-2400
Telephone: 904/488-9730
-------
PA 88-24A
CEDAR BAY COGENERATION PROJECT MODIFICATION ANALYSIS
INTRODUCTION
This document is the official report and recommendation of
the Department of Environmental Regulation to the Siting Board
concerning proposed modifications to the conditions of site
certification for the AES Cedar Bay Cogeneration Project,
issued February 18, 1991, to AES Cedar Bay, Inc. (AES) and
Seminole Kraft Company (SKC). By order of the Board dated
June 16, 1992. a proceeding concerning modification of the
certification was instituted in lieu of a proceeding to revoke
the certification for the reasons stated in the Order.
The basis of the modification proceeding is a set of
proposed changes to the original conditions of certification
tendered by AES and SKC to the Siting Board. These changes
were tentatively accepted by the Siting Board, subject to
technical review and verification by the Department and other
agencies having jurisdiction over the project in accordance
with the procedures of the Florida Electrical Power Plant
Siting Act (PPSA), §403.501 et seg., Florida Statutes.
Pursuant to the procedures of Section 403.508(3), Florida
Statutes, the Department has evaluated the proposed
modifications to the conditions of certification contained in
the AES-SKC Petition for Modification dated July 7, 1992, as
further refined at the suggestion of the current Project
manager for the Cedar Bay Cogenerationgta^ect^JCBCP), the U.
S. Generating Company (USG) ; onfcarciriS, 1993J an amended
Petition for Modification was filed whicn requests formal
recognition of the fact that the AES Corporation is no longer
associated with the control of the CBCP, and that the name of
the corporate entity which holds the certification has been
changed.
Based on its review and evaluation the Department is able
to conclude that the proposed modifications sought by the
holders of the site certification for the CBCP are both
technically feasible and consistent with the non-procedural
standards of the agencies of jurisdiction. More importantly,
the Department is also able to conclude that, if the existing
site certification for the CBCP is amended to incorporate the
modified conditions of certification which are appended to
this Report, there will be beneficial renneticms in thp ,
adverse *»**"*•*"?TnHPn.f'P>^ -imparts of the CBCP compared either "to.
t-Ke impaeETof the facility as originally certified or to the
Tinpii nf.B evpfected trom the continued-UptadLlun Ut the bKL paper
mill witnoiit the -certified power Plant. Consequently, the
Department'is prepared to recommend that the Siting Boara
impose the modified conditions of certification and allow the
certificate holders to complete construction and undertake
operation of the facility in accordance with the modified site
certification.
1
Gr-7
-------
PA 88-24A
In the interim since the institution of the modification
proceeding, AES Cedar Bay, Inc.,the Delaware corporation which
exercises primary responsibility for the construction and
operation of the certified power plant has undergone a change
in ownership and of name: as of December 19D2, officials of
the AES companies no longer exercise control of the
corporation and, as cf March 1993, the name of the corporation
has been changed to Cedar Bay Coqer.eration. Inc. The
Department recommends, and the Department's recommended
conditions of certification have been revised to so reflect,
that the conditions of certification be modified to show the
correct corporate name .of the certificate holder. Such a
modification will also evince official recognition that the
CBCP is now under the supervise op of controlling in^cT-o^tp
different from those respcnsiVOp fnr arsons uhich were- r^grnorf
to^Save undermined public confidence in the site certific*+i™
process. " .
The Department's technical evaluation of the proposed
modifications is set forth below. Issues related to water and
air emissions are discussed separately. Attached is a
compilation containing modified conditions of certification
which the Department believes are legally sufficient to
implement the terms of the proposal made by the certificate
holders to the Siting Board while safeguardino the public
interests protected by the Power Plant Siting"Act.
I. WATER ISSUES
A. The Questions of Cooling Water and Waste Water Discharge
During the original certification proceedings, the Siting
Board determined that the consumptive use of potable ground
water for cooling was not in the pub-l-io interest and
prohibited the use of water water withdrawn from the Floridan
Aquifer fcr cooling purposes. See Condition IV C. The Board
directed AES to explore the use of treated waste water or
water from the St. Johns River to cool the steam condensers.
After evaluating several options, in August of 1991, AES first
proposed to use treated wastewater from the converted SK
recycled fiber paper mill. The questions of what method of
• cooling the CBCP's steam turbines, and what, if any, waste
water discharges were to be allowed from the CBCP were not
resolved prior to the Siting Board's action to initiate the
modification proceeding. Consequently, in its settlement
offer, AES proposed to implement a wastewater treatment and
reuse system that would require no discharge of industrial
wastewater from the CBCP, while utilizing treated waste water
originating from SK's process to provide cooling water for use
by the CBCP and SK.
The conceptual approach to cooling water supply and
wastewater treatment proposed by AES has been refined and
G--S
-------
PA 88-24A
clarified. As currently evaluated, the CBCP water system
includes a cooling tower makeup treatment system designed to
treat 5500 gpm supplied from three sources: from the Seiainole
Kraft wastewater system, from the CBCP stormwater runoff
control ponds, and from various internal, low volume waste
streams (e.g. floor drains) generated by the CBCP. A
conventional lime-soda water treatment system will be utilized
including f eT"»"i? chloride ^as a coagulant in conjunction with a
reverse osmosis and brine concentation/crystalization system.
By evaporation and solids removal, the treatment system will
eliminate up to 40% of Seminole Kraft's existing wastewater
discharge volume. In addition, CBCP will provide Seminole
Kraft with up to 500 gpm of treated water for use in its
cooling tower.
This system has several environmental benefits. It
eliminates all industrial wastewater discharges from CBCP.
There is no longer a need for any variance to water quality
standards in order to allow operation of the facility. The
elimination of up to 40% of the SK wastewater discharge
because of waste water reuse will eliminate up to 40% of SK's
permitted wasteload to the St. Johns River. The CBCP water
treatment system will eliminate almost all potential for
discharge of stormwater from their site. Stormwater will
discharge only as a result of extreme rainfall events, only
when the pumps from the stormwater ponds to the treatment
system or emergency water storage tanks are unable to remove
or retain all the excess stormwater prior to overflow. The
stormwater control system is designed to prevent discharge of
stormwater from the coal pile/materials storage area from
rainfall events up to sn-year, 24-hour storms.
CBCP's furnishing SK witn up to 500 gpm of its own treated
waste water for reuse in the cooling tower reduces SK's need
to use potable water, thereby further conserving this vital
resource in accordance with the intent'of the Siting Board's
original certification decision.
In the future, if SK improves the efficiency of their
recycled paper process, it may further reduce the volume of
its wastewater available for use by CBCP. By the use of
conservative design techniques to account for a potentially
lower future volume with higher concentrations of chemical
constituents, the proposed system has been configured so that
it is capable of proper function even if SK reduces the volume
of its wastewater. In this eventuality, the CBCP treatment
system will eliminate a larger percentage of the SK discharge
than currently contemplated.
The proposed CBCP cooling tower pretreatment/wastewater
treatment system will produce sludges that will have to be
dewatered and sent to a solid waste landfill for disposal.
The CBCP water treatment system will be built to the south of
the boilers on a cleared portion of the certified site.
-------
PA 88-24A
The construction methods at the CBCP site were altered to
eliminate the need to discharge water produced by dewatering
of excavations. Therefore, existing conditions of
certification (Condition III 12) concerning construction
dewatering are superfluous and should be eliminated or
modified to reflect the avoidance of dewatering discharges.
B. Conditions of Certification for Zero Discharge System
The proposed zero discharge/wastewater treatment system
will eliminate a number of the discharges previously allowed
by the existing conditions of certification. The elimination
of the discharges reduces the adverse environmental impacts of
the CBCP. The following discharge streams and their
authorizing conditions should be deleted or modified:
III.A. Plant Effluents and Receiving Body of Water
2. POD - Change to Broward River only
3. Thermal Mixing Zones - Delete. No discharge.
4. Chemical Wastes - Modify. No discharge.
5. pH - Modify. Storm water only.
7. Cooling Tower Slowdown - Modify. No discharge for
CBCP. Keep 7.d. re SK shut down.
8. Combined Low Volume Wastes - Modify. No discharge.
9. Metal Cleaning Wastes - Modify. No discharge.
11. Boiler Blowdown - Modify. No discharge.
12. Construction Dewatering - Modify. No discharge.
13. Mixing Zones - Delete dewatering. No discharge
Modify for stormwater if needed.
14. Variances - Delete. Not needed.
The zero discharge system was presented as Phase I of a
proposal for consideration of the CBCP's treating all of SK's
waste water. Phase II of the proposal was made contingent
upon the CBCP's obtaining from the U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency an NPDES permit and a conclusion by the
Department that CBCP's treatment and discharge of all of
Seminole Kraft's and CBCP's wastewater would result in a net
environmental benefit compared to the zero discharge system.
The Department's technical evaluation indicates that
implementation of the Phase II option is .not likely to
result in any net environmental benefit, especially when
compared to the demonstrable benefits of the zero discharge
system. Evidence has been presented which discloses that the
expected Phase II discharges to the St. Johns or Broward
Rivers could forseeably violate water quality standards for
certain metals. 1 Discharges that violate standards are not
allowable unless a variance can be granted in the public
interest. The requirements for granting a variance contained
in Section 403.201, F.S., can not be met since the proposed
zero discharge system is practical and affordable for the
CBCP.I The Department does not recommend that the CBCP be
required to pursue a discharge option that could result in
4
Cr "10
-------
PA 88-24A
violations of water quality standards. The zero discharge
system offers concrete environmental benefits which would not
be available under the Phase II option.
II. AIR ISSUES
A. Introduction: The Question of Steam for Seminole Kraft
By deciding to make fundamental changes in the paper
making process at the SK paper mill, the steam host for the
CBCP, Seminole Kraft Corporation created substantial
uncertainty as to the basic assumptions on which the CBCP was
originally certified. During the course of the certification
proceedings, SK decided to convert its mill from a Kraft
pulping process, by which raw wood pulp is converted to paper
by chemical treatment, to a process which makes paper from,
recycled cardboard boxes without the need for the kraft
process. This change eliminated the need for the new
Chemical recovery boiler, integral to the kraft system but
unnecessary for the recycled paper process, for which SK had
received a construction permit in 1990 from the Department.
SK's decision to forgo the new recovery boiler
eliminated its expected emissions of air pollutants and
eliminated its potential demand for the use of ground water
as part of chemical solutions and for cooling. However, the
elimination of the new recovery boiler system, coupled with
the mandated retirement of the existing SK chemical recovery
boilers as a result of regulatory enforcement action, caused
a substantial reduction in SK's ability to self-generate
steam compared to its previous capability. In addition, five
antiquated SK power boilers—three oil-fired and two
bark-fired—were to be shut down to provide emission offsets
necessary to allow the permitting of the proposed CBCP.
The question of what, if anything-, SK intended-to do
regarding its self-generated steam deficit was not
forthrightly addressed by the applicants during the
proceedings which led to the issuance of the CBCP
certification. The site certification application (SCA)
stated that the CBCP would generate 225 MW "f elerr.irjty for
Florida Power and Light (FPL) and supply \640,000 Ib/hrSof
process steam for SK. SCA, p. ii. In addition, the SCJr
proposed the shut down of the old chemical recovery boilers
and all five power boilers operated by SK to supply steam for
use at the mill. Based on the record of the certification
proceedings for CBCP, there was no basis for a conclusion
that all SK's steam needs would not be supplied by the CBCP.
Retirement of the existing power boilers at SKC, substantial
air pollution sources, was expected to contribute to
improvement of ambient air quality, even with the addition of
the emissions of the coal-fired CBCP.
G -
-------
PA 88-24A
The manner in which the applicants for certification
attempted to resolve the steam deficit in SK's favor was a
substantial or motivating cause of the certification crisis
of spring 1992. The modifications as to air emissions
proposed by the certificated parties to resolve the crisis
are primarily aimed at securing the fundamental assumption on
which approval of the cogeneration facility rested: that the
level of air emissions permitted for the CBCP would support
a volume of steam sufficient both for commercial electric
power generation and for commercial use by the papermill in
its recycling process.
The first expedient adopted by SK to address its steam
deficit was to seek Department permits allowing continued
operation of its five old boilers, notwithstanding the fact
that the boilers in question were required to be shut down
under Condition II D of the site certification. During the
investigation which culminated in the Board's order of June
16, 1992, it was disclosed that AES and SKC had entered into
a contractual agreement relating to continued operation of
the boilers in question after the CBCP began commercial
operation. The circumstances of this disclosure had a
substantial bearing on the Siting Board's May 5, 1992, vote
in favor of revoking the CBCP certification.
In the Department's opinion, continued operation of the
old boilers is unacceptable for two reasons. First,
continued operation of the old boilers following start-up of
the CBCP power plant would negate a large portion of the air
quality improvements produced by the CBCP and would be
directly contrary to the intent of the site certification.
Second, due to the age, inefficiency, and low stack heights,
the old boilers are predicted to continue contributing to
violations of ambient air quality criteria. If the CBCP is
not allowed to enter commercial operation because of
revocation of the certification or any otligfcreason that
would relieve SK from the obligations of CdncHLlJion II D, the
result would be unfortunate from an envir
-------
PA 88-24A
alone was allowed under the original conditions of
certification. In addition, as proposed, the plan places an
enforceable ceiling on emissions from SK's forseeable future
steam generation needs: a matter not addressed by the
original certification.
Seminole Kraft filed applications with the Department
for permits allowing them to construct the three new package
boilers on November 24, 1992. The Department's review of
that application should be complete prior to initiation of
the April hearings on the CBCP. The Environmental Protection
Agency indicated on January 15, 1993, that they had no
adverse comments on the SK application.
In order to determine whether the proposed modifications
actually accomplish their stated purpose, the Department has
reviewed extensive technical information supplied by the
certificate holders, including engineering data and computer
modeling of expected air impacts from the CBCP and the new
gas-fired SK boilers. In particular, the newly-performed
computer modeling provides an unprecedented level of detail
and scope as expected ambient and regional air impacts; the
air emissions modeling previously submitted by AES in
connection with the SCA do not form the basis for any
technical conclusion in this report.
The Department's overall evaluation of the expected
impacts of the combined emissions of air pollutants from CBCP
and SK as now proposed substantiates that the improvements in
ambient air quality impacts which were projected before the
CBCP was certified will be attained even if SK is allowed to
construct new gas-fired power boilers. Because of reductions
in expected actual emissions due to implementation of new
nitrogen oxide (NOX) control technology and use of lower
sulfur coal at the CBPC and full-time gas usage at the new SK
Boilers, actual reductions in emissions levels, compared to
the originally certified project, are likely to exceed those
modeled. The basis for the Department's technical
conclusions is set forth below.
B. Ambient Air Quality Analysis
The Department analyzed the potential impacts of the
revised CBCP/SK complex on air quality utilizing data
made available through EPA-approved atmospheric dispersion
modelling techniques. Use of such mathematical dispersion
models allows the Department, via different computer-
generated cases, to establish comparative differences in
potential ambient air quality impacts caused by different
plant configurations and levels of pollutant emissions. Each
case has been assessed on the basis of the "worst-case
scenario," that is, by assuming emissions of the maximum
permitted levels of pollutants for the plant configuration
under review. Further, the expected impact of each case on
G-13
-------
PA S8-24A
overall area emissions is also judged against the backdrop of
existing regionc.1 emissions based upon the maximum allowable
emissions for each existing source identified in the
regional inventory of individual pollutant-emitting
facilities. AM analyses also assume identical "worst-case"
meteorological conditions. Five cases were considered.
The first two cases considered were alternative
assessments of the impacts of SK's existing "old boilers."
These are the three oil-fired and two bark-fired power
oilers. Although these boilers are required to be shut down
undar the exsting certification, they are currently in
operation; si; holds Department permits allowing these boilers
to operate until the CBCP commences compliance testing. If
the CBCP facility does not commence operation, these boilers
will remain part of the status quo of permitted sources and
would continue to impact air quality as allowed by existing
permits. Alternative modelling analyses for these sources
assumed different total annualized steam production rates for
the aggregate of the five boilers: the first case assumed a
rate of 640,000 Ib/hr, and the second a rate of 745,000
Ib/hr.
The third case examined was that of the CBCP operating
under the existing conditions of certification. This
analysis carried the assumption that the five SK "old
boilers," having been shut down as required, were no longer
in operation.
The fourth case considered was that of the CBCP, as
proposed to be modified, including the operation of the new
SK gas boilers. The base assumption was that the CBCP was
generating electricity and supplying steam at a rate of
380,000 Ib/hr to SK, with the three new SK boilers burning
distillate oil or natural gas and producing 260,000 Ib/hr of
steam. The fifth case assumed a-similar- scenario-, except
that the three new SK boilers were assumed to be operating at
a steam rate of 375,000 Ib/hr. In each of these cases the
"old boilers" were assumed to be inoperative.
Three comparative assessments were made:
Assessment A: Case 5 vs. Case 3
Assessment B: Case 4 vs. Case 1
Assessment C: Case 5 vs. Case 2
C. Assessment hethodology
The air quality impacts were modeled for five pollutants
for which there are ambient air quality standards - sulfur
dioxide/S02, particulate matter/PM-10, nitrogen dioxide/NC>2,
carbon monoxide/CO and Lead/Pb and an aggregation of trace
pollutants. Ground level concentrations were predicted for
8
-------
PA 88-24A
1008 locations on a polar grid extending out ot 25 kilometers
from the site. A total of 720 receptor locations were
located within 3 miles of the of the two facilities.
For each Assessment (A, B, and C), three comparisons
were made. *
First, the maximum predicted concentrations for each
pollutant were modeled. These concentrations were modeled at
all receptors and for each applicable averaging periods.
Concentrations at each receptor were compared between cases.
Second, the maximum predicted concentration for each
applicable averaging period was identified at each receptor.
Any increase or decrease in impact was noted.
Third, for each case associated with the modifications
proposed for the CBCP, the total number of receptors where air
quality would be improved was determined.
For Assessment B, the analysis set above was performed with
the impacts of Case 1 subtracted from the impacts of Case 4.
For Assessment C, the same analysis is performed with the
impacts of Case 2 subtracted from the impacts of Case 5.
D. Findings
1. Case Comparison.
Assessment A (Case 5 vs. Case 3)
The maximum predicted impacts of Case 5 (revised CBCP
plus new SK gas boilers at maximum steam rate) are lower than
those of Case 3 (CBCP as certified). For S02, the average net
regional S02 air quality effect of Case 5 indicates a small
net improvement with Case 5 over Case 3. For all other
substances except CO and annual average PM10, the average net
regional air quality effect of Case 5, although not
significant, is also positive.
For CO, the average net air quality effects are negative,
with a minority of receptors showing improvement. However, it
is important to note that the maximum CO impacts for both
cases are much less than Florida's and EPA's Significant
Impact Levels (SILs) for 1 hour CO and 8-hour CO
concentrations.
For annual average PM10 concentrations, although the
maximum concentrations are lower, the net air quality effect
on a regional basis is negative. The average net effects are
much less than the annual PM10 Significant Impact Level.
Thus, the net effect is insignificant.
G -
-------
PA 88-24A
Table 2-14 (see Appendix B) displays the findings for
Assessment A for SK's package boilers firing natural gas at
maximum steam rate. Results are shown for CO and N02 only,
since these are the only emissions that increase in Case 5,
due to the package boilers firing natural gas. On balance,
the air quality impacts of the CBCP in terms of maximum
impacts, as proposed to be modified, and the addition of any
boilers on the SK site at the proposed capacity of 375,000
pounds per hour of steam, will be less than the air quality
impacts of the CBCP as now certified, although net regional
differences are small.
Assessment B (Case 4 vs. Case 1)
Tables 2-15 and 2-16 indicate that the regional net air
quality effect of Case 4 (CBCP as modified plus new SK boilers
at average steam rate) is positive, although not significant
for all pollutants and averaging periods. This indicates that
a small average net benefit to air quality over the entire
model receptor grid can be expected. On balance, the air
quality impacts of the CBCP, as proposed to be modified, and
the addition of the three proposed boilers on SK's site
necessary to provide 640,000 Ib. of steam per hour for SK's
use will be less than the air quality impacts of SK's future
recycling operation using SK's existing boilers without the
CBCP.
Assessment C (Case 5 vs. Case 2)
Tables 2-17 and 2-18 indicate that the net air quality
effect of Case 5 is positive for each emission and averaging
period, although not significant for some pollutants. This
indicates an average net benefit to the air quality.
On balance, the air quality impacts of the CBCP, as
proposed to be modified, with the addition of the new
gas-fired steam boilers on the SK site at their maximum
allowable emission rates, will be less than the air quality
impacts of the maximum allowable emissions of SK's recycling
operation with the "old boilers" as presently permitted.
2. >m>»ient Air Quality Standards (AAOS) Analysis
The results of the modeling for the CBCP alone, as
proposed to be modified, are presented in Tables 3-24 through
3-28 for the pollutants CO, N02, PM10, Pb, and SO2. Each
table lists the maximum predicted impact of the CBCP for each
applicable AAQS. The significant impact level (SIL) is also
listed for the applicable pollutant. The predicted impacts
for CO are below the SILs. Therefore, CO was eliminated from
further consideration, since the CBCP can neither cause nor
contribute to an AAQS violation for CO. Lead concentrations
were also found to be insignificant.
10
Gr-lfc
-------
PA 88-24A
The remaining pollutants (PM10, N02 and SO2), were
modeled for the CBCP, SK's package boilers and all the other
existing and permitted sources for each pollutant in the area.
Monitored background concentrations for each pollutant were
added to the model's predicted concentrations to obtain the
total predicted concentration. This concentration was compared
to the respective AAQS. Based on this analysis, it can be
concluded that the CBCP, as proposed to be modified, would
neither cause nor contribute to a violation of the respective
PM10, N02, or S02 Ambient Air Quality Standards.
The CBCP also emits volatile organic compounds (VOC),
which can be precursors to ozone formation. There are no
acceptable modeling techniques for assessing an individual
source's impact on ozone levels due to uncertainties
concerning the photochemical processes for ozone formation.
Accordingly, no single source modeling is required by either
EPA or DER. Under any circumstances, however, no significant
impact on ozone concentrations from the CBCP is expected since
the VOC emissions of the CBCP will be more than offset by
shutdown of the SK "old boilers," which are current VOC
sources of significance.
3. Increment Consumption Analysis
The results of the maximum predicted SO2 Class I and
Class II Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD)
increments consumed by the CBCP itself were evaluated. The
maximum S02 impacts of the CBCP by itself exceed neither
the Class I nor Class II allowable increments.
An analysis was performed to identify the maximum total Class
II increment consumption by all PSD increment consuming and
expanding sources (including SK'& package.,boilers, as .increment
consuming sources) to which the CBCP would contribute more
than the Class II SILs. None of the total concentrations
exceeds the Class II PSD increments, where the CBCP has a
significant impact. Thus, it can be concluded that the CBCP,
as proposed to be modified, would neither cause nor contribute
to a violation of the PSD Class II S02 increments.
For the Class I area, the total SO2 increment consumption
due to all increment consuming and expanding sources was
identified for each averaging period, modeled year and Class I
area (Wolf Island Wilderness Area and Okefenokee Wilderness
Area). Based on these results, it can be concluded that the
CBCP, as proposed to be modified, would neither cause nor
contribute to a violation of the Class I SO2 increments.
11
Gr- I?
-------
PA 88-24A
A similar analysis was performed for Total Suspended
Particulates/PM10/(TSP). None of the total concentrations
exceed the Class I or Class II PSD TSP increments. Thus, it
can be concluded that the C3CP, as proposed to be modified,
would neither cause nor contribute to a violation of the PSE
Class I or Class II TSP increments.
A similar analysis was performed for NO2. None of the
total concentrations exceed the Class I or Class II PSD NO2
increments. Thus, it can be concluded that the CBCP, as
proposed to be modified, would neither cause nor contribute to
a violation of the PSD Class I or Class II N02 increments.
4. Air Toxics Analysis
The air toxics emissions from the CBCP, by itself, as
proposed to be modified, were modeled to determine the maximum
impact of each pollutant for each averaging period for which a
draft No Threat Level (NTL) has been proposed. The results
were evaluated. In each case the impacts are below the draft
NTLs.
The Department has been working with EPA and their
consultant to have a risk assessment made for emissions from
the CBCP. The results of that study are not yet available.
Preliminary indications are that due to the shut down of pulp
mill sources, the CBCP will have a negligible impact on human
health. By replacing SK's bark and power boilers, the CBCP
and SK package boilers may provide a slight net health benefit
since the cancer risks of the CBCP plus package boilers are
less than the risks posed by the existing SK facility.
A preliminary ecological risk assessment indicates that
the revised CBCP and SK package boilers will not pose a
potential risk to aquatic or terrestrial environments^ . Due.to.
the elimination of heavy oil containing vanadium from the old
SK power boilers, the revised facility will likely present
less of an ecological risk than the old pulp mill.
5. Supplemental Analyses
A. Impact of Secondary Emissions -
No significant adverse air quality impacts are expected
from secondary emissions associated with any residential,
commercial, or industrial growth directly related to the
construction or operation of the CBCP.
B. Impacts of the CBCP on Soils and Vegetation -
Comparisons were made of the combined impacts of the CBCP
and SK's package boilers with those of SK's existing power and
bark boilers in future recycle operation. Those comparisons
clearly showed that there would be a net regional improvement
12
Gr- 12
-------
PA 88-24A
in maximum concentrations of S02, N02 and CO. Since SK's
power and bark boilers are to be retired when the CBCP begins
operation, and since the conversion to recycles paper
eliminates the chemical recovery boilers, smelt dissolving
tanks and lime kilns, it can be concluded that the impacts (if
any) of these substances on vegetation will be decreased.
C. Visibility Assessment -
The emissions from the proposed facility were shovn to
have an insignificant impact on visibility at both the
Okefenokee and Wolf Island Class I areas. The potential for a
visible plume from the CBCP is expected to be localized
(within 5 km) and occur only under light wind, neutral
dispersion conditions which occur primarily during early
daylight hours.
D. CBCP Cooling Tower Impact Analysis -
The potential for fogging or icing conditions on nearb^
routes to be caused by the CBCP's cooling towers and salt
deposition rates due to cooling tower operations was
evaluated. The applicant used the SACTI (Season and Annual
Cooling Tower Impacts) model to make this evaluation. The
analysis indicates that, based on the low probabilities
predicted by the SACTI model, the visibility reduction due to
the CBCP's cooling tower is not expected to pose a threat to
local transportation routes. The effects of salt deposition
on local vegetation is not expected to be significant.
E. Screening Modeling Analysis for Low Load CFB Operation
A screening modeling analysis was conducted to compare
four operating scenarios for the CBCP's CFBs. The purpose of
this analysis is to evaluate the potential for CBCP operation
at low load conditions to cause-higher total-ambient-impacts-
than operation at maximum load. The load conditions modeled
were 100%, 67%, 40%, and 17% of full load.
The results of the ISC modeling analysis for each
meteorological condition and load case demonstrate that the
maximum normalized concentrations predicted for each
meteorological condition are generally (in 25 of 33
meteorological conditions analyzed or 76%) associated with the
100% load case.
Since the modeling analysis shows that the low-load
operation of the CBCP's CFBs would not increase the impact of
the CFBs within 0.8 km, well beyond the location of the CBCP's
peak effect on ambient air quality, it is clear that the
low-load operation would not effect the estimation of that
peak effect. Therefore, lowei loads do not warrant additional
analysis as they have no bearing on modeling results for
critical parameters. This analysis supports the request for
13
G -
-------
PA 88-24A
deletion of the furnace load operating limitation in Condition
II.A.8.9.b.
The results of the assessments show that the proposed
modifications to CBCP plus the new boilers at SK result in
less adverse air quality impacts than SK oririnally, and less
adverse impacts than CBCP originally. When evaluating the air
quality impacts of the proposed SK boilers, the sulfur content
of the oil to be used was assumed to be 0.5% as a maximum and
0.3% on an annual average. A current BACT analysis of oil to
be used by SK in the steam boilers or by USG in the CBCP
facility would result in a requirement to use distillate oil
with a 0.05% sulfur content. The modeling analysis for S02 in
Cases 4 and 5 is therefore conservative. Future ambient SO2
levels will be significantly less th^n predicted.
The modeling analysis supports the requested modifications
relating to deletion of conditions prescribing load
operational ranges and more frequent use of oil during the
first year of operation of the CBCP.
Conclusion and Recommendation
The proposed modifications of the CBCP will reduce the
air and water quality impacts of the previously certified
facility. The modifications relating to use of treated
wastewater from Seminole Kraft satisfies the findings of the
Siting Board that a source of cooling water be secured that
would eliminate the use of potable water from the Floridan
Aquifer. The implementation of the zero-discharge system
would eliminate the discharge of industrial wastewater from
CBCP and will reduce SK discharges. This benefits the
environment by reducing or eliminating the pollutants in those
waste streams from the environment. Zero-discharge minimizes
the adverse impacts of water discharges- to. .the .maximum.extent _
possible.
Accordingly the Department recommends that the revised
Cedar Bay Cogeneration Project with its associated facilities
be approved subject to the modified Conditions of
Certification set forth in Appendix A.
VIRGINIA B. WETHERELL
Secretary
14
Cr-20
-------
APPENDIX A
CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION
(The Conditions of Certification included in this "
.
included here; they are available on^equest" rom*
uT'EPA ' Ch±ef Envirormental Policy Section; FAB-4 ;
-------
§
-------
APPENDIX H
STORMWATER
-------
-------
« ^^^^^ x
I ^fo!L ? UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
,t REGION IV
345 COURTLAND STREET. N.E.
JUL J 2 1992 ATLANTA. GEORGIA 3O36S
CERTIFIED MAIL
RETURN RECEIPT
REFt 4WM-WPEB
Mr. Paul Stinson
Project Hanager
AES/Cedar Bay, Inc.
9469 Eastport Road
P.O. Box 26329
Jacksonville, Florida 32218-0329
REi Final Issuance of NPDES Permit No. FL0041173
Cedar Bay Cogeneration Project
Dear Mr. Stinson:
SlMltn«L?ile^!!at^nalKPollUtfn1: DischarSe Elimination System
(NPDES) permit for the above-referenced facility. This action
constitutes the Environmental Protection Agency?* final p£m£
decision in accordance with Title 40, Code of Federal
Regulations (C.F.R.) Section 124.15(a). The permit will become
ZSfSril" aVpe?i£i?d' Provided that no timely request for IT
evidentiary hearing is received by the Agency.
Any interested person may contest this decision by submittino a
timely request for an evidentiary hearing (hearing) pursuant tS
h«r-?n«CfdUre8 t* 4° C-P'R- « 124.74. If a regS^ft f S a
hearing is received by the Agency, following review, a
d^?^naii0? Y111 be made an(J the regueste? advised of the
ad;^%de?i8i0n °n the r^tt«t.'" Until that time, please be
advised that any request will render the permit ineffective
pursuant to 40 C.F.R. S 124.15(b). For a^S sou?c" a ^ew
discharger, a recommencing discharger, or a facility for which
-^
:he«.evident}arr hearin9T request is granted, in whole or
H-l
PnntfO on Recvf ;-»J F-fr*r
-------
-2-
To request an evidentiary hearing under 40 C.F.R. S 124.74, you
must submit an original and two copies of the request to the
Regional Hearing Clerk at the letterhead address within thirty
(30) days from service of this notice. A copy of the procedures
and requirements for evidentiary hearing requests and appeals to
the Administrator is enclosed.
Por purposes of judicial review under the Clean Water Act, 33
U.S.C. S 1251
-------
Protection Afoncy
§ 124.71
«t 1 ?• 1 '•
•••.I K!lV
'
>r 40 CPR Ch.I (7-1-89 Edition)
•rvlr-v «.ij
I ia«M»«
if* i-. M-
t » » ••:•
I.
I.I
Itl.ll .......||.
on' »•<
X.
I—I vUonllory H*orlnCs for
lf*A-4tswsd NPDES Permits •*•>
iPA-f•mlMta* tCtA Porsails
1124.71 AsfUcsMIUy.
(a) The regulations In this subparl
govern all formal hearlnis conducted
by EPA under CWA sections 402 and
40MD. escepl those conducted under
Subpart P. They also govern all evi-
dentiary hearings conducted under
RCRA section 3001 In connection with
the termination ol a RCRA permit.
This Includes termination of Interim
status for failure to furnish Informa-
tion needed to make a'flnal decision A
formal hearing Is available to chal-
lenge any NPDES permit Issued under
1124.1ft except for a:central permit.
Persons affected by a general permit
may not challenge the conditions ol a
general permit as of right In further
agency proceedings. They may Instead
either challenge the general permit In
court, or apply for; an Individual
NPDES permit under 1122.21 as au-
thorized In 1122.21 and then request a
formal hearing on line Issuance or
denial of an Individual permit. (The
Regional Administrator also has the
discretion to use the procedures of
Subpart P for general permits. See
1124.1111.
(b) In certain cases, evidential^
hearings under this subpart may also
be held on the conditions of UIC per-
mits, or of RCRA permits which are
being Issued, modified, or revoked and
reissued, rather than terminated or
suspended. This will occur when Hie
conditions of the UIC or RCKA permit
In question are closely linked with the
conditions of an NPDES permit as to
165
§ 124.72
which an evidentiary hearing has been
granted. See | l24.14(bM2>. Any Inter-
ested person may challenge the Re-
gional Administrator's Initial new
source determination by requesting an
evidentiary hearing under this part.
See | 122.29.
(c) PSD permits may never be sub-
ject to an evidentiary hearing under
this subpart. Section l24.74tbM2Mlv»
provides only for consolidation of PSD
permits with other permits subject to
ft panel hearing under Subpart P.
MS PR !«•«. Apr. I. IN3. as amended at M
PRiaigs.Mayl.IMti
• 114.12 Ueflalllaas.
Por the purpose of this subpart. the
following definitions are applicable:
"Hearing Clerk" means The Hearing
Clerk. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. 401 M Street. SW- Washing-
ton. DC. 20460.
"Judicial Officer" means a perma-
nent or temporary employee of the
Agency appointed as a Judicial Officer
by the Administrator under these reg-
ulations and subject to Uw following
conditions:
A Judicial Officer shall be a li-
censed attorney. A Judicial Officer
shall not be employed In the Office of
Enforcement or the Office of Water
and Waste Management, and shall not
participate In the consideration or de-
cision of any ease In which he or she
performed Investigative or prosecute-
rial functions, or which Is factually re-
lated to such a case.
(b) The Administrator may delegate
any authority to act In an appeal of a
given case under this subparl to a Ju-
dicial Officer who. In addition, may-
perform other duties for EPA. provid-
ed that the delegation shall not pre-
clude • Judicial Officer from referring
any motion or case to the Administra-
tor when the Judicial Officer decides
such action would be appropriate. The
Administrator. In deciding a case, may
consult with and assign the drafting of
preliminary findings of fact and con-
clusions and/or a preliminary decision
to any Judicial Officer.
-Party- means the EPA trial staff
under 1124.70 and any iierson whose
request for a hearing under 1124.74 or
whose request to be admitted as a
40 OR Ch. I (7-1-tt Edition)
4
party or to Intervene under i 124.70 or
1124.117 has Itren granted.
"Presiding Officer" for the purposes •
of this subpart means an Administra-
tive Law Judge spitolnled under &
U.S.C. 3 IDS and designated to preside
at the hearing. Under Subparl P other
persons may also M?rve as hearing old-
cers. See 1124 IIV.
"Regional Hearing Clerk" means an
employee of the Agency designated by
a Regional Administrator to establish
a repository for all books, records, doc-
uments, and other materials relating
to hearings under this subpart.
• 124.73 Piling sad MtbmissiMi of «UCM-
(a) All submissions authorized or re-
quired to be filed with the Agency
under this subparl shall be tiled with
the Regional Hearing Clerk, unless
olherwise provided by regulation. Sub-
missions shall be considered filed 011
Ihe dale on winch they are mailed or
delivered In person to the Regional
Hearing Clerk.
-------
of literature or other material In a for-
eign'language shall be accompanied by
copies of (he original publication.
(3) Where relevant data or Informa-
tion la contained In a document alto
containing Irrelevant matter, either
the Irrelevant matter shall be deleted
or the relevant portions shall be Indi-
cated.
(41 Failure to comply with the re-
quirements of this section or any
other requirement In this subpart may
result In the noncomplylng portions or
the submission being excluded from
consideration. II the Regional Admin-
istrator''or the Presiding Of fleer.'on
motion by any party or *ua •ponfc. de-
termines that a submission falls to
meet'any requirement of this Subpart.
the Regional Administrator or Presid-
ing Officer shall direct the Regional
Hearing Clerk to return the submis-
sion, together with a reference to the
applicable regulations. A party whose
materials have been rejected has 14
Xdaya to correct the errors and resub-
mil. unless the Regional Administra-
tor or the Presiding Officer finds good
I cause to allow a longer time.
__ ily If:
(I) Processing of the RCRA or UIC
permit al Issue was consolidated with
Ihe processing of lira'NPDES permll
as provided In 1124.4; .
(II) The standards for granting a
hearing on the NPDES permit are
met;
(III) The resolution of Ihe NPUKS
permll Issues Is likely lo make neces
aary or appropriate modification of
the RCRA or UIC permll; and
(Iv) If a PSD permit Is Involved, a
permittee who Is eligible for an eviden-
tiary hearing under Subparl E on his
or her NPDES permll requests thai
the formal hearing ' be conducted
under Ihe procedures of Subparl F
and the Regional Administrator finds
that consolidation Is unllkly lo drlsy
final permll Issuance beyond Ihe PSD
one-year statutory deadline.
167
( 134.75
(c) These requests shall also contain:
(1) The name, mailing address, and
telephone number of Ihe person
making such request;
(2) A clear and concise (actual state-
ment of the nature and scope of the
Interest of the requester;
(3) The names and addresses of all
persons whom the requester repre-
sents; and
(4) A statement by Ihe requester
that, upon motion of any party grant-
ed by the Presiding Officer, or upon
order of the Presiding Officer tua
spontc without cost or expense lo any
olher party, the requester shall make
available to appear and testify, the f ol-
lowing:
(I) The requester;
(II) All persons represented by the
requester: and
(III) All officers, directors, employ-
ees, consultants, and agents of the re-
quester and the persons represented
by the requester.
(» Specific references to the con-
tested permll conditions, as well as
suggested revised or alternative permit
conditions (Including permll denials)
which. In the Judgment of the request-
er, would be required lo Implement
the purposes and policies of the CWA.
(6) In Ihe case of challenges lo Ihe
application of control or treatment
technologies Identified In the state-
ment of basis or fact sheel. Identifica-
tion of the basis for the objection, and
the alternative technologies or combi-
nation of technologies which the re-
quester believes are necessary to meet
the requirements of the CWA.
<1> Identification of Ihe permll obli-
gations thai are contested or are Inse-
verable from contested conditions and
should be stayed If the request Is
granted by reference to Ihe particular
contested conditions warranting Ute
slay.
(•) Hearing requests also may ask
that a formal hearing be held under
Ihe procedures ael forth In Subpart P.
An applicant may make such a request
even If the proceeding does not const I
lute "Initial licensing" as defined In
1124.111.
(d) If the Regional Administrator
granU an evidentiary hearing request.
In whole or In part. Ihe Regional Ad-
ministrator shall Identify the permit
40 0» Ch. I (/-!-«• Edition)
conditions which have been contested
by the requester and for which Ihe
evidentiary hearing has been granted
Permll conditions which are not con
tested or for which the Regional Ad-
mlnlslralor has denied Ihe hearing re-
quest shall not be affected by. or con-
sldered at. Ihe evidentiary hearing
The Regional Administrator shall
specify these conditions In writing In
accordance with | I24.«0lc).
(el The Regional Administrator
must grant or deny all requests for an
evidentiary hearing on a particular
permit. All requests that are granted
for a particular permit shall be coin.
blned In a single evidentiary hearing.
(f) The Regional Administrator
(upon notice to all persons who have
already submitted hearing request*!
may extend the time allowed for sub-
milling hearing requests under this
section for good cause.
I I24.1S Heebie* on r«|ucil for a hearing.
(aMI) Within 30 days following the
expiration of the lime allowed by
I 124.14 for submitting an evidentiary
hearing request, the Regional Admin-
istrator shall decide the eilenl to
which. If al all. the request shall be
granted, provided thai Ihe request
conforms lo Ihe requirements of
1124.14. and sets forth material Issues
of fact relevant to the Issuance of Hie
permll.
'(2) When an NPDES permll for
which a hearing requesl has been
granted constitutes "Initial licensing"
under I 124.111. the Regional Adminis-
trator may elect to hold a formal hear
Ing under the procedures of Subparl P
rather than under the procedures ol
this subpart even If no person has re-
quested lhal Subparl P be applied. If '
Ihe Regional Administrator makes
such a.declslon. he or she shall Issue a
notice of hearing under | 124.116. All
subsequent proceedings shall then be
governed by II124 111 through
124.121. eicepl thai any reference to a
drafl permit shall mean the final
permit.
(3) Whenever the Regional Admlnls
tralor grants a request made unUrr
I l24.14(cMt) for a formal hearing'
under Subpart P on an NPDES pi-unit
that does not constitute an maul H
168
-------
«•"•• ""«>' I IM.I1I. the Regional
Administrator ahall lasue a notice of
hearing under 1124.1 Ig Including a
statement, that the permit will be
processed under the procedures of
Bubpart F unless a written objection to
received within 30 days. If no valid ob-
Jectlon to received, the application
II 134.117 through 124.l3l!>Mexcept
that any reference to a draft permit
ahall mean the final permit. If-a valid
objection to received, this aubpart ahall
be applied Instead.
(b) If a request for a hearing to
denied In whole or In part. Ihe Region-
al Administrator shall brleny state the
reasons. That denial la subject lo
' review by the Administrator under
I lM.tlv ^^
111474 OMIgaUoa to aaftmll „!•„*.
•fare a ftaal fsnatt to
\n
In any case where the Regional Ad-
ministrator elected to apply the re-
qulremenu of 1124.!4 "Interested person outside the
Agency" Includes the permit appli-
cant, any person who filed written
comments in the proceeding, any
person who requested Ihe hearing, any
person who requested to participate or
Intervene In the hearing, any partici-
pant In the hearing and any other In-
terested person not employed by the
Agency at the time of the communica-
tions, and any attorney of record for
those persons.
CbMll No Interested person outside
the Agency or member of the Agency
trial staff shall make or knowingly
cause to be made to any members of
Ihe declslonal body, an ex part* com-
munlcatlon on the merits of ihe pro-
ceedings.
(2) No member of the decisions!
body shall make or knowingly cause to
be made to any Interested person out-
side ihe Agency or member of Ihe
Agency trial staff, an ex parfe commu-
nication on the merits of the proceed-
ings.
(3) A member of the declslonal body
who receives or who makes or who
knowingly causes to be made a com-
munication prohibited by this subsec-
tion shall file with the Regional Hear-
Ing Clerk all written communications
or memoranda staling Ihe substance
of all oral communications together
with all written responses and memo-.
randa slating the subslance of all oral
responses.
(c) Whenever any member of ihe de-
clslonmaklng body receives an ex parle
communication knowingly made or
knowingly caused to be made by a
party or representative of a parly In
violation of this section, the person
presiding at the stage of the hearing
then In progress may. to the extent
consistent with Justice and the pulley
of the CWA. require the parly to show
cause why Its claim or Interest In the
proceedings should not be dismissed.
denied, disregarded, or otherwise ad-
«0 CM 0. I (7-I-0 |dlt|.n)
n *ccounl 0|
id) The prohibitions of this section'
begin to apply upon Issuance of the
lh* "r'nl 0| • "earing under
or 1 124.114. This prohibition
- *pr •
«t MM3. Sept. M. IH4I
Il24.7t
la) Any person may submit a request
to be admitted as a parly within IS
days afler Ihe dale of mailing, publics
lion, or posting of notice of the grant
of an evidentiary hearing, whichever
occurs last. The Presiding Officer
shall grant requests Dial meet the re-
qulremenu of || 124.14 and 124.76
(b) Afler Ihe expiration of Ihe time
prescribed In paragraph (a) of this sec-
tion any person may rile a motion for
leave lo Intervene as a parly. This
motion must meet the requirements ol
II 124.74 and 124.16 and set forth the
grounds for the proposed Intervention
No factual or legal Issues, besides
those raised by timely hearing re
quesU. may be proposed except for
good cause. A motion for leave lo In-
lervene must also contain a verified
statement showing good cause for Hie
failure lo file a limely request lo be
admitted as a parly. The Presiding Of-
flqer shall grant the motion only upon
an express finding on the record thai:
( I ) Extraordinary circumstances jus-
tify granting the motion:
(2) The Intervener has consented lo
be bound by:
III Prior written agreements and
stipulations by and between the exist-
ing parties: and
(II) All orders previously entered In
the proceedings: and
(3) Intervention will not cause undue
delay or prejudke the rlghta of the ex
toting parties.
II24.M filing aa4 Mr*k«.
(a) An original and one 1 1 » copy of
all written submissions relating |o an
evidentiary hearing filed after ihr
notice to published shall be filed with
the Regional Hearing Clerk.
(b) The party filing any submission
shall also serve a copy of each subnii*.
170
-------
I Affjoncy
•Ion upon the Presiding Officer and
each party of record. Service shall be
by mall or personal delivery.
let Every submission shall be accom-
panied by an acknowledgment of senr-
ilcetbythei person served or a cerllfl-
irate of service clllng the date, place.
.time.) and 'manner of service and the
names of the persons served.
(dl The Regional Hearing Clerk
•hall maintain and furnish a list con-
taining the name, service address, and
telephone number of all parties and
their attorneys or duly authorised rep-
resentatives to any person upon re-
quest.
, III4JI Assl|a«»twl of Atawlstrallve
Law Jwsge.
No later than the date of mailing.
publication, or posting of the notice of
• 'grant of an evidentiary hearing.
whichever occurs last, the Regional
Administrator shall refer the proceed-
ing to the Chief Administrative Law
_>_ Judge who shall assign an Admlnlstra-
J- tlve Law Judge to serve as Presiding
I Of(|cer for the hearing.
G^ilM'Jl Csassllisllss) and severance.
(a) The Administrator. Regional Ad-
ministrator, or Presiding Officer, has
the discretion to consolidate. In whole
or In part, two or more proceedings to
be held under this subpart. whenever
It appears that a Joint hearing on any
or all of the matters In Issue would ex-
pedite or simplify consideration of the
Issues and that no party would be prej-
udiced thereby. Consolidation shall
not affect the right of any party to
raise Issues that might have been
raised had there been no consolida-
tion.
If the Presiding Officer deter-
mine* consolidation Is not conducive
to an expeditious, full, and fair hear-
ing, any party or Issues may be severed
and heard In a separate proceeding.
• IS4JI Prebtsttag CMNCMWI**.
The Presiding Officer. tu«
••ONfe. or at the request of any party.
may direct the parties or their attor-
neys or duly authorised representa-
tives to appear at a specified time and
place for one or more conferences
before or during a hearing, or to
submit written proposals or corre-
8
•pond for the purpose of considering
any of the matters set forth In 'para-
graph of this section.
(b) The Presiding Officer shall sllow
a ressonsble period before the hearing
begins for the orderly completion of
all prehearlng procedures and for the
submission and disposition of all pre-
hesrlng motions. Where the circum-
stances warrant, the Presiding Officer
may call a prehearlng conference to
Inquire Into the use of available proce-
dures contemplated by the parties and
the time required for their completion.
to establish a schedule for their com-
pletion. and to set a tentative dale for
beginning the hearing.
Scheduling as many of the fol-
lowing as are deemed necessary and
proper by the Presiding Officer:
(II Submission of narrative state-
ment* of position on each factual Issue
In controversy: :
(II) Submission of written testimony
and documentary evidence (e.g.. affi-
davits. data, studies, reports, and any
other type of written material) In sup-
port of those statements; or
(III) Requests by any party for the
production of additional documenta-
tion. data, or other Information rele-
vant and material to the I acU In Issue.
171
|»4.M
(g) Grouping participants with sub-
stantially similar Interests to eliminate
redundant evidence, motions, and ob-
jections.
(1) Such other matters that may ex-
pedlle the hearing or aid In the dispo-
sition of the matter.
(d) At a prehearlng conference or at
some other reasonable lime set by the
Presiding Officer, each parly shall
make available lo all oilier parlies lite
names of the expert and oilier wit-
nesses It eipecls lo call. Al II* discre-
tion or at the request of Ihe Presiding
Officer, a parly may Include a brief
narrative summary of any witness's
anticipated testimony. Copies of any
written testimony, documents, papers.
exhibits, or materials which a party
eipecls to Introduce Into evidence, and
the admlnlslrallve record required by
1124.1* shall be marked for Identifica-
tion as ordered by the Presiding Offi-
cer. Witnesses, proposed written lesll-
mony. and oilier evidence may be
added or amended upon order of the
Presiding Officer for good cause
shown. Agency employees and consult-
ants shall be made available as wit-
nesses by the Agency lo the same
extent that production of such wit-
nesses Is required of olher parlies
under I !24.74(cM4). (See also
I l24J5(bMie).)
(e) The Presiding Officer shall pre-
pare a wrlllen prehearlng order recit-
ing the actions taken al each prehear-
lng conference and selling forth Ihe
schedule for the hearing, unless a
transcript ha* been taken and accu-
rately reflects these mailers. The
order shall Include a wrlllen slate-
menl of the areas of tactual agree-
ment and disagreement and of. Ihe-
melhods and procedures to be used In
developing the evidence and the re-
spective duties of the partlss In con-
nection therewllh. This order shall
control the subsequent course of Ihe
hearing unless modified by Ihe Presid-
ing Officer for good cause shown.
IIS4J4 muMMry delenataalloa.
(a) Any party to an evidentiary hear-
ing may move wllh or without sup-
porting affidavit* and briefs lor a sum-
mary determination In It* favor upon
any of the Issues being adjudicated on
the basis that there Is nu genuine Issue
40 CM Ch. I (7-1-tt idllUn)
of material fact for determination.
This motion shall be filed at least 45
days before the dale sel for the hear-
ing, except that upon good cause
shown the motion may be filed al any
time before Ihe close of Ihe hearing.
(b) Any olher parly may. within 30
days after service of Ihe motion. Ille
and servr a response lo It or a counter-
molloii for summary determination.
When a motion for summary determi-
nation to made and supported, a parly
opposing Ihe motion may nol resl
upon mere allegallons or denials but
must show, by affldavll or by olher
materials subject to consideration by
the Presiding Officer, thai there Is a
genuine Issue of material (act tor de-
termination al the hearing.
(c) Affidavits shsll be made on per-
sonal knowledge, shsll sel forth facts
that would be admissible In evidence.
and shall show affirmatively that the
affiant Is competent lo testify to the
matters staled therein.
(d) The Presiding Officer may sel
Ihe matter for oral argument snd call
for the submission of proposed find-
ings, conclusions, briefs, or memoran-
da of law. The Presiding Officer shall
rule on the motion nol more than 30
days after the dale responses lo the
motion are filed under paragraph (b)
of this section.
(e) If all factual Issues are decided
by summary determination, no hear-
ing will be held and the Itetldlng Offi-
cer shall prepare an Initial decision
under 1124.8*. If summary determina-
tion to denied or If partial summary
determination to granted, the Presid-
ing Officer shsll Issue a memorandum
opinion and order. Interlocutory In
character, and the hearing will pro-
ceed on Ihe remaining Issues. Appesls
from Interlocutory rulings are gov-
erned by 1124.00.
(f) Should II appear from Ihe affida-
vits of a parly opposing a motion lor
summary determination that lie or she
cannot for reasons stated present, by
affldavll or otherwise. IscU essenllsl
to Justify his or her opposition. Hie
Presiding Officer may deny (lie
motion or order a continuance lo allow'
additional affidavit* or other Informs
lion to be obtained or may make such
olher order as to Jusl and proper.
172
-------
Agency
IIS4.U Hearts* procedure.
(aMl) The permit applicant always
bean the burden of persuading the
Agency that a permit authorizing pol
lutanU to be discharged should be
uwued and not denied. ThU burden
does not shift.
NOTK- In manr eases the doeumcnU con-
tained In UM administrative record, to par-
ticular the fact sheet or •(•icment of bsaki
and th* response to comments. abeuM ads-
•juaUly discharge Uus burden.
(3) The Agency has the burden of
going forward to present an affirma-
tive case In support of any challenged
condition of a final permit.
, (3) Any hearing participant who. by
raising material Issues of fact, con-
lends:
III That particular conditions or re-
qulremenu In the permit are Improper
or Invalid, and who desires either
(At The Inclusion of new or different
conditions or requirements; or
The deletion of those conditions
XI oc requirements; or
III) That the denial or Issuance of a
| permit Is otherwise Improper or In-
valid. shall have the burden of going
1 forward to present an affirmative case
~~-J at the conclusion >:' ••?"> Agency case
on the challenged requirement.
(b) The Presiding Officer shall con-
duct a fair and Impartial hearing, take
action to avoid unnecessary delay In
the disposition of the proceedings, and
maintain order. For these purposes.
the Presiding Officer may:
(I) Arrange and Issue notice of the
date. time, and place of hearings and
conferences;
<» Establish the methods and proce-
dures to be used In the development of
the evidence;
(I) Prepare, alter considering the
views of the participant*, written
statements of areas of factual dis-
agreement among the participants;
(4) Hold conferences to settle, sim-
plify. determine, or strike any of the
Issues In a hearing, or to consider
other maltera that may facilitate the
expeditious disposition of the hearing;
(ft) Administer oaths and affirma-
tions;
(•I Regulate the course of the hear-
ing and govern the conduct of partici-
pants:
ill Eiamlne witnesses;
§ 134.15
(SI Identify and refer Issues for In-
terlocutory decision under 11344*0;
(91 Rule on. admit, exclude, or limit
evidence:
(10) EslablUh the time for filing mo-
tions, testimony, and other written
evidence, briefs, findings, and other
submissions;
(ll» Rule on motions and other pro-
cedural matters pending before him.
Including but not limited to motions
for summary determination In accord-
ance with | 124.94;
(I2> Order that the hearing be con-
ducted In stages whenever the number
of parlies to Urge or the Issues are nu-
merous and complex:
(19) Take any action not Inconsist-
ent with the provisions of this subparl
for Ihe maintenance of order at the
hearing and for the expeditious, fair.
and Impartial conduct of the proceed-
ing;
(14) Provide for Ihe testimony of op-
posing witnesses lo be heard simulta-
neously or for such witnesses to meet
outside Ihe hearing lo resolve or Iso-
late Issues or conllkts;
(IS) Order thai trade secrets be
Ireated as confidential business Inlor
msllon In accordance with || 132.1
(NPDESI and 270.I2URCRA) and 40
CPR Part 2; and
(1C) Allow such cross-examination as
may be required for a'full and Irue dis-
closure of Ihe facts. No cross-examina-
tion shall be allowed on questions of
policy except to the extent required to
disclose the factual basis for permit re-
quirements, or on questions of law. or
regarding matters (such as (lie validity
of effluent limitations guidelines) thsl
are not subject to challenge In an evi-
dentiary hearing. No Agency witnesses
shall be required to testify or be made
available for cross examination on
such maltera. In deciding whether or
not lo allow cross-examination, the
Presiding Officer shall consider (he
likelihood of clarifying or resolving a
disputed Issue of material fact com-
pared lo olher available methods. The
party seeking cross-examination has
the burden of demonstrating that this
standard has been mel.
(c) All direct and rebuttal evidence
at an evidentiary hearing shall be sub-
milled In written form, unless, upon
motion and good cause shown. Hie
173
§ I24.M
Presiding Officer determines that oral
presentation of the evidence on any
particular fact will materially asslsl In
Ihe efficient Identification and clarifi-
cation of Ihe Issues. Written testimony
shall be prepared In narrative form.
(dNI) The Presiding Officer shall
admll all relevant, competent, and ma-
terial evidence, except evidence thai Is
unduly repetitious. Evidence may be
received at any hearing even though
Inadmissible under the rules of evi-
dence applicable lo Judicial proceed-
ings. The welghl lo be given evidence
shall be determined by Its reliability
and probative value.
(2) The administrative record re-
quired by | I24.lt shall be admitted
and received In evidence. Upon motion
by any party the Presiding Officer
may direct that a witness be provided
to sponsor a portion or portions of Ihe
administrative record. The Presiding
Officer, upon finding that the stand-
ards In | !24.U(bM3) have been mel.
shall direct the appropriate parly lo
produce Ihe witness for cross-examliia-
lion. If a sponsoring witness cannot be
provided, the Presiding Officer may
reduce the welghl accorded the appro-
priate portion of Ihe record.
Non: Recelvlni (he administrative record
Into evidence automatically serves aeveral
purpose*: (11 II document* the prior couise
•f the proceedlnss: i2Hl provides a record
of Ihe views of affected persons lor consld-
eiatton by the asency declslonmafeer: and
11) It provides factual material for use by
(he declslofunaker.
(3) Whenever any evidence or tesll-
mony la excluded by Ihe Presiding Of-
ficer as Inadmissible, all such evidence
or testimony existing In written form
shall remain a part of Ihe record as an
offer of proof. The parly seeking Ihe
admission of oral lesllmony may make
an offer of proof, by means of a brief
statement on the record describing the
testimony excluded.
(4) When two or more parlies have
aubslanllally similar Interests and po-
sitions, the Presiding Officer may
limit the number of attorneys or olher
party representatives who will be per-
mitted lo cross-examine and lo make
and argue motions and objections on
behalf of lliose parlies. Attorneys
may. however, engage In cross-exainl-
nation relevant lo mailers not ade-
40 CM Ch. I (7.1-M Edition)
quately covered by previous cross-ex-
amination.
(St Rulings of the Presiding Officer
on the admtsslbilliy of evidence or les
llmony. Ihe propriety of cross-exami-
nation, and other procedural matters
shall appear In thr record and shall
control lui liter proceedings, unless re-
versed as a result of an Interlocutory
appeal taken under 1124.90.
(6) All objections shall be made
promptly or be deemed waived. Parlies
shall be presumed lo have laken ex-
ception lo an adverse ruling. No objec-
tion shall be deemed waived by fur-
ther participation In the hearing.
(e) Admttiton of evidence on eitvl-
ronmenfaf impact* If a hearing Is
granted under this subpart for a new
source subject to NEPA. the Presiding
Officer may admit evidence relevant
lo any environmental Impacts of the
permuted facility If Ihe evidence
would be relevant lo the Agency's obli-
gation under | I22.29(CM3>. If the
source holds a final KPA-Usuetl
RCRA. PSD. or UIC permit, or an
ocean dumping permit under Hie
Marine Protection. Research, and
Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA). no such
evidence shsll be admitted nor shall
cross-examination be allowed relating
lo:
(I) Effects on air quality. (3) effects
attributable lit underground injection
or hazardous waste management prac-
tices, or (3) effects of ocean dumping
subject lo Ihe MPRSA. which were
considered or could have been consul
ered In Ihe PSD. RCRA. UIC. or
MPRSA permll Issuance proceedings.
However. Ihe presiding officer may
admll without cross-examination or
any supporting witness relevant por- ,
lions of the revord of PSD. RCRA.
UIC. or MPRSA permll Issuance pro-
ceedings.
MS FH MM4. Apr I. !»•). as amended at «S
PR IMS]. Sept. as. IM4I
II24.M Motion*.
(at Any party may file a motion iin-
cluding a motion to dismiss a particu-
lar claim on a contested Issue i with
the Presiding Officer on any ntallrr
relating lo Ihe proceeding. All motion*
shall be In writing and served as i»io
vlded In 1124.10 except lliose made un
174
-------
•rotocHon
the record durlni an oral hearing
before the Presiding Officer.
Ib) Within 10 days after service of
any written motion, any part to the
proceeding may file a response lo the
motion. The time for response may be
shortened lo 3 day* or extended for an
additional 10 days by the Presiding
Officer for food cauae ahown.
Id Notwithstanding | in A. any
party may file with the Presiding Offi-
cer a motion seeking to apply to the
permit any regulatory or statutory
provision Issued or made available
after the Issuance of the permit under
1124.11. The Presiding Officer shall
grant any motion to apply a new statu-
tory provision unless he or she finds It
^contrary to legislative Intent. The Pre-
siding Officer may grant a motion lo
apply a new regulatory requirement
when appropriate to carry out the pur-
pose of CWA. and when no patty
would b* unduly prejudiced thereby.
XflSitT stecstdaflMartegs.
\ la) All orders Issued by the Presiding
Q Officer, transcripts of oral hearings or
arguments, written statements of posi-
tion, written direct and rebuttal testi-
mony, and any other data, studies, re-
ports, documentation. Information and
other written material of any kind
submitted In the proceeding shall be a
part of the hearing record and shall be
available to the public except as pro-
vided In || 122.7 and 370.12
IRCRA). In the Office of the Regional
Hearing Clerk, as soon as It It received
In that office.
Evidentiary hearings shall be
either stenographlcally reported ver-
batim or tape recorded, and thereupon
transcribed. After the hearing, the re-
porter shall certify and file with the
Regional Hearing Clerk:
(I) The original of the transcript.
and
(2) The exhibits received or offered
Into evidence at the hearing.
10 The Regional Hearing Clerk shall
promptly notify each of the parties of
the filing of the certified transcript of
proceedings. Any party who desires a
copy of the transcript of the hearing
may obtain a copy of the hearing tran-
script from the Regional Hearing
Clerk upon payment of costs.
I I24.M
Id) The Presiding Officer shall allow
witnesses, parties, and their counsel an
opportunity to submit such written
proposed corrections of the transcript
of any oral testimony taken al the
hearing, pointing out errors that may
have been made In transcribing the
testimony, as are required lo make the
transcript conform to the testimony.
Except In unusual cases, no more than
M days shall be allowed for submitting
such corrections from Ihe day a com-
plete transcript of the hearing be-
i available.
fMSlags of fscl aad
• I24.U
ef.
Within 46 days after the certified
transcript to filed, any party may file
with the Regional Hearing Clerk pro-
posed findings of fact and conclusions
of tew and a brief In support thereof.
Briefs shall contain appropriate refer-
ences to the record. A copy of these
findings, conclusions, and brief shall
be served upon all the other parties
and the Presiding Officer. The Presid-
ing Officer, for good cause shown, msy
extend the tune for filing the pro-
posed findings and conclusions and/or
the brief. The Presiding Officer may
allow reply briefs. *
• HIM DecWem.
la) The Presiding Officer shall
review and evaluate the record. Includ-
ing the proposed findings and conclu-
sions. any briefs filed by the parties.
and any Interlocutory decisions under
I I34.M) and shall Issue and file his Ini-
tial decision with l|ie Regional Hear-
ing Clerk. The Regional Hearing Clerk
shall Immediately serve copies of the
Initial decision upon all parties (or
their counsel of record) and the Ad-
ministrator. '
Ib) The Initial decision of the Presid-
ing Officer shall automatically become
the final decision 30 days after IU
service unless within thai lime:
IDA party files a petition for review
by the Administrator pursuant to
I I24.tl: or
111 The Admlnlslrslor sua jponir
files a notice lhal he or she will review
Hie decision pursuant Co | 124.01.
175
1134.90
• II4.M NUrl«c«l»rr s»s«al.
la) Except as provided In this sec-
lion, appeals lo the Admliilslralor may
be taken only under 1124.01. Appeals
from orders or rulings may be taken
under this section only If the Presid-
ing Officer, upon motion of a party.
certifies those orders or rulings to tlie
Administrator for appeal on the
record. Requests lo the Presiding Offi-
cer for certification musl be filed In
writing within 10 days of service of
notice of Ihe order, ruling, or decision
and shall slate briefly the grounds
relied on.
Ib) The Presiding Officer may certi-
fy an order or ruling for appeal lo the
Administrator If:
II) The order or ruling Involves an
Important question on which Ihere b
•ubslanllal ground for difference of
opinion, and
12) Either: II) An Immediate appeal
of the order or ruling will materially
advance Ihe ultimate completion of
the proceeding; or
ill) A review after the final order Is
Issued will be Inadequate or Ineffec-
tive.
IO If the Administrator decides that
certification was Improperly granted.
he or she shall decline lo hear Ihe
appeal. The Administrator shall
accept or decline all Interlocutory ap-
peals within 30 days of their submis-
sion: If the Administrator lakes no
action within thai lime, the appeal
shall be automatically dismissed.
When Ihe Presiding Officer declines
to certify an order or ruling lo Ihe Ad-
mlnlslralor for an Interlocutory
appeal. It may be reviewed by the Ad-
ministrator only upon appeal from the
Initial decision of the Presiding Offi-
cer, except when the Administrator
determines, upon motion of a party
and In exceptional circumstances, lhal
to delay review would nol be In the
public Interest. Such motion shall be
made within ft days after receipt of no-
llflcatlon lhal the Presiding Officer
has refused lo certify an order or
ruling for Interlocutory appeal to the
Admlnlslrator. Ordinarily, the Inter-
locutory appeal will be decided on the
basis of the submissions made to the
Presiding Officer. The Administrator
may. however, allow briefs and oral ar-
gument.
40 Cf * CK. I (7-1-49 Edit!**)
(di In exceptional circumstances, the
Presiding Officer may stay the pro-
ceeding pending a decision by the Ad-
ministrator upon an order or ruling
certified by the Presiding Officer for
an Interlocutory appeal, or upon the
denial of such certification by the Pre-
siding Officer.
-------
review, the Administrator aha! I IMUC
an order either granting or denying
the petition for review. When the Ad-
ministrator grants • petition for
review or determines under paragraph
Upon granting * petition for
review, the Regional Hearing Cbrk
•hall promptly forward a copy of the
record to the Judicial Officer and
•hall retain a complete duplicate copy
of the record In the Regional Office.
1d> Notwithstanding the grant of a
petition for review or a determination
' ' under paragraph of this aecUon to
""review a decision, the Administrator
'• nay summarily affirm without opin-
ion and Initial decision or the denial of
_i- a requeat for an evidentiary hearing.
->— (e) A petition to the Administrator
under paragraph (a) of this section for
review of any Initial decision or the
denial of an evidentiary hearing Is.
under • U.S.C. 704. a prerequisite to
the Keeking of Judicial review of the
final decision of the Agency.
If a party timely file* a petition
for review or If the Administrator •••
•ponte orders review, then, for pur-
poses of judicial review, final Agency
.action on an Issue occurs as follows:
(I) If the Administrator denies
review or summarily affirms without
opinion as provided In | I34.*l(d>.
then the Initial decision or denial be-
cornea the final Agency action and
occurs upon the service of notice of
the Administrator's action.
<» If the Administrator Issues a de-
cision without remanding the proceed-
ing then the final permit, redrafted as
required by the Administrator's origi-
nal decision, shall be reissued and
served upon all parties to the appeal.
<3l If the Administrator Issues a de-
cision remanding the proceeding, then
final Agency action oecun upon com-
pletion of the remanded proceeding.
Including any appeals to the Adminis-
trator from the results of the remand-
ed proceeding.
<•> The petitioner may file a brief In
support of the petition within 21 days
after the Administrator has granted a
petition for review. Any other party
may file a responsive brief within 31
9124.111
days of service of the petitioner's
brief. The petitioner then may file a
reply brief within 14 days of service of
the responsive brief. Any person may
file an smtciu 6rte/ for the consider-
ation of the Administrator within the
same time periods that govern reply
briefs. If the Administrator deter-
mines. »um iponte. to review an Initial
Regional Administrator's decision or
the denial of a request for an eviden-
tiary hearing, the Administrator shsll
notify the parties of the schedule for
filing briefs.
(h) Review by the Administrator of
an Initial decision or the denial of an
evidentiary hearing shall be limited to
the Issues specified under paragraph
(a) of this section, except that after
notice to all parties, the Administrator
may raise and decide other matters
which he or she considers material on
the basis of the record.
177
-------
•ll
.(. .
•I
I .
I J.
.I,.
4 j«JH| ,». .»
t Iliuqi Hi.
I?! I
I
o
-------
PERMIT NO. FL0041173
Minor Non-POTW
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION IV
AUTHORIZATION TO DISCHARGE UNDER THE
NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM
./ the Provisi°ns of the Clean Water Act, as
amended (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.; the "Act"),
AES Cedar Bay, Inc.
1001 North 19th Street
Suite 2000
Arlington, VA 22209
is authorized to discharge from a facility located at
Cedar Bay Cogeneration Project
9469 Eastport Road
Duval County
Jacksonville, Florida 32218
to receiving waters named
St. Johns and Broward Rivers
in accordance with effluent limitations, monitoring
requirements, and other conditions set forth herei?. The
permit consists of this cover sheet, Part I 6 pages Part IT
11 pages, Part III 1 pages and Attachment A. ^ '
This permit shall become effective on October 1, 1992.
to
July 22, 1992
Date Issued
W. Ray Cunningham, Director
Water Management Division
-------
PART I
A. EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS - FINAL
1.
Page 1-1
Permit No. FL0041173
st> JohM Rlver via the '
2. The PH shall not be less than 6.5 standard units nor greater than 8.5 standard units. V
3- ss? as a rvsffira^.sn-'-'0- ta other than
it Serial number assigned for identification and nonitoring purposes; the discharge is intermittent.
^^^ sh.U ta
-------
PART I
Page 1-2
Permit Ho. PL0041173
B.
EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS - FINAL
^ -Va°dtin9 *s~* the
Such discharges shall be limited and monitored by the permittee as specified below,
PARAMETER
DISCHARGE LIMITATIpMS
Instantaneous " -
Report
50 2/
Report
Report
Report
Report
Report
Report
Report
Report
Report
Report
Report
Report
See item 7,
MONITORING REQUTRRMRMTg
Measurement:
Flow, MGD
Total Suspended Solids, mg/1
Total Recoverable Copper, mg/1 3_/
Total Recoverable Zinc, mg/1 3_/
Total Recoverable Mercury, mo/1 3/
Total Recoverable Arsenic, mg/1 f/
Total Recoverable Antimony, mg/1 3_/
Total Recoverable Beryllium, mg/1 3/
Total Recoverable Cadmium, mg/1 3/
Total Recoverable Lead, mg/1 3/ ~
Total Recoverable Nickel, mg/1 3/
Phenol, mg/1 3_/
Naphthalene, mg/1 3_/
Toluene, mg/1 3_/
Additional Monitoring
2.
3.
4. Limitations and monitoring requirements are not applicable during periods
5.
page 1-3,
I/Week
I/Week
1/2 Weeks
1/2 Weeks
1/2 Weeks
1/2 Weeks
1/2 Weeks
1/2 Weeks
1/2 Weeks
1/2 Weeks
1/2 Weeks
1/2 Weeks
1/2 Weeks
1/2 Weeks
I/day of discharge
Sample Type
Pump Logs
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
a grab
for
°"
of no discharge.
year, the permittee shall provide
CONTINUED
-------
Page 1-3
Permit No. FL0041173
PART I
B. EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS - FINAL (Continued)
6.
7.
ass*
Total Suspended Solids
Total Recoverable Copper
Total Recoverable Arsenic
Total Recoverable Beryllium
Total Recoverable Chromium
Total Recoverable Nickel
Naphthalene
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (5-day)
Dissolved Oxygen
Phosphorus
Total Recoverable Mercury
Total Recoverable Zinc
Total Recoverable Antimony
Total Recoverable Cadmium
Total Recoverable Lead
Phenol
Toluene
Total Organic Carbon
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
Oil and Grease
iHter»Ute»£al
£°r """""""on ">d »°nitorlng purpo.es, the discharge Is
2/ Applicable to any flow up to the flow reBulting from a 10-year, 24-hr storm event.
17
-------
Page 1-4
Permit No. FL0041173
PART I
C. EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS - FINAL
1.
5SS&
Such discharges shall be limited
PARAMETER
and monitored by the permittee as specified below:
Flow,
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
MGD
Suspended Solids, mg/1
Recoverable Copper, 3_/ mg/1
Recoverable Zinc, mg/1 3_/
Recoverable Mercury, mg/1 3/
Recoverable ArsenS,' mg/1 I/
Recoverable Antimony, mg/1 3/
Recoverable Beryllium, mg/1 I/
Recoverable Cadmium, mg/1 I/
Recoverable Lead, mg/1 3/
MONITOR™*
50 2/
Report
Report
Report
Maximum Measurement
Sample Type
Puinp
Weeks
T/2 I£5
Report
Report
Report
Reoort
2
\/l
Grab
Grab
,
Additional Monitoring
2. The pH shall not be less than 6.5
3. There
shall
. 6. page M. i//di~talg.
standard units nor greater than 8.5 standard units
'ater!"
--
I
Ji
CONTINUED
-------
C. EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS - FINAL (continued) *£«"*,. FL0041173
4. Monitoring requirements are not applicabie during periods of no discharge
''S^^^&SSS&SS&^vss.'
r>T^OT™m tatA ^^^«» _&. . *• + •
Total RcverablCopTOr m°5af Recoverabl« Mercury
Total Recoverable Art^lc 1°+*} Recov*rable Zinc
Total Recoverable Beryllium «°5af Recoverable Antimony
Total Recoverabll ChSiluT * Recovera"« CadmW
Carbon
Phosphorus T?tal KJeldahl Nitrogen
Oil and Grease
^ and suited with the
•
*« identification and .onitoring purposes; the disch«ge is
SSSS3 tc%SdrS:^! U °nly ra"Uired wh™ • •"-*«»• occurs, see Part ,„., for
-------
Page 1-6
Permit No. FL0041173
PART I
D. SCHEDULE OF COMPLIANCE
1. The permittee shall achieve compliance with the effluent
limitations specified for discharges in accordance with the
following schedule: .
a. Attainment of effluent limitations Start of Discharge
b. Erosion and sediment control plan (Part IIZ.C)
(1) Implement Effective date of permit
(2) Reports Semiannually, starting six months after the
effective date of the permit
c. Retention Pond Volume Reports Annually by December 28th
2. No later than 14 calendar days following a date identified in the
above schedule of compliance, the permittee shall submit either a
report of progress or, in the case of specific actions being
required by identified dates, a written notice of compliance or
noncompliance. In the latter case, the notice shall include the
cause of noncompliance, any remedial actions taken, and the
probability of meeting the next scheduled requirement.
H-n
-------
(bknfc)
H
-------
Part II
Page II-l
Part II
STANDARD CONDITIONS FOR NPDES PERMITS
ggcriou a rFfa»AT. rrrrmntn
P-,
P«n«lti.. ^ $2°sJJVo s*?/ nSJ™11* COBdi*l°n li .Sbi..^.. P'rgon wh'
• <.. ""™ „
•
n-n
-------
Part n
Page n-2
• —- — ^
If th« pernitt«« b«liavB« t-K-*
^^^'^^^^^P^^S^SS1^^^^
C f+ t __ * «
Civil «H1 ^rtni|pnl U|ll|lKj,
7.
:utio
8.
•*"'
v t;
H-ZO
-------
Part ir
Page u-3
11• Severabilltv
12-
to provide
terminating this permit Sr
The P««itt.« sha^l also furnis
upon request, copies of recoV.Te^irea
and
with
«ppurt«n«ne«»)
wih
and fflaintain all
nt and control (and
2.
th. condition, ct h p.t
to B.lnt.ln
3.
Definitions)
•.tabli.h.d
!TV
-------
Part n
Page 11-4
*>• Bypas. not exceeding limitation..
»»— . .»_ * _
Notice
(1) £!iciP"«d. byp««.
'"
d- Prohibition of byp«M
'"
dovntl,; Thi. nT,Uril!' ner"«1 P«iods o
backup •cuipB.nt .hoS?2 Jicn vU not «»tis£ied I
of r.«.on«M« enoln^?. *V! ^n in«««U«l In the
which occurred dur*in« lB* ,^ud9«»«n« to
or r^ 1ltlod' °f
und.r
n a'
a- ( i) of this section.
H-2Z.
-------
Part xi
Page xi
Uoaeta
5-
SECTION C. MOIITWtp^ pap Rp^oppc.
Samples and
measurements
2- Plow
~ con.i.t.»t with
true, dltchaig* rate, tlurouah^^! deviation of lea. than ±10%
H-23
-------
Part ii
p«g« II-
"'
SD catalog No. 'cut" M!^""' "»««^toSJ D.i**Soi8
(2) "Water Meaiurement Manual- n v
'
si- »
VA
M)
Federal Center tnv.r, o. BO'JSS!" Sarvlc"' «»i"
3-
n8t „. , »K "0.000
5-
sasSas^aw-sss-;-:
-------
Record
'•cor*. of ,o»itorlng
w.r.
vho
or
7<
The
re.ult. of ,uch an.ly,!,
b. Have
c.
d.
1.
The p«raitte« •hall
H-ZS
Part n
Page 11-7
asa v, -
-------
Part II
Page 11-9
3- aanyftr of own..-..,!,. -r r-nm1
b. autOB.tlcally
. if this
effective on the dat.
paragraph b.
th.
or revoke and reiss::
,fec0ived' th« trans fe|
in the. agreement- mentioned I
permit.
See Part in O£ thi.
5' ^d***°"fl1 MnnftePf.T ^ .^ rr,-,,,,,,,^
increased frequency shall als
6. Av
Ca
\H° ef°/n
issuing Authority iVth"
.vermin,
°therwis«
-------
Tventy-fnnr Hnup .-^^
Page 11.9
saw
the
._ any emu.nt
9.
The permittee
<"°nehundred '
nJicrograms
11 ^-]
-------
Part II
Page ix-i:
complete. T »~ .....__ ^?* an.a Belief, trua. «,--. * ' cc
of fine and for knowing violation* 5-
14' ^mf^ for ral.iM^flTt^n nf p|||||||i
SECTTQM P DgPTVTTnr5
:' Permit T^gulf^g ^^^y^^
«• _^ a
ss-s:""^.
"V-'
-------
Part
(1)
'
®^-£$£s&& ESj^^gfiSte
SMawa^-^&s.'/S
b.
in
to the
c.
-------
Part ii
pag« II-
--yw Ai-
'"
-»• -/ *.wt acroieln j
Z-IXZ:&°.««!
a.
Where EPA ia th. p P«rn4.t expiration date.
P"r"16 b'f°r
12.
^f i{application,
Authority .naj.1 c« «iff««^i ..j~^r_w-w.".."»««i«t«a to the ?e~
.ppllCMlon.
-------
•Part II
Page 11-13
3. Mass/Day
I?? tfWff ^Cekly dlschar9«" i« defined as the total mass of
Sik 2i SiSh^rfi9*'-?"1? 1-d and/°r oe"u"d during the calendar
bv thS n^if^ ^J1^?1*^1?0* ar* '^P1^ »nd measured, divided
such SeS^f*. *f daiiy diachar9" sampled and/or measured during
It.1«' therefore, an arithmetic mean found by adding
of °llutants found each day of the week and
!
column under -Quantity on the DMR.
ma3clffl¥» d*ily discharge- is the total mas. (weight) of
an r on(ly o9ne
tak.n dkn-r90 Ur?g 5 caland« d*y- « only one pie
cllcullted ^ri™9*^ c!iendar d*y **• ^ight of pollutSnt
calculated from it is the -maximum daily discharae" This
limitation is identified as -Daily Maximum*, ia ^ Part I of thl
P^tod l?££&m££*h.Fl?m ~o«toddi.S;«5f report ing
"Parted in th« -Maxim- -
P £*.F?m ~o«todd.« report ing
the DKR? "Parted in th« -Maximum- column under -Quantity en
d. The -aver**, annual discharge- is a rolling average equal to
.*« «* +*- mags measured in all discharges
cona*cutiv« reporting periods which
*raMt«" t"at are measVred at least
ave"9« «ha^ *>• computed at the er.i
tO the arithffl«tic «•*« of the monthly
•
-------
A Part II
Caa£9aSM"*ute««SfflaM,
«««S5££5-.SsS£S'.£15s
Th« 'av«r-«^ «na«r "Quality of tiT^JL* repor~«
h *''"*• JO V^0)r)*> ' * ^«0 OMR r>»*. »«
—""• woxunn undA —••»•** «uti
."
rt7. i?^""*1 "ne.ntr4tion. T °" the cxs-
«rt7. i?^""*1 "ne.ntr4tion. T °" the cxs-
-------
Part It
Pag« 11-15
5. Other
ass sr jras" "" " •• »
Tvpea of
collection of th« previoaiiL'^i?? or total flow
manually or automatically *llquot ..... Al-iquot. may b« collected
SB a
— ""
equivalent to the ant i !«««*?? ? geometric mean
H-33
-------
Part II
Page Il
« Calendar Da
ot
s
9.
und«
1". Toxle
-------
Page III-l
Permit No. FL0041173
Part III
Jther Requirements
A. Reporting of Monitoring Results
Monitoring results obtained for each calendar month shall be
?SS?aSiZe«aSd,fep°5Jed °2 a Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR) Form
iuar^', 2 1' J !Se form8 sha11 be submitted after each calendar
quarter and postmarked no later than the 28th day of the month
following +*» completed calendar quarter. (For example, data for
» Ti 8ubmitted bY April 28.) Calendar quarters are
April-June, July-September, and October-December.
nf !>„•«. TT « ° these' and ftH other reports required by Section D
?L,,? "'Reporting Requirements, shall be submitted to the Permit
Issuing Authority at the following address: *«»«
Environmental Protection Agency
Region IV
Enforcement Section
Water Permits and Enforcement Branch
Water Management Division
345 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, GA 30365
uce«« « , be ao ri
upon cessation of discharge. This notification shall be in writing
Additional
. , "ut that no
C* Erosion and Sediment Con^rnl
SS
«»trol
contamina^dnof su °rn "S"116"8"^ for
of active
H-35
-------
Page III-2
Permit No. FLO041173
procedures shall be a part of this permit. Control facilities to be
used should include, but not necessarily be limited to, ponds
swales, dikes, silt curtains, riprap barriers and use of minimal
slopes. Stabilization and revegetation (seeding sodding) of
disturbed areas should be accomplished as soon as practicable after
final grade is achieved. Should construction phase runoff pose a
implemented**6* quality' addi*ional measures shall be expeditiously
A. resP°n8ible rePres®ntative of Cedar Bay Cogeneration Project (CBCP1
snail be designated to supervise this program, with necessary
authority to expeditiously implement corrective action should
problems be encountered. To assure that the plan and all control
X £ * ar? in Pr°Per operation, this representative shall tour
the site not less than once per week and during any significant
rainfall event. A permanent log of dates of observations, dates of
entries, dates of actions, corrective actions required, actions
taken, and implementation of corrective actions shall be maintained
on site.
D. Erodible Material
The permittee shall not store coal, soil, nor other similar erodible
oSn!f lftl!« n * man?e? in which runoff is uncontrolled, nor conduct
construction activities in a manner which produces uncontrolled
^ 5? ! 8UCh uncontrolled runoff has been specifically approved
the Director. "Uncontrolled" shall mean without sedimentation
? ?r ?ontr?ls approved by the Director. This permit may be
to include limitations for the discharge from such Y
facilities, when installed.
E« Detection Limits
If the concentration of a parameter is not detected usinc* the
applicable test method, the permittee shall report on the discharge
?22i^iSg*f P0?t.£orn« thf analvtical results as being measured It
iU! 5 ? ??e minimuin level for ^e test method selected; the test
method shall also be reported.
F- Total Recoverable Metals and Phenolic Compounds Monitoy^ry
1. For Outfalls 003 and/or 008, the following parameter shall be
River? durin9 discharge to Outfall. 001 thence the St. Johns
Total Recoverable Copper, Total Recoverable Zinc, Total
Recoverable Mercury, Total Recoverable Arsenic, Total Recoverable
Antimony, Total Recoverable Beryllium, Total Recoverable Cadmium?
Recoverable Nickel, Phenol,
-------
Page III-3
Permit No. FL0041173
2. For Outfalls 003 and/or 008, the following parameters shall be
monitored during emergency overflow discharge to the Broward
Rivers
Total Recoverable Copper, Total Recoverable Zinc, Total
Recoverable Mercury, Total Recoverable Arsenic, Total Recoverable
Antimony, Total Recoverable Beryllium, Total Recoverable Cadmium,
Total Recoverable Lead, Total Recoverable Nickel, Phenol,
Naphthalene, Toluene, Biochemical Oxygen Demand (5-Day), Total
Organic Carbon, Dissolved Oxygen, Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen,
Phosphorus, and Oil & Grease
The monitoring period shall be defined as a six month period,
beginning on the first day of discharge, or the time required to
obtain monitoring data from six discharge events, which ever occurs
first. Based on results, the permittee may request that the
monitoring frequency for any of the above pollutants be reduced or
deleted. EPA may modify the permit to-include an effluent limitation
or any other appropriate permit conditions, if at any time during the
monitoring period the sample data indicate that the effluent is
contributing to a Class III water quality standard violation.
U-37
-------
./
f
'
SITE LOCATION - 1-MILE
(JACKSONVILLE. FLORIDA
• ••* i o
51
-------
JUL-22-1992 10:21 FROM HER TflLLftHftSSEE TO ENU.PROT.flGENCY P.02
m Florida Department of Environmental Regulation
TWin Towers Office Bldg. • 2600 Blair Stone Road • Tallahassee, Florida 52399-240O
Lavton Chiles. Governor Carol M. Brownct. Secretary
July 22, 1992
Mr. James H. Scarbrough, Chief
Water Permits and Enforcement Branch
United States Environmental
Protection Agency
345 courtland street, Northeast
Atlanta, Georgia 30308
9
Re: Waiver of State Certification
AES Cedar Bay, Incorporated/ Cedar Bay
Cogeneration Project
FL004X173
Dear Mr. Scarbrough:
On September 17, 1991, the EPA recjuested state certification of the
draft NPDES permit for the AES Cedar Bay cogeneration facility
discharges during construction located in Duval County, Florida
(FL0041173). This letter provides official notification that the
state reaffirms its waiver of certification for this permit. All
ef fluent. Oimits_in. the NPDES permit are. at. least, as.-stringent as
those specified in the state's permit for this facility.
Although the Department issued a letter dated November 13, 1991,
waiving certification, several changes have been made since that
time to the draft NPDES permit. Upon subsequent review of these
changes, -the Department finds the modifications resulted in a more
stringent set of monitoring requirements, thus sustaining the basis
for the original waiver letter.
If you have any questions regarding this facility, please contact
Jan Mandrup-Poulsen at 904/488-4520. *
Sincerely,
tobert E. Heilman, P.E., Chief
Bureau of Water Facilities
Planning and Regulation
REH/jmp
cc: Jerry Owen
-------
%
'< •no"
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION IV
345 COURTLAND STREET. N.E.
ATLANTA. GEORGIA 3O365
FACT SHEET AMENDMENT
RW^IVBD DURING
- MARCH '18, 1992
**
FEBRUARY o,
NPDES PERMIT NUMBER: FL0041173 DATE:
NAME OF APPLICANT: AES/Cedar Bay, Inc.
to March IB, 1992.
e
.
discharge from Outfall 003 §u«aiJP§Ji°able durin» Periods of
Recoverable Antimmy Total
Recoverable Cadmira
Phenol,
Paoe ?-•>.
additional
discharge periods
states:
Total Suspended Solids
Total Recoverable Copper
££*?• ?ecove«*le Arsenic
Total Recoverable Beryllium
Total Recoverable Chromium
Total Recoverable Nickel
Naphthalene
Biochemical Oxygen Demand
Dissolved Oxygen
Phosphorus
Arsenic , Total
Be'llimn'
T°tal "«»~"M.
«to
P™™ i°:?ear' 24'hr "infall
Broward River. However, during
1 monitor for the
by grab sample:
Total Recoverable Mercury
Total Recoverable 2inc
Total Recoverable Antimony
Total Recoverable Cadmium
Total Recoverable Lead
Phenol
Toluene
Total Organic Carbon
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
Oil and Grease
Pnnieti on
-------
-2-
Unit of measure shall be mg/1 and the results shall "be attached
to and submitted with the Discharge Monitoring Report form
(DMR). See Part III.F for additional permit conditions.
Footnote jjj, which is referenced on page 1-1, was added- It
refers to the monitoring requirements for the metals and
phenolic compounds on page 1-1. It statess
•Monitoring for this parameter is only required when a discharge
occurs.*
c. Paoe 1-3. Monitoring requirements for Outfall 008 were added
for the same pollutants listed in l.a. of this amended fact
sheet.
d. Pace 1-4. The same language mentioned in l.b. of this amended
fact sheet was added.
e. Page III-2. Item E. was added. It states:
*
•If the concentration of a parameter is not detected using the
applicable test method, the permittee shall report on the
discharge monitoring report form, the analytical results as
being measured at less than the minimum level for the test
method selected; the test method shall also be reported."
f. Pace III-3. item F was added. It states:
"1. For Outfalls 003 and/or 008, the following parameters
shall be monitored during discharge to Outfall 001 thence
the St. Johns River:
Total Recoverable Copper, Total Recoverable Zinc, Total
Recoverable Mercury, Total Recoverable Arsenic, Total
Recoverable Antimony, Total Recoverable Beryllium, Total
Recoverable Cadmium, Total Recoverable Lead, Total
Recoverable Nickel, Phenol, Naphthalene, and Toluene
2. For Outfalls 003 and/or 008, the following parameters
shall be monitored during emergency overflow discharge to
the Broward River:
Total Recoverable Copper, Total Recoverable Zinc, Total
Recoverable Mercury, Total Recoverable Arsenic, Total
Recoverable Antimony, Total Recoverable Beryllium, Total
Recoverable Cadmium, Total Recoverable Lead, Total
Recoverable Nickel, Phenol, Naphthalene, Toluene, Biochemical
Oxygen Demand (5-Day), Total Organic Carbon, Dissolved
Oxygen, Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen, Phosphorus, and Oil & Grease
-------
-3-
2. Public Commen-fce
comments received during the comment period'
3. State
by letter dated July 22, 1992
-------
DISCEAR3E MCN1TORIN3 REPORT
GEMERAL PTgmxnCKS FOR
2* ^?P3£^0n f* ^Ported va1 ^r
tns conputiid values must be entered.
3- Quantity or. Loading, ti**
is tte total of the ~
.calculated. 'measurejtBnt
? number of dayji-iflurfng the-ionth ti«
mo ea3m1a*-i:«We^*iii.'.vj.t-:_r_ _•-•-_.
«»
the OooitionC.)
te inaicated on tte mR.
•
.Knlt°ri"9.o£ jarareters at
the al^«'5 «»lytlcal
incressecf fregiency feould
MBasutMBat
minimum, 7-<3ay
Juried, including
enter "0".
and
*•
that €3CCBed (««d»am and/or
f-nt. for each paranEterT
exoepticns during the reporting
limits, if. none occurredTthsn
« .«port »st still
th. face of tte oat
°HicB
copy on file at
-------
-------
'-I
' r.
UAME. /auY stlnson
ADDRESS AES/Cedar Bay^ Inc.
9469 East port Road ~" ' ~
Jacksonville, FL
FACIIITY AES/Cedar B.ay Cage
IOCATION Jack3£nvl_]jL_e_, FL
PARAMETER
H1-JJI
LOW, IN CONDUIT OR
'HRU TREATMENT PLANT
.0050 1 0
:FFLUENT GROSS VALUE
OLID3, TOTAL
USPENDED
10530 1 0
:FFLUENT GROSS VALUE
'M
10400 1 0
:FFLUENT GROSS VALUE
'otal Recoverable
lopper
11119 1 0
:FFLUENT GROSS VALUE
IERCURY
'OTAL RECOVERABLE
1901 1 0
AFFLUENT GROSS VALUE
VRSENIC, TOTAL
tECOVERABLE
10978 1 0
AFFLUENT GROSS VALUE
ANTIMONY, TOTAL
RECOVERABLE
11260 1 0
IFFLUENT GROSS VALUE
nera
\>z
SAMPLE
MEASUREMENT
PERMIT
REQUIREMENT
SAMPLE
MEASUREMENT
PERMIT
REQUIREMENT
SAMPLE
MEASUREMENT
PERMIT
REQUIREMENT
MEASUREMENT
PERMIT
REQUIREMENT
SAMPLE
MEASUREMENT
PERMIT
REQUIREMENT
SAMPLE
MEASUREMENT
PERMIT
REQUIREMENT
MEASUREMENT
PERMIT
REQUIREMENT
TYPED OR PRINTED
tlon ProJec
OISCHAF
a-i
UIITORINO REPORT fl»W "*
(17-191
PeWtWT NUM9CN
FROM
•
003 1
DISCHARGE NUMBER
MONITORING PERIOD
YEAR
aa-tn
MO
111-1)1
DAY I
1
OCfrHOnlrl QUANTITY OR LOADING
AVERAGE
********
********
********
********
********
********
********
********
********
********
r
********
********
********
********
MAXIMUM
REPORT
INST MX
********
********
********
********
********
********
*********
********
********
********
********
********
UNITS
MGD
***
***
*
*
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
TO
YEAR
iM-in
MO 1 DAY
M-lvi tin. in
FINAL '^"
i
MINOR !
NOTE: RMri httlruef Ion* turfat* MmnUflM IKU f~—
r«OrfOnfr; QUALITY OR CONCENTRATION
a*-*» f**-.«» (u*ii
MINIMUM
********
******
**
********
**
**
**
**
6.5
MINIMUM
********
**
******
********.
********
********
* *
* *
****
********
********
AND AM FAMILIAR WITH THE INFORMATION SUBMITTED HEREIN AND BAS
ON MY INQUIRY OF THOSE INDIVIDUALS IMMEDIATELY RESPONSIBLE Ft
OBTAINING THE INFORMATION 1 BELIEVE THE SUBMITTED INFORMATIC
5JE"1' *CCURATE AND COMPLEIE. 1 AM AWARE THAT THERE ARF SI
NIFICANT PENALTIES FOR SUBMITTING FALSE INFORMATION. INCLUDIK
THE POSSIBILITY OF FINE AND IMPRISONMENT SEE III U.SC. 1 WOI AH
ll^USC. 1 tin. fPMMn in*** (ftrv iMfMn m«» m,lmtr fmn if M |/l».(1
D
)R
IN
O
ID
m
AVERAGE
********
********•-
********
********-
********
********
********
********
********
********"
********
********
********
********
MAXIMUM
********
***•*»**»-
50
INST MX
8.5
MAXIMUM
REPORT
INST MX
REPORT
INST MX
REPORT
INST MX
REPORT
INST MX
SIGNATURE OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE
OFFICER OR AUTHORIZED AGENT
.UNITS
****
****
MG/L
SU
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
NO
na-u
TELEPHONE
FREQUENCY
OF
fM-MI
WEEKLY
WEEKLY
WEEKLY
ONCE/
2 WEEK J
ONCE/
2 WEEK*
ONCE/
2WEEKJ
ONCE/
2 WEEK I
SAMPLE
TYPE
PMPLOC
GRAB
GRAB
GRAB
GRAB
GRAB
GRAB
DATE
: '
w This outfall has an Intermittent discharge to Outfall 001.
-------
.N«ME_ am stlnson
*PD«ESS_ *BS7Ce"da"r"~Bay7 Trie".
S
uiaonnm
tl 1*1
NIIUHINU HtPURTfOMAV
llt-lt)
FINAL
NOTE: R««d hnlruclHMM Won compltllno Ihti form.
'**^»*»^
r__1JI^^^^^
QUANTITY OR LOADING
IH.IHI
QUALITY OH CONCENTRATION
lERYLLIUM, TOTAL
ECOVERABLE (AS BE)
0998 1 o
HtiPUHT
INST MX
:FFLUENT GROSS VALUE
3NCE7
2 WEEK
:ADMIUM
OTAL RECOVERABLE
1113 1
********
********
********
********
FFLUENT GROSS VALUE
EAD
OTAL RECOVERABLE
1114 1 0
AFFLUENT GROSS VALUE
ICKEL, TOTAL
AS NI)
1067 1
FFLUENT GROSS VALUE
INC
OTAL RECOVERABLE
1094 1 0
_ T GROSS V
[lAPHTHALENE
REPORT
INST MX
:FFLUENT GROSS VALUE
AFFLUENT GROSS VALUE
ONCE/
2 WEEK
NAMEfTITLE PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
TYPED OR PRINTED
I CERTIFY UNDER PENALTY OF LAW THAT
tSPiirZmSiriyi" ™E WW»M«ON ^>mif>tm ANBASEO
2UTM.L?!00."'r <* THOSt IMWVtOUALS IMMF.DIAIH Y nESPONSIRLE FOR
OBTAININO IHE INFORMAtWH I BELIEVt THE SUBMITtEO INtORMATION
11*'1 *MO COWttE. I AM AWARE tHAf tMERIi ARE SW
fOR SUBMIIIINO TALSE INrORMAtKW INCLUDINa
*MI>' s"
COMMENT AND EXPLANATION OF ANY V1OWTIONSf*,/W»W*«r«*
This outfall has an intermittent discharge to Outfall 001
SIGNATURE OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE
OFFICER OR AUTHORIZED AGENT
NUMBCR
TEAR
MO
OAT
I I
1 '
EPA Form 3320-1 (Rwr. M8) ftwftwt »dltlon$ me? to
REPLACES EPA rONM t-40 WHWN MAY NOT «E USEOJ
PAOE
-------
I _
I*
C iP?*!!2M_Jaji
e!
•
c!
*
&
oi
^^1
\
*:5
.n-^J
NAN Paul stlnoon
ADD»« AES/Cedar Bay
9469 East port
^""•^^» ^™» ^B^ v_ «•• B^M ••••• Aa «^»«i
.T^r* It /mwr«0«Mr*mwn Anr/
This outfall has an Intermittent discharge to
Outfall
FINAL
MINOR
f«C«n/0«/i? DUALITY OR CONCENTRATION
MINIMUM
********
********
^
AVERAGE
********
********
XAMINFD
ID RASED
RLE FOR
RMATION
ARE SK>
2°tM m SIGNATURE OF PRINC
" '""" OFFICER OR AUTW
001.
MAXIMUM
REPORT
INST MX
IPAL EXECUTIVE
JRIZED AGENT
UNITS
MG/L
NO.
EX
ra-»3i
TELEPHONE
t
NUMBER
FREQUE
OF
ANALV
NCV
SIS
•/
ONCE/
2WEEK!
.
-•
•' •'
SAMPLE
TYPE
GRAB
i
',
i
i
•
DATE
YEAR
MO DAY
I
i,
EPA Form 3320-1 (Rm. 948) Pnrtout trf/Mm* m«r b* mtd.
(MCnACES EPA FONM I-4« WHICH MAT NOT M UKO)
nun 3 OF
-------
'' I
3
*
ttiuuw «,„• II iW/rrrml
NAME ?aul Stlnson
ADDRESS AES/Cedar Bayr Inc
9469 Eastport Road
Jacksonville, FL 32218
FACILITY AES/Cedar Bay Coqei
LOCATION Jacksonville* FL
..
PARAMETER
m-nt
OLIDS, TOTAL
USPENDED
10530 1 0
:FFLUENT GROSS VALUE
:OPPER
•OTAL RECOVERABLE
U119 1 0
IFFLUENT GROSS VALUE
IERCURY
•OTAL RECOVERABLE
1901 1 0
:FFLUENT GROSS VALUE
kRSENIC, TOTAL
JECOVERABLE
10978 1 0
:FFLUENT GROSS VALUE
VNTIMONY, TOTAL
tECOVERABLE
)1268 1 0
IFFLUENT GROSS VALUE
IERYLLIUM, TOTAL
tECOVERABLE (AS BE)
)0998 1 0
:FFLUENT GROSS VALUE
:ADMIUM
•OTAL RECOVERABLE
)1113 1 0
:FFLUENT GROSS VALUE
ie;r.atJL0.IL Pi pjlej
X
SAMPLE
MEASUREMENT
PERMIT
REQUIREMENT
SAMPLE
MEASUREMENT
PERMIT
REQUIREMENT
SAMPLE
MEASUREMENT
PERMIT
REQUIREMENT
SAMPLE
MEASUREMENT
PERMIT
REQUIREMENT
'SAMPLE
MEASUREMENT
PERMIT '
REQUIREMENT
SAMPLE
MEASUREMENT
PERMIT
REQUIREMENT
SAMPLE
MEASUREMENT
PERMIT
REQUIREMENT
NAMEHITLE PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
TYPED OR PRINTED
c
FR<
)M
— -jj.
FL004.* . 3
— 1
PERMIT NUMBER |
. ,.,, .'
" f7>-'/»;
003
2
DISCHARGE NUMBER
MONITORING PERIOD
YEAR
MO | DAY |
TO
OCfnlOnlfl QUANTITY OR LOADING
AVERAGE
********
********
********
********
********
********
********
********
********
********
********
********
********
********
1 CERTIFY UNDER PENALTY Ol
AND AM FAMILIAR WITH THE II
ON MY INQUIRY OF THOSE I*
OBTAINING THE INFORM A HO
IS TRUE. ACCURATE AND CO*
NIFICANT PENALTIES FOR Stl
THE POSSIBILITY OF FINE AN
33 U.SC. 1 <3lt rrhMlHn m
MAXIMUM
********
********
********
********
********
********
********
********
********
********
********
********
********
********
T LAW THAT
•FORMATION
IDWIDUALS 1
M 1 RELIEVE
4PIETE. 1 AN
BMITTING F
) IMPRISON*
•mm A flM«*r*«
UNITS
** **
** **
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
YEAR
(}*ir>
IH-4JI
MO
tu-iv
DAY
<)(l)l>
FINAL
MINOR
NOTE: Reed Instruction* before completing thl* form.
QUALITY OR CONCENTRATION
MINIMUM
********
********
********
********
********
********
********
********
********
********
********
********
********
1 HAVE PERSONALLY EXAMINED
SUBMITTED HEREIN. AND BASED
MMEDIATEIV RESPONSIBLE FOR
THE SUBMITTED INFORMATION
1 AWARE THAT THERE ARE SKI
USE INFORMATION. INCLUDING
IENT SEE IdUSC 1 1001 AND
tn m*f >iih* /ton wf m llt.Ono
AVERAGE
********
********
********
********
********
********
********
********
********
********
********
********
********
MAXIMUM
REPORT
INST MX
REPORT
INST MX
REPORT
INST MX
REPORT
INST MX
REPORT
INST MX
REPORT
INST MX
REPOR
INST M
SIGNATURE OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE
OFFICER OR AUTHORIZED AGENT
T
X
UNITS
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
NO.
EX
rtl-tJ,
TELEPHONE
AREA
CODE
MUMKN
FREQUENCY
OF
ANALYSIS
1M-MI
ONCE/
DSCHD\
ONCE/
DSCHD1
ONCE/
DSCHD1
ONCE/
DSCHD1
ONCE/
DSCHD1
ONCE/
DSCHDT
ONCE/
DSCHD1
YEAR
SAMPLE
TYPE
GRAB
GRAB
GRAB
GRAB
GRAB
GRAB
GRAB
DATE
•O DAY
r
COMMENT AND EXPLANATION OF ANV VIOLATIONS (*rfm*tt*U»IUr>ii>mn>im>
This outfall has an Intermittent discharge to the Droward River during storms In excess of the 10Y24H event
t
4
4
EPA Form 3320-1 (Rev. 9-88) Pnvlous editions m«r 6e used.
(REPLACES EPA FORM T-«0 WHICH MAT NOT BE USED.)
MOE
-------
If -
_J £P!
51
-i
o
I
. !&TjLUjiJL°JL
M>DRESS_ AES/Cedar Bay, _I/i£. '
i,_FL_
jFAciLrTT_ AES/Cedar Bay Coqene_rat_l_orj_ Projec
LOCATION Jacksonville. FL
OlSCHAf.'
«•»*.
'(TORINO REPORT r/MW
FROM
FL004H»J
PERMIT NUMBER
003
2
DISCHARGE NUMBER
MONITORING PERIOD
YEAR | MO
1
DAY
IYEAR
MO
DAY
HI-HI
(M-J9I 130-MI
FINAL,
MINOR
NOTE: RMd hwtnicttons b«for» completing IMs form.
PARAMETER
w-m
.BAD
'OTAL RECOVERABLE
11114 1 0
:FFLUENT GROSS VALUE
IICKEL
•OTAL RECOVERABLE
)1074 1 0
:FFLUENT GROSS VALUE
:INC
'OTAL RECOVERABLE
11094 1 0
AFFLUENT GROSS VALUE
:HROMIUM
'OTAL RECOVERABLE
)1110 1 0
AFFLUENT GROSS VALUE
'OLUENE
14010 1 0
AFFLUENT GROSS VALUE
IAPHTHALENE
54696 1 0
AFFLUENT GROSS VALUE
'HENOL3
16000 1 0
AFFLUENT GROSS VALUE
X
SAMPLE
MEASUREMENT
PERMIT
REQUIREMENT
SAMPLE
MEASUREMENT
PERMIT
REQUIREMENT
SAMPLE
MEASUREMENT
PERMIT
REQUIREMENT
SAMPLE
MEASUREMENT
PERMIT
REQUIREMENT
SAMPLE
MEASUREMENT
PERMIT
REQUIREMENT
SAMPLE
MEASUREMENT
PERMIT
REQUIREMENT
SAMPLE
MEASUREMENT
PERMIT
REQUIREMENT
NAMEfTITLE PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
TYPED OR PRINTED
t)C*n!O*l*) QUANTITY OR LOADING
f«-J>; 04-MI
AVERAGE
********
********
********
********
********
********
********
********
********
********
********
********
********
********
1 CERTIFY UNDER PENALTY O
AND AM FAMILIAR WI1H THE II
ON MY INQUIRY Of THOSE 1'
OBTAINING THE INFORMATIO
IS TRUE. ACCURAIE AND CO
NIFK2ANT PENALTIES FOR SI
THE POSSIBILITY OF FINE AN
jj use I in* rrvn«(M« M
MAXIMUM
********
********
********
********
********
********
********
********
**#*****•
********
********
********
********
********
UNITS
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
<4Cord<>*M QUALITY OR CONCENTRATION
«•-«; r*«-5.»;
-------
n
i
w
•J
i
\
en
o
ftrtwi 'MC/ADDNESSfferiMt NATK
ADDRESS AES/Cedar Day, Inc.
~9TWEastport fioaZ
^^ """" "™" """*« T"™ *~~ "*™1 *1 «~"~ "~"-.T~ T1* *^^ "•"• — — ••• •»-» ...
JacKsonvllle, FL T
FACILITY AES/Cedar Day Cogc
LOCATION Jacksonville, FL
PARAMETER
Ui-W
IOD, 5-DAY
20 DEG. C)
10310 1 0
:FFLUENT GROSS VALUE
.ARDON, TOT ORGANIC
TOC)
• 0600 1 0
:FFLUENT GROSS VALUE
)XYGEN, DISSOLVED
DO)
10300 1 0
:FFLUENT GROSS VALUE
IITROGEN, KJELDAHL
'OTAL (AS N)
)0625 1 0
:FFLUENT GROSS VALUE
'HOSPIIORUS, TOTAL
AS P)
)0665 1 0
AFFLUENT GROSS VALUE
)IL AND GREASE
i-REON EXT-GRAY METH
)0556 1 0
AFFLUENT GROSS VALUE
12218
inera_tTon_ JPr ojec
FRC
X
SAMPLE
MEASUREMENT
PERMIT
REQUIREMENT
SAMPLE
MEASUREMENT
PERMIT
REQUIREMENT
SAMPLE
MEASUREMENT
PERMIT
REQUIREMENT
SAMPLE
MEASUREMENT
PERMIT
REQUIREMENT
SAMPLE
MEASUREMENT
PERMIT
REQUIREMENT
SAMPLE
MEASUREMENT
PERMIT
REQUIREMENT
SAMPLE
MEASUREMENT
PERMIT
REQUIREMENT
TYPED OR PRINTED
f.
CHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEMfWOEJI
ONITORINQ REPORT fDMM ^^
e 17. 19i
FL004H73 1
PERMIT NUMBER |
>M
OUJ 2
DISCHARGE NUMBER
MONITORING PERIOD
YEAR
(IQ-Ht
MO
L— J
11 Cfnl Onfyf QUANTITY OR LOADING
AVERAGE
********
********
********
********
********
********
********
******** .
******** '
********
MAXIMUM
********
********
********
********
********
********
********
********
********
********
********
AND AM FAMILIAR WITH THE INFORMATION S
ON MY INQUIRY OF THOSE INDIVIDUALS IM
OBTAINING THE INFORMATION 1 BELIEVE
IS TRUE. ACCURATE AND COMPLETE 1 AM
NIFICANT PENALTIES FOR SUBMITTING FA)
THE POSSIBILITY OF FINF AND IMPRISONMF
39 U.SC 1 13 It rfViMMrt mmtrr ffcrw tivnw
••Nf «v 0MUMWM ttmjittHmmiKl of fti tmffn H Mwwvrft* OT
DAY
w-ni
UNITS
ft**
***
***
***
*
*
*
*
****
****
****
****
ft***
****
****
****
4lflMIMFDHEREIN
MEWATEIY RFSPC
'HE SUBMITTED II
AWARE IHAT THF
SE INFORMATION
Nl SEE III USC
« mtf Mr** /mft
TO
YEAR
IM.
(4C*rdt)nl
-------
4
1
-i
\i\
NAME*"" a'uY s'tinson
ADDRESS. AES/Cedar Bay
9467 Eastport
L Inc
R~oaor
Jacksonville, FL
FACILITY AES/Cedar Bay Coqe
LOCATION Jacksonville, FL
PARAMETER
'LOW, IN CONDUIT OR
•HRU TREATMENT PLANT
iOOSO 1 0
AFFLUENT GROSS VALUE
lOLIDS, TOTAL
SUSPENDED
)0530 1 0
AFFLUENT GROSS VALUE
Ml
10400 1 0
AFFLUENT GROSS VALUE
'otal Recoverable
Topper
)1119 1 0
AFFLUENT GROSS VALUE
1ERCURY
'OTAL RECOVERABLE
71901 1 0
AFFLUENT GROSS VALUE
VRSENIC, TOTAL
IECOVERABLE
30978 1 0
AFFLUENT GROSS VALUE
ANTIMONY, TOTAL
IECOVERADLE
)1260 1 0
AFFLUENT GROSS VALUE
.
"-"-----
"X"
SAMPLE
MEASUREMENT
PERMIT
REQUIREMENT
SAMPLE
MEASUREMENT
PERMIT
REQUIREMENT
SAMPLE
MEASUREMENT
PERMIT
REQUIREMENT
SAMPLE
MEASUREMENT
PERMIT
REQUIREMENT
SAMPLE
MEASUREMENT
PERMIT
REQUIREMENT
SAMPLE
MEASUREMENT
PERMIT
REQUIREMENT
SAMPLE
MEASUREMENT
PERMIT
REQUIREMENT
NAMEHITLE PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
TYPED OR PRINTED
c
F«
"'""f2~W
FL0041-
••i wnmu ncf
PERMIT NUMBER |
)M
""'""?,",'„
008
1
1
DISCHARGE NUMBER
MONITORING PERIOD
YEAR
fin. MI
MO
rjc«n/n»i/r; QUANTITY OR LOADING
»•«-.«; M-MI
AVERAGE
********
********
********
********
********
********
********
********
********
********
********
********
********
********
MAXIMUM
REPORT
INST MX
********
********
********
********
********
********
*********
**'******
********
********
********
********
DAY
/M.MI
UNITS
MGD
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
1 CERTIFY UNDER PENALTY OF LAW THAT 1 HAVE PERSONA)
AND AM FAMILIAR WITH THE INFORMATION SUBMITTED HERE
ON MY INQUIRY OF THOSE INDIVIDUALS IMMEDIATELY nESt
OBTAINING THE INFORMATION 1 BELIEVE THE SUBMITTED
IS TRUE. ACCURATE AND COMPLETE. 1 AM AWARE THAT TH
NIFICANT PENALTIES FOR SUBMITTING FALSE INFORMATTO
THE POSSIBILITY OF FINE AND IMPRISONMFNT SEE III USC
XI USC 1 1311 /fVMftOT •"<** >*r» iKMin met lnlWr /Mr
TO
YEAR MO
f.M'.V
DAY
FINAL
MINOR
NOTFrRmillfi
•Imellan* halnm MMHnlatlnM iMm f MMM
QUALITY OR CONCENTRATION
MINIMUM
********
********
********
6.5
MINIMUM
********
********
********
********
********
********
********
.LY EXAk
N; AND B
•ONSITHE
INroRM«
ERE ARE
N. INCLU
1 1001
t «p M J
IINED
ASEO
FOR
TION
SK>
IOING
AND
W.OtW
AVERAGE
********
********
********
********
********
********
********
********
********
********
********
********
ft*******
MAXIMUM
********
****** **
50
INST MX
8.5
MAXIMUM
REPORT
INST MX
REPORT
INST MX
REPORT
INST MX
REPORT
INST MX
SIGNATURE OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE
OFFICER OR AUTHORIZED AGENT
UNITS
****
****
MG/L
GU
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
NO.
EX
merMONc
AHEJI
COPI
NUMBCM
FREQUENCY
OF
ANALYSIS
fM-W
WEEKLY
WEEKLY
WEEKLY
ONCE/
2 WEEK I
ONCE/
2 WEEK I
ONCE/
2 WEEK:
ONCE/
2WEEK!
YEAN
SAMPLE
TYPE
PMPLOC
GRAB
GRAB
GRAB
GRAB
GRAB
GRAB
DATE
MO DAY
• II
COMMENT AND EXPLANATION OF ANY VIOLATIONS (Kr/rma *tt ttarlimnHi ftrrr/
This outfall has an Intermittent dlncharge to Outfall 001.
EPA Form 3320-1 (R«v. 9418) nwtoi/s ttfWon* m«r ft* »••
-------
JMME FdUjL bcinson
MOM. AES/Cedar Baj^ Inc.
9469 EaatjBprt Road
Jacksonville, FL
fAcniTY AES/Cedar Bay Coqeneratlon Projcc
LOCATION ^JflckSOnvJile. FL FRf
PARAMETER
JERYLLIUM, TOTAL
! ECO VER ABLE (AS BE)
)0998 1 0
:FFLUENT GROSS VALUE
./iDnlUM
•OTAL RECOVERABLE
11113 1 0
IFFLUENT GROSS VALUE
.EAD
•OTAL RECOVERABLE
)1114 1 0
AFFLUENT GROSS VALUE
UCKEL, TOTAL
AS NI)
)1067 1 0
SFFMIF.NT GROSS VAMIF
:INC
•OTAL RECOVERABLE
J1094 1 0
^.FFI.IIF,NT GROSS VAMIF
IAPHTIIALENE
J4696 1 0
AFFLUENT GROSS VAMIF
TOLUENE
MOID 1 0
'FFMIPNT GROSS VAT.IIF
X
SAMPLE
MEASUREMENT
PERMIT
REQUIREMENT
SAMPLE
MEASUREMENT
PERMIT
REQUIREMENT
SAMPLE
MEASUREMENT
PERMIT
REQUIREMENT
SAMPLE
MEASUREMENT
PERMIT
REQUIREMENT •
SAMRJ.E
MEASUREMENT
PERMIT
REQUIREMENT
SAMPLE
MEASUREMENT
PERMIT
SAMPLE
MEASUREMENT
PERMIT
REQUIREMENT
TYPED OR PRINTED
FLOOs ,3
PPHHIT ttuttmrm
)M
YEAR
(10111
M
MO
ONITO
DAY
W c*« fJMr; QUANTITY OR LOADING
AVERAGE
********
********
********
********
********
********
********
********
********
********
********
********
********
MAXIMUM
********
********
********
********
********
********
********
********
********
********
********
********
********
ft*******
I «H!WT UNDER PENALTY OF LAW THA
AND AM FAMILIAR WITH THE INFORMAIIO
ON MY INQUIRY OF THOSE INDIVIDUALS
OBTAINING THE INFORMATION 1 BtllEV
is TRUE. ACCURATE AND COMPLETE 1 1
NIFICANT PENALTIES FOR SUBMITTING
THE POSSIBILITY OF FINE AND IMPRISO*
33 U.SC. 1 131* rriMAin ««*» Mrv *f M lltt.m
COMMENT AND EXPLANATION OF ANY VIOLATIONS HttfrnmtMau^m^K hrrr,
This out£all has an Intermittent discharge to
Outfall
001.
9
>
n
«
)
n
AVERAGE
********
' ********~
********
********
********
********
********
********
********
********
********
********
********
********
MAXIMUM
REPORT
INST MX
REPORT
INST MX
REPORT
INST MX
REPORT
INST MX
REPORT
INST MX
REPORT
INST MX
REPOF
_LNST >
SIGNATURE OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE
OFFICER OR AUTHORIZED AGENT
IT
X,
UNITS
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
NO
fftM
•••••M
TELEPHONE
1 .
ipmm
FREOt
O
ANA1
n»
•HB^H
glhli
«NC
f
YSW
**>
ONCE/
2WFFK
ONC
2WE
E/
FV
ONCE/
ONCE/
'WEEK
ONCE/
ONCE/
ZWEEK*
ONCE/
WEF"'
llomi.
•— •— MHBH^
SAMPLE
TYPE
(&9'7Df
-i^»«™ ^«— M
GRAB
GRAB
GRAB
GRAB
•••••IBIM^MB^
GRAB
^^•••(••^^^M
GRAB
^^•••^^HHII^
GRAB
DATE
G
EPA Form 3320-1 (R«v. 948) fYtvfoua «tf/ffont m»y b* utfd.
IREPLACES EP* FORM T-W WHICH MAT NOT BE USED.)
-------
H
•£*££- P-sujtl. -S-U-nson.
9A63-EA&1 c jrt RruuL
.FACILITY AEfi/roH^i- ga.,
LOCATION TarkgonuLLLc.*
FAMAMmft
'IIENOLS
16000 1 0
vKFLUFNT GPft79 VAt/Uff
NAMCfTITLE PRINCIPAI FVFdfTivEnc
-EL.
SAMPLE
MEASUREMENT
PERMIT
REQUIREMENT
SAMPLE
MEASUREMENT
PERMIT
REQUIREMENT
SAMPLE
MEASUREMENT
PERMIT
REQUIREMENT
SAMPLE
MEASUREMENT
PERMIT
REQUIREMENT
SAOVlE
MEASUREMENT
PERMIT
REQUIREMENT
SAMPLE
MEASUREMENT
PERMIT
REQUIREMENT
SAMPLE
MEASUREMENT
PER*
REQUIRE
, TYPED OR PRINTED
«T
MENT
FROM
7Tt«rrf»r 1-ir.t •'wLniiunar"r/cr»K*«ff«r(«r*mninkrn>y
This out£all has an Intermittent discharge to outfall 001
EPA Form 3320-1
-------
NATIONAL POLLUTANT r-
DISCHARO'
fJ-M/
••OE ELIMINATION SYSTEM (HPOfS)
3RIMO REPORT (liMKI
.1
I
i
\
ADDRESS AES/Cedar Bay. Inc.
9 4 62. EastfcorjL
JacJcsonvUJLs*.
FACILITY AES/Cedar Bav
-Road
_FLJ
_C_o_g£
FL
-22U... .,
AfiXflJtlojL .Prp4e.c
F«
FL0041173 1
PERMIT NUMBER |
)M
PARAMETER
IOLIDS, TOTAL
SUSPENDED
J0530 1 0
AFFLUENT GROSS VALUE
:OPPER
'OTAL RECOVERABLE
J1119 1 0
AFFLUENT GROSS VALUE
IERCURY
•OTAL RECOVERABLE
71901 1 0
AFFLUENT GROSS VALUE
VRSENIC, TOTAL
RECOVERABLE
)0970 1 0
AFFLUENT GROSS VALUE
\NTIMONY, TOTAL
RECOVERABLE
11268 1 0
rFFMiF.MT npnns VAT.IIF
JERYLLIUM, TOTAL
RECOVERABLE (AS BE)
J0990 1 0
^FFMIF.NT mnRS VALUE
:ADMIUM
'OTAL RECOVERABLE
J1113 1 0
-FFI.IIFNT r.nrtr.r. VAT.IIF.
X
SAMPLE
MEASUREMENT
PERMIT
REQUIREMENT
SAMPLE
MEASUREMENT
PERMIT
REQUIREMENT
SAMPLE
MEASUREMENT
PERMIT
REQUIREMENT
SAMPLE
MEASUREMENT
PERMIT
REQUIREMENT
SAMPLE
MEASUREMENT
PERMIT
REQUIREMENT
SAMPLE
MEASUREMENT
PERMIT
REQUIREMENT
SAMPLE
MEASUREMENT
PERMIT
REQUIREMENT
NAMEHITLE PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
TYPED OR PRINTED
008
2
DISCHARGE NUMBER
MONITORING PERIOD
YEAR
MO
IX-ll) Ol-li)
DAY 1
-^H TO
1
(JCfrannlfl QUANTITY OR LOADING
AVERAGE
********
********
********
********
********
********
********
********
********
********
********
********
********
********
MAXIMUM
********
********
********
********
********
********
********
********
********'
********
********
********
********
********
1 CERTIFY UNDER PENALTY OF t*W THAT
AND AM FAMILIAR WITH THE INFORMATION
ON MY INQUIRY OF IHOSE INDIVIDUALS Ik
OBTAINING THE INFORMATION 1 BELIEVE
IS TRUE. ACCURATE AND COMPIEIE. 1 AM
NIFICANT PENALTIES FOR SUBMITTING FA
THE POSSIBILITY OF FINF AND IMPRISONM
33 U.S.C. 1 131* r/WM* •*•** rtnr wim
UNITS
***
***
*
*
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
HAVE PERSONAL
SUBMITTED HEHEI
IMEDIAIFIV RESP
THE SUBMITTED
AWARE I HAT IH
IRE INFORMATKX
ENT SEE INUSC
YEAR 1 MO
rw
— 1
DAY
WJW
r j
n/>u
MINOR
NOTE: RMd Imtntelkmt iMfor* compiling Ihlt form.
QUALITY OH CONCENTRATION
MINIMUM
********
********
********
********
********
********
********
********
********
********
********
********
********
********
IV EXAMINED
X. AND RASED
ONSIBLE FOR
NFORMA1ION
ERE ARE SIC
4. INCLUDING
1 1001 AND
«r M I/mm
AVERAGE
********
********
********
********
********
********
********
********
********
********
********
********
********
********
MAXIMUM
REPORT
INST MX
REPORT
INST MX
REPORT
INST MX
REPORT
INST MX
REPORT
TNST MX
REPORT
INST MX
REPOR
TNST M
SIGNATURE OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE
OFFICER OR AUTHORIZED AGENT
COMMENT AND EXPLANATION OF ANY VIOLATIONS IKtftmn •# MMrAmnin hrrrl
T
X, .
UNITS
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
NO.
Mf-41
TELEPHONE
CODE
t
MVMKN
FREQUENCY
OF
ANALYSIS
W-MJ
ONCE/
DSCHD
ONCE/
DSCHD
ONCE/
DSCHD1
ONCE/
DSCHD1
ONCE/
DSCHD!
ONCE/
DSCHD1
ONCE/
JJSCHD1
YEAR
SAMPLE
TYPE
nt-m
GRAB
GRAB
GRAB
GRAB
GRAB
GRAB
GRAB
DATE
MO OAT
This outfall has an Intermittent discharge during storms In excess of the 10Y24 rainfall event,
EPA Form 3320-1 (R«v. M8) Pnvtwit •tf/r/on* m»r o» u$9d.
(RtriACES EPA FORM T «O WHICH MAY NOT BE USED.)
PAGE
-------
I r=
NAME
I -ADDRESS
i izr
I 0
DISCHAROF
tt-IV
TORINO r:,
ADDRESS _i££/CedaA Hay^ JLnc .
JaeleponvM IP. FTi ^
FACILITY AES^Cedar; R.ay Cogc
LOCATION .lArk.tnnvl 1 1 P FL
PARAMETER
m-m
,EAD
•OTAL RECOVERABLE
)1114 1 0
-FFMIF.MT nnOSfi VAT^JF,
IICKEL
'OTAL RECOVERABLE
)1074 1 0
^FFT.UF.NT mnRR VAMIE
:INC
'OTAL RECOVERABLE
J1094 1 0
-FFMIENT r.anr.x VAMIP
:HROMIUM
'OTAL RECOVERABLE
)1118 1 0
vFFMIF.NT nnORS VAMIC
TOLUENE
MOID 1 0
AFFLUENT GROSS VALUE
NAPHTHALENE
54696 1 0
AFFLUENT GROCC VALUE
•HENOLS
16000 1 0
r.FFMIF.NT KttnRR VAMIE
ncraflnn PrnH*>i~
FROM
X
SAMPLE
MEASUREMENT
PERMIT
REQUIREMENT
SAMPLE
MEASUREMENT
PERMIT
REQUIREMENT
SAMPLE
MEASUREMENT
PERMIT
REQUIREMENT
SAMPLE
MEASUREMENT
PERMIT
REQUIREMENT
SAMPLE
MEASUREMENT
PERMIT
REQUIREMENT
SAMPLE
MEASUREMENT
PERMIT
REQUIREMENT
SAMPLE
MEASUREMENT
PERMIT
HEOUIMLMENT
NAMEftlTLE PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
TYPED OR PRINTED
FL0041* j I
PERMIT NUMBER 1
1 008 2
1 DISCHARGE NUMBER
MONITORING PERIOD
YEAR
MO 1 DAY 1
1 |'«
f«l-5JJ (.14 All
AVERAGE
********
********
********
********
********
********
********
********
********
********
********
********
********
********
AND AM FAMILIAR WITH THE »
ON MY INQUIRY OF THOSE IN
OBTAINING THE INFORMATIOI
IS TRUE. ACCURATE AND CO*
NIFICANT PENALTIES FOR SU
THE POSSIBILITY OF FINE AM
13 USC 1 nit 0VMMM .*
MAXIMUM
********
********
********
********
********
********
********
********
********
********
********
********
********
********
•FORMATION
imvmuAis n
«. 1 BELIEVE
IPIEU. 1 AM
BMIITINO F«
) IMPRISONM
"**"*"•""
wtoi
UNITS
****
****
****
ft***
**•*
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
YEAR
MO
DAY
r j
n/iu
MINOR
HCfrdOiilft QUALITY OR CONCENTRATION
(M-4» «*-})> a*-*n
MINIMUM
********
********
********
********
********
********
********
********
********
********
********
********
********
********
HAVF. PERSONALLY EXAMINED
SUBMIT TtO HEREIN; AND BASED
«MEOIA!FIV RESPONSIBLE FOR
THE SUBMITTED INFORMATION
AWARE THAT THERE ARC SIG
ISE INFORMATION. INCLUDING
ENT SEEW USC. 1 1001 AND
t* MffP Mfferif fiHfl Up A» IM.AM
m* )**nl
AVERAGE
********
********
********
********
********
********
********
********
*r*******
********
********
********
ft*******
********
MAXIMUM
REPORT
INST MX
REPORT
INST MX
REPORT
REPORT
INST MX
REPORT
INST MX
REPORT
INST MX
REPOfl
INST H
SIGNATURE OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE
OFFICER OR AUTHORIZED AGENT
T
X
UNITS
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
NO.
na-u
TELEPHONE
B
NUMBER
FREOUI
OF
ANALV
flWJI
inn
NCY
SIS
n
ONCE/
DSCHD1
ONCE/
DSCHD1
ONCE/
DSCHD
ONCE/
DSCHD
ONCE/
DSCHDl
ONCE/
DSCHD'
ONCE/
DSCHH'
YEAR
SAMPLE
TYPE
GRAB
GRAB
GRAB
GRAB
GRAB
GRAB
GRAB
DATE
MO DAY
III
c
I
I
i
Thlo outfall has an Intermittent discharge during storms In excess o£ the 10Y24 rainfall event,
EPA Form 3320-1 (R«v. W8) Prmrfcwt tdlllont may ft* usvtf.
mcnAccs EPA FORM T-W WHICH MAY NOT •< wscoj
MOC
r«rf*>» Mmr/UraMM (fx
2«A««E_._P.a_ul. ^.tils.°Jl
ADDRESS AES/Cedar Ba^y^ JLnc.
NATIONAl POUUTANT CHSCHAROE EllMINATION SYStf M WPPES>
DISCHAROEMONITORINQ REPORT fDMW
FL0041173 I I 008 2
FINAL
-------
•I
I
s~
o
.NAME"* fa uTH't 1 ns on
•AOOHE. AES/Cedar BayA Inc.
9469 Eti^fcnnrt Rn^arl
m,_ Jacksonville. FL 32218
LOCATION Jacksonv l_l_l_e FL
PARAMETEtt
JOD, 5-DAY
20 DEC. C)
)0310 1 0
AFFLUENT GROSS VALUE
:ARBON, TOT ORGANIC
TOO
)0680 1 0
IFFLUENT GROSS VALUE
>XYGEN, DISSOLVED
DO)
)0300 1 0
IFFLUENT GROSS VAQUp
IITROGEN, KJELDAHL
•OTAL (AS N)
10625 1 0
AFFLUENT GROSS VALUE
•HOSPHORUS, TOTAL
AS P)
)0665 1 0
~FFT.IIF.NT RRnSS VAT. lip
)IL AND GREASE
^REON EXT-GRAY METH
)0556 1 0
•IFFLUENT GROSS VALUF
FRC
X
SAMPLE
MEASUREMENT
PERMIT
REQUIREMENT
SAMPLE
MEASUREMENT
PERMIT
REQUIREMENT
SAMPLE
MEASUREMENT
PERMIT
REQUIREMENT
SAMPLE
MEASUREMENT
PERMIT
REQUIREMENT
SAMPLE
MEASUREMENT
PERMIT
REQUIREMENT
SAMPLE
MEASUREMENT
PERMIT
REQUIREMENT
SAMPLE
MEASUREMENT
PERMIT
REQUIREMENT
TYPED OR PRINTED
>M
UISCIIAR'
Illf
FL004.
'INIIUR
3
PCNMfT MUMBtn
MONITOR
YEAR
tio-in
MO
111-1)1
( ) Ctnl Onlfl QUANTITY OR LOADING
AVERAGE
********
********
********
********
********
********
********
********
********
********
********
********
MAXIMUM
********
********
********
********
********
********
********
********
********
********
********
********
DAY
(34 lit
UNITS
***
***
*
*
****
****
****
ft***
****
****
****
****
****
****
NO REP
INGPE
TO
OnilDMHI
(l?-lt
000
1
2
DISCHARGE NUMBER
RIOD
YEAR
MO
DAY
FINAL
MINOR
f'tcnfOn/r; QUALITY OR CONCENTRATION
MINIMUM
********
*
*
****
**
********
**
******
********
********
********
********
********
********
********
********
1 CERTIFY UNDF.R PENALTY OF LAW THAT 1 HAVE PERSONALLY EXAMINE
AND AM FAMILIAR WITH THE INFORMATION SUBMIITED HEREIN AND BASE
ON MY INQUIRY OF THOSE INDIVIDUALS IMMEDIATE! V nFSPONSIRLE FO
OBTAINING THE INFORMATION 1 BELIEVE THE SUBMITTED INFORMATtO
IS TRUE. ACCURATE AND COMPLETE 1 AM AWARE THAT THFRE ARE SIC
UK!0.!!" "NM.TIM FOR SUBMIMINO MLSE INFORMATION. INCLUtHN
THE POSSIBILITY Or TINE AND IMPRISONMENT Sft III USC 1 1001 AN
31 U.SC. « IJI« rrr
-------
1
I? UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION IV
345 COURTLAND STREET. N.E.
ATLANTA. GEORGIA 3O365
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
AES/CEDAR BAY COGENERATION PROJECT
. NPDES Permit No. FL0041173
FEBRUARY 6 - MARCH 18, 1992
?*' AES conme»ced construction under a different
the
completed
EPA Response; see response A. 3.
Pnntea on
-------
1
I -2-
Comment g.i Construction continues even though the Mavor of
certification requested suspension of AES/Cedar Bay's site
crtificatin
EPA Response t See response A.I.
•
Comment g.t The issuance of an NPDES permit for storm water
discharges during construction, while there remains unresolved
issues, may add to the instability of this situation?
*e!?onse8 EPA has investigated the possible impacts to the
••
Jacksonville, PL 32202-4111, March 11, 1992.
Comment: Slides of the AES site are submitted for EPA review.
EPA Response? EPA
concerns regarding
water discharge due to metais and phenolic compounds by
monitoring of these pollutants in the final permit, if
monitoring data indicates that water cualitv stanrtavrie «ZlT~w~.j
v{rtia*a<4 4-v^ ___*.•. i*<, "•"*•• »»»»•«*. yuaxity Etanaaras are beino
pouSt^."! n^r111 *•reopened to incii'de ij»its *»
c.
ss-s
_waterermit will be
.automatically become invalid upon commencement orlfiFations
Comment 2.; Issuance of a storm water permit for
SSS^Si0!? ±?*S na2°r TSderal acti°n ^^ wnf
environment!16 *** V*lfm °£ the citizens' wildlie, a the
PPA Response: EPA feels the conditions in the storm
water
-------
-3-
discharges. The final permit contains site specific permit
conditions to insure that the effluent does not have an adverse
impact on the receiving waterbodies.
It should be noted that on November 13, 1991, PDER waived
certification of the proposed NPDES permit under Section 401 of the
Clean Water Act. The effluent limitations in the final permit are
at least as stringent as those specified in' the State's permit for
this facility. The waiver was based on two changes that EPA has
incorporated into the permit. The final permit contains additional
monitoring requirements for metals and phenolic compounds, which
were not contained in the draft permit, thus making it more
stringent. Since several changes were made to the draft permit
since the November 13, 1991 waiver, FDER reaffirmed its waiver of
certification by letter dated July 22, 1992.
Comment 3.» If EPA elects to issue the construction storm water
discharge permit without the benefit of an EIS, then EPA should
tighten the discharge limits in the draft permit, require
additional monitoring, and regulate the emergency discharge to the
Broward and St. Johns Rivers. . *
EPA Response: Comment noted. The final permit contains monitoring
requirements that were not included in the draft permit. In short,
in addition to the parameters in the draft permit, the final permit
requires the permittee to monitor Outfalls 003 and 008 for 12 more
pollutants --- nine metals and three phenolic compounds. Also,
during emergency discharge periods to the Broward River, the final
permit requires that an additional 20 parameters be monitored.
Comment 4.; The site is highly contaminated with petroleum-based
fi™???™^? ,^n*enSi?r ?f construction activities at the site has
significantly disturbed these contaminants and could, in turn,
contaminate the Broward and St. Johns Rivers.
EPA Response i According to AES, the petrolenm-ba^ri. contaminated
re 1?"ted S" ^eir Property. The only contaminated
was lune mud, which had previously been deposited bv
is contaminated
all^h^^V1?6/"1^ rePresentatives from AES have stated that
all the contaminated mud lime on site was removed and replaced with
«: an*"1"1- (2?e J1*6 nud W" *oved to an «l?erSadiv?J?orfge
con«i-^d«- V5r° d£?char9e evaporation/percolation pond was
~?!«f? d £2r t?is area'> ^y storm water discharged from the
retention ponds should not be contaminated by residull lime mud?
tvAES has stated that construction activities
*?* contaminated groundwater. The contaminated
« iBSues,have bfe« addressed in the Conditions of State
e clrti??ra?d in the.finalvN*DES permit. The Conditions of
conSn^H 5 °n re(Juir^s that a groundwater monitoring program
conducted and, as stated in EPA's response to comment 1.3, th™
-------
-4-
f inal NPDES permit requires additional monitoring to detect certain
metals and phenolic compounds that may possibly be present in the
discharges from the retention ponds on site. Additionally, the
NPDES permit contains a provision for AES to develop and implement
an Erosion and Sedimentation 'Control Plan. The plan requires
several conditions to ensure that contaminated (and
non-contaminated) soil will not cause degradation of surface waters
during rainfall events. Site grading and drainage were designed
and completed in accordance with all applicable Federal, State, and
local regulations.
Comment g.» Issuance of an NPDES permit for storm water discharges
during construction could be misconstrued by AES, leading the
company to believe that EPA will eventually approve the AES/Cedar
Bay Project.
EPA Response » AES is fully aware that the issuance of a NPDES
permit for storm water discharges during construction does not
assure EPA approval of the project.
Comment 6.; Issuance should be held up until; (1) the EIS is
complete, (2) all modification to the Conditions of Certification
are finalized, (3) the Governor and Cabinet decide whether to
suspend or revoke the Conditions of Certification.
EPA Response; Comment noted. See response to comment A.I.
D. Mr. Greg Radlinski, City of Jacksonville, Office of General
£archeii 6lty Hal1' 22° EaSt Bay Street' Jacksonville, FL,
Comment l.t The City of Jacksonville disagrees with EPA's decision
to issue separate NPDES permits for construction storm water runoff
and process water discharges.
EPA Response; Comment noted. See response to comment C.l.
Comment 2.t The Council disagrees with EPA's conclusion that the
construction storm water discharge is not a major Federal action,
significantly affecting the quality of the human environment, and
therefore, outside the EIS process.
^
EPA RespcmRp* Comment noted. See response to comment C.2.
Comment 3.; EPA should reconsider the issuance of a storm water
permit without an EIS.
-------
-5-
EPA Response; The discharge resulting from the construction
activity does not require that an EIS be performed (i.e. the
issuance of the storm water permit is not related to the NEPA
process).
Comment 4 . t If a storm water permit is issued without completion
of an EIS, the City requests EPA tighten the proposed discharge
limits, require additional monitoring, and regulate the emergency
discharge to the Broward River.
EPA Response; Comment noted. See response to comment C.3.
Comment 5 . ; The soil and groundwater at the site are contaminated
and storm water from the site would contaminate the Broward and St.
Johns Rivers.
EPA Response; See response to comments C.3 and C.4. :
Comment 6.1 The Jacksonville City Council has frequently expressed
its opposition to the AES/Cedar Bay Project.
EPA Response: See response to comment A.I.
E. Mr. Grady Marchman, Water Quality Division, Jacksonville
Regulatory and Environmental Services Department, March 11,
Comment 1 . t The AES/Cedar Bay Project is being constructed on a
contaminated site and the pollutants on the site can reasonably be
expected to be contained in the construction related runoff. The
monitoring proposed in the draft NPDES permit is inadequate to
detect the known contaminants.
PPA Response; Comment noted. See responses to comments C.3 and
C • 4 •
Comment 2 . t EPA should require all volumes of storm water
transferred to the St. Johns River outfall be reported, since AES
can readily report by means of their pump logs.
*
EPA Response s The permit requires monitoring of storm water flow
rate at Outfalls 003 and 008, which are combined prior to discharge
from Outfall 001, which discharges to the St. Johns River.
-------
-6-
Comment 3.t In addition to the once per week monitoring
requirements for flow and total suspended solids at Outfall 001,
the following pollutants should be sampled upon any discharge of
storm water from Outfalls 003 and 008 to Outfall 001s
Full Time Flow (by pump logs), Copper, Zinc, Mercury, Arsenic,
Antimony, Beryllium, Cadmium, Lead, Nickel, Phenol,
Naphthalene, and Toluene • . .
EPA Response! Monitoring requirements for these pollutants have
been included into the final permit.
Comment 4.8 The following pollutants should be monitored at
Outfall 001t
Zinc, Mercury, Arsenic, Antimony, Beryllium, Cadmium, Lead,
Nickel, Phenol, Naphthalene, and Toluene
PPA Response: Through an agreement between Seminole Kraft and
AES/Cedar Bay, effluent from the two retention ponds on site
(Outfalls 003 & 008) will be allowed to be discharged from Outfall
001. The effluent quality from Outfall 001 is presently permitted
(NPDES permit no. FL0000400) and is being monitored by Seminole
Kraft Corporation, the owner of the pipe at this discharge point.
Comment JL«.t There is an emergency discharge from the storm water
ponds directly to the Broward River. This point has not been given
a point source designation number, even though this is a
channelized conveyance of storm water runoff that discharges from
lands used for industrial activities. The City proposes monitoring
requirements for the following list of pollutants!
Biochemical Oxygen Demand, Total Organic Carbon,
Turbidity, Dissolved Oxygen, Total Kjeldahl
Nitrogen, Phosphorus, Oil & Grease, Copper,
Arsenic, Zinc, Mercury, Antimony, Beryllium, Cadmium,
Chromium, Lead, Nickel, Phenol, Naphthalene, and
Toluene
EPA Responset Comment noted. See response to comment £.3.
F. Mr. Steve Wolf, AES/Cedar Bay, March 11, 1992.
Comment }.t The storm water discharge permit was addressed in the
overall power plant siting process. AES feels that the permit and
the monitoring, as certified, were appropriate and typical for
storm water discharges.
-------
-7-
EPA Response; Comment noted.
Comment ?T> Any particular monitoring of the surface water
discharges, in efforts to detect a possible migration of
contaminated groundwater contained in the site _ certification,
bein9
?a esrs s.
EPA Response* Comment noted.
JPA Response t Comment noted.
G-
PPA ResponsPi Comment noted. See response to comment A. 6.
^
-------
-8-
Coinment 3t> Before considering another environmental permit under
the KEPA process, EPA should go back and review the earlier
XUH??1?1 °f Si9nif}cant Deterioration (PSD) determinations. The
Council has reservations about its propriety.
EPA Reenone^t See response to comment A. 3.
•
Until nodfficati°*s to the State's conditions of
v??lied for' found sufficient, and after
v ,
HI 2 ™ L S^?^liC re7lew accepted' ifc 6eeas unconscionable for
AES to go on building under the presumption that all the charges
they want, and are asking for are certain to be approved.
EPA Response : See response to comment A. 3.
Comment 5T« Any permit that might be used as a justification to
continue construction would be a mistake. »t«ic«xon to
d«oh ,Issuance of t*e NPDES permit for storm water
project? durin& construction does not assure EPA approval of the
SSFJ*?? Stat?'S fPecial council concludes its review
City's claim of misrepresentation during the site
r°Cedin9,' and until the Governor and Cabinet decide
suspension or revocation, no permit that might be
1^ ^ency Approval shoull be*"
EPA ResponsP: Comment noted. See response to comments A.3 and C.5
H. Hs. Barbara Broward, Citizens Committee, Inc.
C°™ent it AES continues to build despite the fact that the
SSen £ "aiSed?0 State'S Conditions of Certification havl not
EPA Response t Comment noted. See response to comment A.'l.
f^e"^2;! Contamination in the soil at. the site tend to shift
into the digging areas. This leaves holes and vacancies in the
5a£h an4 KP°S Sibly allowin9 ^ese contaminants logel Into the
water or by heavy rains. Allowing discharge of an? harmful
W°Uld be addin9 to an ^reSSy existing
EPA ResponsPt Comment noted. See response to comment C.4.
-------
Comment 3. i The permitting process should be halted until
unresolved issues are adequately addressed.
EPA Responset See response to.comment A.6.
Z. Dot Mathias, Northside Civic Association, March 11, 19912.
t
• •
Comment 1.t EPA should deny storm water permit.
EPA Response; We have no basis to deny a permit for storm water
runoff during construction. Our permit should ensure that Class
III water quality standards are met.
Comment 2.: AES is being allowed to build over a contaminated
site.
EPA Responset Comment noted. See responses to comments C.3 and
C.4.
•
Comment 3.t AES has covered the contaminated soil with tons of
sand.
EPA Response! Comment noted. See response to comment C.4.
J. Andy Johnson, March 11, 1992.
Comment 1.t There are, and have been, storm water discharges from
the retention ponds.
EPA Responses No documentation was submitted to substantiate this
claim. EPA conducted a site investigation and found no evidence
that suggested a discharge from either pond had occurred.
Comment 2.s The claim by AES that groundwater could not get into
the storm water retention ponds is untrue. EPA should investigate.
EPA Response; EPA has investigated the possibility of storm water
contamination by groundwater and feels that AES has taken adequate
measures to prevent groundwater from migrating into the retention
ponds by constructing the ponds on ground that is above the water
table. Additionally, the water in the aquifer should not migrate
into the ponds because the aquifer at the.site is not under
hydrostatic pressure. For assurance, the final permit requires
additional monitoring; see response to comment C.3.
-------
-10-
K. Richard Stockstill, Pt. George Island, March 11, 1992.
Comment 1.i If a storm water discharge permit is issued, there is
enough material involving the AES project for a class action suit
to be filed.
EPA Response: Comment noted.
t
Comment 2.: EPA should investigate the alleged contamination at
the AES site by reviewing the testimony of the Florida hearing
officer, which was given in February of 1990.
EPA Response! Comment noted.
L. Mr. Owen Williams, AES/Cedar Bay, Inc., March 11, 1992.
Comment t AES has removed all the lime mud from the site..
Contaminated groundwater cannot get into the storm water retention
ponds.
EPA Responses Comment noted.
M. Dr. Robert Haines, 3342 Environment Road, Green Cove Springs.
FL, March 11, 1992.
Comment ;.; There will be prima facie evidence in the future that,
unless the water risk assessment is done, there will be negligence
on the part of the agency for not incorporating that in the risk
assessment.
EPA Responset Comment noted.
Comment 2.s The potential of rivers becoming contaminated by heavy
metals should be addressed.
EPA Response; Comment noted. See response to comment C.3.
N. Ms. Leslie Billingham, 36444 Hendricks St., March 11, 1992.
Comment» There exists on-site contamination that has not been
cleaned-up and it could affect .the quality of the storm water
runoff.
EPA Responsei Comment noted. See response to comment C.4.
H-7o
-------
-11-
O. Mr. Harry Reagan, Councilman, Office of the City Council,
220 E. Bay Street, Jacksonville, Florida 32202, March 16,
Comment la The Jacksonville City Council has repeatedly expressed
its opposition to this co-generation project. However, ^ES has
been building its plant without having received all appropriate
permits, including the construction storm water discharge permit.
f!^??!*0?!!' E*A has no authority to prohibit construction of a
facility and no point source discharge from the AES site has
occurred.
£S!!?nT ?*' TI?? Governor directed the Attorney General to appoint a
special investigator to investigate AES. The City called for
reopening the site certification, with the possibility of
suspending certification of the project.
JI^BesEonsei Comment noted. EPA is aware of the May 5, 1992,
aeeting in which FDER was directed to undertake proceedings for
revocation or suspension of AES' s site certification.
fDER and AES fntered int° discussions concerning the
«*!! * result of these discussions, FDER issued a
Board Order initiating modification of the site
B July 7' 1991'
* council voted to '
EPA Respons**. Comment noted.
P'
f;^UfUS Pe^n5t°n' «I» Margol and Pennington, P.A.,
Attorneys at Law, Suite 1702 American Heritage Tower/76 South
S^'SS' FL 32202' March 15' »«• cSS
n
representatives of the City of Jacksonville at theMarlS ll? 9 9 2
We a8 a11 °f the °ther coranents receive? at the '
EPA Respnncot Comment noted.
U-ll
-------
-12-
Robert G.
Environmental Consulting
Park' FL 32067-0733,
*' Polluta*ts are not adequately defined by the applicant
' No risk assessment has been done for pollutants in
—
devastating effect on the ecys tern ' W utlmately causa
PPA ResponRPt Comment noted. See response to comment C.3.
Crament noted. This concern was not directlv
eCl """ ^t
See response to comment Q.4.
\\--J2.
-------
-13-
EPA Responses See response to comments D.3.
Comment ?.« New evidence of adverse effects to mammalian tissues
from ceratin heavy metals was presented at the recent Toxicoloov
meetings. aJ
EPA Responsei Comment noted. • :
Comment p.t The Agency, by allowing the NPDES permits, "is
establishing a posture of direct co-liability for pollution damages
5£f1WeaVVttttai8 whf?h wil1 k® ln the daily effluent, according to
the City of Jacksonville's evaluation of the proposed discharge
into the Broward and St. Johns Rivers. Recent legal precedence of
Government liability in tort in Jacksonville clearly has bee£ let
*£.«—*«* Ufe*«as Judicial notice in any future civil action
against AES and EPA. Causation would be easy to prove, since
ha"™ aJSe«SL?SaVyvJnetal8 W0uld ** slffiPle to monitor. None would
have any growth enhancement or therapeutic value, and it could not
be argued that these elements would not be adverse on an
?,f™?iatiV? bases 5° 5he rlver ecosystem. At least the Agency is
5£2£J? ? ?arned that issuin9 *n NPDES permit without 1 *
fiunno^*"7 risk assessment is scientifically invalid. The Agency
in mind that the reason why FDER, and now the Attorney
Office is reviewing the State Certification many months
racr, as that false and misleading information appears --
provided by the »—~i*——*- - . - rr-
s gross
T5e f inal Permit has language, that allows EPA to
include « effluent limitation, or othe?
ffiOnito*ii9 data indicates a waier quality
-------
-------
MASS BALANCE
Attendant 1
021089
Aatndvtnc 2
070719
Aaendacnc 5
H-73
-------
i
t
„. ^^^ l^*-^«^^«^^/^i; | fssSmtM
2D 1 ** enA New Sourcef ind New Dischargers
*JJi 1 <>cRAAppllicationforPerm^
Nr MCA •Wrf*«. Ml tfW IMNW* V
OvfW NwmMT
flMr;
001
002
003
004
005
006
UMMtf
f^H ^LA
•^^^ ^^^n
30 24
in FI*M. t,_ iu •« fiijuir
»
S*c
55
«l«n«
* L
0^
81
>tud«.
•n««u
MM
35
•nMih
M
S«e
45
i n««M e( it* f «c*»vtnt «Mtw
SMM, «•«.*» /
bciatiag outfall la tha St. Johaa Rivar
Monitoring poiat for cooling tovar blovdovn
Moaitoriag point for runoff ratantion baain
Monitoring poiat for boiler blovdovn
MonltorinR point for construction dcvatcring
HonitoriJlf flint for low vgi<«* «••»••
TfMV*
•Nt Tl
NftMt
•*M I
A. For aach outfall, provrta a daacr iption of ( 1 J All oj
procau waatawataf. aanrtary wattawatar, eoo
-------
CO*t '/ I OwtUn Muma* 1
1 | nonl tori tic 'oltit 005 1
A. and B These items require you to repon estimated amounts (bet ft concintrftion tndmissjtf the pollutants to
be discharged from each of your outfalls. Each part of this itam addresses a different set of pollutants and should
t completed in accordance with the specific instructions for that pan. Data for aach outfall should be on a
operate page. Attach additional sheets of paper if necessary.
General Instructions /"See laeVe 2D-2 /or Polluttntt)
Each pan of this item requests you to provide an estimated daily maximum and average for cenam pollutants and
the source of information. Data for all pollutants in Group A, for all outfalls, must be submitted unless waived by
the permitting authority. For all outfalls, data lor pollutants in Group 8 ahould be reponed only for pollutants
which you believe will be present or ara limited directly by an effluent limitations guideline or NSPS or indirectly
through limitations on an indicator pollutant. .
I.NMWIWM
10D5
COD
TOC
TSS
Ammonia
Teaperature (Winter)
Teaperature (Suaaer)
Flow '
Citrate (as K)
Phosphorous (as P)
Sulfatt
Lead
M.rrurv
Nickel
leniun
fnrfm* unurjj
27 mg/l
295 kc
143 mg/l
1.560 kc
5 mg/l
55 kc .
753 kc
0.68 mg/l
7.4 kc
90 F
90 F
12.0
2.880,000^
1.8 mg/l
20 kc
0.7 mg/l
7.6 kc
1.636 kc
2.0 mg/l
21.8 kc
165 mg/1
1.800 k.
5.7 mg/l
62.1 k.
<0.16 mg/l
<1.74 mg/l
<13.2 kc
<0.0022ag/l
<1.57 kc
<0.017 ag/1
<0.18 kc
<6.4 ag/1
'H**
14 mg/l
90 kc
73 mg/l
464 kc
3 mg/l
19 kc
40 mg/l
254 kc
0.34 mg/l
2.2 kc
60 F
80 F
8.0
1,680,000^
0.93 ttg/1
6 kc
0.5 mg/l
5.4 kc
100 mg/l
635 kc
1.8 mg/l
19.6 kc
110 mg/l
700 k.
5.1 mg/l
32.4 k.
<0.13 mg/l
<0.8? k.
<0.94 mg/l
<1.0 mg/l
<6 36 kf
<0.0018c|,
<0.119 mg/
<0.76 kc
<0.011 BR/,
<0.07 ke
<4.4 mg/1
A|HN.|H..mMM
4
4
4
4
A
4
4
4
4
A
4
4
k -71
Cadmium
<0.010 mg/l
ke
<0.009 mg/l
<0.06 kc 4
-------
Monitoring Point 005
MIT If . ItDUSTIlAl lASTCIATtt CNAIACTCIIST1CS
l«f.r..ti.« furnish.* m tliit • •etUn f»r et«.truetl.« M»a ttiall »• ••••«
"* •••* •r»f«"»«»»»» j»«««tfit.
..1:; ::;:-fr.::;-i:;at:'t'1 If
n».
r..,0n-
2.88
2.88
§. ««ttr Quality Chtracttriatiia «r Crnw«nt
MIAMCTCI
' 2.88
«r
»«st/n*wtrcl tttreettfel*
•ci« ••trtettiUi
t«t«l «r«anie carMn (IOC)
(MO)
•ttcit
•»«clfie
ttapcratwr*
••!!«•
OCR r.r« 17.1.204(2)
rrtcti»* n*vt»ktr so, 1*12
unit*)
HlAlBWB
Stc 10.1.1
6.0
60 F
HtllVWB
5 ttg/1
27 ag/1
Ste 10.1.1
NPDES
Application
N?DES Applica
12.0
SO F
•
69 ag/1
3 ag/1
1* »g/l .
:ion
8.0
80 F Summer
60 T Vlnrvr
40 Bg/1
Page 5D of 9
-------
CEDAR BAY COGENERATION PROJECT
SITE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN DESCRIPTION
BECHTEL CORPORATION
GAITHERSBURG, MD
MARCH, 1993
-------
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page No.
I. INTRODUCTION 1
II. SITE .DESCRIPTION 2
III. BASIC DATA 3
IV. RUNOFF ANALYSIS . 5
V. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT RUNOFF ANALYSIS RESULTS 6
VI. SURFACE WATER HYDROLOGY 8
VII. EXTREME RAINFALL FOR THE AREA 9
VIII. CONTAINMENT OF STORAGE AREA RUNOFF 10
IX. ASSESSMENT OF EXTREME PRECIPITATION'EVENTS 11
X. CONCLUSIONS 12
XI. REFERENCES 13
-------
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE-1 STORAGE AREA RUNOFF POND (SARP) STAGE-STORAGE
TABLE-2 YARD AREA RUNOFF POND (YARP) STAGE-STORAGE
TABLE-3 SUMMARY OF RUNOFF ANALYSIS AND STORAGE AREA RUNOFF
POND (SARP) WATER LEVEL DURING PLANT OPERATION
TABLE-4 SUMMARY OF RUNOFF ANALYSIS AND YARD AREA RUNOFF POND
(YARP) WATER LEVEL DURING PLANT OPERATION
TABLE-5 SUMMARY OF RUNOFF ANALYSIS AND SARP WATER LEVEL DURING
PLANT SHUTDOWN
TABLE-6 SUMMARY OF RUNOFF ANALYSIS AND YARP WATER LEVEL DURING
PLANT SHUTDOWN
TABLE-7 SUMMARY OF St. JOHNS RIVER FLOW AT JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA,
DAILY FLOW VOLUME
TABLE-8 FLOW STATISTICS FOR St. JOHNS RIVER AT JACKSONVILLE,
FLORIDA
TABLE-9 PRECIPITATION AT JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE-1 CEDAR BAY PROJECT LOCATION AND VICINITY MAP
FIGURE-2 SITE PLAN
-------
CEDAR BAY COGENERATION PROJECT
SITE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN DESCRIPTION
INTRODUCTION
This document provides a description of the stormwater management plan for Cedar Bay
Cogeneration facility site. The overall goal of the plan is to capture and retain site stormwater
runoff for use as cooling tower makeup water. The information provided includes a description
of the plan modifications that have been made from earlier submittals. These modifications
further enhance the facility's ability to maximize water reuse and minimize potential for
discharge during extreme rainfall events.
The primary differences between the proposed plan and information provided in previous
submittals is the addition of an emergency water storage tank and an increase in pumping
capacity from the site storage area runoff pond (SARP).
Stormwater will be pumped at an increased capacity from the SARP either directly to the zero
discharge facility for treatment prior to reuse in the plant or to the emergency water storage
tank.
H-?3
-------
H. SITE DESCRIPTION
The Cedar Bay plant is located on leased land adjacent to the existing Seminole Kraft (SK)
recycle mill. The SK mill site is situated along the Broward River, approximately 3/4 mile
upstream of its junction with the St. Johns River. The portion of the existing SK site being
leased for development of the Cedar Bay Cogeneration Facility was used by SK as a storage area
for lime mud and waste byproducts prior to conversion to recycling operations; it also contained
a rail yard and lime settling ponds (see Figure 1).
Initial site preparation for the Cedar Bay project involved the relocation of accumulated lime
mud to a storage area in the northwestern portion of SK property. Clean granular fill was
placed and compacted on the cogeneration facility site subsequent to removal of the lime mud.
•
The site layout plan for the cogeneration plant is shown on Figure 2. The plant will burn coal
in a fluidized bed boiler, and use a cooling tower for heat rejection. Coal will be delivered to
the site by rail, and stored in the Coal Storage Area. Ash will be stored in silos, or pelletized
and temporarily stockpiled on-site. Pelletized ash will be conveyed back to the coal mine, by
rail, for ultimate disposal.
The plant has been designed as a zero discharge facility; plant wastewater (including cooling
tower blowdown, coal, limestone and ash pellet storage area stormwater runoff, yard area
stormwater runoff, and low volume plant wastes such, as boiler blowdown, floor drains, and
demineralizer regeneration wastes) will be treated and reused in the cooling tower.
Existing site runoff is directed toward the Broward River. The stormwater management plan
makes use of the existing drainage pattern. As shown on Figure 2, a stormwater collection
network will direct runoff from the facility area to one of two stormwater management ponds.
Stormwater runoff from coal, limestone and ash pellet areas will be conveyed to the lined
storage area runoff pond (SARP). Runoff from the power block will be collected in the yard
area runoff pond (YARP). Water collected in both ponds will be used for plant cooling.
-------
BASIC DATA
The storm water runoff from the Cedar Bay Cogeneration Project Facility (Figure 2) is
conveyed to two on-site runoff ponds. Water from these ponds is pumped to an on-site
zero discharge plant and reused in the plant. The SARP is a lined pond.
An emergency water storage tank with one million gallons (3.07 acre-ft) capacity is
provided to store water pumped from SARP during plant shutdown.
The pump at the YARP is rated at 500 gpm and its operation is based on pond water
level. Pumping starts when the pond water level reaches an Hev. of 9 ft National
Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD) and trips when the water level drops to an Hev of
8 ft NGVD.
The existing pump at the SARP is rated at 500 gpm and its operation is based on the
pond water level. Pumping starts when pond water level reaches Elev. 9 ft NGVD and
trips when water level drops to Hev. 8 ft NGVD. In order to eliminate the overflow
from this pond to the river, a sensitivity study was conducted with pumping capacities
ofTOOgpm, 1,000 gpm and 1,200 gpm. Based on this assessment, the pumping capacity
from the SARP will be increased to 1,200 gpm.
The crest of the spillways for both ponds are at Bev. 12 ft. NGVD. The SARP and
YARP volumes to spillway crest arc 7.15 acre-ft and 7.57 acre-ft respectively. With
bottom storage between H. 7 ft and EL 8 ft NGVD reserved for siltation, the net runoff
volume which can be stored in the SARP is 5.86 acre-ft and YARP is 6.40 acre-ft. The
pond stage-storage details are shown on Table-1 and Table-2. The combined net storage
volume of the SARP and emergency water storage tank is 8.93 acre-ft.
The overflow from the pond's spillway to the river is conveyed via a combined discharge
chute.
-------
• Contributory drainage areas to these ponds including pond areas are:
Storage Area Runoff Pond (SARP) 10.9 acres
Yard Area Runoff Pond (YARP) 12.6 acres
YARP contributory area includes an area of 0.8 acres occupied by zero discharge
wastewater treatment facility and excludes an area of 0.5 acres occupied by cooling
tower. The runoff from the cooling tower is conveyed to cooling tower basin and does
not contribute to runoff conveyed to YARP.
• SARP contributory drainage area includes a 2.4 acre coal storage area, a 0.37 acre
limestone storage area, and a 0.36 acre pelletized ash storage area.
•
• The 24-hour duration rainfall frequencies considered for this assessment are 10-, 25- and
50- Year events.
• The rainfall data as per SJRWMD District Technical Publication SJ 88-3 (Ref. 1) are:
10-year, 24-hour 7.46 inches
25-year, 24-hour 9.34 inches
50-year, 24-hour 10.8 inches
• The weighted Soil Conservation Service (SCS) runoff curve number (CN) used for runoff
analysis is 85.
• The Broward River near the site is classified as Class m marine water.
-------
IV. RUNOFF ANALYSIS
The runoff analysis was performed based on SCS methodology, using a runoff curve number,
time of concentration, and total rainfall. The runoff analysis and routing of the flow through
the yard area and the storage area runoff ponds was performed using the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers HEC-1 Flood Hydrograph Package (Reference 2). The analysis incorporates pumping
from the coal pile area sump to SARP.
The analysis was performed for the 10-, 25- and 50-year, 24-hour storm events. Peak water
levels within the runoff ponds are determined from the HEC-1 program routing model with
pumping from each runoff pond to the plant zero discharge facility. Based on the analysis, a
runoff depth for each subarea was calculated and a total runoff volume to the pond was
determined. This volume is compared to the total runoff pond volume along with the emergency
water storage tank volume to determine if overflow from the runoff pond will occur in the event
of a plant shutdown. The results of the analysis are shown in Tables 3 through 6.
-------
V. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT RUNOFF ANALYSIS RESULTS
Plant Operation Condition
• Stormwater runoff from the SARP and YARP will be pumped to the onsite zero
discharge facility and reused in the plant.
Table-3 summarizes stormwater runoff, maximum pond water level and peak overflow
rate for the SARP with various assumed pumping rates and storm frequencies. Based
on this analysis, a pump at the SARP, with a capacity of 1200 gpm, will eliminate any
overflow to the river for the 10 year, 25 year and 50 year, 24 hour storm event.
Table-4 summarizes the requests of the analysis for the YARP. As indicated, there is
no overflow from the YARP during the 10 year storm. During the 25 year and 50 year,
24 hour storms, the peak overflow rates are 0.3 cfs and 3cfs, respectively. The
corresponding overflow volumes for the 25 and 50 year, 24 hour storms are 9105 cubic
ft and 67,975 cubic ft, respectively. This overflow lasts for 5 hours during a 25 year
event and 13 hours during a 50 year event.
Plant (Turbine Generator) Shutdown Condition
When the turbine generator is not in operation, stormwater cannot be utilized in the plant for
cooling purposes.
Under this condition, the following observations can be made:
• No overflow will occur from either runoff pond during the 10-year, 24-hour storm event.
• During larger storm events, the water from the SARP will be pumped to the emergency
water storage tank, stored and reused in the plant. This will result in no overflow from
SARP to the Broward River for extreme, rainfall events up to 50-year 24-hour storms.
The volume pumped (Table-5) is less than the capacity of the emergency water storage
tank.
-------
The SARP can store runoff generated by up to 8 inches of rainfall without any overflow
during plant shutdown condition. Thus, with the use of the emergency water storage
tank, the combined capacity of SARP and tank is equivalent to about 9.83 inches of
runoff generated by 11.5 inches of rainfall. This rainfall corresponds to a 24-hour storm
frequency of about 70 years. The summary of stormwater runoff and minimum runoff
volume to be stored in the emergency water storage tank, during the operation of SARP
pump with pond water level at spillway crest, is shown on Table-5.
During a 25-year, 24-hour event, there will be an overflow of 64,900 cubic feet of water
from the YARP to the Broward River. The peak overflow rate and overflow volume to
the river from YARP is shown on Table-6.
The YARP can store runoff generated by up to 8 inches of rainfall without any overflow
during plant shutdown condition. This event has an approximate frequency of 13 years.
Thus this event would occur approximately 2 times in the life of the plant.
-------
VI. SURFACE WATER HYDROLOGY
The Cedar Bay project site (Figure 1) is located within the estuarine portion of the St. Johns
River Basin, about 13 miles upstream of the mouth of the river. The surfece- waters in this
vicinity have been classified as Class m, predominantly marine waters, in Chapter 17-3 of the
Florida Administrative Code (FAC). Waters of this type are intended for fish and wildlife
propagation and management. Water test data show the presence of salt water in the St. Johns
River adjacent to the proposed site.
The plant site located on the Broward River (Figure-1), is less than one mile upstream of its
junction with the St. Johns River. The Broward River in this reach is tidal and affected by flows
and stages of the St. Johns River.
•
The nearest stream flow gaging station on the St. Johns River, approximately 25 miles upstream
of the mouth of the river, and about 12 miles upstream of the site area, is maintained by the
USGS. There are no other published records of stage and/or flow in the site vicinity. The
stream flow data for the St. Johns River at Jacksonville, Florida (Station 02-2465) over the
period 1954-1970, shows that the flow at this location is affected by tides. Variation in the
ocean level increases or decreases stream flow for the St. John's River, by causing changes in
basin storage. The published flood and ebb tide volumes in USGS Water Supply Papers (Ref.
3) at this station are summarized in Table-7.
The flow statistics for the St. Johns River at Jacksonville, based on the records computed for
the March 1, 1954 to September 30,1966 (Ref. 4) arc shown on Table-8. Based on above data
the minimum daily downstream flow volume for St Johns River is 540x10* cubic feet (Table-7).
The average net flow in the river is 5,883 cfs. Maximum daily net flow in the river is 87,000
cfs (Table-8).
8
-------
VH. EXTREME RAINFALL FOR THE AREA
The rainfall analysis for Northeast-Florida was performed by the St Johns River Water
Management District (Ref. 1, 5 & 6). These studies include an analysis of historic data and
development of rainfall frequency curves. Based on the historic data for the Jacksonville Airport
for the period of 1867-1984 (98 years), the monthly average, minimum and maximum
precipitation (Ref. 6, Technical Publication SJ 86-4) is shown on Table-9. The mean monthly
precipitation for the wettest month of September is 7.29 inches. The corresponding maximum
monthly precipitation of 15.80 inches occurred in year 1947 in the month of September. The
mean annual precipitation is 51.73 inches, with an observed minimum annual of 32.56 inches
and maximum annual of 82.27 inches. The design basis rainfall values derived by SJWMD
reflect these extreme rainfall events.
-------
Vm. CONTAINMENT OF STORAGE AREA RUNOFF
The storage area runoff volumes for the 10-, 25- and 50-year 24-hour storm events which need
to be contained are as follows:
FREQUENCY, YEARS
10-YEAR
25-YEAR
50-YEAR
RUNOFF VOLUME, acre-ft
5.17
6.82
8.08
•
With a total combined storage volume 8.93 acre-ft for the storage area runoff pond, along with
the volume of the emergency water storage tank, no overflow from the SARP will occur up to
the 50-year 24-hour storm event.
10
-------
K. ASSESSMENT OF EXTREME PRECIPITATION EVENTS
• The major on-site areas affecting runoff water quality are the coal storage area, lime-
stone storage area and cured-ash-pellet storage area. The coal storage area runoff and
the limestone storage area runoff are pumped to the lined SARP. The cured-ash-pellet
storage area runoff flows directly to the SARP. All runoff collected is reused in the
plant, or stored in the emergency water storage tank and then reused.
• The suspended solids conveyed by runoff will settle in runoff ponds.
• No overflow to the river from either pond will occur during the 10-year 24-hour storm
event, with the plant in operation or shutdown.
• With a pumping capacity of 1,200 gpm along with the use of the emergency water
storage tank, no overflow from the SARP to the river will occur during 25-year and 50-
year 24-hour storms. This is true both for operational and shutdown conditions.
• For extreme events higher than 10-year 24-hour frequency, minor overflow from the
YARP will occur. However, the overflow volume (Tables 4 and 6) is insignificant as
compared to the river flow and tidal volume during these conditions. Thus, any runoff
overflow from the YARP during extreme events and during plant shutdown conditions
will have insignificant impact on the Broward or St. Johns Rivers.
• The peak discharge rate from the YARP to the river during plant shutdown (2 cfs during
a 25-year and 4 cfs during a 50-year storm, Table-6) is insignificant compared to the St.
Johns River flood flow of 87,000 cfs. With the plant in operation the peak overflow
during a 50-year 24-hour storm is 3 cfs and only about 0.3 cfs during a 25-year 24-hour
storm (Table-4).
11
H-13
-------
X. CONCLUSIONS
The following conclusions can be drawn from the above discussed information.
• The pumping capacity from the SARP will be increased to 1,200 gpm from an existing
capacity of 500 gpm.
• An emergency water storage tank with a capacity of 1 million gallons will be used to
store additional water from the SARP when the plant is not operating.
• During plant operation all water from SARP will be pumped to the zero discharge
facility.
•
• When the plant (turbine generator) is not in operation, water from the SARP will be
pumped to the emergency water storage tank.
• The SARP and the emergency storage water tank can hold runoff generated by up to 11.5
inches of rainfall from a 24-hour storm, which is more than the quantity generated by
a 50-year storm.
• During normal operation, the yard area runoff is stored in the YARP and used in the
plant. The runoff does not overflow to the river during a 10-year storm.. Even for a 25-
year and 50-year, 24-hour storms, the overflow volume from the YARP is very small.
The overflow lasts for 5 hours during 25-year storm and for about 13 hours during 50-
year storm.
• During extreme events when the plant is shutdown, the effect of overflow from the
YARP on the St. Johns River will be insignificant due to the small volume of the
overflow and the large flow in the river.
• The YARP can hold runoff generated by up to 8 inches of rainfall storm without any
overflow during plant shutdown condition. ~Eight inches of precipitation in a 24-hour
period occurs approximately once in 13 years.
12
-------
XI. REFERENCES
1. St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD), Technical Publication SJ 88-3,
"Rainfall Analysis for Northeast Florida, Part VI: 24-Hour to 96-Hour Maximum
Rainfall for Return Periods 10 Years, 25 Years, and 100 Years", May 1988.
2. U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, "HEC-1, Flood Hydrograph Package, Computer
Program", September, 1990.
3. USGS Water Supply Papers "Compilation of Records of Surface Waters of the United
States, Part 2-B, South Atlantic Slope and Eastern Gulf of Mexico Basins, Ogeechee
River to Pearl River".
4. Anderson, W. and Goolsby, D.A., "Flow and Chemical Characteristics of The St. Johns
River at Jacksonville, Florida", Florida Department of Natural Resources, Information
Circular No. 82, Tallahassee, 1973.
5. St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD), Technical Publication SJ 86-3,
"Rainfall Analysis for Northeast Florida, Part I: 24-Hour to 10-Day Maximum Rainfall
Data", June 1986.
6. St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD), Technical Publication SJ 86-4,
"Rainfall Analysis for Northeast Florida, Part H: Summary of Monthly and Annual
Rainfall Data", July 1986.
13
-------
TABLE-1 STORAGE AREA RUNOFF POND (SARD STAGE-STORAGE*
ELEVATION, ft
7.0
8.0
9.0
10.0
11.0
12.0
13.0
AREA,
acres
1.26
1.32
1.40
1.46
1.53
1.60
1.70
TOTAL VOLUME,
acre-ft
0
1.29
2.66
4.08
5.58
7.15
8.80
NET VOLUME" ABOVE
SILTATION '
ALLOWANCE, acre-ft
0
1.37
2.79
4.29
5.86
7.51
* These volumes do not include one million gallons (3.07 acre-ft) volume of the
emergency water storage tank.
** Siltation allowance from El. 7 ft to H. 8 ft.
-------
TABLE-2 YARD AREA RUNOFF POND (YARP) STAGE-STORAGE
ELEVATION, ft
7.0
8.0
9.0
10.0
11.0
12.0
13.0
AREA, acres
1.10
1.25
1.41
1.59
1.79
1.99
2.19
TOTAL VOLUME,
acre-ft
0
1.17
2.49
3.99
5.67
7.57 •
9.65
NET VOLUME* ABOVE
SILTATION *
ALLOWANCE, acre-ft
0
1.32
2.82
4.50
6.40
8.48
Siltation allowance from H. 7 ft to El. 8 ft.
-------
TABLE 3. SUMMARY OF RUNOFF ANALYSIS AND STORAGE AREA RUNOFF
POND (SARP) WATER LEVEL DURING PLANT OPERATION
CASE A: PLANT OPERATION WITH PUMPING FROM SARP
Storm
Frequency,
Years
24-hour
Rainfall,
inches
Runoff,
inches
Pond Water Level Data
Max. Water Level
Hev. , ft NGVD
Peak
Outflow, cfs
A. STORAGE AREA RUNOFF POND (SARP)
A 1 pjTMPTNfi at 500 mm FROM POND
10
25
50
7.46
9.34
10.8
5.69
7.51
8.9
10.84
11.82
12.2
0
0
2
A2 PUMPING at 700 ppm FROM POND
10
25
50
7.46
9.34
10.8
5.69
7.51
8.9
10.67
11.58
12.15
0
0
1
AT PUMPING at 1 -000 ppm FROM POND
10
25
50
7.46
9.34
10.8
5.69
7.51
8.9
10.52
11.37
12.05
0
0
0.2
A4 PUMPING at 1.200 com FROM POND
10
25
|50
«
7.46
9.34
10.8
5.69
7.51
8.9
10.43
11.27
11.94
0
0
0
===s^=s^xs
-------
TABLE 4. SUMMARY OF RUNOFF ANALYSIS AND YARD AREA RUNOFF POND
(YARP) WATER LEVEL DURING PLANT OPERATION
CASE B: PLANT OPERATION WITH PUMPING FROM YARP
Storm
Frequency,
Years
24-hour
Rainfall,
inches
Runoff,
inches
Pond Water Level Data
Max. Water
Level Elev. ,
ftNGVD
Peak
Outflow,
cfs
Estimated
Overflow
Volume,
cubic feet
(GALLONS)
YARD AREA RUNOFF POND (YARP) PUMPING AT 500 gpm
•
10
25
50
7.46
9.34
10.8
5.69
7.51
8.9
11.15
12.06
12.28
0
0.3
3
0
9,105
(68,100)
67,975
(508,460)
-------
TABLES. SUMMARY OF RUNOFF ANALYSIS AND SARP WATER LEVEL
DURING PLANT SHUTDOWN
CASE C: PLANT SHUTDOWN WITH PUMPING FROM STORAGE AREA RUNOFF
POND (SARP) TO EMERGENCY WATER STORAGE TANK*
Storm
Frequency,
Years
24-hour
Rainfall,
inches
Runoff,
inches
Pond Water Level Data
Max. Water
Level Elev. ,
ftNGVD
Peak
Outflow,
cfs
Minimum
Volume Pumped
to Emergency
Storage water
Tank cubic feet
(GALLONS)
STORAGE AREA RUNOFF POND (SARP) .
10
25
50
7.46
9.34
10.8
5.69
7.51
8.9
11.54
12.00
12.00
0
0
0
0
41,820
(312,820)
96,700
(723,300)
* Volume of Emergency Water Storage Tank = 1 million gallons
-------
TABLE 6. SUMMARY OF RUNOFF ANALYSIS AND YARP WATER LEVEL
DURING PLANT SHUTDOWN ^v*^
CASED: PLANTSHUTDOWNWITHNO PUMPING FROM YARD AREA RUNOFF
POND
Storm
Frequency,
Years
24-hour
Rainfall,
inches
Runoff,
inches
Pond Water Level Data
Overflow
Volume, cubic
feet
(GALLONS)
Max. Water
Level Hev. ,
ftNGVD
YARD AREA RUNOFF POND (YARP)
64,900
(485,000)
-------
AT
YEAR
CUBIC FEET
=======
MAXIMUM
==
3,710 x 106
4,720 x 106
•—^—B^-*.^—••.
3,990 x 106
•"^—^——..^-,—
3,710 x 106
——————.
3,340 x 106
—^—
3,600 x 106
•
3,340 x 106
——*—
3,390 x 106
—^————
3,460 x 106
•—————.
3,340 x 106
-
5,280 x 106
——•—^^—_
3,430 x 106
————•——
3,430 x 106
3,310 x 106
3,670 x 106
3,760 x 106
—^—•——_
4,200 x 106
FL°W VOLUME, I UPSTREAM FLOW VOLUME,
MINIMUM
=====
970 x 106
'
1,060 x 10s
1,010 x 106
•• •^^••^•^•B
830 x 106
-^—^——^i™
890 xlO6
—^—^—^—^«^M
570 x 106
•' —i—•—^
750 x 10*
540 x 106
•^—^—^—_i
810 x 106
•
840 x 10*
™^^^^-^™«—«
•^-^-^—•—^—™»«
890 x 106
—^-^—^-^«^_
740 x 10*
•^^^i^HI^H^HM^
710 x 106
^•^^«^^^^-^^™^™
390 xlO6
l,050x 106
^•^•^ !•
780 x 10*
MAXIMUM
=====
3,250 x 106
—^^-^—^-^
3,060 x 106
3,350 xlO6
•^——-^—^—«^™
3,480 x 10*
———-^—*^™
2,980 x 106
••^—^—^-^—^—.
2,850 x 106
— —•^—^.—^^
3,000 x 106
-^^-^^^—^^^-^—
2,910 x 106
——^—
3,270 x 10*
•^—^-^—^—-^^^—^™
3,350 x 10*
—^^—_
4,410 x 106
-^—^——^—^
3,320 x 106
^^^*—vi^n
3,220 x 106
-—•—-^^•^—^-«
3,230 x 10*
.._
3,510 x 106
•"""••^-^——^^^^•^
3,250 x 106
3,140x 106
MINIMUM
=====
760x10*
^^—^-^-^•^^•.»
580 x 106
———
1,000 xlO6
•———•—•».
700 x 106
—^———™«-
610 x 106
•——^—^——•
400 x 106
120 x 106
610 x 106
950 x 106
—^—^——^—.
150 x 106
•™^~™—«^™^».
—^———^^—
50 x 106
310 x 106
640 x 106
^-^^-^-^—.^^
620 x 106
From Reference 3 for U.S.G.S. Stream Flow Gaging
Johns River at Jacksonville, Florida.
210 x 106
^i^M
130 x 106
=^BB^BB:B
Station No. 02-2465, St.
-------
TABLE 8. FLOW STATISTICS FOR St. JOHNS RIVER* AT JACKSONVILLE,
FLORIDA
Statistic
Average discharge, cfs
Average net discharge, cfs
Maximum daily net flow, cfs
Minimum daily net flow, cfs
Average volume per tidal cycle, eft
Average net volume per tidal cycle, eft
Maximum volume per tidal cycle, eft
Direction of Flow
Downstream
46,419
5,883
87,000
N/A
2,075.5 x 10«
263.1 x 106
5,280 x 106
Upstream
40,536
N/A
N/A
51,500
1,812.4 x 10*
N/A
4,410 x 106
* From Reference 4.
\4-io3
-------
TABLE 9. PRECIPITATION AT JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA*
Jacksonville Aiiport Precipitation, inches
-1984)
Minimum
(Year 1917)
* From Reference 6, SJ 86-4.
-------
1WSC4
gfad
>****•—"I;£^Y;'L-
* I x-x. • J/^ / l'^»
' . ,
PLANT LOCATION
.--.
^UM^rV^Ox^ ^^.
• • •£~?i(^5tJj&~-r>^
^rib^^ni fK~>ttg
"H ^/S^>^
> ~!« •
^'- HX
^^ •
- "" M-. s
1. CEDAR BAY PROJECT LOCATION AND VICINITY MAI»
^ - -;
(\
-------
•' i _ _ ' •• rr~^^^*j~*•—-i-
JJm««terM Wto
STORAGE AREA RUNOFF DRAINAGE
BOUNDARY
YARD AREA RUNOFF
DRAINAGE BOUNDARY
Additional Stereo* Votum* In
L_
DNehM Draining to YARP ' /
CEDAR BAY COGENERATtON PROJECT
FIGURE 2. SITE PLAN
-------
Q.I Confirmation that there is no potential for water in
ponds to infiltrate into groundwater.
RESPONSE:
The storage area runoff pond (SARP) along with the area
occupied by coal pile, the ash pelletizing area and the
ditches conveying the stormwater runoff to the SARP are
lined with a flexible membrane liner. The presence of
the liner prevents infiltration from this pond to
groundwater.
The yard area runoff pond (YARP) collects runoff from
the power block facilities and is not lined and will
result in some infiltration to the groundwater. The
water from this pond is pumped to the zero discharge
facility. Thus, during plant operation the pond is
maintained in an almost empty condition which minimizes
the infiltration to groundwater.
Q.2 Confirmation that pumping of stormwater from unlined
pond will not draw in groundwater.
RESPONSE:
The pumping from the YARP is limited to El. 8 ft.
Based on the limited groundwater elevation data
observed during initial soil investigations, the water
level in yard area runoff pond is between El. 5 ft to
El. 7 ft. By limiting the pumping from pond to El. 8
ft and above, withdrawal of groundwater during pond
pumping is precluded.
Q.3 Response to FEDER concern about pH control for coal
pile during potential episodic events where overflow
from SARP could occur.
RESPONSE:
In order to provide pH control for the coal pile area
runoff, for events greater than the 50-year 25-hour
storm, the runoff collection ditches in the coal pile
area will be provided with about a 3 inch thick
limestone layer.
•U -107
-------
Q.4 Priority use status of stormwater vs. SKC wastewater
for Cedar Bay cooling.
RESPONSE:
The logic of the system will be set up in such a way
that stormwater takes priority over all other available
sources. The water sources in decreasing order of
preference are:
Stormwater Runoff
Plant Waste Water
SK Effluent
During the period when stormwater from the ponds is
available, the use of SKC wastewater will be reduced to
accommodate the use of stormwater from the ponds.
-------
APPENDIX I
CEDAR BAY ZERO DISCHARGE SYSTEM
SUMMARY DESCRIPTION
-------
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TAB
INTRODUCTION 1
SUMMARY DESCRIPTION 2
SYSTEM DESIGN CRITERIA 3
WATER BALANCE 4
WASTE STREAM DATA 5
SYSTEM DESCRIPTIONS AND FLOW DIAGRAMS 6
Cooling Tower Makeup Pretreatment System
Cooling Tower Slowdown Treatment System
Reverse Osmosis System
Evaporator/Concentrator System
Crystallizer and Centrifuge System
PLANT LAYOUT 7
PIPING AND INSTRUMENT DIAGRAMS (P&IDS) 8
• Cooling Tower Makeup Pretreatment-System M74-LG01
• Cooling Tower Slowdown Treatment and
Preconcentrator System M74-LG02
• Evaporator/Concentrator System M74-LG03
• Crystallizer and Centrifuge System M74-LG04
SPECIFICATIONS 9
Cooling Tower Makeup Pretreatment-System M110
Cooling Tower Slowdown Treatment-System
Preconcentrator System (Pressure Filler and Reverse
Osmosis System) M126
Evaporator, Crystallizer and Centrifuge System M125
Attachments to Technical Specifications
Rev. A
I-
-------
VENDOR PROPOSALS 1(J
• Infilco Degremont, Inc.
(Slowdown and Pretreatment Systems)
• Resources Conservation Company (Evaporator/Crystallizer)
• Glegg Water Conditioning, Inc. (RO System)
OTHER INFORMATION
Rev. A
-------
INTRODUCTION
The Cedar Bay Cogeneration Plant is a coal fueled facility located on an existina
Semmole Kraft (SK) Paper Mill site in Jacksonville, Florida. 9
The project will be designed to provide up to 380,000 pounds per hour of process
steam to the SK plant and 1 250 MW (net) of electricity which will be wheeled?h?ough
he Jacksonville Electric Authority System for exclusive sale to Florida Power and
Light Company.
f^H-layH K ? Ih€! Plantjacilities js shown in Tab 7- Th* Plant will burn coal in a
flu dized bed boiler and will use a cooling tower for heat rejection. Coal will be
,nei'chred t0 the nite by rail and limestone fay truck. Ash generated will be stored
in ash silos or pellet.zed and temporarily stockpiled on-site prior to being conveyed
to the mine source by rail for disposal.
-n . ™<* plant wastewater,
cooling tower blowdown, coal, limestone, and ash pellet storage area
runoff, yard area runoff, and low volume plant wastes (boiler blowdown, floor
drains, and demineralizer regeneration wastes) will be treated and reused in the
piant.
Seminole Kraft waste water is used for makeup to the plant's cooling tower.
Rev. A
-------
CEDAR BAY ZERO DISCHARGE SYSTEM
SUMMARY DESCRIPTION
General
Wastewater generated in the Cedar Bay plant from floor drains, makeup
demineralizer regeneration, material storage area storm water runoff and from
operation of the wastewater treatment system plus Seminole Kraft Company (SK)
wastewater will be treated in pretreatment system for use in the Cedar Bay and SK
cooling towers. The treatment method will be lime soda softening.
Cedar Bay boiler blowdown will be reused as cooling tower makeup without
treatment.
Blowdown from the Cedar Bay cooling tower and general site stormwater runoff will
be treated in the zero discharge system and reused as cooling tower makeup. The
treatment method will be lime soda softening, filtration, reverse osmosis (RO)
evaporation and crystallization.
Dewatered sludge from the pretreatment and the cooling tower blowdown clarifiers
and crystallizer salt will be disposed of offsite.
There will be no process wastewater discharge from the Cedar Bay plant.
Cooling Tower Makeup Treatment
The cooling tower makeup treatment system will process the Cedar Bay plant
wastewater and SK treated process wastewater to allow the cooling tower to be
operated at reasonable cycles of concentration without excessive heat transfer
surface fouling. The cooling tower makeup treatment system will take the available
Cedar Bay plant wastewater and use SK wastewater to supplement the cooling
tower makeup requirement.
Wastewater will be received in a premix tank to allow the addition of chemicals to
condition the wastewater before clarification. Water from the premix tank will flow
to the clarifier for suspended solids removal. Chemicals can also be added to the
clarifier if required. Clarified wastewater will flow to a clearwell before being
pumped to the cooling towers. The pH of the treated wastewater will be adjusted
if required.
The chemicals that will be used in treatment include sulfuric acid for pH
adjustment, lime and soda ash for softening, aluminum or iron salts for coagulation,
and polymers as coagulant aids.
2-1 Rev. A
-------
Sludge from the clarifier will be thickened and dewatered for offsite disposal.
Zero Discharge Wastewater Treatment
The zero discharge treatment system will process the Cedar Bay cooling tower
blowdown for reuse as cooling tower makeup. The primary function of the system
will be the removal of the salts that build up in the cooling water due to
evaporation.
Cooling tower blowdown will be treated in a clarifier operated as a softener to
pretreat blowdown for use as RO feed water. Lime, soda ash, sodium hydroxide
and magnesium chloride will be added to the softener as required to reduce the
calcium and silica concentrations to acceptable levels. The softened cooling tower
blowdown will be pH adjusted with sulfuric acid, and filtered to prevent suspended
solids fouling of the RO system. Sludge from the clarifier will be thickened
dewatered and disposed of in a landfill.
The filter effluent will be chemically conditioned with sulfuric acid and a scale
inhibitor chemical such as polymers or sodium hexametaphosphate to reduce the
potential for RO membrane fouling. The RO unit removes salt from the blowdown
and produces a product stream low in total dissolved solids (TDS), and a brine
stream, high in TDS. The RO product stream is returned to the cooling tower for
reuse. The RO brine is pH adjusted and treated in the evaporator to produce a
low TDS condensate stream and a very high TDS brine stream.
Additional evaporator chemical feeds such as antifoam agents, and sodium
hydroxide will be used if required.
The evaporator condensate is returned to the cooling tower for reuse, and the
evaporator brine is treated in the crystallizer. The crystallizer produces a low TDS
product and solid salt crystals. The crystallizer product is returned to the cooling
tower for reuse. The solid salt from the crystallizer is disposed of offsite.
Additional crystallizer and evaporator chemical feeds such antifoaming agents, and
sodium hydroxide will be used if required.
2-2 Rev. A
-------
DESIGN CRITERIA
Th,s section contains the principal criteria for the detail design of the Facility The
des,gn elements (e.g., size, layout, ratings, quantities, materials of construction
equ,pment types) described are approximate. Changes may occur as detai.ed
design progresses.
CODES AND STANDARDS
Systems and equipment will be designed in accordance with the applicable
secfons of the codes, standards, and regulations in effect at the date of
construction. Applicable sections of codes, standards, and regulations will be
defined in specifications.
COOLING TOWER MAKEUP WATER
The normal cooling tower makeup water supply will be from Seminole Kraft The
bas,s for systems design considers that water quality shall be as delineated in the
following table:
Characteristic Unit Quality
PH
Alkalinity
Sulfate
Chloride
Solids, Dissolved
Silica
Calcium
Magnesium
Sodium
Potassium
•
Iron
Manganese
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
6-9
\j—&
565
805
312
2300
55
560
260
650
15
1.1
0.7
3~1 Rev. A
I-
-------
DESIGN DATA SUMMARY:
Cooling tower evaporation rate (summer): 2,288 gpm
Cooling tower drift rate: 3 gpm
Seminole Kraft (SK) cooling tower makeup rate: 500 gpm
Maximum SK wastewater dissolved solids: 2,300 mg/l
Maximum cooling water dissolved solids: 12,500 mg/l
Maximum flow from storage area runoff: 1200 gpm
Maximum flow from general site runoff: 500 gpm
Cooling tower biowdown temperature range: 64 - 95 °F
Design Average Biowdown Flow (summer): 530 gpm
EQUIPMENT SIZING BASIS:
Cooling Tower Makeup Pretreatment Clarifier:
The cooling tower makeup pretreatment clarifier will be sized for a maximum flow
rate of 7 MGD to allow treatment of 50% of the Phase II (open discharge concept)
flow.
Cooling Tower Biowdown Waste Clarifier/Sand Filter:
The cooling tower biowdown waste clarifier and sand filter will be sized to treat
approximately 175% of the average cooling tower biowdown flow.
Reverse Osmosis System:
The reverse osmosis (RO) system will be sized to treat the design summer
biowdown flow at 65 °F and approximately 125% of the design summer biowdown
flow at 80 °F.
3-2 Rev. A
22029VDignCrit _J— (
-------
Evaporator/Crystallizer System:
The evaporator/crysta||i2er syste
the des,gn average summer cooling tower blowdown flow with an outage allowance
of 2 days per month.
Emergency Wastewater Storage Tank:
Theemergencywastewater storage tank wil, be sized to hold approximately 3 days
of RO brmg production based on the design summer cooling tower b.owdown flow
and a 60% RO product recovery rate.
MECHANICAL SYSTEMS AND EQUIPMENT
GENERAL
This section provides a description of the design criteria for principal mechanical
equipment and systems.
PUMPS
The head/capacity characteristics of pumps will be such that the head continuously
nses w,th decreasing capacity until a maximum head is reached at zero flow The
minimum rise to shutoff will be specified to be at least 120 percent of design head.
Pumps will be specified to be sized to accept an impeller at least 1/8-inch .arger
m d,ameter than the supplied impeller without having to change the pump casing
Permanent or startup strainers wil. be installed in the suction piping of pumps
which operate with close clearances.
3~3 Rev. A
2202«*gnCri»
-------
Pumps over 25 hp and with variable flow requirements will contain a recirculation
line for pump protection. The recirculation line will normally be routed to the source
from which the system is taking suction.
Pressure Vessels
Pressure vessels will be fabricated in accordance with ASME Section VIII,
Division 1, Pressure Vessels.
Pressure vessels will be supplied with the following features:
a. Process, vent, and drain connections for startup and maintenance
b. A minimum of one manhole and one air ventilation opening on vessels
where maintenance or cleaning access is required
c. Relief valves in accordance with applicable codes
Heat Exchangers
Heat exchangers will be either shell and tube type-or plate type. Shell and tube
type will be designed with provisions for either tube bundle replacement or
individual tube replacement in place. Heat exchangers using raw water will be
designed with straight tubes having a minimum diameter of 3/4 inch to allow
manual tube cleaning in place. Thermal relief valves will be provided between
isolation valves for the water side of the heat exchangers.
Rev. A
~|~ ^ Q
-------
Tanks
Plant tanks will have storage capacities as required by the design of the systems.
Tank volumes will be equivalent to the stated volume.
a. Material and Corrosion Allowances
Tanks will be fabricated in accordance with guidelines established by
API or AWWA, as determined by the service.
b. Overflow and Vent Connections
Overflow connections and lines will be provided where required and will
be at least one pipe size larger than the largest input line or combina-
tion of inputs that can discharge simultaneously.
c. Maintenance Drain Connections
Maintenance drain connections will be provided of an adequate size to
facilitate drainage of tanks within a reasonable time.
d. Manholes and Ladders
Manholes, where provided, on tanks and pressure vessels will be
18 inches, except where impractical. Ladders and cleanout doors will
be provided on large tanks.
3-5 Rev. A
220WDignCnt ^17 ~ | 0
-------
Piping and Valves
Plant piping design and fabrication shall be governed by the ANSI B31.1 Power
Piping Code and local plumbing codes. System frictional pressure drops, .pipe
sizing, and flow balancing, including the determination of necessary throttling, will
be determined by using Crane Technical Paper 410, Cameron Hydraulic Data
Book, and Contractor Mechanical Engineering Standards.
As a general guideline, piping 2-1/2-inch in diameter and larger will be butt-
welded, and piping less than 2-1/2-inch will be socket welded. Threaded
connections may be used for certain low pressure small pipe applications.
Nonpressure buried or embedded drain lines may have bell and spigot joints.
Pipe stress analyses will be performed on 2-1/2-inch and larger piping operating
at or greater than 400 °F. Pipe hangers will be designed for these systems to
maintain stresses and equipment nozzle loads within allowable limits.
Where practical, piping 2-1/2-inches in diameter and larger will have supports
arranged so that any length of pipe or a valve may be removed without any
additional supports being required. Supports will be positioned near valves and
joints that may have to be broken during maintenance.
Where pipe runs pass through floors or walls, either individually or collectively, floor
or wall collars or other curbing will be provided.
Piping systems will be designed with high point vents and low point drains (system
"hot" condition).
3-6 Rev. A
-i— I I
-------
Steam piping will be sloped in the direction of steam flow, with a minimum slope of
1/8 inch per foot. Condensate collection in piping systems will be avoided by
installing manual or automatic drain devices.
Steam lines fitted with restricting devices, such as orifices in the process runs, will
be provided with drainage upstream of the device such that water does not collect
in lines.'
Drains with restricting orifices or steam traps with startup and blowdown drains will
be installed in low points of steam lines where condensate can collect during
operation.
Drain lines will be sloped at 1/4 inch per foot.
Means will be provided to fill and clean loop seals.
A bypass line around control valves will be provided for services that are essential
for operation. The bypass will be omitted if services have redundant systems in
parallel, if manual operation would be extremely difficult, or if plant or equipment
safety could be jeopardized by manual operation.
Instrumentation connections (pressure taps, temperature taps) will be provided for
mechanical systems. The following components will be fitted with pressure and
temperature taps:
a. Pump suctions and discharges
b. Heat exchanger inlets and outlets
3-7 Rev. A
-------
Pressure taps will be supplied with root valves and temperature taps will be
supplied with thermowells.
Instruments will be provided with air block valves and ganged pneumatic
instruments will have a single air supply.
Valve selection will be based on the system conditions (flow, pressure, and
temperature); application (shutoff, nonreturn, or throttling); and process fluid (water,
steam, air, gas, chemical, or solids).
Insulation
Thermal insulation will be installed on equipment and piping to reduce system heat
loss, to provide personnel protection, and to prevent condensation. The insulation
will also function as part of heat traced freeze protection systems.
Insulation materials will be free of asbestos and will meet the fire and smoke rating
requirements of NFPA.
Insulation thickness will be designed to limit the calculated heat loss to 65 to
80 Btu/tf-hr and, for hot surfaces in the vicinity of personnel, to limit outside
lagging surface temperature to a maximum of 140 °F, based on 100 °F ambient
temperature and 2-feet-per-second air velocity. Insulation materials will be
calcium silicate and mineral fiber, with aluminum jackets. Antisweat insulation will
be furnished with a moisture-proof barrier. A fluid temperature of less than 50 °F
will be the basis for using antisweat insulation. Insulation located outside of
buildings and structures will be weatherproofed.
3-8 Rev. A
220»D«gnCrit ~~
-------
ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS AND EQUIPMENT
GENERAL
The integrated electrical system and interconnection to the main plant are shown
on the 480 V Switchgear Single-Line Diagram, Drawing No. E73-NG01.
4 KV AND 480 V SYSTEM AND EQUIPMENT
The 480 V switchgear transformers and the compressor motors will be supplied
from the main plant 4.16 kV switchgear.
The transformers will be outdoor, cast coil type 3-phase, 60 Hz, AA/FA cooled,
delta-connected, primary/solidly grounded wye connected secondary.
Motors below 250 hp fed from MCCs will be controlled by breaker-protected
combmation starters. Start and stop controls for MCC fed motors will be through
the PLC with local pushbutton control at the MCC starter.
MCCs located in the building will have NEMA 12 (or equivalent) enclosures
Where local contactors or outdoor MCCs will be employed, NEMA 4 and 3R
enclosures will be provided.
MOTORS
Motors will be the squirrel-cage-induction type designed for full voltage starting.
In general motors 250 hp through 2,500 hp will be rated 4 kV for use on a 4.16 kV,
3-phase, 60 Hz, resistance-grounded system. Motors 3/4 hp through 200 hp'
selected 250 and 300 hp motors, and reversing fractional motors will be rated
3~9 Rev. A
220»DiflnCril "\~ — I U-
-------
460 V, 3-phase, 60 Hz for use on a 480 V solidly grounded system. Single-phase
motors smaller than 3/4 hp will be rated 115V, single-phase, 60 Hz for use on a
nominal 120 V solidly grounded system.
Motors will be rated for continuous operation at full load and Class B temperature
rise. Motors will be provided with a service factor in accordance with NEMA
MG1 -12.47. Motor horsepower ratings will be selected without taking credit for any
service factor above 1.0 under any continuous operating condition.
Motors will be capable of starting and accelerating the load to full speed with
80-percent rated motor voltage at the motor terminals. In general, locked rotor
kVA/hp will be NEMA Code G or less for motors rated for continuous duty.
Totally enclosed fan-cooled motors will be provided in high-dust environments.
Weather-proofed NEMA Type II enclosures will be provided for all outdoor medium
voltage motors. Motors located outdoors and rated 50 hp or larger will be
furnished with space heaters that are automatically energized when the motor is
idle. Motors installed in hazardous areas will meet the requirements of the NEC.
GROUNDING
Grounding will conform with the requirements of the NEC.
Motors rated 460 V and higher will be provided with a supplementary ground
connected to the ground grid. Skid-mounted motors will be considered grounded
if the frame of the skid is grounded. Motors mounted on or attached directly to
building steel will be considered adequately grounded. Motor-operated valves will
be considered grounded by the piping system. In general, freestanding enclosures
containing electrical equipment will be supplied with a ground bus which will be
connected to the ground grid. Wall-mounted enclosures containing electrical
3-10 Rev. A
22029iDi0nCril -L-
-------
equ,pmem win be furnished with . grounding lug. Local oortrol stations and
instruments «• be grounded through the raoeway system. Enclosures attached
.0 struct steel will be considered adequately grounded. Skid-mounted
enclosures will be considered adequately grounded through the framework of the
stod which will be connected to the ground grid or grounded structural steel!
HEAT TRACING
Electrical heat tracing will be provided for caustic piping. Electrical heat tracing will
be the self-regulating type, wherever possible, and will be provided with necessary
power distribution equipment. Indicating lights will be provided for each circuit to
indicate power is available.
CONTROL SYSTEMS AND EQUIPMENT
GENERAL
Control and instrumentation for the Facility will permit normal operation by
operators in the control room and will provide local controls in discrete areas as
required.
Control subsystems, including programmable logic controllers (PLC) (and man
machine interfaces), will be provided for overaJI control of the zero discharge
CENTRAL CONTROL ROOM
A centra, control room will house the PLC-based control stations, man-machine
interfaces, alarm and graphic printers.
3"11 Rev. A
22a29\DtgnCrit _ —J
-------
An electrical equipment room will contain the I/O cabinets for the PLCs and an
UPS system.
The control will be by a microprocessor-based PLC system and includes
hardware, software, and associated peripheral equipment to monitor, control,
display, alarm, record, log, and trend process facility inputs.
The graphic displays will be designed to present the process data and status of the
subsystems in a manner to effectively support ergonomic responses. Alarms will
be prioritized statically and dynamically. Following an alarm, the operator can
silence the horn, acknowledge the alarm, and direct the screen and control cursor
to the appropriate display to ascertain the use of the alarm and take corrective
action.
The displays will be developed to provide a cohesive view of the facility processes.
Overview displays will be developed to present overall process parameters. More
limited view graphics will be provided for operating and startup examination of
subprocesses.
Printers will be provided for data logging and reporting functions.
A port for communicating with the main plant DCS will be provided. The capability
to transmit data will be available.
MAN-MACHINE INTERFACES
The man-machine interfaces will be provided for control and display purposes.
The software used will have the capabilities for trending, data acquisition, and
storage as required. Touch screens will enable the operator to view graphics, log
and respond to alarms, and control the subprocesses. Alarm and graphic printers
3-12 Rev. A
2202«fc9nCrit 4— * f
-------
will enable the operator to obtain hard copies of alarm summaries, historical data
and graphics.
ALARM MONITORING
The operator will be alerted to abnormal conditions by alarms through the MMI
stations and by alarm printer(s). The MMI stations will access all the information
transmitted on the PLC highway. Alarms will display on the MMI CRTs in order of
priority.
CIVIL/STRUCTURAL/ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES
GENERAL
This section describes the general criteria and layout, the design of structure and
equipment supports, and associated architectural features of the Facility's
buildings.
STRUCTURAL DESIGN CRITERIA
Dead Loads
The dead loads include the weight of framing, roofs, floors, walls, partitions,
platforms, and all permanent equipment and materials. The vertical and lateral
pressure of liquids will also be treated as dead loads.
Live Loads
Approved floor load capacity signs will be posted for all roofs, platforms, or floors
except slab on ground in accordance with the Occupational Safety and Health
3-13
Rev. A
-------
Standards, Subpart D, Walking and Working Surfaces. Design live loads will be
shown on the respective design drawings.
The uniform design live loads will be:
Roofs 30 psf
75 psf
Assembly and locker rooms 100 psf
Stairs, platforms, and walkways 100 psf
Ground floors - General areas 250 psf
Surcharge adjacent to plant structure 250 psf (truck)
650 psf (railroad)
Truck support structure AASHTO HS20
loading
Grating or checkered plate platforms 150 psf
Concrete platforms 250 psf
An additional 3 kips concentrated load will be applied on all floor beams to
maximize moment or shear. This load is not cumulative to columns and it is not
applied on stairs and landings.
Elevated concrete slabs will be designed to support the prescribed live load or a
concentrated load of 3 kips, whichever produces the greater stress. The
concentrated load will be treated as a uniformly distributed load over an area of
2.5 square feet, located to produce the maximum stress conditions in the slab.
3~14 Rev. A
2202«>iflnCril
-------
Design Basis
All steel structures will be designed by the working stress method. Soil bearing
pressure will be checked for the actual loads. Reinforced concrete will be
designed using the ultimate strength method.
A minimum factor of safety will be provided for all earth retaining structures as
shown below:
Overturning 1.50
Sliding 1.25
Buoyancy 1.15
Design characteristics assumed for the various materials are in accordance with
Standard Building Code from the Southern Building Code Congress International,
AISC, ACI, and local codes.
CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS AND ALLOWABLE STRESSES
Concrete and Grout
Concrete and grout design compressive strengths as measured at 28 days will be:
Structural concrete for spread footings, mats, and
slabs on grade 3f000
Structural concrete for elevated slabs, columns, walls,
and elevated tanks 4,000
3-15 Rev. A
-------
Electrical duct encasement or lean concrete backfill 2,000
Nonshrink grout 4,000
Reinforcing Steel
Reinforcing steel bars will be deformed, billet steel, conforming to ASTM A 615,
Grade 60. Welded wire mesh (WWM) will conform to ASTM A 185.
Structural Steel
• Structural steel shapes and plate will conform to ASTM A 36.
• Structural pipe members will conform to ASTM A 53, types E or S,
Grade B or ASTM A 501.
• Allowable stresses in structural steel will be determined in accordance
with AISC Code.
ARCHITECTURAL CRITERIA
Layout
Access aisles and clearances will be provided for operation, maintenance, and
equipment removal (i.e., heater tube pulling space, pump motor removal space).
Provisions will also be made for personnel walkways to equipment (for routine
maintenance only), doors, stairs, and other access points.
3-16 Rev. A
22CB8\D«gnCrit 3T
-------
Siding
Exterior siding for the new bui.ding wil, be factory assembled pre-insulated stee,
wall panels or a field erected system.
Wai, insulation wi.l be selected to meet the U-value required by the Energy
Conservation Codes, where applicable. «/™ Energy
Roofing
Roof.ng will be desfened to ^stend specified wind Ioadin9 inching calculated
UP * Roofing „ be pitched no, less than 1/8 inch per too, and wii, drain £
codec,
Thickness of the roof insu,afion wil, be seiected to meet the 0-va.ues required by
the Energy conservation Codes, where applicable.
The roofirg wiii be a sing.e-piy membrane roofing system, mechanically attached
ov r mec an,cal,y fastened rigid polyiso-cyanurate board insuiafon. on a standing
seam roof with insulation as required.
Painting
•n general, ai, exterior and interior surfaces, except surfaces of Kerns and
ewmen, furnished in manufacturers finish or «.sh coat steiniess J
galvan,zed. aluminum, or nonferrous, will be painted, Including:
• All concrete excluding floors and concrete unit masonry) in occupied
areas in an acrylic latex system.
3-17 Rev. A
-------
Surface of exterior ferrous will receive an exterior prime and enamel
coating system.
Surface of interior ferrous and galvanized metals will receive an alkyd
semi-gloss enamel coating system.
• Exposed ferrous surfaces of shop coated mechanical and electrical
equipment and uninsulated piping will receive alkyd gloss enamel
coating system.
All gypsum board, not receiving vinyl wall covering, will be painted in a
flat acrylic latex coating system. Surface preparation of all ferrous
metal surfaces will be in accordance with the applicable requirements
of the Steel Structures Painting Council specifications; surface
preparation for all other surfaces will be in accordance with the paint or
coating manufacturer's recommendations.
As a standard of quality, paints and coatings will be those manu-
factured by Carboline, DuPont, Glidden, PPG Industries, Pratt and
Lambert, Sherwin-Williams, Tnemec Inc., Porter Paint Co., and Con-
Lux, with color selection by Owner..,
Provisions, equipment, and accessories for the physically handicapped will be
provided in all areas as required by the appropriate building code.
Rev. A
22029\DignCfil
-------
-------
H
M)SC 70 SK COOLING TOWER
PLANT DRAINS
STORAGE 15 /^
RUNOFF ^ Co)
500 \~s
2586 ^*»>inY^"~>\
WASTEWATER I V^yV-^
j 849
vB' PRETREATMENT 2768 2268 3117
« ^ A_^ CLARIFIER
35 vF/
SLUDGE
THICKENER
(PART OF SALT CAKE
CLARIFIER) TO LANDFILL
29
30 35 ^ 1
SLUDGE IT r« - ••
PFWATFRIN« I .
i 5 CRYSTAI 1 17FR „
DEWATERED SLUDGE
TO LANDFILL « • .
POTABLE _
VV/MLIt iiecc*
FROM SK USES
70 MISC. •
Ubbb
SK WFI 1
WATER 559 489 DEMIN *37 CONDENSA1
* SYSTEM *" 'TANK
52 456
(G/* '
?,K,r^, 456 » CONDENSA
REGEN WASTE r/tSUNQATP POLISHEI
TO PRETREATMENT CONDNSATE
' EVAPORATION
2290
BACKWASH
.— YARD AREA RUNOFF s~^n f~~\»*
®" » C»)«" G)35
««« OAA COOLING
COOLING 88° «» TOWER 885 ^ F||TFRS
TOWER BLOWDOWN
BLOW CLARIFIER 1
BLOWDOWN
500
110
W^ 125 (AW- 250
FVAPORATOR «•• i V_/ rmniirr a
125 FROM
1?c FILTER
EVAPORATOR ^ f""V- ROUNrr 4
110 "& NOTES:
760 FXPORT 1) PROCESS FLOWS ARE
' vw ^ CArWn 1 r\fnrr*Trr\ Tvni/1* At Cl /"\IAI<
*• QTC »M EXPECTED TYPICAL PLOW;
STEAM |NGpM
2) IANKS, PUMHb AND
[E/ 893 B«H™ flo CHEMICAL FEED SYSTEMS
»QC ^ BOILER . B" ^. ARE NOT SHOW
M!er- _
Im CEDAR BAY
* ' ncciPM
®ucoion
1 »/Hj 53 WATER BALANCE
* REGEN WASTE BOILER DIAGRAM
TO PRETREATMENT BLOWDOWN 3/12/93
CLARIFIER DLvjwuwvvH
5
-------
WASTE STREAM DATA
Wastewater Streams
The wastewater streams generated at the Cedar Bay Plant are as follows: '
1) Boiler blowdown
2) Demineralizer regeneration waste
3) Miscellaneous plant drains
4) Storage area runoff
5) Yard area runoff
6) Wastewater treatment system drains
7) Cooling tower blowdown
8) Chemical cleaning waste
These wastewater streams are used as follows:
1) Boiler blowdown is sent directly to the cooling tower basin without treatment
for reuse as cooling tower makeup.
2) Demineralizer regeneration waste is neutralized, softened in the cooling tower
pretreatment system and reused as cooling tower makeup.
3) Miscellaneous plant drains are softened in the cooling tower pretreatment
system and reused as cooling tower makeup.
4) Storage area runoff is collected in the storage area runoff basin. When the
turbine generator is in operation, it is softened in the cooling tower
pretreatment system and reused as cooling tower makeup. When the turbine
generator is not in operation, it is sent to the emergency water-storage tank
and held until it can be treated in the pretreatment clarifier, cooling tower
blowdown clarifier or evaporator system for reuse as cooling tower makeup.
5) Yard area runoff is collected in the yard area runoff basin. When the turbine
generator is in operation, it is pumped into the cooling tower blowdown line
where a portion of it is softened in the cooling tower blowdown system and
the remaining portion is used as evaporator crystallizer non-contact cooling
water. When the turbine generator is not in operation, it is storage in the yard
area runoff basin until the it is needed for cooling tower makeup. All the yard
area runoff water is reused as cooling tower makeup except for runoff in
excess of a 25 year 24 hour storm with the turbine generator in operation and
a 10 year 24 hour storm with the turbine generator out of operation
Rev. A
-------
6) Wastewater treatment system drains are softened in the cooling tower
pretreatment system and reused as cooling tower makeup.
7) Cooling tower blowdown is treated in the zero discharge system for reuse as
cooling tower makeup. The cooling tower blowdown is softened, filtered, and
desalted in a reverse osmosis (RO) system. The RO product water (low
dissolved solids) is reused as cooling tower makeup. The RO reject water
( high dissolved solids) is farther concentrated in the evaporators. The
evaporator distillate is reused as cooling tower makeup and the evaporator
concentrate is processed in the crystallizer. The crystallizer produces a
distillate that is reused in the cooling tower and solid salt that is disposed of
offsite.
8) Chemical cleaning waste is disposed of offsite. The rinses following chemical
cleaning will be reused as cooling tower makeup or disposed of offsite.
All the wastewater streams generated in the Cedar Bay facility, except yard area
runoff in excess of the design storm events, are reused as cooling tower makeup.
Seminole Kraft (SK) wastewater is used to supply all cooling tower makeup
requirements in excess of that which can be supplied by the Cedar Bay wastewater
streams. There is no discharge of process wastewater generated at Cedar Bay.
The expected average flows for each of the wastewater streams are listed in
Table 1.
The average demand for Cedar Bay cooling tower makeup is expected to be
approximately 3,200 gpm, including recovered cooling tower blowdown.
Additionally, SK is expected to reuse 400 to 500 gpm of treated wastewater from
the Cedar Bay pretreatment system as makeup to the SK cooling tower.
The quality of the mixed wastewater feed to the pretreatment system and effluent
quality expected from the pretreatment clarifier and the cooling tower blowdown
clarifier after filtration are listed in Table 2.
Solid Waste Streams
The wastewater treatment plant produces one sludge stream from the filter press
(dewatered pretreatment and cooling tower blowdown clarifier sludge) and one and
solid salt stream from the centrifuge (dewatered crystallizer slurry).
The pretreatment and cooling tower blowdown clarifier sludge is collected in the
thickener portion of the pretreatment clarifier and pumped on a batch basis to the
filter press. The solids in the sludge are captured on cloth filters in the press as
the pump forces the sludge through the filters. Sludge is pumped to the filter press
until it is filled with solids. The plates holding the filters are then opened and the
sludge is dropped into a sludge container. The filter press is expected to produce
5-2 Rev. A
r-O-7
-------
sludge containing 40 to 60 percent solids. With the design analysis water the
~' to * «*•*"» 7S - •» * ^ « <°
The soluble salts in the cooling tower blowdown are concentrated to the point that
they are precipitated as crystais in the crystallizer. The slury - forme? ta the
cwaHiajr IB pumped to the centrifuge where the crystals are removed from the
slurry and dewatered The concentrated liquid from the wnm^ets returned to
a £222 2Th Th? Hd6Watered Salt **** drop b* 9ravi* from the centrifugl £
faS« Z;TheH°"dS "^f nt °f the ""» is expected to ta jn the 85 to 90 peFcent
range. With the des.gn analysts water, the solid salt production is expected to be
approximately 30 tons per day based on 85 percent solids salt.
The filled sludge and salt containers will either be hauled directly to the approved
STS^'K'ST' at "" ^ ^ ste UIrt1 *" ™ ^ Ll9d
The dewatered clarifier sludge will consists primarily of calcium carbonate and
magnes.um hydroxide from the lime soda softening reactions. The dewatered
crystallizer salt will consist primarily of sodium sulfate and sodium chloride The
expected characteristics of the clarifier sludge and crystallizer salt are listed in
If 2? i* « S «dge and salt characteristics were estimated based on an analysis
of SK clarifier effluent from samples taken on February 10, 1993. The SK clarifier
is the treatment unit ahead of the SK lagoons
5~3 Rev. A
I-22
-------
Table 1
Cedar Bay Expected Average Wastewater Flows
STREAM
Boiler blowdown
Demineralizer regeneration waste
Miscellaneous plant drains
Storage area runoff
Yard area runoff
Wastewater treatment system drains
Cooling tower blowdown
Chemical cleaning waste
FLOW GPM
53
52
70
15
20
50
900
0
5-4 X-21
Rev. A
-------
Expected
BOB
Constituent
Table 2
Mixed Wastewater and Treated Wastewater
Quality
Pretreat
Clarifier
Pretreat.
Clarifier
Product
Slowdown
Clarifier
Product
Calcium
™^""^"«^^^^»
Magnesium
Sodium
B^MB^M.
Potassium
———^-^—«.
M-Alkalinity
Sulfate
^•™-^-^™^^
Chloride
™i^"^—^-«™
Fluoride
•—•—•^——m
Phosphate
Boron
^^•^^••^^
Aluminum
^^ff^^
Iron
•^^^HH
Manganese
^•"^•^^i^^^
Barium
••^-^"^—••^
Strontium
—™—^^.™
Silica
mg/l
I^^^^^H
Std units
5-5
T'30
Rev. A
-------
Tables
Cedar Bay Expected Constituents in Sludge/Salt Produced by Treatment Unit
SUBSTANCE
CN
Sb
As
Be
Cd
Cr
Cu
Pb
Ha
Ni
Se
Ag
Zn
Tl
Phenols
Chloroform
DETECTED
no
no
yes
no
no
yes
yes
yes
no
yes
no
no
yes
no
yes
no
UNITS
Ib/day
Ib/day
Ib/day
Ib/day
Ib/day
Ib/day
Ib/day
Ib/day
Ib/day
Ib/day
Ib/day
Ib/day
Ib/day
Ib/day
Ib/day
Ib/day
PHhIHbAT
SLUDGE
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.0000
0.00
0.00
0.0000
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
CT B'DWN
SLUDGE
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.09
0.00
0.12
0.10
0.0000
0.07
0.00
0.0000
1.36
0.00
0.00
0.00
CRYST'L
SALT
0.89
1.49
0.89
0.15
0.06
0.45
0.29
0.29
0.0060
0.29
0.15
0.0014
3.48
0.15
3.28
0.05
TOTAL
0.89
1.49
0.89
0.15
0.15
0.45
0.41
0.39
0.0060
0.36
0.15
0.0014
4.83
0.15
3.28
0.05
NOTES
See note 6
See note 7
Notes:
1) The concentrations are from Betz February 10,1993 data from SK clarffier effluent except for copper
(0.015 mg/l) and silver (0.00005 mg/l) which are set at the SK discharge permit limits. There may be
some reduction in concentration of the constituents in the SK aerated lagoons.
2) Assumed that 500 gpm of pretreament clarifier effluent is returned to SK for use in the SK cooling
tower and that the total flow from the SK wastewater treatment system is 9 MGD. The cooling tower
makeup returned to SK is assumed to pass through the SK wastewater treatment system without
removal of the constituents listed resulting in a net increase in SK effluent concentration relative to the
Betz data for all constituents except copper and silver.
3) Ten cycles of concentration are assumed in the Cedar Bay cooling tower based on January 1993 SK
effluent chemistry data.
4) "no" in the 'Detected Column* indicates that the constituent was not detected so the actual
concentration in the sludge is less than the value indicated except for chloroform which was detected
at less than the quantitation limit.
5) Significant variation in the actual actual concentration of the constituents in the sludge is expected
for the following reasons:
a) The results of only a single sample analyzed by EPA methods is available.
b) The sample was taken at the SK clarifier. SK lagoon effluent is Cedar Bay's source
of treated SK effluent so there is no data on the actual primary makeup water source to
the Cedar Bay cooling tower.
c) The concentrations of constituents in both the pretreatment and bbwdown clarifier
feed water are too low for reliable estimation of removal. No removal was predicted for
the pretreatment system but some removal of suspended material and some
copreciptation may occur. Partial removal of some constituents is estimated in the
bbwdown clarifier additonal constituents may be partially removed as suspended
material and through copreciptation may also occur.
d) The wastewater streams originating in the Cedar Bay plant (approx. 5% of total flow)
are not included.
6) Expect a reduction in the concentration of cyanide from biological treatment and chlorination.
7) Phenols concentrations will be reduced by biological treatment. HT ~~ o \
-------
H
-------
System Description-22029-M72-LG01
CEDAR BAY PROJECT
ZERO DISCHARGE SYSTEM
JOB NO. 22029-003
System Description
for the
Cooling Tower Makeup Pretreatment System
BECHTEL CORPORATION
GAITHERSBURG, MARYLAND
NO.
0
DATE
3/10/93
REVISION
Issued for use
BY
CHK'D
&*
APPROVALS
PKS
Ml
-------
System Description-22029-M72-LGOl
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1.0 FUNCTION 1
2.0 DESIGN BASIS 2
3.0 SYSTEM OPERATION 3
4.0 SYSTEM CONTROLS 4
5.0 SYSTEM COMPONENTS 5
6.0 UNRESOLVED MATTERS 6
7.0 REFERENCES 6
22029\Sys Desc ii Rev. 0
3-34
-------
System Description-22029-M72-LG01
SYSTEM DESCRIPTION
COOLING TOWER MAKEUP PRETREATMENT SYSTEM
1.0 FUNCTION
1.1 The main function of the cooling tower makeup pretreatment
(CT Makeup Pretreatnent) system is to receive and treat the
following streams in an Infilco Degremont Inc (IDI) DensaDeg®
clarifier system:
o SK wastewater
o plant drain sump discharge consisting of:
- condensate polisher drain
- plant oil/water separator effluent
- miscellaneous building drains
- boiler blowdown
o plant storage area runoff
o plant sludge dewatering system filtrate
o neutralization tank effluent
o Miscellaneous zero discharge system drains
o Dual media pressure filter backwash
The system is shown on P&ID M74-LG01.
1.2 The CT Makeup Pretreatment system will satisfy the plant
cooling tower makeup requirements during normal and reduced load
operation and upset conditions. The system will also provide up
to 500 gpm of treated water to SK for use in their cooling tower.
1.3 An additional function of this system is to thicken the pre-
treatment clarifier slurry and the slurry transferred from the
cooling tower blowdown treatment clarifier. The thickening and
dewatering system is common to both the cooling tower
pretreatment and blowdown treatment systems and is achieved in
the bottom portion of the DensaDeg® clarifier.
1.4 The lime and soda ash storage and feed systems are shared by
both the cooling tower makeup pretreatment and the cooling tower
blowdown treatment systems.
1.5 The bulk chemical storage tanks (acid, caustic, and sodium
hypochlorite) are common to all systems within the zero discharge
system. *
1.6 The coagulant storage tank is used for the cooling tower
makeup pretreatment system.
22029\Sys Desc 1 - o_> Rev. 0
-------
System Description-22029-M72-LG01
2.0 DESIGN BASES
f^ii, f *? Makeup Pretreatment system is designed to treat an
influent stream of up to 5500 gpm. The daily average rate of
softened, water produced is approximately 2800 gpm.
2.2 The system is designed with the flexibility to include the
treatment of up to 1200 gpm of stormwater. J-ncxuae tne
^' DensaDe9®
-------
System Description-22029-M72-LG01
2.5 The system is designed to produce an effluent with the
following characteristics:
Characteristic Value Units
Calcium 40 mg/1
Magnesium 50 ag/1
Silica 25 mg/1
M-Alkalinity 60 mg/1 as CaCO,
P-Alkalinity 40 ng/1 as CaCO,
Suspended Solids . 10 mg/1
PH 9 to 11 SU
3.0 SYSTEM OPERATION
3.1 Normal Operation
The pretreatment system influent flow is pumped into a reaction
tank which is provided with a turbine mixer and a draft tube ar-
rangement. In this tank, ferric chloride, sodium hypochlorite,
a polymer, lime slurry, and soda ash are added and combined with
preformed solids circulated from a DensaDeg® clarifier to
coagulate organics and suspended solids to be settled downstream
in the DensaDeg® clarifier.
The reaction tank effluent flows by gravity into the pretreatment
(DensaDeg®) clarifier, where the suspended and precipitated
solids are removed.
The softened effluent flows by gravity from the DensaDeg®
clarifier to the clearwell. Sulfuric acid is fed in the effluent
weir of the clarifier to lower the pH. The pH adjusted effluent
is pumped as needed to the Cedar Bay cooling tower and the SK
cooling tower.
3.2 Storm Water Management
When rainwater accumulates in the storage area runoff basin, the
transfer pumps automatically start and pump water at a rate of
1200 gpm to the Pretreatment system. If the turbine generator is
offline, the storage area runoff is directed to the emergency
water storage tank.
3.3 Power Plant Wastewater Management
Cooling tower blowdown, plant oil/water separator effluent,
miscellaneous building drains, neutralization tank effluent,
drains from the zero discharge system, sludge dewatering
filtrate, and dual media filter backwash flow to the wastewater
holdup tank, which will act as an equalization basin. Water from
the wastewater holdup tank is pumped to pretreatment system.
22029\Sys Desc 3 I ~ 37 Rev. 0
-------
System Description-22029-M72-LG01
3.4 SK Wastewater Management
3.5 Thickener and Sludge Dewatering System Operation
. P°rtion °f the
reea the sludge dewatering system with
4.0 SYSTEM P
SJSi^iSSr* W8ter ^ """-fnt *»
a. cedar Bay storage area runoff (via runoff pond)
c! SK was?eLte?nt Wastewater
-------
System Description-22029-M72-LG01
o
o
Reaction tank pH transmitter/controller
Clearwell pH transmitter/controller
o Clearwell high/low level controls
« £Jar*£*er inlet f low transmitter/controller
o Clarifler effluent turbidity
5.o SYSTEM COMPONENTS
comprising the cooling tower pretreatment
a. Reaction tank
b.
•»••*»»» w*w*I kCUlll
DensaDeg* clarifier with external sludge recirculation
g^PSnand, rake lifting device' and accessories °
c. DensaDeg* slurry pumps (dewatering system~feed pumps)
pSmps" system Clearwell and Clearwell transfer
e. Chemical feed systems:
o Soda ash silo, volumetric feeder, mixing tank,
soda ash slurry transfer pumps (common to both
CT Makeup Pretreatment and CT Slowdown treatment
systems)
° ii»« ?il0' volumetric feeder, slurry tank, slurry
transfer pumps (common to both CT Makeup
o ro»m^?a«?e1?* and CT Blowdown treatment systems)
™!a!^an*
-------
System Description-22029-M72-LG01
6.0 UNRESOLVED MATTERS
7.0 REFERENCES
O P&ID M74-LG01 and M74-LG02
o Flow diagram - Cooling Tower Makeup Pretreatment
System
o Flow diagram - Cooling Tower Slowdown Treatment
System
22029\Sys Desc 6 J-
-------
COOLING TOWER PRETREATMENT SYSTEM
TO SLOWDOWN
TREATMENT SYSTEM
TO SLOWDOWN
TREATMENTSYSTEM
TOPRECONCENTRATOR
FEEDPUMPS
TO SLOWDOWN
TREATMENTSYSTEM
SOOWM HVPOCHLORffE I
TO SLOWDOWN
TREATMENT SYSTEM
FEEDPUMPS
TOEVAPORATOIV
CRYSTAUZER/
CENTRIFUGE
FEEDPUMPS
TO SLOWDOWN
TREATMENT SYSTEM
FEEDPUMPS
FROM EMERGENCY
WATER STORAGE TANK
SLUDGE FROM
SLOWDOWN
TREATMENT SYSTEM
PRECONCENTRATOR
SYSTEM
FEEDPUMPS
SKWASTEWATER J~"5
TO EVAPORATOR
CRYSTAUZER
CENTRIFUGE SYSTEM
CHEM FEEDS
TO SLOWDOWN
TREATMENT SYSTEM
REACTION TANK
(>RETREATMENT
CURFIER
(DENSADEG)
WASTE WOTEH
TRNRFR PUMPS
TOEMERSENCV
WATER STORAGE TANK
DENSADEG
SLUDGE
RECmCULATION
PUMPS
, Jrtnucoa.ua
I ^ Tn^CB •&••!
COOUNG TOWER
MAKEUP
NEUTRALKATKMTANK
EFFLUENT
FROM SLOWDOWN TREATMENT
CLEARWELL
MHC. ZERO DISCHARGE
SYSTEM SUMPS
SK COOLING
TOWER MAKEUP
TO COOUM TOWER
SLOWDOWN UNE
11tOOK
STORAGE AREA
RUNOFF POND
TRANSFER
PUMP
i • torn
YARD AREA
RUNOFF POND
TRANSFER
PUMP
COOLING TOWER PRETREATMENT
SYSTEM FLOW DIAGRAM
-------
r -
-------
System Description-M72-LG02
CEDAR BAY PROJECT
ZERO DISCHARGE SYSTEM
JOB NO. 22029-003
System Description
for the
Cooling Tower Slowdown Treatment System
BECHTEL CORPORATION
GAITHERSBURG, MARYLAND
Issued for use
-------
System Description-22029-M72-LG02
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 FUNCTION
2.0 DESIGN BASIS
3.0 SYSTEM OPERATION
4.0 SYSTEM CONTROLS
5.0 SYSTEM COMPONENTS
6.0 UNRESOLVED MATTERS
7.0 REFERENCES
Page
1
1
3
3
4
4
4
22029\Sys Desc
ii
Rev. 0
-------
System Description-22029-M72-LG02
SYSTEM DESCRIPTION
COOLING TOWER SLOWDOWN TREATMENT SYSTEM
1.0 FUNCTION
1.1 The main function of the cooling tower blowdown (CT
Slowdown) treatment system is to remove scaling and fouling
impurities from the Cooling Tower blowdown. Yard area runoff is
pumped into the cooling tower blowdown line. A portion of this
cooling tower blowdown and yard area runoff combined flow is
treated in the cooling tower blowdown treatment system and the
remainder is used for cooling in the zero discharge system and
returned to the cooling tower. The system is shown on P&ID
M74-LG02.
1.2 The desired chemistry in the system effluent is achieved by
controlling the chemical feeds as required:
a. Lime and soda ash feeds are shared with the CT Makeup
Pretreatment system, but controlled with separate
control valves
b. Acid, caustic,magnesium chloride, and sodium
hypochlorite feeds are controlled by individual
metering/feed pumps
2.0 DESIGN BASIS
2.1 Impurities to be removed from the blowdown include calcium,
magnesium, bicarbonate, silica,.. suspended solids,, barium, and
organics. These impurities must be maintained at acceptable
levels in the cooling tower circulating water.
2.2 The system is designed to treat an influent stream of up to
1,000 gpm in a non-scraping type accelerated rate settling tank
(accelerator) which is preceded by a premix/reaction tank to
produce a softened effluent of the desired chemistry.
2.3 The 1,000 gpm system size selected for the softening process
will have sufficient capacity to treat the cooling tower blowdown
generated during normal and reduced plant load operation, and
upset conditions.
2.4 The bulk caustic tank is shared between the cooling tower
blowdown treatment system, the evaporator/concentrator system,
and the crystallizer and centrifuge system.
2.5 The magnesium solution system is used only for the cooling
tower blowdown system.
22029\Sys Desc 1 T -M-^ Rev. 0
-------
System Description-22029-M72-LG02
2.6 The chemical feed pumps are sized to provide the required
dosage rates under average chemistry conditions as well as under
expected water quality excursions. Under extreme excursions, both
chemical feed pumps can operated to meet the chemical dosage
requirements.
2.7 The system is designed to treat an influent water of the
following typical characteristics:
Low
Characteristic Value
Calcium 150
Magnesium 150
Sodium 4000
Potassium so
M-Alkalinity 50
P-Alkalinity 0
Sulfate (SO4) 3300
Chloride 1000
Fluoride 10
Phosphate (PO4) o.l
(note l)
Boron (B) 5
Aluminum o.1
Iron 0.5
Manganese 0.05
Barium 0.5
Strontium 5
Vanadium o.1
Arsenic o.S
Silica (Sio2) 60
PH 7
TOC 200
TSS 50
TDS 6000
Typical
Value
350
300
8475
150
150
0
6800
2300
25
2
High
Value
1000
400
10,000
200
200
0
8000
3000
30
10
20
0.5
2
0.1
1
10
0.5
2
120
8
500
100
12,500
30
5
5
1
2.5
15
1
3
150
8.3
800
150
15,000
Units
mg/1 as
mg/1 as
mg/1 as
mg/1 as
mg/1 as
mg/1 as
mg/1 as
mg/1 as
mg/1 as
mg/1 as
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
SU
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
CaC03
CaC03
CaCOj
CaCO3
CaC03
CaCO,
CaCO3
CaCO3
CaCO3
PO,
Note 1. Phosphates could be as high as 10 to 15 ppm (as P04),
based on the scale/ corrosion inhibitor selected.
Note 2. The low and high values are the expected ranges of each
constituent and the actual analysis may contain some
constituents at the high end of the "concentration range
and others at the low end of the concentration range.
2.8 The system is designed to produce an effluent with the fol-
lowing characteristics (to be confirmed after vendor's input):
Characteristic
Calcium
Magnesium
Suspended solids
Silica
Value
150
50
< 10
40
Units
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
22029\Sys Desc
Rev. 0
-------
System Description-22029-M72-LG02
3.0 SYSTEM
tOWer ^lowdown stream is pumped to the pre-
=•
4.0 SYSTEM
22029\Sys Desc
3 T _a^7
0 -L- T / Rev. 0
-------
System Description-22029-M72-LG02
o clearwell tank level transmitter
o clearwell high/low level controls
o clarifier inlet flow transmitter/controller
o clarifier pH transmitter/controller
o clarifier effluent pH transmitter/controller
5.0 SYSTEM COMPONENTS
The main components comprising the cooling tower blowdown treat-
ment system are:
a. Premix/blowdown reaction tank
b. Blowdown clarifier with accessories
c. Blowdown sump and sump pumps
d. Blowdown clarifier clearwell
e. Chemical feed systems:
o Magnesium solution metering/feed pumps
o Acid metering/feed pumps
o Sodium hypochlorite metering/feed pumps
o Polymer storage/dilution tank and metering/feed
pumps
o Caustic metering/feed pumps
o Hypochlorite metering/feed pumps
The lime and soda ash are shared with the CT Makeup Pretreatment
system.
6.0 UNRESOLVED MATTERS
7.0 REFERENCES
o P&ID M74-LG01 and LG02
o Flow Diagram-Cooling Tower Blowdown-Treatment System
o Flow Diagram-Cooling Tower Makeup Pretreatment System
22029\Sys Desc 4 31 "
Rev. 0
-------
H
i
COOLING TOWER BLOWDQWN TREATMENT SYfiTFM
SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE
FEED FROM
MAKEUP PRETRTMT SYSTEM
COOLING
TOWER BLOWOOWN T
(CIRC WATER L
SYSTEM)
FROM PREATREATMENT
REACTION TANK FEED
EMERGENCY WATER
STORAGE TANK
NaOd METERMQ
PUMPS
CAUSTIC FEED FROM
MAKEUP PRETRTMT SYSTEM
SOOA ASH FEED FROM
MAKEUP PRETRTMT SYSTEM
LINEFEED FROM
MAKEUP PRETRTMT SYSTEM
BLOWOOWN
REACTION
TANK
MAGNESIUM SOLUTION
METER WG PUMPS
COOLING
TOWER
BLOWOOWN
CLARFIER
ACID FEED FROM
MAKEUP PRETRTMT SYSTEM
ACID METERING PUMPS
TOPRETREATMENT
SYSTEM
(DENSADEG)
CLARIFIER
TOPRECONCENTRATOR/
FILTER
FEED PUMPS
BECHTEL
CEDAR BAY
COOLINO TOWER BLOWDOWN
TREATMENT SYSTEM FUOW OIAORAM
-------
-------
Systen Description-M72-LG03
CEDAR BAY PROJECT
ZERO DISCHARGE SYSTEM
JOB NO. 22029-003
System Description
for the
Reverse Osmosis System
BECHTEL CORPORATION
GAITHERSBURG. MARYLAND
Issued for use
-------
System Description-22029-M72-LG03
TABLE OP CONTENTS
1.0 FUNCTION
2.0 DESIGN BASIS
3.0 SYSTEM OPERATION
4.0 SYSTEM CONTROLS
5.0 SYSTEM COMPONENTS
6.0 UNRESOLVED MATTERS
7.0 REFERENCES
Page
1
1
3
4
5
5
5
22029\Sys Desc
ii
J-52.
Rev. 0
-------
System Description-22029-M72-LG03
SYSTEM DESCRIPTION
REVERSE OSMOSIS SYSTEM
1.0 FUNCTION
R!V»«Sf Osmosis (R°) system has two parts: dual media
filters and RO treatment. The system is shown in P&ID M74-LG02.
1.1 The function of the dual media filters is to reduce the
total suspended solids (TSS) concentrations of softened cooling
JSSSLbl°wdown J° allow normal trouble-free operation of the RO
system. The system is shown on P&ID M74-LG02.
1.2 The function of the RO system is to reduce the total
rilff «d S°HdS PDS) of the softened cooling tower blowdown for
reuse as cooling tower makeup.
2.0 DESIGN BASES
H^i,/0}^,?3! caPacity dual ">edia pressure filters are sized to
handle full RO feed flow while one filter is in the backwash
mode.
In rJ£ 5° SySt?? desi9ned for a total feed flow of 650 gpm at
60 percent overall recovery in the 80«F to 95«F temperature
range. The RO system feed flow capacity will drop off with
temperature and is designed for 550 gpi feed at 65«F and 60
percent overall recovery.
«;3*H«n? R2 svfte» is designed to recover - from 35 to 60 percent
rate Lf*S ***** f°r rfVse ij? the cooling tower. The recovery
££li 2^2 °r °Peration wiH *>e determined during operation
based on RO feed water chemistry. The RO units are designed for
average 90% total dissolved solids removal. aesxgnea ror
2.4 The RO system is designed for uninterrupted operation. This
iLSwaihlf ?y<.keePi?9 ?! R° System on-line during filte?
backwashes. A tank sized for one filter backwash is provided.
22029\Sys Desc 1 _]__
Rev. 0
-------
System Description-22029-M72-LG03
2.5 Influent Water Quality
Low
Characteristic Value
Calcium 100
Magnesium 10
Sodium 4000
Potassium 50
M-Alkalinity 25
P-Alkalinity 0
Sulfate (SO4) 3000
Chloride 1000
Fluoride (Note) 10
Phosphate (PO4) 0.1
Boron (B) 5
Aluminum 0.1
Iron 0.1
Manganese 0.05
Barium (Note) 0.5
Strontium 5
Vanadium o.1
Arsenic 0.5
Silica (Sio2) 30
pH 7.5
TOC (Note) 200
TSS (Note) 50
TDS 6000
Typical
Value
200
50
8930
150
80
10
7000
2220
30
1
20
0.2
0.3
0.05
3
10
0.5
2
40
8.5
500
100
12,500
High
Value
400
100
11,050
250
200
100
8000
4000
40
3
30
0.5
0.5
0.1
5
15
1
3
50
9.5
800
150
15,000
Units
mg/1 as
mg/1 as
mg/1 as
mg/1 as
mg/1 as
mg/1 as
mg/1 as
mg/1 as
mg/1 as
mg/1 as
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
SU
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
CaCO,
CaCO,
CaC03
CaCO,
CaCO,
CaCO,
CaCO,
CaCO,
CaCO,
P04
Note 1. These parameters are best estimates without the benefit
of complete treatment elsewhere in the system.
Note 2. Design influent water is a mixture of all streams
except site runoff.
Note 3. The low and high values are the expected range of each
constituent and the actual analysis may contain some
constituents at the high end of the concentration range
and others at the low end of the concentration range.
2.6 The system is designed to produce an effluent with the
following characteristics (later):
Characteristic
Calcium
Magnesium
Silica
M-Alkalinity
Suspended Solids
PH
TDS
Value
later
later
later
later
0
later
later
Units
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1 as CaCO,
mg/1
22029\Sys Desc
T-S4
Rev. 0
-------
System Description-22029-M72-LG03
3.0 SYSTEM OPERATION
3.1 Softened cooling tower blowdown (from the blowdown
clarifier) is pumped via preconcentrator filter feed pumps for
treatment ,in the dual media filters and the cartridge filters and
delivered to the RO booster pumps.
3.2 The RO booster pumps pump the RO feedwater through the RO
units to the RO product tank from where it is pumped via RO
product pumps to the cooling tower basin. A portion is also sent
for reuse in the in the zero discharge system.
3.3 The RO brine flows under pressure to the emergency brine
storage tank. From the emergency storage tank the RO brine is
pumped to the evaporator feed tank by the emergency water
transfer pumps.
3.4 Sulfuric acid is continuously injected at the RO inlet
header prior to the cartridge filters for pH adjustment of the
feed stream to prevent calcium carbonate scale formation on the
RO membranes. Two 100% capacity positive displacement metering
pumps take suction from the common acid storage tank.
3.5 An antiscalant is continuously injected at the RO feed inlet
header for additional protection against scaling of the RO
membranes. Two 100% capacity positive displacement metering
pumps take suction from the antiscalant feed tank.
3.6 Sodium hypochlorite is also continuosly injected at the RO
feed inlet for biofouling control. Two 100 % capacity positive
displacement metering pumps take suction from the sodium
hypochlorite storage tank.
3.6 Flow through the RO system is continuous, with both RO units
operating simultaneously in parallel under-design conditions at
full plant load. During partial load, one RO unit may be
shutdown. The RO product will flow to the RO product tank.
3.8 The RO product pumps supply the dilution water to the
antiscalant mixing tank, the RO cleaning system and for RO
membrane flushing on shutdown.
3.9 The RO chemical cleaning system is periodically used to
clean the RO membranes by circulating a cleaning solution through
the RO units and back to the RO chemical cleaning tank. The
spent solution is hauled off-site for disposal.
3.10 During normal operation, the RO brine will be processed
directly by the evaporator system (without need for storage in
the emergency storage tank).
3.11 A stream from the filter effluent is diverted to a filtered
water tank for storing filtered water for backwash. The filter
backwash pumps take suction from this tank.
22029\Sys Desc 3 - £& Rev. 0
-------
System Description-22029-M72-LG03
4.0 SYSTEM CONTROLS
4.1 The system operation will be shutoff on low level switch in
the blowdown clarifier clearwell, or by manual initiation.
Restart of the RO system will be manually initiated. Out of range
influent water chemistry (conductivity) will be alarmed.
4.2 The chemical metering/feed pumps will be furnished with
electronic positioners to control suction flow based on RO feed
flow. Additional adjustments for increase or decrease in
chemical dosage -rates will be manual.
o pH control will be automatic
4.3 Initiation of the RO chemical cleaning system will be
manual, based on a differential pressure of the RO feed and RO
brine or on operator's demand.
4.4 The controls for the system will be integrated with the
overall zero discharge system controls. PLCs and I/O units will
be furnished to interface with the zero discharge system CRTs and
printers.
4.5 The following instruments are provided for local/automatic
control functions and monitoring of the system:
o Pressure differential indication across the dual media
pressure filter system
o Pressure differential across the cartridge filters
o Pressure gauges in feed, product and brine headers of
each RO system
o Level switch on the filter backwash storage tank
o Flow control valve in the feed line
o Flow control valve in the brine line
o Conductivity meter in the RO product line.
o RO feed pH
o Brine conductivity
o Brine flow
o RO feed flow rate
o RO feed pressure switch
o RO feed temperature
o RO feed conductivity
o RO feed oxidation reduction potential
22029\Sys Desc 4 Rev. 0
-------
System Description-22029-M72-LG03
5.0 SYSTEM COMPONENTS
5.1 The main components comprising the RO system are:
o Preconcentrator/Filter feed pumps (three @ 50%) taklnr,
o SS^S°!L??? *lowd?™_ clarified clearwe??*' tak±"B
o Filtered water tank
o RO cartridge filters (two @ 50%)
o RO booster pumps (two @ 50%)
o RO units (two @ 50%)
o RO product tank
o RO product pumps (2 §100%)
Acid meter ing/ feed pumps
Stofa9e tank, and metering/feed pumps
'
o Emergency water storage tank (1,000,000 gallons)
6-0 UNRESOLVED MATTPPS
o RO product water quality
o RO brine water quality
7.0 REFERENCES
o P&ID M74-LG01 and LG02
o Flow Diagram-Reverse Osmosis Treatment System
22029\Sys Desc 5 ~r C H
b / Rev. o
-------
REVERSE OSMOSIS SYSTEM
ACID FEED FROM
COXING TOWER MAKEUP
PRETREATMENT SYSTEM
NaOCI FEED FROM
COXING TOWER MAKEUP
PRETREATMENT SYSTEM
TO RO ANTISCALANT TANK
NaOCI METERING
PUMPS
ACID METERING
PUMPS
TO COOUNG TOWER
RO BYPASS
TO EMERGENCY STORAGE TANK
CARTRIDGE
FILTER
CARTRIDGE
FILTER
BLOWERS
(2X100%)
RO PRODUCT PUMPS
PRECONCENTRATOR /
FILTER FEED PUMPS
RECIRCULATON TO
TO COOLING TOWER
CHEMICAL CLEANING
CHEMICAL
CLEANING
FEED TO RO
SYSTEM
CHEMICAL CLEANING SKID
FILTER BACK
WASH PUMPS
TO COOLNQ
TOWER
EVAPORATOR FEED
STORAGE TANK
TO PRETREATMENT
SYSTEM REACTION TANK FEED
H
EMERGENCY WATER
TRANSFER PUMPS
TO SLOWDOWN TREATMENT
SYSTEM REACTION TANK
TO WASTE WATER
HOLDUP TANK
RE VERSE OSMOSIS
SYSTEM FLOW DIAGRAM
FILTER
BACKWASH
SUMP
-------
System Description-M72-LG04
CEDAR BAY PROJECT
ZERO DISCHARGE SYSTEM
JOB NO. 22029-003
System Description
for the
Evaporator / Concentrator System
BECHTEL CORPORATION
GAITHERSBURG, MARYLAND
Issued for use
-------
System Description-22029-M72-LG04
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 FUNCTION
2.0 DESIGN BASIS
3.0 SYSTEM OPERATION
4.0 SYSTEM CONTROLS
5.0 SYSTEM COMPONENTS
6.0 UNRESOLVED MATTERS
7.0 REFERENCES
Page
1
1
2
4
5
5
5
22029\Sys Desc
ii
Rev. 0
-------
System Description-22029-M72-LG04
SYSTEM DESCRIPTION
EVAPORATOR/CONCENTRATOR SYSTEM
1.0 FUNCTION
pn I?*? functions of the evaporator/concentrator system is
as coolinf toUr\aakde-Pup0.dUCe ' distillate stream suitable for use
function of the evaporator/concentrator system is to
entrate fh« PO K^,-«« and reduce its ' •La-uo
This system is shown on P&ID M74-LG03.
2.0 DESIGN BASTS
a'flow ™*r2?
-------
System Description-22029-M72-LG04
2.4 The system is designed to treat an influent water of the
following typical characteristics:
Low
Characteristic Value
Calcium 100
Magnesium 20
Sodium 8500
Potassium 100
M-Alkalinity 0
P-Alkalinity 0
Sulfate (SO4) 7000
Chloride 1700
Fluoride 20
Phosphate (PO4) 0.1
Boron (B) 10
Aluminum 0.1
Iron 0.1
Manganese 0.05
Barium 0.2
Strontium 10
Vanadium 0.4
Arsenic 1
Silica (Si02) 30
Ph 4
TOC 100
TSS 0
TDS 12000
Typical
Value
300
150
16,000
250
50
0
12,500
4100
50
0.5
35
0.5
0.3
0.1
1
20
1
3
100
5.5
500
1
23,000
High
Value
1000
250
25,0000
400
100
0
20,000
7000
70
25
50
10
3
1
5
35
3
10
150
8
800
10
35,000
Units
mg/1 as CaCO3
mg/1 as CaC03
mg/1 as CaC03
mg/1 as CaCO3
mg/1 as CaCO3
mg/1 as CaC03
mg/1 as CaC03
mg/1 as CaC03
mg/1 as CaC03
mg/1 as PO4
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
SU
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
Note 1. Design influent water is a mixture of all streams routed
to the cooling tower as makeup except site runoff.
Note 2. The low and high values are the expected range of each
constituent. The actual analysis may contain some
constituents at the high end of the concentration range
and others at the low end of the concentration range.
2.5 The condensate stream produced will meet the following water
quality requirements:
o dissolved solids: less than 10 ppm, excluding organics
and volitiles
o suspended solids: none
3.0 SYSTEM OPERATION
3.1 In each of the two evaporator trains, feedwater consisting of
RO brine/reject and other wastewater from the emergency water
storage tank is fed to the evaporator feed tank. Sulfuric acid is
added to neutralize alkalinity. Anti-sealant solution is added at
the tank outlet. The evaporator feed pumps convey the feedwater to
each evaporator.
22029\Sys Desc
\
-fcZ
Rev. 0
-------
System Description-22029-M72-LG04
3.2 In each train, the feedwater is passed through plate-type ore-
heat exchangers to preheat the feedwater with hot condensate
product from the evaporator. The cooled condensate product is sent
to the cooling tower basin.
feed sjtream is conveyed to the deaerator where
^ non-condensible gases are removed
iLia,.xIn f*?1*.*^*1^' deaerator P«»PS discharge the deaerated and
decarbonated brine feed to the evaporator. The feed is mixed with
vessel recirculation flow and a portion is evaporate"
*" *"* Vap0r b°dy is Cleaned °f Drained
a 18 0« change in flow direction from the falling film
heater exits to the vapor body exit
gravity-induced settling of droplets in the rising vapor
flow across the vapor body area y
impingement collection of droplets and particles in the
mist eliminator
an external mesh-type entrainment separator
stream is collected and passed through a
va Centrffu9al compressor where the product stream's
hea?erPshfnf6 " increased to the condensing temperature of the
thl h~L<;01np£eSSed Vap?r Stream is introduced in the shell side of
uS it« hff; ?•«. KaPfr* ftream SWeeps throu9h the tube bundle, giving
influent/recycle stream. on the other side of thl
tubes
?IJ?rJfy °- t?e comPressed vapor is condensed in the
and S. diAi'i? 2^* ^ ^' *„ heat< collecting in the vessel
«..i ^ distillate level tank, external to the evaporator
vessel. There, the hot condensate is pumped by the distillate
th 11
HAL WiJ? the rem°valof the product water vapor out of the vapor
body, the concentration of dissolved solids left in solution
increases precipitating additional calcium sulfate Noraa?!y tSe
fer su^faUcefiate £"ld PreciPitate ««t on the vessel and Cat trans^
fiLiv nf^fl^ T151S. 1S Drevented by maintaining a large mass of
finely-divided calcium sulfate crystals in a slurry, and recvclina
the slurry at high flow rates. The large mass of'ffnely divided
P?efe?en?iaIlvrDreSc^T; 7*"*? SitSS' Up°n Which additional sails
prererentially precipitate and crystallize out of solution.
22029\Sys Desc 3 X'
Rev. 0
-------
System Description-22029-M72-LG04
«;1^In eaCh evaporator a recycle stream is taken from the bottom
of the evaporator and sent back to the top. A portion is sent
through a separator, which removes a portion of the precipitated
S£tx u •
f^iJ Initial seeding is provided by adding calcium chloride to the
3£S2\+ «.C.austl° *s added to the evaporator to maintain proper
precipitating chemistry and further reduce scaling within the
evaporator vessel. Anti-foam agent solution is added to the
concentrator to control foaming. «««ea to tne
3.12 The evaporator brine slurry streams from the separators in
arfn™1? *r* conveve* to the crystallizer feed tank, where they
are pumped to the crystallizer and centrifuge system (see Crystal-
lizer and Centrifuge System Description) . «ys»x
4 . 0 SYSTEM CQNTROT.g
°P*rati°n of the evaporator system is controlled by
inlet guide vane setting on the suction side of the
an «»,.P°,r^?mprlSSOr- The guide vanes are variable pitch,
c£ntaol loon l^0119^- a ?**Z f 10W Droller/vane positioner
control loop, which adjusts the vapor flow rate between the
compressor and the evaporator/concentrator vessel. This control
loop provides for a 50% turn-down of the process.
4.2 Overall compressor capacity is set by the operator, with the
S2£°£ ^Slfry St°rage VOlU*e Provid^ Astern dampening and
rft??«^ adjust compressor capacity to respond to changing con-
ftSSI; De-nsity of tjie salt slurry f°r recycle in the siSnp of the
evaporator is measured and the concentration is managed by a flow
r^v.? °P throu5h the separator, seed recycle tank and seed
recycle pumps, or by cascading from a density controller.
4.3 Excess vapor from the compressor not used for desuperheating
or deaerating is vented to the atmosphere.
?"! ^F1fw rate into the evaporator/concentrator vessel is control-
led by level control in the vessel sump. Flow rate into the evap-
orator/concentrator feed/storage tank is controlled by tank level.
Evaporator/concentrator pH is controlled by addition of sulfuric
acid, controlled by pH.
4.5 The controls for the system will be integrated with the over-
all zero discharge system controls.
22029\Sys Desc 4 -£ _ ^ LJ.
Rev. 0
-------
System Description-22029-M72-LG04
5.0 SYSTEM COMPONENTS
°0mPrisin9 «» evaporator/concentrator
o Two brine evaporators
o TWO vapor compressors
o TWO concentrator recirculating pumps
o Two deaerators
o Four deaerator pumps
o Two trains of plate-type preheat exchangers
o TWO separators
o TWO seed/recycle tanks
o Two seed recycle pumps
o Two distillate tanks
o Four distillate transfer pumps
o one evaporator feed tank
6.0 UNRESOLVED MATTERS
7.0 REFERENCES
O P&ID M74-LG03 & LG04
o Flow diagram - Evaporator/Concentrator System
Flow diagram - Crystallizer/Centrifuge System
o
22029\Sys Desc 5 "X
3 -^ Rev. 0
-------
-------
System Description-M72-LG05
CEDAR BAY PROJECT
ZERO DISCHARGE SYSTEM
JOB NO. 22029-003
System Description
for the
Crystalizer and Centrifuge System
BECHTEL CORPORATION
GAITHERSBURG, MARYLAND
NO.
0
DATE
3/10/93
REVISION
Issued for use
BY
W~
CHK'D
56*
APPROVALS
ff*
to
-------
System Description-22029-M72-LG05
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 FUNCTION
2.0 DESIGN BASIS
3.0 SYSTEM OPERATION
4.0 SYSTEM CONTROLS
5.0 SYSTEM COMPONENTS
6.0 UNRESOLVED MATTERS
7.0 REFERENCES
Page
1
1
1
2
2
3
3
22029\Sys Desc
ii
Rev. 0
-------
System Description-22029-M72-LG05
o TWO crystallizer feed pumps
o one slurry storage tank with agitator
o Two slurry transfer pumps
o one centrifuge
o Two hotwell transfer pumps
o Desuperheating station
o Thermocompressor
6.0 UNRESOLVED MATTERS
o Crystallizer feed and slurry concentration
o Feed and product flow
o Power and steam use
7.0
O P&ID M74-LG03 and LG04
o Flow Diagram-Crystallizer/Centrifuge System
22029\Sys Desc 3 J- ~ M Rev. 0
-------
COOLNQ WATER FROM
COOLING TOWER SLOWDOWN LINE
TO
ATMOSPHERE
-vj
THAN-A"
EVAPORATOR BRINE
TRAWB-
EVAPORATOR BRINE
U
__».. . __
^E|DTAM<
CRYSTALLIZER
FEED PUMPS (2)
BECHTEL
CEDAR BAY
CRYSTALLIZER / CENTRIFUGE S YSTr *
FLOW DIAGRAM
JOiNd IpwaHa
RIV.
-------
System Description-22029-M72-LG05
SYSTEM DESCRIPTION
CRYSTALLIZER AND CENTRIFUGE SYSTEM
1.0 FUNCTION
1.1 The function of the crystallizer and centrifuge system is to
receive the brine from the two evaporator trains and produce
condensate-guality water for use as cooling tower makeup.
1.2 Another function of this system is to concentrate or dewater
the remaining solids in the crystallizer slurry with a centrifuge
to produce a near-dry waste for off-site disposal.
The system is shown on P&ID M74-LG04.
2.0 DESIGN BASIS
2.1 The single-train crystallizer and centrifuge system is
designed to treat a concentrator brine slurry from the two evapora-
tor trains at a design flow of 50 gpm.
2.2 The crystallizer is designed to produce distillate-quality
condensate for return to the cooling towers, and a salt slurry.
2.3 The centrifuge is designed to produce a near-dry (10 to 15%
design moisture content) salt crystal cake. The extracted liquid
and remaining dissolved solids are returned to the crystallizer
feed tank.
3.0 SYSTEM OPERATION . ., .
3.1 The crystallizer portion of the system is designed to concen-
trate the salt slurry from the evaporator system to a higher % salt
slurry. The crystallizer slurry is then pumped to a centrifuge,
where most of the remaining free liquid is removed, leaving a dry
salt cake.
3.2 The crystallizer process commences with evaporator waste
slurry combining with centrifuge centrate return in the agitated
crystallizer feed tank, and being fed to the suction side of the
crystallizer recirculating pump by the crystallizer feed pumps.
3.3 The recirculating pump circulates the combined feed and re-
cycle stream through a steam heated heat exchanger and the crystal-
lizer vapor body. This crystallizer stream, or liquor, picks up
heat from the heat exchanger, and enters the vapor body of the
crystallizer and flashes due to the vacuum produced by the
barometric condenser.
22029\Sys Desc 1 X ~ &° Rev. 0
-------
System Description-22029-M72-LG05
3.4 The steam used for heating the crystallizer feed liauor in 1-ho
°°» af te/ivin
£ cSSSHF °°yy»? af tegiving p its ht , and p
the crystallizer hotwell via the steam condensate trans f
^^
punped to
S0%
of the "Dining free water and
4.0 SYSTEM CONTPnj.g
4.1 Vendor standard controls.
.
be lntegratea
5.0 SYSTEM COMPONENTS
n Components c°»Prising the crystallizer and centrifuge
o one crystallizer vapor body: with internal mist
entrainment separator
o one crystallizer heat exchanger
o one crystallizer recirculating pump
o One vacuum pump
o one vacuum pump vent condenser
o One barometric condenser with hotwell
o Two steam condensate transfer pumps
o one crystallizer feed tank with agitator
22029\Sys Desc 2
-------
APPENDIX J
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AIR QUALITY IMPACTS ANALYSIS
-------
-------
EN&
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The objective of the information presented in this document is to provide data useful for
assessing:
1) whether, on balance, the air pollutant emissions and air quality impacts of the Cedar Bay
Cogeneration Project (CBCP), as proposed to be modified, and the addition of the three
new proposed package boilers scheduled for the Seminole Kraft Corporation (SKC) site
necessary to provide 640,000 Ib. of steam per hour for SKC's use, will be less than the
emissions and air quality impacts of the future SKC recycling operation, providing
640,000 Ib. of steam per hour for SKC's use without the CBCP.
2) whether, on balance, the permitted air pollutant emissions and air quality impacts of the
CBCP, as proposed to be modified, andthe addition of the three new proposed package
boilers scheduled for the SKC site at their permitted capacity, will be less than the
emissions and air quality impacts of the CBCP as certified;
3) whether, on balance, the permitted air pollutant emissions and air quality impacts of the
CBCP, as proposed to be modified, and the addition of the three new proposed package
boilers scheduled for the SKC site at their permitted capacity, will be less than the
emissions and air quality impacts of the future SKC recycling operation at permitted
capacity without the power plant;
4) whether the CBCP, as proposed to be modified, would either cause or contribute to a
violation of an ambient air quality standard (AAQS) or cause or contribute to a violation
of the allowable Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) increments, in either the
region surrounding the facility (a PSD Class II area) or the two distant PSD Class I
areas. The two PSD Class I areas are the Okefenokee and Wolf Island Wilderness
areas in Georgia. In addition, information is presented to provide data useful for
assessing whether the CBCP would produce air toxics concentrations above the Draft
Florida No Threat Levels (NTLs);
5) whether the CBCP, as proposed to be modified, would induce significant indirect
pollutant emissions as result of directly related growth, create adverse impacts on soils,
vegetation or visibility, and whether the cooling tower vapor plume would cause
significant fogging or icing on nearby transportation routes; and
r:\pubs\proiects\S402027\8S1.ES ES-1 February. 1993
CM
-------
6) updated information on air emission controls and.emission rates. The lower air pollutant
emission rates for the CBCP CFB boilers, and the inclusion of a new add-on technology
(selective non-catalytic reduction) may require some changes to the original conditions
of certification and air permit. To provide the State and EPA with accurate and updated
mformat.on on the project for review of the proposed changes, ENSR, on behalf of U S
Generating Company, developed a technical review of the air emission controls and
emission rates.
The "CBCP as certified" refers to the facility as described in the Final Order and Power Plant Site
Hertifirat nn DA oo ox j-* i i-_i *^ J__. . «"<-• icuiioue
e
™P PA88'24DdatedFeb^11' 1991 ^ the March 28, 1991 Final Determination y
the
P D , y
Permit No. PSD-FL-137. The "CBCP as proposed to be modified" refers to the fading
as descnbed ,n the Amended Petition for Modification of Certification filed with the Division of
Admm.strat.ve Hearings on July 22, 1992, plus further improvements proposed by the CBCP.
The "future SKC Recycling Operation without the power plant" refers to the two bark and three
0,1-f.red boilers presently at the SKC site as they could be operated should the CBCP not be In
h,s hypothetical future case, without the CBCP, it is ENSR's understanding that the exhausts of
the three power boilers would be combined and exhausted through a newly constructed 125-foot
stack to lessen susceptibility to aerodynamic downwash effects caused by nearby structures.
The "addition of the three new proposed package boilers scheduled for the SKC site necessary
to provide the 640,000 lb of steam for SKC's use" refers to three package boilers proposed by
SKC capable of producing a total of 375,000 Ib/hr of steam. For purposes of the technical
3fln nnn5,;'/? T^ ** ** ^'^ ^ Steam re'uirement is me< ^ the CBCP supplying
380,000 Ib/hr and the SKC package boilers supplying 260,000 Ib/hr.
The "addition of the three new proposed package boilers scheduled for the.SKC site at their
perm.tted capacity" refers to these same boilers producing a total of 375,000 Ib/hr of steam.
The proposed SKC package boilers will be capable of accommodating either fuel oil or natural
gas. Not yet permrtted, these boilers will, according to the SKC permit application fire No 2
distillate fuel oil with a maximum sulfur content of 0.5% and an annual average sulfur content of
0.3 /o.
In making the assessments for pollutant emissions, the maximum annual emissions of health
cntena pollutants, other regulated pollutants, and non-regulated air toxics pollutants are
compared. To compare the air quality impacts, evaluate compliance with the AAQS and PSD
increments, compare the air quality impacts to the draft NTLs, evaluate soils, vegetation and
r.\pubs\pro|«cts\S402027\8S1.ES ES-2
February. 1993
3-Z
-------
EN;R
visibility impacts, and characterize cooling tower impacts, comprehensive atmospheric dispersion
modeling was performed in accordance with EPA and Florida DER Guidelines.
Table ES-1 illustrates the difference in annual pollutant emissions between CBCP as proposed
to be modified plus the SKC package boilers, and the future SKC recycling operation (both cases
at 640,000 Ib/hr steam usage by SKC). This table demonstrates the decreases or increases in
the actual annual emissions of four categories of pollutants by operating the CBCP and the SKC
package boilers and shutting down the SKC power and bark boilers. The health criteria and PSD
increment pollutants are those for which ambient air quality standards or PSD increments have
been established. The total regulated pollutants include the criteria and all PSD regulatory
pollutants. Non-regulated air toxics represent twenty different compounds emitted by the sources
in question which are included in the list of 751 compounds cited in Florida's Draft Air Toxics
Permitting Strategy. In aggregating health criteria, PSD increment and regulated pollutants, TSP
and PM-10 are treated as individual pollutants exclusive of one another, although PM-10 are a
portion of TSP. Because PM-10 and TSP are also treated exclusively when comparing ambient
impacts (the health criteria standards address PM-10 while the PSD increments address TSP),
the emissions comparisons treats them as different pollutants for consistency with the standards
and PSD increments.
The comparisons of annual emissions shown in Table ES-1 assume that the SKC package boilers
always fire fuel oil. To the extent that they fire natural gas on an annual basis, the decreases in
emissions would be greater. As shown in Table ES-1 decreases in air pollutant emissions are
achieved by the CBCP, as proposed to be modified, in each category, except non-regulated air
toxics.
A comparison of air quality impacts between the CBCP, as proposed to be modified plus the SKC
package boilers, and the SKC recycling operation without the CBCP (both cases at 640,000 Ib/hr
steam usage by SKC) is summarized in Table ES-2. The table summarizes the changes due to
the CBCP as proposed to be modified and the SKC package boilers for each criteria pollutant as
well as total air toxics. Three values are listed for each pollutant: 1) the change to the maximum
predicted concentration of the pollutant anywhere (higher, lower or insignificant maximum
concentration); 2) the net effect on air quality on a regional basis in terms of the highest predicted
pollutant concentrations (improved, insignificant, or degraded); and 3) the percent of locations for
which modeling was performed which showed a net benefit in terms of the highest concentrations.
A total of 1008 locations, referred to as "model receptors," were addressed. The majority of these
fall within 10 kilometers of the CBCP, but a portion extend as far as 25 kilometers. As shown in
Table ES-2, the CBCP as proposed to be modified and the SKC package boilers result in either
lower or insignificant maximum concentrations of all criteria pollutants and total air toxics, a net
n\put>sVproiectS\S402027\8S1.ES ES'3
J-3
-------
TABLE ES-1
CBCP as Proposed to be Modified Plus SKC Package Boilers
vs.
SKC Recycling
(Both Cases at 640,000 Ib/hr Steam for SKC)
Net Change in Annual Emissions Due To
CBCP and SKC Package Boilers Firing Oil
Pollutants Category
Health Criteria and PSD Increments
Total Regulated
Total Non-Regulated Air Toxics
Total Pollutants
Net Change
=====
Decrease 343 tons
•—•
Decrease 594 tons
Increase 29 tons
Decrease 565 tons
R: 'VS:-:'.;ft.i7EC-rr\S40i027\a51 .EJT
ES-4
-------
TABLE ES-2
CBCP as Proposed to be Modified Plus SKC Package Boilers
vs.
SKC Recycling
(Both Cases at 640,000 Ib/hr Steam)
Air Quality Changes Due to CBCP Plus SKC Package Boilers Firing Oil(a)
Pollutant
3-hour SO2
24-hour SO2
Annual SO2
24-hour PM-10
Annual PM-10
1-hour CO
8-hour CO
Annual NO2
Monthly Pb
Annual Pb
8-hour Air Toxics
24-hour Air Toxics
Annual Air Toxics
Maximum
Concentration
Lower
Lower
Lower
Lower
Higher
Insignificant
Insignificant
Lower
Insignificant
Insignificant
Lower
Lower
Net Regional
Air Quality
Effect
Percent of
Locations with
Air Quality Benefit
Improved ! 97.6
Improved
Improved
Improved
Insignificant
Insignificant
Insignificant
Improved
Insignificant
Insignificant
Improved
Improved
Lower | Improved
98.2
99.5
98.2
91.4
Not applicable
Not applicable
99.6
Not applicable
Not applicable
99.6
99.6
99.6
(a|See Section 2
ES-5
CT-S
-------
EN3*
improvement or insignificant change in the highest concentrations on a regional basis, and a net
air quality benefit at virtually all locations.
A summary of the comparison of the maximum permitted annual pollutant emissions between
CBCP as certified and CBCP as proposed to be modified plus the SKC package boilers is
presented in Table ES-3. This table illustrates the decrease in emissions resulting from CBCP
as proposed to be modified plus the SKC package boilers for the four pollutant categories. As
shown in the table, decreases are achieved in all categories of pollutants except non-regulated
air toxics, which don't change.
A summary of the differences in air quality impacts at permitted capacity between CBCP as
certified and CBCP as proposed to be modified plus the SKC package boilers is presented in
Table ES-4. Lower or insignificant maximum concentrations are shown to result from Cedar Bay
as proposed to be modified for most pollutants with the exception of SO2. However, the net effect
on highest SO2 concentrations is insignificant on a regional basis. Impacts of CO are insignificant
in each case, so a meaningful comparison capnot be made. Annual average PM-10 impacts,
although lower in terms of the maximum concentrations, are not significantly affected on a
regional basis with a small number of locations experiencing a benefit. Although there is an
average improvement, the magnitude of the improvement is not significant.
Table ES-5a summarizes the comparison of maximum permitted emissions between CBCP as
proposed to be modified plus the SKC package boilers, and the SKC recycling operation. This
table shows an increase in each of the four pollutant categories. However, these changes do not
account for substantial additional decreases that are associated with the shutdown of recovery
boilers, lime kilns and smelt dissolving tanks at SKC as a result of SKC converting to a recycling
operation.
According to the PSD permit application for the SKC package boilers, substantial decreases in
baseline emissions will be achieved. These are listed in Table ES-5b. As shown in the table,
the overall result is a net decrease in the first three pollutant categories. Decreases in non-
regulated air toxics were not estimated for the application, but these would also offset the
increases shown in Table ES-5a at least to some extent.
Notwithstanding the above calculated emission increases, as shown in Table ES-6, maximum
pollutant concentrations are lower or insignificant for the CBCP as proposed to be modified. In
addition, for the individual pollutants, either a net regional air quality benefit or an insignificant
change results and the vast majority of locations experience a benefit with the CBCP as proposed
to be modified, compared to the SKC recycling operation.
ES-6 February ,9g3
-------
TABLE ES-3
CBCP as Certified vs. CBCP as Proposed to be Modified Plus
SKC Package Boilers
Net Change in Permitted Annual Emissions Due to
CBCP as Proposed to be Modified Plus SKC Package Boilers
Pollutants Category
Health Criteria and PSD Increments
Total Regulated
Total Non Regulated Air Toxics
Total Pollutants
Net Change
Decrease 2,099 tons
Decrease 3,51 9 tons
No Change
Decrease 3,51 9 tons
ES-7
-------
TABLE ES-4
CBCP as Certified vs. CBCP as Proposed to be Modified Plus SKC
Package Boilers
Air Quality Changes Due to CBCP as Proposed to be
Modified Plus SKC Package Boilers Firing Oil(a)
Pollutant
3-hour SO2
24-hour SO2
Annual SO2
24-hour PM-10
Annual PM-10
1 -hour CO
8-hour CO
Annual NO2
Monthly Pb
Annual Pb
8-hour Air Toxics
24-hour Air Toxics
Annual Air Toxics
Maximum
Concentration
Higher
Higher
Lower
Lower
Lower
Insignificant
Insignificant
Lower
Insignificant
Insignificant
Lower
Lower
Lower
Net Regional
Air Quality
Effect
Insignificant
Insignificant
Insignificant
Insignificant
Insignificant
Insignificant
Insignificant
Insignificant
Insignificant
Insignificant
Improved
Improved
Improved
Percent of
Locations with
Air Quality Benefit
80.1
73.6
45.6
64.8
30.6
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
44.2
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
95.6
95.6
95.4
""See Section 2
'JrC-. PP.'.vJECTr\5402027\851.ETT
ES-8
-------
TABLE ES-5a
CBCP as Proposed to be Modified Plus SKC Package Boilers vs. SKC Recycling
Net Change in Permitted Annual Emissions Due to
CBCP as Proposed to be Modified Plus SKC Package Boilers Firing Oil
Pollutants Category
Health Criteria and PSD Increments
Total Regulated
Total Non Regulated Air Toxics
Total Pollutants
Net Change
Increase 270 tons
Increase 20 tons
Increase 36 tons
Increase 56 tons
TABLE ES-5b
Net Changes Due To Additional Sources Shutting Down00
at SKC for Conversion to Recycling Operation
Pollutants Category
Health Criteria and PSD Increments
Total Regulated
Net Change
Decrease 4,668
tons
Decrease 4,712
tons
Combined Net Change
with CBCP
Decrease 4,398 tons
Decrease 4,692 tons
'"Recovery Boilers, Lime Kilns, Smelt Dissolving Tanks
ES-9
-------
TABLE ES-6
CBCP as Proposed to be Modified Plus SKC Package Boilers
at Permitted Capacity
vs.
SKC Recycling at Permitted Capacity
A.r Quality Changes Due to CBCP Plus SKC Package Boilers'"
Net Regional
Air Quality
Effect
Percent of
Locations with
Air Quality Benefit
Maximum
Concentration
Pollutant
==
3-hour SO
Improved
~
Improved
_
Improved
24-hour SO
24-hour PM-10
— •
Annual PM-10
Higher
n
Insignificant
Not Applicable
Insignificant
Lower
Insignificant
-
Improved
Not Applicable
Annual NO2
Monthly Pb
—
Annual Pb
Insignificant
—
Insignificant
Lower
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
99.6
8-hour Air Toxics
Improved
Improved
•
Improved
24-hour Air Toxics
Annual Air Toxics
'"See Section 2
ft: \PURS'.PR.VTErTr\S402C27 v651.Err
ES-10
-------
EhKR
Table ES-7 summarizes the results of the modeling for compliance with AAQS and PSD
increments and for comparison to the Draft Air Toxics NTLs. For the applicable AAQS and PSD
increment pollutants, the predicted compliance status is listed. "Compliance" indicates that an
evaluation of all major sources in Duval County in addition to Cedar Bay demonstrates
compliance with the standard. "Insignificant Impacts" indicates that no evaluation of the standard
was performed since Cedar Bay impacts were insignificant. "Does not cause or contribute to a
violation" indicates that all major sources in Duval County were modeled but only those total
concentrations to which the Cedar Bay facility contributed a significant concentration were
evaluated, and those concentrations were predicted to be below the standards. As shown in the
table, the predicted compliance status for each criteria pollutant and standard is favorable. For
the draft No Threat Levels, the CBCP, as proposed to be modified complies with all NTLs
examined. Some compounds have NTLs for more than one averaging period.
As demonstrated by the foregoing summary and further documented herein, the Cedar Bay
Cogeneration Project as proposed to be modified, plus the new proposed SKC package boilers
on balance, in terms of pollutant emissions and'air quality, result in lower environmental impacts
than either the SKC recycling operation or the Cedar Bay facility as originally certified. In
addition, the Cedar Bay Cogeneration Project, as proposed to be modified, will comply with all
applicable ambient air quality standards and prevention of significant deterioration increments,
neither causing nor contributing to a violation.
The results of additional analyses conducted further indicate that:
1) No additional significant emissions and thus no additional significant air quality impacts
will result from any growth directly related to the CBCP of a residential, commercial or
industrial nature,
2) No adverse impacts on soils or vegetation will occur due to the CBCP, in either the
region surrounding the CBCP, other nearby sensitive areas, or the distant PSD Class
I wilderness areas, and
3) No significant affects of the cooling tower on fogging or icing of local transportation
routes or salt deposition in the area surrounding the CBCP will occur.
r:\pubs^pro|«cls\S402027\8S1.ES ES-1 1
February. 1993
-------
TABLE ES-7
CBCP as Proposed to be Modified
Compliance with Ambient Air Quality Standards (AAQS) and PSD
Increments, and Comparison to
Draft Air Toxics No Threat Levels (NTLs)
Pollutant
S02
PM-10
TSP
CO
N02
Pb
Air Toxics
Standard
AAQS
PSD Class II
PSD Class I
AAQS
PSD Class II
PSD Class I
AAQS
AAQS
PSD Class II
PSD Class I
AAQS
Draft NTL's
Predicted Compliance Status
Does Not Cause or Contribute to a Violation
Does Not Cause or Contribute to a Violation
Compliance
Does Not Cause or Contribute to a Violation
Compliance
Compliance
Insignificant Impacts
Does Not Cause or Contribute to a Violation .
Does Not Cause or Contribute to a Violation
Compliance
Insignificant Impacts
Compliance
ES-12
3"-
-------
APPENDIX K
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
COMPARATIVE HUMAN HEALTH AND
ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT
-------
-------
EN3R
————_^_^__
ES.O EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
ES.1 Introduction
The Cedar Bay Cogeneration Project (CBCP), is currently under construction at the Seminole
Kraft Corporation (SKC) recycling facility located in Jacksonville, Florida. The CBCP includes 3
coal-fired circulating fluidized bed (CFB) boilers, capable of generating 250 MW of electricity and
supplying SKC with steam, and two limestone dryers fired with No. 2 fuel oil.
In order to supply SKC with 640,000 Ib/hr of steam, CBCP would have to be augmented with 3
package boilers that would be owned and operated by SKC. CBCP plus these package boilers
would replace 3 oil-fired (No. 6) power boilers and 2 bark boilers currently being operated by SKC
and which would have to be operated if the CBCP and package boilers were not completed.
•
ENSR performed a comparative human health and ecological risk assessment to ascertain
whether the CBCP plus the package boilers operating at nominal capacity to produce 640 000
Ib/hr of steam would have, on balance, less environmental impact than the current SKC Recycling
Operation driven by the existing bark and power boilers without the CBCP and the package
boilers. The following two cases were used in the assessment:
(A) Emissions from the CBCP plus 3 package boilers expected to be required at the SKC site
to supplement steam delivery. The package boilers were assumed to be fired with No 2 oil
with an average annual sulfur content of 0.3%. As the package boilers may actually use
natural gas, this assumption should provide a high estimate of metals emissions. For this
assessment, emissions were calculated for the" "average" operation of the plant, i.e., the
CBCP operated at 85.5% capacity required to deliver enough electricity to the power'grid
consistent with the economic incentives in its power supply contract and steam at a rate of
380,000 Ib/hr to SKC and 260,000 Ib/hr from the package boilers.
(B) Emissions from the SKC Recycling Operation as it would be configured without CBCP and
the new package boilers, delivering steam at 640,000 Ib/hr. This includes 3 power boilers
fueled w,th No. 6 oil, and 2 bark boilers with 1,000,000 gal/yr No. 6 oil and the remainder
bark, a reasonable configuration for a long term assessment, given the historical operating
conditions of these units.
R:\PUBS\PROJECTS\5402027\510.ES ES-1
March. 1993
-------
EN.-R
ES.2 Methods
ES.2.1 Human Health Risk Assessment
In assessing potential human health risks, ENSR followed the four step protocol recommended
by the National Research Council (NAS, 1983), as follows:
• Hazard Identification,
Dose-Response Assessment,
• Exposure Assessment, and
• Risk Characterization.
ES.2.1.1 Hazard Identification: Specifying the Substances to Analyze
The first step in the hazard identification process is to determine the quantity and nature of
chemicals potentially released from a source: The next step is to identify those substances
whose nsk to human health should be assessed. The criteria used for the identification are the
tenacity of the constituents, and their persistence and/or mobility in the environment.
For step one, the chemicals considered for inclusion in the CBCP plus package boiler risk
assessment were those appraised in the air quality analysis of the CBCP (ENSR 1993) This
list is comprised of five criteria pollutants and 26 other organic and inorganic substances that are
included on the Draft Florida Air Toxics list.
Based on the relative toxicity and persistence of these listed substances, ENSR selected 10
metals, the polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH), formaldehyde and radionuclides for
inclusion in the health risk assessment of the CBCP and package boilers.
The metals were selected because they have relatively high toxicity and are persistent in the
env.ronment, allowing for accumulation. Therefore, these inorganic elements have the greatest
potential to produce health or ecological risk from combustion sources. PAH. some of which are
considered by EPA to be probable carcinogens, were selected based on their toxicity, although
they tend to be less persistent than the metals.
Although formaldehyde is not typically found to produce significant risks from fossil fuel
combustion sources, this compound was selected because it has been included in an inhalation
nsk assessment that was part of a draft U.S. EPA Environmental Impact Study (EIS) of. the
CBCP (Dames and Moore, 1992). Similarly, the draft EIS included radionuclides in its health risk
assessment; therefore, ENSR included radionuclides in the present risk assessment
R:\PUBSVPROJECTS\5402027\510.ES ' ES-2
C° ^ March, 1993
-2.
-------
ENR
^mi^m^mm
The same substances were used in the risk assessment of the existing SKC boilers with two
exceptions. First, radionuclides were not analyzed for this source because emissions of these
substances are so much lower from oil fired units including the SKC power boilers. Second
chlorinated dioxins and furans were included among the substances analyzed for SKC, because
bark burners are reported to emit these compounds (Sassenrath, 1991).
These list of compounds assessed are shown in Table ES-1.
ES.2.1.2 Dose-Response Assessment
The dose-response assessment defines the relationship between the dose or intake of a
substance and the likelihood that a health effect (e.g., cancer or other effects) will occur There
are different dose-response relationships defined for exposure by the oral route (e.g., ingestion
of soil, fish, or other foods) and for exposure by inhalation. The outcome of the dose-response
assessment, when coupled with assumptions regarding the magnitude of human exposure
provides a numerical estimate of potential risk..
ENSR used cancer dose-response information derived by the U.S. EPA for each of the chemicals
assessed that are regarded by EPA as known or probable human carcinogens, with the exception
of lead. Lead is considered a probable human carcinogen, but U.S. EPA has yet to develop a
cancer dose-response value for this element.
An assumption used by U.S. EPA and other regulatory authorities for compounds with known or
potential carcinogenic effects is that there is no threshold for effect. That is, there is some level
of risk associated with every dose above zero. The U.S. EPA's Human Health Assessment
Group has developed computerized models that extrapolate observed dose-response
relationships to the low dose levels encountered in environmental situations. The mathematical
models assume no threshold and use human and/or animal dose-response data to develop a
potency estimate for a compound. In extrapolating the results of animal experiments to humans
an assumption is made that man is more sensitive to the effects than the experimental animal'
The mathematical models assume that carcinogenic dose-response is linear at low doses and
most calculate the 95% upper bound on the range of possible dose-response slopes This value
is known as a cancer slope factor (CSF). The use of these assumptions makes it more likely
than not that cancer risk estimated using the CSF overestimates true risk.
R:\PU8S\PROJECTS\5402027\510.ES ES-3
March. 1993
-------
EKR
TABLE ES-1
Chemicals Assessed in the
Health Risk Assessment
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium (hexavalent)
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Carcinogenic Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH)
Vanadium
Formaldehyde
Total Radionuclides (CBCP only)
Chlorinated dioxins and furans (existing SKC only)
R:\PUBS\PROJECTS\S402027\510.EST
ES-4
Ic-f
March, 1993
-------
Because of the linearity assumption, simply multiplying the CSF by the estimated dose provides
an estimate of extra cancer risk specific to the conditions of exposure.
ENSR used Reference Doses derived by the U.S. EPA to assess the potential effects of
substances that are not carcinogenic. For compounds with known or potential effects other than
cancer, it is assumed that there exists a dose below which no adverse health effects are likely
to occur. This dose is described as a "threshold". An approximation of a threshold dose — the
dose at which no effects occur — may be observed in animal experiments or observations in
accidentally exposed humans. This dose level is called a No Observed Adverse Effect Level
(NOAEL). To account for the uncertainty that.such a NOAEL can be applied to a large human
population that may contain particularly sensitive individuals, U.S. EPA and other regulatory
authorities divide NOAEL values by "uncertainty factors." By applying such uncertainty factors
U.S. EPA derives a Reference Dose (RfD) that represents a dose below which it is extremely
unlikely that even sensitive subgroups of a population would suffer toxic effects (U.S. EPA, 1991).
Less sensitive members of the population would be protected to an even greater extent. To
determine the potential impact of a noncarcinogenic chemical, the estimated dose is divided by
the RfD to arrive at what U.S. EPA refers to as a "hazard quotient." A hazard quotient of one or
less indicates an adequate certainty that a toxic effect will not be observed.
ES.2.1.3 Exposure Assessment
Exposure assessment involves determination of the ways people might be expected to be
exposed to source emissions and estimation of the extent of potential human exposure to the
chemicals assessed. To accomplish the latter in this risk assessment, "exposure scenarios" were
constructed, in which the behaviors of people that promote exposure (e.g., their inhalation rates,
frequency of contact with soil, type and amount of .food eaten) were quantified to aid in calculating
the total exposure to chemicals that might occur.
Ambient air concentrations of chemicals for each potential exposure pathway were modeled using
the U.S. EPA model ISC2. In order to conduct such modeling, estimates of the emissions from
the CBCP and SKC Package Boilers and the existing SKC boilers were required. These
emissions were then subjected to air dispersion and wet and dry deposition modeling. Air
dispersion models provided an estimate of ambient air concentrations of the chemicals assessed
at locations of interest. The deposition models, which provided estimates of the rate at which
chemicals assessed reach the ground surface, were subsequently used to determine the extent
to which chemicals enter surface soil, surface water, and foodstuffs (fish and vegetables) that
people might consume. This approach is shown schematically in Figure ES-1.
R:\PUBS\PROJECTS\S402027\510.ES ES-5
C0 ° March. 1993
K-5
-------
OCR
Emissions Estimates
Air Dispersion
Modelling
Deposition
Modelling
Deposition and
Runoff into Surface
Water
J
1
Deposition onto
Leafy Vegetables and
Root Uptake
Deposition and Mixing
in Soil
Ambient Air
Concentration
Vegetable
Concentration
Fish Concentration
Soil Concentration
Ingestion and
Dermal Absorption
Consumption
Total Exposure
FIGURE ES-1
Exposure Assessment
U920000
ES-6
fc-t
-------
ENS
—•—^—^—^
Exposure to chemicals emitted into the air can occur via both direct and indirect pathways The
direct pathway for chemicals emitted to the air is inhalation of particle-bound and gaseous
chemicals. As previously discussed, particulate-bound chemicals will deposit onto land and water
surfaces and may distribute from those media to foodstuffs. People may be exposed indirectly
by contacting or ingesting deposited materials.
While the direct exposure pathway, inhalation, is relevant to exposure assessment for almost any
facility, the indirect pathways are determined by the nature of the area surrounding the facility
In the case of CBCP, potentially exposed individuals in the surrounding area reside in single
family houses, suggesting that children may have play areas near their residences. There are
a very limited number of commercial vegetable and fruit operations in the County, but the low
density of homes in the vicinity of CBCP suggests that it is reasonable to assume backyard
gardens exist. Since Jacksonville is a seaboard community and is located on an extensive
estuarine river system, consumption of locally caught fish is another pathway of relevance
Therefore, for locations near residences, the applicable and relevant exposure pathways were
considered to be:
•
• inhalation
inadvertent ingestion of and dermal contact with soil.
• ingestion of home-grown produce; and
ingestion of fish.
Exposure estimates were made for a hypothetical Reasonably Maximally Exposed individual who
for the purposes of this assessment, was assumed to be located at points in residential or
res.dentially-2oned areas where air dispersion and/or deposition modeling indicated the greatest
impact. Th,s approach provided the highest realistic estimate of exposure hence the terminology
Reasonably Maximally Exposed," or RME. Exposures to receptors at other locations were also
estimated, to provide perspective on the spatial distribution of potential exposures and the
consequent health risks in the area surrounding the facility.
The RME based on maximum ambient air concentrations would reside along August Drive
northwest of the Dames Point and Dames Point Manor areas of Jacksonville. Although there is
industnal development in this area, there are also single family residences. Points of maximum
depos,t,on occurred in different locations than the points of maximum air concentration because
wet deposition modeling assumptions are less dependent on stack parameters than the dispersion
assumptions, making the magnitude of deposition rate essentially a function of distance from the
source. Therefore, another RME was selected as being the nearest residential property to the
CBCP. Th.s location is at the southern end of Cedar Bay Road, approximately 500 meters to the
west northwest of CBCP. Two additional "near residential" locations were selected One of these
R:\PUBSVPROJECTS\S402027\510.ES ES-7
March. 1993
-------
ENCK
is the Polly Town area of Jacksonville, to the north northeast of the site, and the other is the
northernmost portion of Arlington, due south of CBCP.
Potential health risks to sensitive receptors in the area surrounding the facility were also
evaluated. Sensitive receptors may include children in playgrounds or schools, the elderly in
nursing homes, or the ill in health care facilities such as hospitals. For the present health risk
assessment, schools and playgrounds were selected as locations for sensitive receptors
surrounding the facility. These included the San Mateo Little League field on Kraft Road, to the
north of the site, the San Mateo School, to the northwest, Almadale Christian School, to the west,
Panama Park in downtown Jacksonville, and the Fort Caroline School in Arlington.
The locations of these receptors are shown in Figure ES-2.
ES.2.1.4 Risk Characterization
Risk characterization involves estimating the magnitude of the human health risks associated with
exposure to the chemicals assessed. In this step, the results of the exposure assessment were
combined with the dose-response assessment to estimate the potential risks to human health.
This resulted in a quantitative estimate of the likelihood that an individual will experience any
adverse health effects given the specific exposure assumptions made. Estimates of health risks
were generated for both potential carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic effects associated with each
substance assessed. A summary of risks is presented in Section ES.3.
ES.2.2 Ecological Risk Assessment
An ecological risk assessment has also been performed for the two sets of emission sources.
The ecological assessment consists of the characterization of the-area surrounding the CBCP,
the development of a Conceptual Site Model (CSM) to identify the important taxonomic/functional
groups of the ecosystem that may utilize ecologically important local habitats, and the
identification of critical exposure pathways of potentially emitted chemicals to these
taxonomic/functional groups. Based on site-specific information, an aquatic evaluation and a
terrestrial evaluation were performed and are presented as separate analyses in Section ES.3.
ES.2.2.1 Conceptual Site Model
The ecosystems surrounding the CBCP contain important terrestrial, aquatic, and riparian habitats
(Figure ES-3). Species that are likely to be found there were identified based on site visits and/or
published information. Following the habitat and species characterization, chemicals assessed
were identified. Finally, the primary exposure pathways for chemicals emitted into the
H:\PUBSVPHOJECTS\5402027\510.ES ES'8
1993
-------
U.S.G.S. 7.5 minute series quadrangle of
Jacksonville, Florida
Legend: _^_
• Residential Location
• Parks and Schools
.5
rs
Scale m Miles
0 .5 1
Scale In Kilometers
ES-2
Receptor Locations
M930039
March, 1993
-------
EKR
U.S.G.S. 7.5 minute series quadrangle of
Jacksonville, Florida
Legend:
•J& Aquatic Habitat
R Riparian Habitat
T*» Terrestrial/Habitat (Wooded)
Tm Terrestrial/Habitat (Wetland or Marah)
Scale In Miles
0
Scale in Kilometers
ES-3
Ecological Habitat in the Vicinity of the CBCP Site
M930O4S
FWxuuy, 1993
-------
EM3R
environment were identified as potential consumption of fish by piscivorous birds and mammals,
and consumption of worms by terrestrial mammals.
After identifying the habitat, chemicals, and pathways within a project area, the CSM was used
to select "representative" species. Representative species are those which best represent a
major taxonomic group within the area or, because of their functional biology, have relatively high
potential exposure to chemicals assessed. The snowy egret (Egretta thula). belted kingfisher
(Ceryje alcvon), eastern mole (Scaloous aquaticus). and river otter (Lutra canadensis) were
chosen as representative species for these habitats.
ES.2.2.2 Dose-Response
In this assessment, dose-response values are taken from federal criteria, when available and
when not available are derived from a review of the literature. Ambient Water Quality Criteria
(AWQCs) have been derived for both fresh and salt surface waters for many of the chemicals
emitted by the CBCP and package boilers and the existing SKC boilers. For those chemicals
assessed without AWQCs, the lowest observed effects level for chronic effects found in the
literature were used to develop benchmark concentrations. For the mammalian and avian species
evaluated in this assessment, the procedure used by the U.S. EPA to derive human oral
reference doses is used to develop the oral dose-response values. Much of the available
literature has been summarized by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry for
mammalian species and by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for avian species. These
summaries included the laboratory species and studies, and the lowest chronic NOAEL in the
summary of literature is considered an appropriate dose-response value.
ES.2.2.3 Mammalian and Avian Exposure Assessment
The assumptions that were used to predict potential exposure of representative species are
presented below. For each representative species, exposure pathways are determined and a
lifetime average daily dose is calculated using species-specific parameters. All of the
representative species are assumed to reside in the vicinity of the CBCP throughout their lifespan.
It is further assumed that these representative species obtain all their food (e.g.,fish) and water
requirements from the Broward River or from a location of maximum potential deposition from the
two sets of emissions sources. Exposure pathways were developed for each of the
representative species.
R:\PUBS\PROJECTS\5402027\S10.ES FS-11
March. 1993
k-
-------
ES.2.2.4 Ecological Risk Characterization
Risk characterization involves estimating the magnitude of the potential for an adverse ecological
effect associated with exposure to the chemicals assessed. For the aquatic analysis a
comparison of the predicted surface water concentrations in the St. Johns and Broward Rivers
was made to federal aquatic marine chronic criteria.
For the analysis of the pptential for adverse effects for terrestrial species, ratios are calculated
in a manner parallel to the calculation of human hazard quotients. The exposure dose for each
individual chemical assessed is divided by the appropriate dose-response value to derive a
hazard quotient. The level of ecological concern for noncarcinogenic hazard quotient is defined
by the criteria established by the U.S. EPA (1988). Conclusions are expressed as "no concern"
if the ratio for each chemical assessed is equal to or less than 0.1; "possible concern" if the ratio
falls within the range of 0.1 and 10; and "high concern" if the ratio is equal to or greater than 10.
ES.3 Summary of Results
ES.3.1 Human Health Risk Assessment
Many conservative assumptions were used in the risk assessment steps, including modeling of
air, soil, and water concentrations, exposure frequencies, and intake rates for most of the
exposure pathways. U.S. EPA dose-response values are derived employing conservative
assumptions and are intended to account for sensitive individuals including children on
playgrounds. Given this methodology, actual risk levels for the "average" individual are likely to
be much lower than those predicted here.
The health risk assessment was conducted, for.locations where a-reasonable maximum exposure
(RME) might occur, as well as other locations in the vicinity of the CBCP.
As shown in Table ES-2, the human health risk assessment indicates that all cancer risks
associated with exposure to emissions from the two sets of sources are less than 1 in 100,000,
risks that U.S. EPA has found to be acceptable in a similar regulatory setting. There was only
one location of the 9 analyzed where the cancer risk from the CBCP and package boilers was
greater than that for the SKC bark and power boilers. Cancer risks at other locations are 50%
or more lower for CBCP plus package boilers than for the existing SKC boilers.
It is apparent from the extra cancer risk levels reported at other locations that the risk decreases
with distance from the site or with less intense exposure patterns.
R:\PUBS\PROJECTS\S402027\S 10.ES ES-12 March. 1993
fc-IZ.
-------
ENSl
TABLE ES-2
Cancer Risk Comparisons of CBCP and SKC Emissions
Location
Dames Point Manor
Cedar Bay Road
Polly Town
Arlington
Kraft Rd. Ballfield
San Mateo Elementary
Schooi
Almadale
Christian School
Panama Park
Ft. Caroline Elementary
School
Exposures
Inhalation
Soil
Foodchain
Inhalation
Soil
Foodchain
Inhalation
Soil
Foodchain
Inhalation
Soil
Foodchain
Inhalation
Soil
Inhalation
Soil
Inhalation
Soil
Inhalation
Soil
Inhalation
Soil
Cancer Risk
(Chances in 100,000)
CBCP and
Package
Boilers
0.05
0.24
0.03
0.02
0.05
a.oa - -
0.03
0.03
0.01
SKC
Existing
0.14
0.16
0.1
0.08
0.10
0.10 "-'
0.09
0.08
0.04
Difference
in Risk
CBCP-SKC
-0.09
+0.08
-0.02
-0.06
-0.05
-0.07
-0.06
-0.05
-0.03
R:\PUBSVPROJECTS\5402027\510.EST
ES-13
March. 1993
-------
Neither facility has significant impact on other health outcomes, as measured by comparison to
RfDs. As shown in Table ES-3 Hazard Indices were well below one for both sets of emissions
sources at all locations. This indicates that it would be extremely unlikely that any toxic effect
would result from exposures to chemicals from either facility. The hazard indices for the SKC
Bark & -d Power Boilers are smaller than those for CBCP and package boiler at two locations, but
the re erse is true at 5 other locations and at the remaining 2 locations the Hazard Indices were
approximately equal.
Thus, overall, neither the existing SKC boilers nor CBCP plus package boilers can be expected
to have an impact on the human health of the surrounding community.
ES.3.2 Ecological Risk Assessment
Characterization of potential impacts to aquatic species is performed by comparing predicted
incremental concentrations to ambient water quality criteria. For all of the.chemicals, the
predicted surface water concentrations from emissions of the CBCP and package boilers are less
than one percent of the chronic criteria. Indeed, the predicted surface water concentrations of
most chemicals range from about one hundredth to less than one ten thousandth of a percent of
the criteria. Thus, the predicted surface water concentrations due to emissions of the CBCP and
package boilers meet the established chronic criteria by a large margin.
The characterization of potential impacts to terrestrial and avian representative species was
performed by computing a hazard quotient (the ratio of the predicted intake in a species to a
benchmark intake expected to have minimal effect). The hazard quotients for all the chemicals
for all the representative species potentially affected by the CBCP and package boilers are equal
to or below 0.1. These ratios are classified by U.S. EPA as "no concern" (U.S. EPA, 1988). This
analysis indicates that the representative species will hot be adversely impacted by the chemicals
assessed emitted by the CBCP and package boilers. Because these representative species are
potentially more highly exposed and are used as indicators for the other mammalian and avian
species in the area, the analysis indicates no potential for adverse effects exists in those species
either.
As with the CBCP and package boilers, the potential affects of all chemicals emitted by the
existing SKC bark and power boilers on river otters, snowy egrets and belted kingfishers are
classified as "no concern" by the U.S. EPA. In addition, the potential effects of all chemicals, with
the exception of vanadium, on eastern moles at two receptor locations, 675 and 901 are also
classified as "no concern" by the U.S. EPA. The SKC vanadium emissions are classified as being
of "potential concern" for the eastern mole at Receptors 675 and 901. Because of the
R:\PUBS\PROJ£CTS\5402027\510.ES ES'14 ,. _K 100,
MauCn, 1993
K-if
-------
TABLE ES-3
Comparisons of Potential Non-Cancer Impacts
of CBCP and SKC Emissions
Location
Dames Point Manor
Cedar Bay Road
Polly Town
Arlington
Kraft Rd. Ballfield
San Mateo Elementary
School
Almadale
Christian School
Panama Park
Ft. Caroline Elementary
School
Exposures
Inhalation
Soil
Foodchain
Inhalation
Soil
Foodchain
Inhalation
Soil
Foodchain
Inhalation
Soil
Foodchain
Inhalation
Soil
Inhalation
Soil
Inhalation
Soil
Inhalation
Soil
Inhalation
Soil
Hazard Index
CBCP and
Package
Boilers
0.02
0.1
0.02
0.02
0.03
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.0008
SKC
Existing
0.03
0.05
0.02
0.01
0.03
0.009
0.008
0.007
0.004
Ratio of
CBCP
SKC
0.7
2.0
1.0
2.0
1.0
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.2
R:\PUBS\PROJECTS\5402027\S 10.EST
ES-15
March, 1993
-------
EM3I
conservative assumptions used in the risk assessment, it. is not likely that the vanadium emitted
from existing SKC sources will result in observable adverse ecological affects to the eastern mole.
ES.4 Conclusions
The findings of this risk assessment indicate that operation of the CBCP and package boilers will
have a negligible impact on human health. By replacing SKC's bark and power boilers, the CBCP
and package boilers may actually provide some net health benefit, because the cancer risks from
the CBCP and package boilers are less than those of the SKC facility as it now exists.
The findings of the ecological risk assessment indicate that the CBCP will not pose a potential
ecological risk to the aquatic or terrestrial environments. The potential effects of CBCP emission
of all the chemicals on all the species examined are classified as "no concern". The vanadium
emissions from the existing SKC boilers are classified as being of "potential concern" for the
eastern mole at Receptors 675 and 901. Thus, the CBCP and package boilers may be expected
to present less ecological risk for the locations, species, and chemicals assumed than the existina
SKC boilers.
R:\PUBSVPROJECTS\S402027\510.ES ES-16 Ma,^ 19g3
-------
APPENDIX L
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT
OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION
CORRESPONDENCE REGARDING
LIME MUD COMPOSITION
-------
-------
Florida Department of Environmental Regulation
TWln Tbweis Office Bldg. • 2600 Blair Stone Road • Tallahassee, Florida 32399-240O
_... _ Carol M. Btownec, icerenry
Uwton Chiles, Governor
March 28, 1991
Julia Blunden
D*v«lopmont Manager
ASS Cedar Bay, Inc.
1001 North 19th Street
Arlington, Virginia 22209
Dear Julie:
Our Hazardous Waste Section has reviewed the
supplemental information supplied by you regarding the lime
mud deposits at the AES Cedar Bay Cogeneration Project Site
in Duval County, Florida. They have concluded that these
deposits do not constitute a hazardous waste so long as the
water content of the lime mud is less than 50%.
The Department agrees that AES Cedar Bay, Inc. has
complied with condition IX of the Conditions of
certification and may relocate the lime mud deposits as
described in the SCA and Erosion sediment Control Plan.
If you have any further questions please contact me.
Sine*
Steve Palmer, P.E.
Siting Engineer
Division of Air Resources
Management
SP/ah
L-l
-------
7-1
-------
APPENDIX M
TEVfUCUAN ECOLOGICAL &
HISTORIC PRESERVE INFORMATION
FROM THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE'S
AGENCY BRIEFING BOOKLET
-------
-------
APPENDIX M
INFORMATION ON THE
TIMOCUAN ECOLOGICAL & HISTORIC PRESERVE
From - the National Park Service's "agency briefing booklet'
October 1991
Note: Only portions of the "agency briefing booklet"
dealing with the "Preserve Purpose and Significance"
are provided in this Appendix. The cover letter from
the National Park Service is provided for context and
as a reference. Maps are not easily reproduce-able and
so are not provided.
-------
-------
•\
United States Department of the Interior
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE
FORT CAROLINE NATIONAL MEMORIAL
IN REPLY REFER TO: TIMUCUAN ECOLOGICAL & HISTORIC PRESERVE
D18 (TIMU-S) 12713 Fort Caroline Road
JACKSONVILLE. FLORIDA 32225 - 1299
October 1, 1991
Mr. Greer Tidwell, Regional Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
345 Courtland Street, Northeast
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
Dear Mr. Tidwell:
P?es2^J1VS?l ^ inoludes .Fort Caroline National Memorial? ?Ee
l*f^i%?™0^:^^^^^
federal levels. The National Park Service (ms] has ilentifiel
OWnerShiP' ^wardship a'nd^o'r jurisdSat
resource management within the preserve
P^otef
t
'
rScinaitenc
representatives of the NFS Southeast Regional off ice in At
NFS
i^^^aSis^
your participation. We have scheduled 9a mee?rng in
-------
please
Suzanne Lewis /
.Superintendent
Attachment
-------
agency briefing booklet
October 1991
TIMUCUAN
ECOLOGICAL AND HISTORIC PRESERVE
FLORIDA
-------
CONTENTS
FOUNDATION FOR MANAGEMENT 1
PRESERVE PURPOSE AND SIGNIFICANCE 1
A Vision for Timucuan 1
Purpose Statements 2
. Significance Statements 2
Interpretive Themes 3
PRESERVE EXISTING CONDITIONS 4
INTRODUCTION TO ALTERNATIVES 9
GIVENS/IMPLICATIONS OF EXISTING CONDITIONS 9
GOALS FOR ALTERNATIVES 9
Natural Resource Management 9
Cultural Resource Management 10
Visitor Experience 10
Recreation 11
PLANNING NEEDS 11
•
*
QUESTIONNAIRE/MATRIX/METHODOLOGY CHART 12
MAPS
Natural Resources 5
Known Cultural Resources
Recreational Resources 7
Landownership 8
Hi
IV fc
-------
FOUNDATION FOR MANAGEMENT
PRESERVE PURPOSE AND SIGNIFICANCE
A Vision for Timucuan
Timucuan Ecological and Historic Preserve contains some 46,000 acres, most of which are
wetlands. The preserve's enabling legislation also identified eight cultural resources worthy
of interpretation. All but three of these resources are nonextant, and except for the
Zephaniah Kingsley Plantation, most are related to the continuum of fortification of the
Lower St. Johns River area.
Historically the lower St. Johns River was a very important resource-^-the seat of political,
military, and religious power of Spanish Florida. This continuum of defense-related activity
is evident today with the presence of the U.S. Navy's facility at Mayport.
The historic fortifications of the preserve have little meaning by themselves, and must be
related to the bigger picture of European, and later American, occupation of Florida and the
many struggles to keep it. The story of settlement, economic development, and exploitation
(both subsistence and commercial) is intertwined with the story of political, military, and
religious life in the region.
Although the 46,000 acres that currently encompass the preserve do not make up the entire
wetlands ecosystem of the St. Johns River, their designation by Congress as a preserve,
coupled with the recent rise in American consciousness towards preservation and protection
of wetlands, makes them a valuable natural resource. Visitors would have opportunities to
learn and experience the natural resources of the preserve on their own terms, which will in
part help make clear the experiences of those who fought for, and settled, lived, and continue
to live there.
Timucuan Ecological and Historical Preserve is two resources worthy of preservation and
interpretation—a magnificent and dynamic wetland with its attendant ecosystem, and an
area that possesses a significant and important cultural history. Together, these two
resources form a fabric that is richer and more diverse than either of its two separate
threads. A careful interweaving of these respective components will emphasize the totality
of the wetlands/cultural experience and present an informational and educational experience
for park visitors.
The area should be managed as the dynamic natural/cultural system that it is. The Timucuan
experience should be both water and land based to provide visitors multiple opportunities to
enjoy the natural and cultural resources. Providing visitors access by water would allow a
better understanding of both the ecology of the wetlands and their past and present human
use.
-------
Purpose Statements
The purpose of the Timucuan Ecological and Historic Preserve is to
• Protect, preserve, and interpret the fresh- and salt-water wetlands and uoland
St"S s "" 6nCOmpaSSed between *• ». Johns and Nassaurive^td
system
Protect preserve, and/or interpret the prehistoric and historic sites features
remnants and events related to human use and occupation of the St JoSsTd
Nassau rivers and estuarine system.
• Provide for water- and land-based recreation that sustains natural and cultural
»•>" •.«*€»*
resource values.
Significance Statements
The preserve encompasses a magnificent and dynamic wetland with its attendant ecosystem
that covers a large relatively unimpaired afea within the Jacksonville city liSS Tto
preserve is a rich and diverse biological community that contains
• an important habitat used by rare and sensitive species such as the bald eagle
Atlantic loggerhead turtle, West Indian manatee, and wood stork
• a remnant of productive salt marsh once prevalent along the Atlantic Coast
• the scarce, undeveloped coastal upland communities, such as the maritime hammocks
• natural vistas and expansive views of and across waterways, salt marshes, and upland
communities in an urban setting upwna
The preserve contains representative examples of prehistoric and historic activities spanning
iSuS"T OCCUpati°nV ^P^n exploration, cultural contact, conflict, fortification, and
settlement m a river and estuarine environment. The most significant representations include
• prehistoric sites illustrating some of the oldest and longest periods of human
habitation in southeastern United States
• Fort Caroline National Memorial, commemorating the first French-Protestant
settlement in the New World
• San Juan del Puerto, a mission representing European attempts to control native
American populations
• the Kingsley Plantation, the southernmost example of a sea island plantation
2
W-g
-------
The preserve provides the setting for stories of significant historical interest related to
Fort Do T ° °f the. St J°^ RiV6r Vall6y' SUCh M Forts San GabrieSsan Stain
™ Ri £eQrmana*' forts.at St. Johns Bluff and Fort George Island, Thomas Creek St'
Johns Bluff Spanish-American War fortification, and Yellow Bluff Fort State nLtoric Site
rhere "" V?macular landscapes and structures that exemplify "Old
hfeways, such as fish camps.
The preserve provides a large open area of waterways and uplands for recreational
opportumties-e.g, boating, fishing, hiking, bicycling, primitive camping recreatl°nal
Interpretive Themes
At Timucuan there is an opportunity for harmony to exist between human use and
S? ^ ^S hTry a£lCtS the * *** Water «uaH* «** the overalUcenic quahty
TVie loetfands are a dynamic eco^sfem that provide the interface between land and
water This ecosystem serves as an environmental indicator because it istas'ly disrupted
Sood° oUnt10ni°r ^ dls^rbances. Wetiands provide atmospheric stabilization, ero oTand
?h, w^a } gr°un|dwater ™h**ee, and remove pollution and toxins frorn sedimente
toZ% * f™**5 ,dmg End SpaWnlng eemm^a f°r fish ^ birds> Deluding thoS
threatened and endangered species; a wildlife refuge; and a nursery for shellfish The
wetlands also provide a buffer from storms. sneunsn. Ine
Zou,er 5f Johns River has historically been and remains a strategic waterway
sLT? FZ I?" l°Hdr?' The rfVer WaS f°rtified by several
Spanish British and Americans Confederates -
Spanish British and Americans, Confederates and Union-in attempts to control the interior
access. Several military conflicts occurred in thelower St. Johns .Ri^r-systSniS^Z
bpamsh and French, and combatants in the American Revolution at Thomas Creek Physical
reminders of the military presence along the river includes military haTdware Tnd
fortification m the form of gun emplacements and earthworks. The continuing legacy of the
rivers military significance is the modern U.S. Navy installation at Maypor"
Various peoples through time have relied on the resources of the lower St Johns
River for basic subsistence. The daily survival of other prehistoric and historicp«mlesw^
lived along the river was affected by the available natural resources Agriculture was
practiced in several forms along the river-the Timucuan slash-and-bum Sques and
dedttel to St±£r? Way'fit0 ^ 6Stablishment of **mal P^taSSTST^
Sifi^V the production of specific crops. The river and wetlands offered fishine and
shellfish harvesting, conducted by all groups to the modern day-an evolution from the
Timucuan midden piles to the present-day Buddy's Fish Camp. The rivlr^ed as both
transportation barrier and access corridor. served as both
-------
M-10
-------
APPENDIX N
FLORIDA DIVISION
OF HISTORIC RESOURCES
CORRESPONDENCE REGARDING
CULTURAL RESOURCE
ASSESSMENT REQUEST
-------
-------
June 21, 1990
Heinz Mueller
EIS Project Officer
U.S. EPA, Region IV
345 Courtland St., N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
JUN 2 9
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Jim Smith
Secretary of State
DIVISION OF HISTORICAL RESOURCES
R.A. Gray Building
500 South Bronough
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250
Director's Office Telecopier Number (FAX)
(904) 488-1480 (904) 488-3353
In Reply Refer To:
Susan M. Henef ield-Herring
Historic Sites Specialist
(904) 487-2333
Project File No. 901649
RE: Cultural Resource Assessment Request
EPA/EIS FDER State Analysis Report Draft
Cedar Bay Cogeneration Project, Jacksonville
Duval County, Florida
Dear Mr. Mueller:
In accordance with the procedures contained in 36 C.F.R., Part
800 ("Protection of Historic Properties"), we have reviewed the
above referenced project(s) for possible impact to archaeological
and historical sites or properties listed, or eligible for
listing, in the National Register of Historic Places. The
authority for this procedure is the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 (Public Law 89-665), as amended.
We have reviewed the above referenced draft environmental impact
statement and find it to be complete and sufficient. Thus it is
the opinion of this agency that project activities will have no
effect on any archaeological or historic sites or properties
listed, or eligible for listing, in the National Register of
Historic Places, or otherwise of national, state, regional, or
local significance. The project is consistent with the historic
preservation aspects of Florida's coastal zone program, and may
proceed without further involvement with this agency.
If you have any questions concerning our comments, please do not
hesitate to contact us. Your interest in protecting Florida's
archaeological and historic resources is appreciated.
Sincerely,
jp. -^L
GWP/smh
cc: Hamilton S
Archaeological Research
(904)487-2299
Oven
W. Percy, Director
Division of Historical Resources
and
State Historic Preservation Officer
M-l
Florida Folklife Programs
(904)397-2192
Historic Preservation
(904)487-2333
Museum of Florida History
(904)488-1484
-------
-------
APPENDIX O
BASICS OF SOUND AMD NOISE
-------
-------
Source: Anon (modified by EPA)
2.2 BASICS OF SOUND AND NOISE
Sound is a complex vibration transmitted through the air that, upon
reaching the ears, may be perceived as desirable or unwanted.
Noise can be defined simply as unwanted sound or, more
specifically, as any sound that is undesirable because it
interferes with speech and hearing, is intense enough to damage
hearing, or is otherwise annoying (EPA 1978).
The human ear's ability to hear sound depends upon the frequencies
present; we hear best the frequencies present in speech, generally
1000 Hz to 4000 Hz, and less well the frequencies outside this
range. In order to measure sounds in a way that corresponds to
human perception, various weighting factors are applied to the
levels of sound in specific frequency intervals and added or
subtracted based on the average human response to sounds in that
frequency range; the resultant values are then summed to determine
the overall "weighted" level. The most commonly used weighting
systems are the "A" and "C" scales. The A-scale de-emphasizes
primarily the low-frequency portion of the sound spectrum. A-
weighting provides a good approximation of the response of the
average human ear and correlates well with the average person's
judgment of the relative loudness of a noise event. Sound levels
using the A-scale frequently are denoted by dB(A); more properly,
however, the unit is dB and the context should make it clear that
the sound level is A-weighted.
Sound waves propagate away from a noise source and the sound
intensity decreases with increasing distance from the source due to
the spreading of the sound energy over an increasing area. The
sound intensity varies inversely with the square of distance from
the source. For each time the distance from the source doubles,
the sound pressure is reduced by a factor of two and the sound
intensity is reduced by a factor of four. This is equivalent to a
decrease of approximately 6 dB in sound pressure level for each
doubling of distance (spherical spreading). In addition to
spherical spreading, atmospheric absorption and phenomena, such as
wind and temperature gradients, also affect the propagation of
sound through the air. Sound propagating from sources on or near
the ground (such as aircraft ground runups and flight at low
altitudes) is also influenced by terrain, vegetation, and
structures which may either absorb or reflect sound, depending upon
their characteristics, location, and orientation relative to the
source (FICON 1992).
-------
2.3 NOISE METRICS
To assess the impacts of sound on a diverse spectrum of receptors,
a variety of metrics (quantitative noise measures) may be used.
Depending on the specific situation, appropriate metrics may
include single event or cumulative metrics. Single event metrics
are used to characterize a specific noise event; they do not
describe the overall noise environment. Single event metrics are
used to assess the potential impacts of sound on structures and may
be employed for informational purposes in the assessment of some
human effects, such as sleep disturbance and speech interference.
Cumulative metrics take into account the sound levels of all
individual events that occur during a specified period
(e.g., one hour, 24 hours, etc.) and the number of times those
events occur. Cumulative metrics are most useful in characterizing
the overall noise environment and( are the primary metrics used in
development of community dose-response relationships. Common
metrics used to characterize a single sound event include Mavinmm
A-Weighted Sound Level and Sound Exposure Level.
Maximum A-Weighted Sound Level (iy )
The single event maximum sound level metric (L^*) is the highest A-
weighted sound level measured during an event. It is a useful
metric for comparing the loudness of different noise events, and
for estimating whether or not an event will interfere with
conversation or sleep. At common voice levels and outdoor talking
distance (about 1 meter apart), speech interference can be expected
when intruding noise levels exceed 60 to 65 dB. Hence, if an
event produces an !•,„ above 65 dB at a location of interest
(e.g., residence, school room), some difficulty maintaining
uninterrupted conversation can be expected.
In general, for single noise events, a difference of 1 dB between
mflyinrnm levels produced by two sequential single events may not be
noticeable to some people; a difference of 3 dB generally will be
detectable; a difference of 5 to 7 dB will be easily heard; and an
increase of 10 dB is often judged to be a doubling of loudness,
just as a decrease of 10 DB is perceived as a halving of loudness.
Sound Exposure Level (SEL)
The maximum A-weighted sound level, or L^ can be easily understood
in terms of everyday experiences with noise. Slightly more
complicated, but in some ways more useful, is the sound exposure
level, abbreviated SEL. The !•,„ describes only the loudest level
of an event; it does not describe how long the event lasted.
Subjective tests indicate that human response to noise is a
function not only of the Tnayirnmn level, but also of the duration of
0-2.
-------
the event and its variation with respect to time. The SEL is a
measure of the physical energy of the noise event which takes into
account both intensity and duration. The SEL is based on the
integral of the A-weighted sound level during the period it is
above a specified threshold (that is at least 10 dB below the
maximum value measured during the noise event) with reference to a
standardized duration of 1 second.
In general, SEL is higher than L.^, because it condenses the total
sound energy of an event into a one second interval, as though the
whole event occurred in one second. Figure 1 illustrates the
relationship between SEL and !•„,. The usefulness of SEL lies in
the ease of translation into other metrics for use in prediction.
For example, the computer programs that compute noise exposure
around airports base their calculations on SEL data for each
aircraft type (EPA 1977).
2.3.2 Cumulative Noise Metrics
Long-term cumulative noise metrics are usually derived from single
event metrics or computed from continuous noise measurement data.
Cumulative metrics correlate well with aggregate community response
to the sound environment. Although cumulative metrics were not
designed as single event measures, they use single event data
averaged over a specified time period. Thus cumulative measures,
like single event measures, can relate to annoyance and to speech
and sleep disturbance, although the relationship between cumulative
measures and sleep disturbance is not clearly established. Common
metrics used to characterize cumulative sound environments include
the Equivalent Sound Level and th& Day-Night Average Sound Level.
Equivalent Sound Level (1^,)
Sound levels vary as time passes. The variations can occur over
very short periods or, variations can be longer term. Several
methods have been used to quantify time varying noises, but the
most common is the Equivalent Sound Level, abbreviated L-_. This
sound level accounts for all sounds that occur in a given time
period. Briefly, it is the level of a constant A-weighted sound
that has exactly the same amount of total sound energy as did the
actual time fluctuating sound. L., is "equivalent" to an actual
tune varying sound level in the sense that it has the same total
energy for the same length of time, only the fluctuations in level
have been summed up and "averaged" to yield a constant, steady-
state level. Thus, the A-weighted sound level can be used to
measure instantaneous sound levels as they occur, or the A-weighted
level can be cumulative over a longer time period to yield an
equivalent level. • J
-------
NEPA: Airpon/Air Facility Noise
Figure 1: Relationship between SEL and
110
01
LU
_i
Q
Z
100
90
80
Stradad Araaa
Repretent
Equivalent
Sound
Energy
70
SEL "108.0 dB
L--X - 102.5 dB
I i i i i i n f i
I I !«l I I ! I I 1 I I I
TIME(t«G)
Sampling
IntanraJ
(6.8 S*c)
-------
The following examples are provided to illustrate how the L.,
cumulative noise metric works. If a single event lasting one
second at 90 dB occurs every five or six minutes in a 24-hour
period, then the resultant cumulative noise level would be L^, 65
dB. If the sound level of the one-second single events were only
80 dB, the events would have to occur every 34 seconds over the 24-
hour period to attain a L^ 65 dB cumulative noise level. If the
sound level of the one-second single events were as high as 100 dB
occurring every five to six minutes, then the resultant cumulative
noise level would be L*, 75 dB.
Day-Night Average Sound Level (DHL or L^)
The Day-Night Average Sound Level (DHL) is the Energy-Average Sound
Level (L^) measured over a period of 24 hours, with a 10 dB penalty
applied to nighttime (10:00pm to .7:00am) sound levels to account
for increased annoyance by sound during the night hours.
The DNL was selected by the EPA as the uniform descriptor of
cumulative sound exposure to correlate with health and welfare
effects. Subsequently, all Federal agencies adopted yearly average
DNL as the basis for describing community noise exposure. DNL
takes into account the sound levels of all individual events that
occur during a 24 hour period, and the number of times those events
occur. The averaging of sound over a 24 hour period does not
ignore the louder single events, and it actually tends to emphasize
both the sound level and number of those events. Although the
logarithmic nature of the dB unit causes sound levels of the
loudest events to control the 24 hour average, DNL is still much
lower in value than the maximum sound level (L^u) of individual
events. DNL is considered a superior metric in accounting for
variations in the noise environment including such factors as
numbers of events, loudness of individual events, and percentage of
night events.
Annoyance
Annoyance is a summary measure of the general adverse reaction of
people to noise that generates speech interference (including
inability to use the telephone, radio, television or recordings
satisfactorily) or sleep disturbance, or simply interferes with the
desire for a tranquil environment. Community response is a term
used to describe the annoyance of groups of people exposed to
environmental noise sources in residential settings. Case
histories and social surveys indicate that the response of a
community to aircraft noise is affected not only by how loud the
noise is, but also by how often noise events occur (i.e., the total
noise exposure in a specified time period). Currently, the best
-------
available measure of this response is the percentage of the area
population characterized as "highly annoyed" (%HA) by long-term
exposure to noise of a specified level (expressed in terWof
tZ d?veJ;0pe1 " •*"»!*» *<« describing the relaonship
between the level of exposure (in DNL) and %HA, and the gra
S^8IS^Li0LtS^sne£fl!onshlp is o£ten "S
The relationship between DHL and %HA is an invaluable aid in
assessing comminity response since it relates the response to
increases in both sound intensity and frequency of occurrence. EPA
proposed %HA as the appropriate impact criterion to Se for
evaluating the effects of noise on communities fEPA 1982?
Although the predicted annoyance, in terms of absolute levels, may
vary among different communities, the Schultz curve can reliably
indicate changes in level of annoyance for defined ranges of sound
exposure for any given community." °«-»u««
Interference with Speech and Communication
I???6^-1?1^8^6 noise exceeds approximately 60 dB indoors, there
will be interference with speech communication. This interference
may result from masking of the speaker's words or by causing SI
speaker to pause. Increasing the indoor level of intrusive noise
to 80 dB reduces intelligibility to near zero, even ifVloud voicl
is used. Based on the average levels of noise reduction
(attenuation) provided by typical residential con.trnSt±S(SsS
TiSon^ >,°P?1 *? 25 ** With windows closed) , some degree of
indoor speech interference would be expected whenever exterior
8 6XC " ^ ^ *** (windows
Sleep Disturbance
The effects of noise on sleep have long been a concern of parties
interested in assessing residential noise environments. Many
laboratory studies were conducted during the 1970 's on sleep
disturbance and awakening caused by noise. sj-eep
^foJ^^httime "penalty" added to noise levels for the period
10: 00pm to 7: 00am in computing DNL is intended to account for the
intrusiveness of noise at night, partly due to the lower nighttime
ambient, and therefore tends to reflect to some extent the
potential for wakeups. However, in some circumstances, such as an
unusual number of nighttime noise events, supplemental analysis
(using SEL or L^) to indicate sleep disturbance is desirable.
Figure 3 presents sleep disturbance (% awakenings) relative to
exposure to single event noise levels.
0-fe
-------
Fig. 2: Interference with Speech & Communication
100 i
80
T3
0)
60
O
D) 40
X
P
20
SCHULTZ DATA
%HA=100/(1 +exp(10.43-0.13Ldn))
45 50 55 60 65 7p 80 85 90
Day-Night Average (sound level in dB)
-------
disturba»ce
to exposure to single event
SLEEP DISTURBANCE
AWAKENINGS - .000007079 x SEL ' 3.496
OBSERVED
PREDICTED
50 60 70 80
INDOOR SEL IN DECIBELS
100 110
Source: Finegold et al. 1992 IN: FICON 1992.
0-S
-------
2.4.3 Honauditory Health Effects of Noise
Alleged nonauditoxy health consequences of noise exposure that have
been studied include birth defects, low birth weight, mental
problems, cancer, stroke, hypertension, sudden cardiac death,
myocardial infarction, and cardiac arrhythmias. Of these,
hypertension is the most biologically plausible effect of noise
exposure. Noise appears to elicit many of the same biochemical and
physiological .reactions, including temporary elevation of blood
pressure, as do many other everyday stressors. These temporary
increases in blood pressure are believed to lead to a gradual
resetting of the body's blood pressure control system. Some
researchers hypothesize that over a period of years, permanent
hypertension may develop (Peterson et al., 1984). •
Most studies which have controlled for multiple factors have shown
no, or a very weak, association between noise exposure and
nonauditoxy health effects. The current state of technical
knowledge cannot support inference of a causal or consistent
relationship, or a quantitative dose-response model, between
residential noise exposure and health consequences. Thus, no
technical means are available for predicting nonauditory health
effects of noise exposure. This conclusion cannot be construed as
evidence of no effect of residential noise exposure on nonauditory
health. Current findings, taken in sum, indicate that further
rigorous studies are needed.
2.5.1 Noise Exposure and Noise Impact
Before discussing noise impact criteria, the distinction between
noise exposure and noise impact should be clarified. DHL and other
metrics are used to describe noise exposure levels; and similarly,
DHL contours graphically illustrate cumulative noise exposure.
Noise impact, on the other hand, can only be assessed by relating
noise exposure levels to noise-sensitive receptors (i.e.,
residences, churches, schools, campgrounds, amphitheaters, etc.).
In other words, noise impact describes the effect that noise
exposure levels have upon noise-sensitive receptors at a given
location.
0-*)
-------
2.5.2 Threshold Criteria for Change in Noise Exposure (Relative
Impact)
DNL noise exposure contours are used to show the cumulative noise
exposure produced by a noise source. Comparing noise contours for
two different analysis cases such as noise contours resulting from
the proposed action and the No-Build cases, it is possible to
identify those areas that would experience a change in noise
exposure. When the change in noise exposure is considered in
relation to noise-sensitive receptors located within the contours,
it may be referred to as relative impact.
The threshold criterion for relative impact is a 1.5 dB change over
any noise-sensitive area located within the DNL 65 dB contour. The
threshold criteria of a 1.5 dB increase was derived from predicted
annoyance using the Schultz curve (discussed previously). The
Schultz curve can reliably indicate changes in level of annoyance
for defined ranges of sound exposure for any given community. The
Schultz curve shows that an increase of 5 dB at DNL 55 dB, 3 dB at
DNL 60 dB, and 1.5 dB at DNL 65 dB all result in a three percent
xncrease in %BA, since the gradient of the Schultz curve decreases
with decreasing DNL values (refer to Figure 2). Therefore, as
threshold criteria for change in noise exposure, a 3 dB change at
DNL 60 dB and a 1.5 dB change at DNL 65 dB are consistent.
EPA supports using %BA as an appropriate impact criterion to use
for evaluating the effects of noise on communities (EPA 1982).
Assessing relative impact can be useful in the comparison of
project alternatives. If the merits of two alternatives are
relatively similar, the tie-breaker between alternatives should be
based upon a comparison of %HA and the number of persons impacted.
2.5.3 Land Use f mgpa-fcihi i j-Ky Exposure Criteria
Impacts occur when noise produced by a project exceeds a specified
threshold level at the location of noise-sensitive land uses.
Thresholds of noise exposure levels are established as a guide for
determining compatibility with various land uses. In most cases,
land use compatibility recommendations regarding noise are in the
form of guidelines provided by Federal agencies to State and local
communities. In general, land use compatibility guidelines are
expressed in terms of DNL and include (1) identification of
compatible and incompatible land uses on the basis of DNL in 5 dB
increments beginning at or below 65 dB, and (2) recommendations for
building design and construction methods necessary to achieve
specified levels of noise attenuation (reduction) based on the
outdoor DNL.
0 - 10
-------
For local agency decisions, Federal guidelines do not constitute
definite thresholds of unacceptable exposure, since local agencies
determine the application of the guidelines taking into
consideration economic, technical, and political ramifications
specific to the communities involved.
The FICUN Guidelines (1980) provide a summary table of Land Use
Applications and Compatibilities for this purpose. In general,
these guidelines have been broadly accepted; however, there is a
need for selective updating to include new types of land use and
the need for improved public understanding of the guidelines.
O-H
-------
o 2:
I §
-------
REFERENCES
Federal Interagency Committee on Noise (FICON). 1992. Federal
Agency Review of Selected Airport Noise Analysis Issues.
August 21, 1992. U.S. Air Force, EPA, FAA.
Federal Interagency Committee on Urban Noise (FICUN). 1980.
Guidelines for Considering Noise in Land Use Planning and
Control. (U.S. Government Office Report # 1981-337-
066/8071) Washington, D.C.: FICUN.
Peterson, E.A., J.S. Augenstein, and C.L. Hazelton. 1984. Some
Cardiovascular Effects of Noise. Journal of Auditory
Research. 24: 35-62.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1977. Calculation of
Day/Night LDN Resulting from Civil Aircraft Operations.
EPA 550/9-77-450.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1978. Noise: A
Health Problem. August 1978.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1982. Guidelines
for Noise Impact Analysis. EPA-550/9-82-105. Springfield
VA: National Technical Information Service (PB82-219205).
[As modified by EPA internal memorandum of 1992.]
0-13
-------
o
1
•-T
-------
APPENDIX P
GOPHER TORTOISE RELOCATION REPORT
-------
-------
APPENDIX P
GOPHER TORTOISE RELOCATION REPORT
Prepared by CZR Incorporated
December 8, 1992
Note: Photos do not reproduce well and are not
included.
-------
-------
CEDAR BAY COGENERATION PLANT
GOPHER TORTOISE RELOCATION REPORT
December 8, 1992
Prepared for:
U.S. Generating Company
7475 Wisconsin Avenue
Betheseda, MD 20814
Prepared by:
CZR Incorporated
4494 Southside Boulevard
Jacksonville, FL 32216
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
1.0 INTRODUCTION
? on TTVTT/'-VXT
3.0 RECIPIENT SITE DESCRIPTION g
4.0 MANAGEMENT PLAN 9
5.0 CONCLUSION 9
6.0 LITERATURE CITED
Attachment A
Attachment B
Attachment C
Attachment D
Attachment E
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
DESCRIPTION
PAGE
Location Map of Donor and Preserve Sites 2
Gopher Tortoise Burrow Survey Procedure 3
Gopher Tortoise Scute Notching Procedure 5
USDA Soils Map of Donor and Preserve Area 7
u
P-5
-------
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A
Attachment B
Attachment C
Attachment D
Attachment E
Aerial Photographs Depicting Gopher
Tortoise Burrow Locations on Donor Site
Photographs of Gopher Tortoise Relocation
Gopher Tortoise Data Sheets
Photographs of Gopher Tortoise Habitat on
Donor Site
Photographs of Gopher Tortoise Habitat on
Preserve Site
in
P-b
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
In order to allow transportation of large equipment needed for construction of the Cedar
Bay Cogeneration Plant, U.S. Generating Company is constructing a railroad spur. The railroad
spur was designed to minimize environmental impacts. However, impacts to a limited amount
of gopher tortoise (Gopherus pofyphemus) habitat were unavoidable.
The railroad spur corridor (donor site) was surveyed for the presence of gopher tortoise
burrows and evidence of other species of special concern. Gopher tortoise burrows were found
on-site, and the possibility existed that the Florida mouse (Peromyscus floridanus), Florida
gopher frog (Rana aereolata aesopus), and the Eastern indigo snake (Drymarchon corals
couperf) may also occur. Protection of these species was proposed through live-capture and
relocation of these animals to an on-site preserve (Figure 1).
CZR Incorporated utilized Generic Gopher Tortoise Permit No. WR92093 to relocate
nine gopher tortoises which were within the railroad spur boundaries. These tortoises were
relocated in November 1992 to a preserve on-site where no future development is planned.
Included in this report are descriptions of the donor and recipient sites, burrow survey
results, burrow location maps, methodology for capture and transfer of protected animals,
management plan, and monitoring and reporting plans.
Gopher Tortoise Burrow Survey
Thorough surveys of the suitable gopher tortoise habitat within the railroad corridor were
conducted on November 4, 1992 in order to locate all active and inactive burrows which would
be impacted by the railroad construction. Parallel transects were established 15 meters apart
starting at the edge of each area of suitable habitat. Within the 15 meter transect, biologists
walked transects 3 to 5 meters apart in a simulated "S" pattern (Figure 2). Burrows were
marked with orange surveyor tape if active and with white if inactive. The locations of the
burrows and their status were mapped on an aerial photograph (Attachment A).
p-7
-------
>- • n •
. i u p.......
(• •' tT M* •>
• ••••• *^ i
Polly Town *•,£
uul/^^l
LOCATION MAP
_; _,^__ .f ^
--.::: a qA^Eti«^ao%
^ r>7-^>Cx. / ->g ^L-
CP 1281
CEDAR BAY
COGENERATION PLANT
FIGURE 1 DECEMBER 1992
P-S
INCORPORATED
4494 Southside Blvd.
Suite 200
Jacksonville, Florida 32216
-------
I <— 15m —> I <— 15m -->• I <— 15m —> I
Edge of Property
Person B
Person A
•
E
<
tape •>
. )
(
-
k. V ,
U
* J
r
^ j
\
\
f
\ .\
v. ^
f
i ,
.'
I
I )
, I
]
*
i
,-
K
v ^- Edge of Property
STANDARD GOPHER TORTOISE SURVEY PROCEDURE
CEDAR BAY COGENERATION PLANT
GOPHER TORTOISE RELOCATION PROJECT
CP1281 FIGURE 2 DECEMBER 1992
CZR INCORPORATED
4494 Southside Blvd.
Suite 200
Jacksonville. Florida 32216
-------
The November 1992 survey yielded 10 active and 11 inactive burrows (Attachment A).
To determine the number of tortoises per burrow, Auffenberg and Franz (1982) suggest using
a ratio of 0.614 tortoises per number of active and inactive burrows. However, results of
previous excavations have found this conversion factor to be too high (CZR 1991, CZR 1989,
and Breininger, et.al.). An average of the valid conversion factors from previous results was
taken, and a realistic conversion factor of 0.50 was developed. Using this conversion factor
with the above survey results yielded the following prediction:
21 (active burrows + inactive burrows) x 0.50 g.t./burrow =
10.5 g.t. to occur on donor site
Research has found that under optimal conditions, habitats can support viable gopher
tortoise populations at a density of 2.2 tortoises per acre (Cox, Inkley and Kautz, 1987). Thus,
a minimum of 4.7 acres (0.45 acre/g.t. x 10.5 g.t.) of optimal habitat is required to support the
predicted tortoise population. U.S. Generating Company selected 6.0 acres of habitat on the
site as a preserve (Figure 1).
Methodology and Disposition
Gopher tortoises were excavated from active and inactive burrows by backhoe and
shovel, to within four feet of the burrow's end. Excavation of the last four feet was completed
by shovel and hand (Attachment B). A bucket trap was set at one burrow which could not be
excavated.
Captured gopher tortoises were transported to the preserve/recipient site under shaded
and sanitary conditions. Marking of the tortoises followed the FGFWFC (1988) "Guidelines for
Gopher Tortoise Relocation" (Figure 3, Attachment C).
F-io
-------
Gopher Tortoise Marking
Each tortoise will be permanently marked
by drilling hole(s) in one or a combination
of the scutes. Each scute is assigned
a numerical value as per the scheme
illustrated below. The scheme is additive -
tortoise number 12 would require the
drilling of the number 10 scute and the
number 2 scute.
GOPHER TORTOISE SCUTE NOTCHING PROCEDURE
CEDAR BAY COGENERATION PLANT
GOPHER TORTOISE RELOCATION PROJECT
CP 1281
FIGURE 3 DECEMBER 1992
CZR INCORPORATED
4494 Southside Blvd.
Suite 200
Jacksonville. Florida 32216
-------
2.0 DONOR SITE DESCRIPTION
The railroad corridor is located south of Baisden (Kraft) Road and west of Eastport Road
in Duval County, Florida (Figure 1). The soil which occurs within this area is Alpin fine sand,
0 to 8 percent slopes, and Pottsburg fine sand (Figure 5). Alpin fine sand is nearly level to
sloping, and is excessively drained soil on broad upland ridges. The water table, under normal
conditions, is at a depth of more than 72. This soil has a very rapid permeability rate and low
fertility. Pottsburg fine sand is a nearly level, somewhat poorly drained soil. The water table
is at a depth of 6" to 12" for two-four months and 12" to 40" for six to nine months.
(USD A 1978).
Based upon burrow survey results, gopher tortoises were located in two areas along the
railroad corridor. Within these areas, two basic habitats occur: laurel oak (Quercus laurifolia)
and scrub oak (Quercus spp.); and open field with no canopy cover. The groundcover within
the laurel oak habitat consists primarily of saw palmetto (Serenoa repens), wiregrass (Aristida
stricta), blackberry (Rubus sp.), greenbrier (Smilax laurifolia), and pawpaw (Asimina reticulata).
The open field is dominated by wiregrass, broom sedge (Andropogon spp.), blackberry, lupine
(Lupinus sp.), milkweed (Ascelpias humistrara), dog fennel (Eupatorium sp.), and prickly pear
cactus (Opuntia sp.) (Attachment D).
Wildlife known to occur on the donor site include the gopher tortoise, raccoon (Procyon
lotof), armadillo (Dasypus novemcinctus), whitetail deer (Odocoileus hemionus), six-lined
racerunner (Cnemidophorus sexlinearus), ground skink (Leiolopisma larerale), green anole
(Anolis carolinensis), bluejay (Cyanocina crisiara), mockingbird (Miinus polyglorrus), Carolina
wren (Troglodytes carolinensis}, and white-eyed vireo (Vireo griseus).
F-lZ.
-------
SOILS MAP
CP 1281
CEDAR BAY
COGENERATION PLANT
FIGURE 4 DECEMBER 1992
CZ/R INCORPORATED
4494 Southside Blvd.
Suite 200
Jacksonville, Florida 32216
-------
3.0 RECIPIENT SITE DESCRIPTION
A parcel west of Eastport Road was selected as the recipient site and preserve for the
gopher tortoises impacted by the proposed railroad (Figure 1). The preserve is composed of
turkey and scrub oak habitats. Seminole Kraft maintains a fence along this property boundary
which would inhibit gopher tortoises from wandering off of the relocation area.
The 6.0 acre preserve is optimal habitat with an average of 75% canopy cover.
Groundcover is approximately 85% and will provide plenty of food for the relocated tortoises
(Attachment E). Habitat suitability and the presence of abandoned burrows, suggests this area
to be a desirable relocation site.
Soils on the preserve are mapped as Alpin fine sand with 0 to 8 percent slopes and
Pottsburg fine sand (Figure 4). These sand classifications are identical to those found on the
donor site and will provide similar functions.
The preserve includes two basic habitat types. The predominant habitat has a canopy
(75% cover) of turkey oak and long leaf pine. The groundcover averages 85% and consists
primarily of wiregrass, pawpaw, highbush blueberry (Vaccinium corymbosum), stinging nettle
(Cnidoscolus stimulosus), butterfly pea, and stargrasses. This community has scattered open
areas vegetated with wiregrass, tar flower (Befaria racemosa), broom sedge, lupine, and bracken
fern (Pteridiwn aquilinium).
Armadillo and raccoon tracks were found on-site. The birds observed include tufted
titmi>i (Parus bicolor), mockingbirds, fish crows, grackles, black vultures (Coragyps atratus),
and cardinals. Numerous six-lined racerunners were seen scurrying among the leaf litter.
-------
4.0 MANAGEMENT PLAN
The general requirements for suitable gopher tortoise habitat are: 1) well drained, sandy
soils which allow easy burrowing; 2) diverse and abundant groundcover; and 3) open canopy
which allows sunlight to reach the ground (Diemer, 1986; Auffenberg and Franz, 1982). All
of the above conditions are present on the recipient site. However, we suggest controlled bums
every five years to increase the diversity and abundance of vegetation. Because the site is also
directly adjacent to Eastport Road, it will be necessary to maintain the fencing to decrease the
chance of roadway mortalities.
5.0 CONCLUSION
The gopher tortoise relocation project on the Cedar Bay Cogeneration railroad spur
successfully and safely cleared the area of tortoises. A total of 21 gopher tortoises burrows were
excavated. Nineteen burrows were excavated by backhoe, shovel, and hands. One burrow was
partially excavated with a backhoe and then observed for thirty-days. This burrow was inactive
during thirty-days when other tortoises were active and, therefore, was determined to be
abandoned. One burrow disturbed fitted with a bucket trap because it was too close to the
railroad tracks to excavate. A five-gallon plastic bucket was sunk at the burrow's mouth and
monitored three times a day for four days.
Nine gopher tortoises were relocated from the railroad spur boundaries. These nine
tortoises included two females, four males, and three juveniles. The largest tortoise with the
longest burrow was a 5 kg (10.5 Ibs) female. This tortoise was 29.6 cm (11.65") long and 22.2
cm (8.74") wide with a burrow 7.13m (23.5') long and 2.59m (8.5') deep. The tortoise burrows
excavated varied from less than 1m to 7.13m long and less than 1m to 2.59m deep.
Juvenile tortoises are too young to determine their gender. One juvenile was found
walking across a spoil pile, and not in a burrow. Because it was impossible to determine where
the tortoise came from, we relocated it to the preserve. All of the juveniles were released into
abandoned burrows and showed no hesitation in accepting the new burrow.
9 P-15
-------
The only difficulty encountered during relocation involved an adult female with a minor
carapace crack. This female was found buried in the spoil area at the edge of the excavated
burrow. She had a three inch crack along the back of the carapace, but otherwise was
unharmed. To guarantee her safety, this tortoise was transported to the Jacksonville Zoo for
examination by Dr. Douglas Page, DVM. The crack was cleaned, treated with antibiotics, and
then filled with epoxy. Because the weather was below 50°F at night, the tortoise was held at
the zoo for fifteen days. During the first period of 70-75 °F weather, the tortoise was released
onto the preserve into an abandoned burrow.
The remaining five adult tortoises were also relocated on the preserve. Some of the
tortoises accepted abandoned burrows, others utilized starter burrows dug by CZR biologists.
Because a cool weather front moved through the area two days after relocation, the tortoises
were inactive and remained within the preserve.
As of November 23, no gopher tortoises had moved back into the railroad spur corridor.
Although the cooler weather will most likely keep the tortoises inactive, we would recommend
that a burrow survey be completed within a week prior to railroad construction. There are
additional tortoise burrows adjacent to the proposed corridor. If the spur alignment is altered,
it will be necessary to survey the new areas for burrows.
,o
-------
6.0 LITERATURE CITED
Auffenberg, W. and R. Franz. 1982. The Status and Distribution of the Gopher Tortoise
(Gopherus polyphemus). Pg. 95-126 in R.B. Bury (ed.) North American Tortoises:
Conservation and Ecology. USDI, Fish and Wildlife Service. Res. Rep. 12. 126 pp.
Breininger, D., A. Schmalzer, D. Rydene, and R. Hinkle. Burrow and Habitat Study of the
Gopher Tortoise in Scrub and Flatwood Habitat Types. Final Project Report, Project
No. GFC-94-016, Nongame Wildlife Program, Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish
Commission. Tallahassee, FL.
Cox, J., D. Inkley, and R. Kautz. December 1987. "Ecology and Habitat Protection Needs of
Gopher Tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus) Populations Found on Lands Slated for Large-
scale Development in Florida." Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission.
Nongame Wildlife Program Technical Report No. 4.
CZR Incorporated. July 1991. University of North Florida Gopher Tortoise Relocation.
CZR Incorporated. June 1989. Palm Beach County School Board Site GGG Gopher Tortoise
Relocation Plan.
Diemer, J.E. 1986. The Ecology and Management of the Gopher Tortoise in the Southeastern
United States. Herpetologica 43:125-133.
U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1978. Duval County Soil Survey, Florida. Washington, D.C.
11
-------
ATTACHMENT A
P-IS
-------
APPENDIX Q
RESOLUTION OF UNRESOLVED ISSUES
FROM THE DRAFT EIS/SAR
-------
-------
RESOLUTION OF "UNRESOLVED ISSUES" FROM DRAFT EIS/SAR
In the Draft EIS/SAR, six issues were listed as "unresolved
issues." Subsequent to Draft EIS/SAR publication, these issues
were resolved through project design changes and/or new
information provided by the applicant. Issues are addressed as
follows:
"Air Quality - It is unclear at this time whether SNCR
should represent BACT for the AES-CB boilers. Therefore, it is
important that all available information concerning the proposed
level of BACT and the SNCR alternative be submitted by AES-CB
prior to the issuance of the Final EIS. This information should
include, among other things, a comparative analysis between the
AES-CB boilers and other CFB's which have been required to
install SNCR. This analysis should document any differences in
energy, environmental, or economic concerns, between the
facilities so that a final BACT recommendation can be made."
• The CBCP will employ SNCR for NOx control.
"Erosion and Sediment Control Plan - Revisions to the
Erosion and Sediment Control Plan submitted by AES-CB will be
necessary before it is consistent with requirements of Part III.D
of the draft NPDES permit and can be considered an acceptable
Plan. Specific concerns include: absence of inspection,
monitoring and reporting requirements; potential runoff from the
lime mud storage area; potential runoff from unusable material
which is to be stockpiled on the north end on the SK site; and
apparently inadequate size of the Yard Area Runoff Pond."
• AES-CB submitted an acceptable Plan before construction.
"SK Conversion to Recycled Paperboard - SK is planning to
convert their facilities to accommodate recycled paperboard,
replacing wood as a raw material in their operations. SK
conversion to recycled paperboard will significantly reduce the
SK waste flow and will change the characteristics of the combined
SK/CBCP effluent from that which has presently been provided in
the SCA. Re-evaluation of the waste flow is needed in the Final
EIS. In addition, it is unclear whether or not wood wastes will
be burned at CBCP after conversion to recycled paperboard. This
could affect air quality evaluations. Clarification is needed in
the Final EIS."
• SK waste flow characteristics have been re-evaluated in this
Final EIS. Wood waste will not be burned in the CBCP
boilers, but fiber rejects from the SK recycle operation
will be burned if feasible. Air quality impacts have been
evaluated in this Final EIS.
"Toxicitv of CBCP Waste Stream - Some agreement will have to
be established between AES-CB and SK as to how resolution of
future toxicity problems will be effected, should they occur, if
-------
CBCP wastes discharged into the SK system prove to be more toxic
2£?JEe8en*ly a?ticiPated and "suit in the SK effluent being
acutely toxic. Present evaluation indicates that additional
treatment and/or dilution in the SK treatment system may render
the combined waste not acutely toxic. However, the SK renQer
manufacturing process is being modified and dilution flow will
decrease in the future. SK is (and will remain) subject to
svstem Y ?nniH^?g °VhV°*al effluent Citing its treatment
system. In addition, facilities at SK (some of which may have
been operation for 10 to 20 years of more) may be approaching
useful life expectancy. EPA has no assurance that SK will be in
operation over the useful lifetime of the CBCP. Assurances on
these points prior to the Final EIS issuance are desirable."
* J8 *h?^CBC? has been redesigned to be a "zero-discharge"
facility, it will add no discharges to the SK system. SK
has updated the mill to a recycle facility. Water system
characteristics are evaluated in this Final EIS.
. "Waste Effluent Treatment Systems - Details on treatment
B££?n8v,pr?p08ed 5°r dewaterin
------- |