i> I
United States Region 4 EPA 904/9-93-001A
Environmental Protection 345 Courtland Street, NE November 1993
Agency Atlanta, GA 30365
Environmental Final
Impact Statement
Cedar Bay Cogeneration Project
Jacksonville, Florida
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION IV
345 COURTLAND STREET. N.E.
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 3O365
PUBLIC NOTICE
TO: ALL INTERESTED AGENCIES, PUBLIC GROUPS, AND CITIZENS
Availability of the Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on
the "Cedar Bay Cogeneration Project" is being noticed in the
Federal Register on December 17, 1993, by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA). The Final EIS is available for
public/agency comment during a 30-day review period.
Availability of the Draft EIS was previously noticed on June 8,
1990.
Cedar Bay Cogeneration, Inc. (CBC), proposes to operate a coal-
fired power and steam producing facility known as the Cedar Bay
Cogeneration Project currently under construction in
Jacksonville, Florida. CBC applied to EPA for a minor National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit to
discharge excess stormwater runoff from the site. This NPDES
permit (Number FL0061204) was released on August 3, 1993, for
public/agency comments during a 30-day comment period. EPA will
accept comments on this permit again during the Final EIS review
period.
Comments on the Final EIS and proposed NPDES permit should be
provided to Heinz J. Mueller at the address given above.
Comments should be in writing and must be postmarked on or before
January 18, 1994. Facsimile transmittals are only acceptable if
followed by a hard copy postmarked within the comment period.
The Final EIS and its Appendix (EPA 904/9-93-001 A and B) are
available for review at the following locations in Jacksonville:
(1) Public Library, Main Branch, 122 N. Ocean Street;
(2) Highland Branch Public Library, 1826 Dunn Avenue; and
(3) San Mateo Elementary School, 600 Baisden Road.
A limited number of copies of the Final EIS are also available
upon request from EPA at the aforementioned address. Or contact
Marion Hopkins at 404/347-3776.
Following the 30-day comment period, EPA will consider comments
on the Final EIS and proposed NPDES permit in making its decision
on the issuance/non-issuance of the EPA final NPDES permit.
U.S. Environmental Protection Apencv
Region 5, Library (PL-12J) °
I2th
-------
EPA Florida Power Plant Siting
NPDES Application Number: Application Number:
FL 0061204 778PA 88-25
Final
Environmental Impact Statement
for
Proposed Issuance of a New Source National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit
to
Cedar Bay Cogeneration, Inc.
Cedar Bay Cogeneration Project
Prepared by:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region IV
Cedar Bay Cogeneration, Inc. (CBC) proposes to operate a coal-fired power and steam
producing facility known as the Cedar Bay Cogeneration Project (CBCP) currently under construction
in Jacksonville, Florida. The CBCP will provide electricity for sale to Florida Power and Light
Company and steam to the adjacent Seminole Kraft recycle mill AES/Cedar Bay, Inc. (AES-CB)
initially applied to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Florida
Department of Environmental Regulation (FDER, now the Florida Department of Environmental
Protection) in November 1988 for permits necessary to operate the CBCP. Project ownership/
management changed in October 1992 from AES-CB to CBC.
A Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was prepared in May 1990 in conjunction with
FDER. Since that time, numerous project design changes were made which will lessen the
environmental impacts. The CBCP also received Site Certification from the Florida Power Plant Siting
Board in May 1993. A National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit is required
for stormwater discharges from the site. This Final EIS is the decision document for the NPDES
permit.
Comments or inquiries should be directed to:
Heinz Mueller, Chief
Environmental Policy Section
EPA, Region IV
345 Courtland St., N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
(404) 347-3776
Approved by:
Patrick M. Tobin Date
Acting Regional Administrator
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
Cedar Bay Cogeneration Project
() Draft
(X) Final
US Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV
345 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
1. TYPE OF ACTION
Administrative (X) Legislative ()
2. DESCRIPTION OF ACTION
Cedar Bay Cogeneration, Inc. (CBC) proposes to operate a coal-fired power and steam
producing facility known as the Cedar Bay Cogeneration Project (CBCP) currently under
construction in Jacksonville, Florida. The CBCP will provide electricity for sale to Florida
Power and Light Company and steam to the adjacent Seminole Kraft (SK) recycle mill. Steam
supplied to the mill will allow SK to discontinue use of five old boilers.
AES/Cedar Bay, Inc. (AES-CB) initially applied to the United States Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) and the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation (FDER)
(now the Florida Department of Environmental Protection) in November 1988 for permits
necessary to operate the CBCP. Project ownership/management changed in October 1992 from
AES-CB to CBC.
The CBCP received Site Certification from the Florida Power Plant Siting Board on May
11, 1993. Construction of the CBCP is nearing completion and commercial operation is
expected to begin in December 1993.
ES-1
-------
On May 14, 1993, CBC applied to EPA for a permit to discharge overflows of
stormwater runoff from the materials (eg., coal, limestone) storage area and yard area during
facility operation. This permit is part of the Clean Water Act's (CWA's) National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and is subject to New Source Performance Standards.
EPA must comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) before issuance
of this new source NPDES permit. This Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is part of the
NEPA process. A Draft ElS/State Analysis Report (EIS/SAR) was issued in May 1990 in
conjunction with FDER.
EPA's action choices in this case are to issue, issue with conditions, or deny the new
source NPDES permit. Issuance of the new source NPDES permit for the CBCP would allow
CBC to discharge stormwater overflows to the Broward River up to the limits in the permit.
Denial of the NPDES permit is the No Federal Action Alternative.
3. ALTERNATIVES
NEPA requires that an EIS describe project alternatives including (1) regulatory
alternatives available to EPA, including the No Federal Action Alternative, and (2) project
design alternatives considered by the applicant. Original project design alternatives were
described in the Draft EIS/SAR.
This Final EIS presents the originally-proposed CBCP as an alternative for comparison
with the CBCP as certified. The no-build scenario (the SK-only Alternative) was also
considered.
Regulatory Alternatives
CBC has received all permits necessary to begin operation of the CBCP except an
NPDES permit which is required for stormwater discharges from the site.
The alternatives available to EPA under Section 402 of the CWA are to issue, issue with
conditions, or to deny the new source NPDES permit requested for the CBCP stormwater
discharges due to high rainfall runoff. Denial of the NPDES permit would be the No Federal
Action Alternative.
ES-2
-------
Issuance of the NPDES permit will allow CBC to discharge overflows to the Broward
River up to the limits in the permit. The permit may be modified by certain conditions, such
as additional monitoring and reporting, to evaluate the effectiveness of the pollution control
systems.
EPA would deny the NPDES permit if the discharge was likely to violate water quality
standards. Furthermore, EPA could deny the permit if environmental resources such as air
quality, endangered species, archaeological or historic sites, wetlands, or floodplains would be
significantly impacted by the project and measures proposed for mitigating the impacts are
unacceptable.
AES Alternative (CBCP as originally proposed)
In 1988, AES-CB proposed to construct and operate the CBCP at the SK site. The
project as originally proposed and project alternatives were described in the Draft EIS/SAR.
Copies of this document are available on request (see inside cover). Since the Draft EIS/SAR
was issued, the CBCP has undergone several changes in project design.
Some of the major elements of the originally proposed project which have since changed
included: was to use up to 7 million gallons of groundwater per day for cooling; was to
discharge several NPDES-regulated wastewater streams to the St. Johns and Broward Rivers
(including construction dewatering, cooling tower blowdown, boiler blowdown, metal cleaning
wastes); no control for nitrogen oxides (NOJ or mercury was proposed other than proper boiler
design and operation and fabric filtration; and possible construction of a coal conveyor across
the Broward River.
Also, SK was to permanently shut down 5 antiquated boilers when CBCP came on line.
SK also had plans to replace three old chemical recovery boilers with one large, state-of-the art,
recovery boiler. Plans to convert to a recycle operation, which eliminated the need for recovery
boilers altogether, were not revealed until mid-1990.
CBC Alternative (CBCP as certified)
Facility Description
The CBCP site is located approximately seven miles north-northeast of downtown
Jacksonville in Duval County, Florida near the confluence of the Broward and St. Johns Rivers.
ES-3
-------
The site, which is at the corner of Eastport Road and Hecksher Drive, is owned by SK and
historically was used for storage of lime mud from the mill. The Broward River forms the
western boundary of the site.
The CBCP will consist of three circulating fluidized bed (CFB) boilers, a turbine driven
electrical generator, steam pipelines to supply SK, mechanical draft cooling towers, coal
handling facilities, coal and limestone storage facilities, ash storage and pelletizing facilities,
stormwater runoff ponds, and a short transmission line to transfer the power from the plant to
the power network system (substation is adjacent to SK site). The CBCP has been designed to
blend in with the profile of the SK mill, with the exception of the exhaust stack which is much
taller (425 feet).
Emission Offsets
Once the CBCP begins operation, SK is required to surrender operation permits on five
antiquated boilers which are not subject to current air quality standards. Shut down of these
boilers will significantly reduce emissions from the SK site. SK's conversion to a recycle
facility eliminated their need for a new recovery boiler (a device used in pulp processes). This
resulted in a shortfall in required steam supply. SK will install three new gas-fired power
boilers to supply this steam. In accordance with the state Siting Board's Final Order, the CBCP
plus the SK package boilers will have fewer environmental impacts than those associated with
the SK recycling operation without the CBCP. This will be the case for air emissions as well
as for water resources. Elimination of the three old recovery boilers also eliminated the need
for SK's once-through cooling system, reducing impacts on the Broward and St. Johns Rivers
(e.g., impingement/ entrainment of aquatic organisms at the intake, thermal dishcarge).
Materials Handling
The CBCP is permitted to burn a total of 1.17 million tons of eastern Kentucky coal per
year. The coal will be delivered by train. There will be a maximum of one 90-car train every
three days. Limestone will be used during boiler operation to control sulfur emissions.
Limestone will be delivered to the site by truck via the Blount Island barge terminal. These
materials will be stored on a lined storage area on site. Bed and fly ash from boiler operation
will be pelletized on site and stored in silos.
ES-4
-------
Air Emission Controls
The CBCP boilers are designed to control emissions of the major criteria pollutants,
namely sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, volatile organic compounds,
particulates and other trace pollutants. The state Conditions of Certification place limits on these
emissions and specify monitoring requirements.
Many air emissions are controlled within the combustion chamber by limestone injection
and efficient combustion. Particulates from the boilers will be controlled by a fabric filter
system (baghouse). Sulfur and acid gases are removed during combustion by the absorbent
limestone. Also, CBC will use coal with a low sulfur content (1.2% by weight on an annual
basis). Nitrogen oxides will be controlled by a selective non-catalytic reduction process
(injection of ammonia).
A carbon injection system designed to remove mercury vapor will be placed on one boiler
for testing. Test results will be examined by FDER. Mercury emissions from power plants are
typically controlled by fabric filters.
Drift eliminators will control cooling tower drift. Particulates from materials handling
operations will be controlled by various methods including: enclosed conveyance lines, enclosed
handling areas, fabric filters, and wet suppression techniques. Emissions from the limestone
dryers are limited by the state Conditions of Certification.
Water Systems
The CBCP requires water for several plant processes. The primary water demand is for
cooling purposes. A smaller amount of high quality water is required for boiler makeup, plant
service, and potable water. The CBCP will employ a zero-discharge system that will eliminate
all process wastewater discharges. All wastewater streams will be reused or recycled within the
system.
The primary external source of water for the CBCP will be reuse of treated process
wastewater from the SK mill. The other external sources will be the existing SK wells, which
will supply a daily maximum of 1.45 million gallons of groundwater from the Floridan aquifer,
and potable water from SK. Other water demands will be met by recycling internal wastewater
steams.
ES-5
-------
CBC will minimize the use of fresh water, primarily relying on SK wastewater to meet
cooling needs. Water discharges will be eliminated with a zero-discharge water treatment
system, except for stormwater runoff in an extreme storm event. All process wastewater and
collected stormwater will be internally recycled, treated for reuse or processed in the zero-
discharge post treatment system. Also, note that the CBCP will recycle some treated water back
to SK for use in their cooling tower, reducing SK's demand for groundwater.
Groundwater will be used at the CBCP for boiler makeup, service water, fire protection,
metal cleaning, and potable water. These uses require a high quality water to prevent scaling
and corrosion in the storage and distribution systems.
Water Treatment System
The cooling water pretreatment system consists of a premix tank, a combination
clarifier/sludge thickener, chemical storage and feed equipment, and a sludge dewatering system.
The system will be operated to provide a softened effluent suitable for use in the cooling towers.
The cooling tower blowdown zero discharge handling system is designed to maximize
reuse of process water as cooling tower makeup. This post treatment system consists of
clarification and softening, filtration, reverse osmosis, evaporation and crystallization.
Stormwater Management
Site stormwater runoff will be collected and conveyed to one of two on-site retention
ponds. Runoff from the materials storage area will be collected in a common sump and
discharged to a lined Storage Area Runoff Pond. Runoff from the yard and power block areas
will be collected and conveyed via gravity flow to the Yard Area Runoff Pond. Stormwater
retained in the ponds will be pumped to the CBCP treatment system for reuse as cooling tower
makeup. The ponds are designed to hold runoff from a 50-year, 24-hour storm event. In severe
storm events, there is a possibility of discharge of contaminated runoff.
Solid Waste Handling and Disposal
Construction activities resulted in the relocation of lime mud which had been stored on
site. The lime mud was moved to a storage area on the SK site, covered with a geomembrane
cap and seeded earth cover. The cap inhibits rainfall infiltration from leaching contaminants into
the groundwater.
ES-6
-------
Solid waste generated by operation of the CBCP will consist of fly ash, bed ash, and
sludge. The ash will be pelletized and loaded onto those rail cars used to deliver the coal to the
site. The ash will be disposed of near the Kentucky mine site. The zero-water discharge facility
will create an average 80 tons per day of sludge wastes. The sludge will be sent to a recycling
facility or a licensed landfill.
SK-onlv Alternative
This alternative assumes that SK would operate as a recycling facility with its existing
oil and bark fired boilers. This scenario also assumes that the CBCP would not have been
constructed.
4. SUMMARY AND COMPARISON OF THE MAJOR ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT AND THE ALTERNATIVES
Construction-Related Impacts (AES and CBC Alternative^
Emissions from construction of the CBCP result from activities common to most large
construction projects, such as excavation, material hauling and handling. Use of standard
control measures should minimize air quality impacts.
The AES Alternative was to have two discharges during construction: stormwater runoff
and groundwater dewatering (pumping out excavations to keep them dry). Dewatered
groundwater was to have been discharged directly to the St. Johns River. Because of existing
contamination on the site, this discharge could have caused adverse impacts to surface water.
Dewatering also could have caused migration of petroleum from leaking underground storage
tanks on the SK site (mitigation was proposed). These impacts were avoided because dewatering
was eliminated from project design. Stormwater is the only discharge expected from the CBC
Alternative. Adherence to the approved erosion and sedimentation control plan should result in
minimal impacts to surface water.
The original project proposal (AES Alternative) included construction of a coal conveyor
across the Broward River to bring coal in by barge. Impacts of this conveyance structure would
have included river traffic impedance, disturbance of potentially contaminated sediments with
subsequent impacts to local aquatic ecology, and potential for coal spillage. The coal conveyor
is not part of the CBC Alternative as coal will be brought to the site by rail.
ES-7
-------
As the CBCP construction area originally contained poor quality wildlife habitat due to
past SK activities, impacts were minimal. Construction of a rail spur was to disturb a gopher
tortoise habitat. Both the AES and CBC Alternatives included mitigation, through relocation,
of the species. As originally proposed (AES Alternative), the rail spur may have also impacted
a small wetland on site; the CBC Alternative avoided the wetland.
Relocation and capping of lime mud to another part of the SK site has prevented
stormwater infiltration of the mud. This mitigative measure prevents contamination of the
shallow aquifer which drains directly to adjacent surface waters. Therefore, construction of the
CBCP may provide greater protection to aquatic biota.
Noise levels from construction activities such as site preparation, concrete paving,
equipment installation have been in compliance with local ordinances at residential areas (less
than 65 decibels). With mitigation, intrusive single-event noise levels (e.g., pile drivers and
steam blow-out cleaning) which have occurred have also been in compliance with these
ordinances.
Traffic counts indicated that all signalized locations and roadways in the area operate at
the standard minimum acceptable level and have additional available capacity. Local traffic
patterns are not expected to experience any substantial problems because of construction. The
height of the flue gas stack is 425 feet, but no impacts on air traffic are anticipated because a
non-directional radio beacon was installed on site.
Operation-Related Impacts
Operation-related impacts on air quality would be due to materials handling and release
of combustion products. Fugitive dust from materials handling operations will be minimized
through standard mitigative measures.
A thorough analysis of air quality impacts showed that the CBCP as certified (CBC
Alternative) will have fewer total impacts on air quality than the AES or SK-only Alternatives.
Expected emissions of SK's three new gas-fired boilers were included in the CBC Alternative
air quality analysis. The CBCP will be in compliance with ambient air quality standards.
Maximum predicted impacts (due to the limestone dryers) will occur on the CBCP site.
The CBCP will emit a significant amount of carbon dioxide, a "greenhouse gas" of
concern. AES-CB originally announced plans to provide some offsets to these greenhouse gas
ES-8
-------
emissions (probably through afforestation). This commitment made by former applicant AES-
CB does not obligate CBC (current applicant).
A human health risk assessment on the combustion product emissions showed that
operation of the CBCP (as certified) should not pose significant health effects on the local
population. The highest estimated risk of cancer (less than 1 chance in 100,000) would occur
in the nearest residential area (Cedar Bay Road). Compared with the AES and SK-only
Alternatives, the CBC Alternative will have the least impact on human health. An ecological
risk assessment on the combustion product emissions also showed that the CBCP should not pose
a significant threat to ecological resources.
Operation of the CBCP as originally proposed (AES Alternative) would have included
several discharges to adjacent surface waters. The SK-only Alternative (no CBCP) would have
continued to discharge process wastewater and runoff from the lime mud area (eliminated by
CBCP construction). The CBC Alternative (as certified) will have fewer surface water impacts
than either the AES or SK-only Alternatives. The CBCP water system will use SK wastewater
and internal wastewater streams, thereby reducing SK's existing discharge. The only discharge
from the CBC Alternative will be infrequent stormwater discharges from the yard and storage
areas.
Groundwater impacts of the CBC Alternative are greatly reduced from the AES
Alternative which was proposed to use groundwater for cooling water makeup. The maximum
permitted withdrawal of 1.45 MOD of groundwater from the Floridan aquifer is not expected
to have any adverse impacts on groundwater quantity or quality. Relocation and capping of the
lime mud has improved groundwater quality on site.
Potential operational noise impacts include the CBCP boilers, steam turbine driven
electrical generator, cooling towers, water treatment system, ash pelletizer, limestone and coal
crushers, and unloading activities. It is likely that the CBCP will be audible to Cedar Bay Road
residents; however, the increase in noise levels from existing levels will be small and within
compliance with local ordinances. The applicant will monitor noise levels as the CBCP begins
operation to determine actual compliance and will mitigate problems if necessary.
Operational impacts to geologic resources will occur primarily from mineral extraction
(i.e., coal and limestone), and waste disposal. Impacts of mineral extraction should be
minimized if suppliers comply with state and/or federal mining and reclamation regulations.
Both CBC and AES Alternatives would involve disposal of ash pellets. Unless another use can
ES-9
-------
be found for them, the ash pellets will be returned to the coal supplier (in Kentucky) in the
railcars delivering coal to the site. The pellets will be disposed of at a site close to the mining
operations. If landfilled, the material would take up between five and six acres of capacity over
the 30 year life of the CBCP (assuming a 30 foot landfill depth). The CBC Alternative will
produce more solid waste than the AES Alternative because of the sludge and solids from the
water treatment system. These wastes will average 80 tons per day and will be sent to a
recycling facility and/or to a permitted non-hazardous landfill.
Additional train traffic during operation may cause temporary access problems to
communities at road crossings. This impact will be reduced by scheduling of trains during off-
peak traffic hours. Train traffic is not expected to limit emergency vehicle accessibility to
affected communities.
5. EPA'S RECOMMENDATION
Based on the environmental review of the CBCP, EPA finds that environmental impacts
of the CBCP, with proposed mitigation, will be minimized. Furthermore, the CBCP as certified
by the state is preferable to the project as it was originally proposed (AES Alternative) and to
the SK-only Alternative (no CBCP).
The CBCP has gone through the state's Site Certification process and, after several
modifications, has received Certification from the Siting Board. Most modifications have been
improvements to project design that lessen environmental impacts. It should also be noted that,
historically, the site has been used for industrial activities. The site is zoned for heavy industrial
use (IH).
Environmental improvements offered by the CBCP include:
• The CBCP will produce steam for the SK mill, allowing for removal of old
boilers. This will reduce existing ambient air quality impacts.
• Relocation and capping of SK lime mud has improved groundwater and surface
water quality at the site.
ES-10
-------
• The CBCP zero discharge system will make use of SK and internal wastewaters,
reducing the existing SK discharge to the St. Johns River. Stormwater runoff will
be the only potential discharge. This discharge is expected to happen only in high
rainfall events; otherwise the collected storm water will be treated and used in the
CBCP water system.
• The CBCP will provide cooling water to SK, reducing SK's existing groundwater
withdrawals.
Unavoidable adverse environmental impacts of the project include: impacts of coal and
limestone extraction; disposal of solid wastes; increased rail traffic and noise; and contribution
to global climate change.
EPA proposes to issue the NPDES permit for the CBCP. Permit issuance would allow
Stormwater overflow discharges to the Broward River up to the limits specified in the permit.
All proposed limitations of the draft NPDES permit are tentative and subject to comment from
all reviewers during the public comment period.
If EPA were to deny the NPDES permit (No Federal Action), the applicant could still
operate the CBCP if confident that no discharges would occur. The CBCP is considered a zero
discharge facility with the infrequent possibility of a Stormwater discharge. Without an NPDES
permit, any discharge from the site would be considered a violation of the Clean Water Act.
ES-11
-------
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
-------
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES-1
TABLE OF CONTENTS i
LIST OF APPENDICES xi
LIST OF TABLES xii
LIST OF FIGURES xvi
LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS xvii
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1-1
1.1 THE CEDAR BAY COGENERATION PROJECT 1-3
1.1.1 Purpose and Need of Project 1-3
1.1.2 Project Location 1-4
1.1.3 Identification of Applicants 1-7
1.1.3.1 Cedar Bay Generating Company, Limited Partnership ... 1-7
1.1.3.2 Seminole Kraft Corporation 1-7
1.1.4 Description of Project 1-8
1.1.5 Permits Required 1-8
1.2 ROLE OF FEDERAL AND STATE AGENCIES 1-9
1.2.1 EPA Responsibilities 1-9
1.2.1.1 NPDES Permit 1-9
1.2.1.2 EIS 1-10
1.2.1.3 PSD Permit 1-12
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)
1.2.2 Florida DEP Responsibilities 1-12
1.2.2.1 Power Plant Siting Act 1-12
1.2.2.2 401 Certification 1-14
1.2.2.3 PSD Permit 1-14
1.2.3 Other Federal and State Requirements 1-14
1.3 HISTORY OF PROJECT 1-15
2.0 ALTERNATIVES EVALUATED 2-1
2.1 REGULATORY ALTERNATIVES 2-1
2.2 THE CBCP AS PROPOSED BY AES/CB 2-2
2.3 THE CBCP AS CONSTRUCTED BY THE APPLICANT (CBC
ALTERNATIVE) 2-2
2.3.1 The Project Site 2-2
2.3.2 Plant Orientation and Appearance 2-4
2.3.3 Facility Description 2-4
2.3.3.1 Power Generation System 2-4
2.3.3.2 Materials Handling 2-5
2.3.3.2.1 Fuel Transportation and Handling 2-5
2.3.3.2.2 Limestone Handling 2-7
2.3.3.3 Emission Controls 2-7
2.3.3.3.1 PM and Fugitive Dust Controls 2-8
2.3.3.3.2 SOX Controls 2-9
2.3.3.3.3 NOX Controls 2-9
2.3.3.3.4 Controls for Mercury 2-9
11
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)
2.3.3.3.5 Controls for Other Emissions 2-10
2.3.3.3.6 Stack Height 2-10
2.3.3.4 Water Systems 2-11
2.3.3.4.1 Cooling Water Pretreatment System 2-13
2.3.3.4.2 Sludge Dewatering System 2-15
2.3.3.4.3 Boiler Makeup Water 2-15
2.3.3.4.4 Cooling Tower Blowdown Zero Discharge
Handling System 2-18
2.3.3.4.5 Cooling Tower Blowdown Clarifier 2-18
2.3.3.4.6 Sand Filters 2-20
2.3.3.4.7 Reverse Osmosis System 2-20
2.3.3.4.8 Evaporator 2-20
2.3.3.4.9 Crystallizer and Centrifuge 2-21
2.3.3.4.10 Site Stormwater Management 2-21
2.3.3.5 Solid Waste Handling and Disposal 2-24
2.3.3.5.1 Coal Ash Disposal 2-24
2.3.3.5.2 Sludge 2-25
2.3.3.5.3 Hazardous Waste 2-25
2.3.3.6 Transmission Facilities 2-26
2.3.3.7 Resource Requirements 2-26
2.3.4 Construction Procedures 2-26
2.3.4.1 Lime Mud Relocation 2-26
2.3.4.2 Clearing and Grubbing 2-28
2.3.4.3 Dewatering Minimizatio 2-28
2.3.4.4 Stormwater Management 2-28
2.3.4.5 Solid Wastes 2-29
111
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)
2.4 SK-ONLY ALTERNATIVE 2-29
3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 3-1
3.1 AIR RESOURCES 3-1
3.1.1 Climate/Meteorology 3-1
3.1.2 Existing Air Pollution Sources 3-2
3.1.3 Air Quality 3-2
3.1.4 Regulatory Framework 3-5
3.1.4.1 Federal Regulatory Requirements 3-5
3.1.4.2 Projected Regulatory Requirements 3-8
3.1.4.3 State Regulatory Requirements 3-9
3.2 HUMAN HEALTH 3-9
3.2.1 Mortality and Morbidity 3-9
3.2.2 Lung Cancer in the Jacksonville Area 3-11
3.3 NOISE 3-11
3.3.1 Noise Basics 3-11
3.3.2 Existing Conditions 3-14
3.3.3 Applicable Guidelines and Regulations 3-16
3.4 SURFACE WATER RESOURCES 3-16
3.4.1 Surface Water Systems 3-21
3.4.1.1 St. Johns River at Jacksonville 3-21
3.4.1.2 Broward River 3-21
IV
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)
3.4.2 Surface Water Uses 3-21
3.4.2.1 Water Withdrawals 3-22
3.4.2.2 Surface Water Discharges 3-22
3.5 GROUNDWATER RESOURCES 3-22
3.5.1 Regional Groundwater Systems 3-22
3.5.2 Groundwater Use 3-23
3.5.3 Groundwater Quality 3-24
3.6 ECOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3-28
3.6.1 Aquatic Ecology 3-28
3.6.1.1 Aquatic Flora 3-28
3.6.1.2 Aquatic Fauna 3-29
3.6.1.2.1 Zooplankton 3-29
3.6.1.2.2 Macroinvertebrates 3-29
3.6.1.2.3 Shellfish 3-29
3.6.1.2.4 Fish and Ichthyoplankton 3-30
3.6.2 Terrestrial Ecology 3-30
3.6.2.1 Terrestrial Flora 3-30
3.6.2.2 Terrestrial Fauna 3-31
3.6.3 Ecologically Sensitive Resources 3-31
3.7 GEOLOGIC RESOURCES 3-32
3.7.1 Physiography and Topography 3-32
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)
3.7.2 Soils and Geotechnical Conditions 3-32
3.7.3 Regional Geology 3-33
3.7.4 Site Geology 3-33
3.8 SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS 3-33
3.8.1. Population Levels 3-34
3.8.2 Economic Conditions 3-34
3.8.2.1 Employment 3-37
3.8.2.2 Income 3-38
3.8.2.3 Housing 3-38
3.8.3 Community Services 3-40
3.8.3.1 Water Supply and Wastewater Treatment 3-40
3.8.3.2 Public Safety 3-42
3.8.3.3 Education 3-42
3.8.3.4 Health Care 3-43
3.8.4 Land Use 3-43
3.8.4.1 Region and Area 3-43
3.8.4.1.1 Existing Land Cover 3-45
3.8.4.1.2 Existing Land Uses 3-45
3.8.4.1.3 Projected Land Uses 3-47
3.8.4.1.4 Existing Zoning 3-48
3.8.5 Recreational Resources 3-48
3.8.6 Aesthetic Conditions 3-49
VI
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)
3.9 CULTURAL RESOURCES 3-49
3.9.1 CBCP Site 3-49
3.9.2 Surrounding Area 3-50
3.10 TRANSPORTATION RESOURCES 3-50
3.11 ENERGY RESOURCES 3-52
3.11.1 Florida 3-52
3.11.1.1 Traditional Energy Sources 3-52
3.11.1.2 Other Energy Sources 3-53
3.11.2 Peninsular Florida 3-54
3.11.2.1 FPL 3-54
3.11.2.2 JEA 3-55
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE ALTERNATIVES 4-1
4.1 AIR QUALITY IMPACTS 4-1
4.1.1 Construction-Related 4-1
4.1.2 Operation-Related 4-2
4.1.2.1 Materials Handling 4-2
4.1.2.2 Combustion Products Emissions Comparison 4-3
4.1.2.3 Air Quality Comparison 4-5
4.1.2.3.1 AAQS Compliance Evaluation 4-13
4.1.2.3.2 PSD Compliance Evaluation 4-19
4.1.2.3.3 NTL Compliance Evaluation 4-27
vn
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)
4.1.2.4 Visibility Impacts 4-27
4.1.2.4.1 Class II Areas 4-33
4.1.2.5 Regional/Global 4-33
4.1.2.5.1 Acidic Deposition 4-33
4.1.2.5.2 Global Climate 4-36
4.2 HUMAN HEALTH IMPACTS 4-36
4.2.1 Risk Assessment Methods 4-37
4.2.1.1 Chemical Identification 4-37
4.2.1.2 Dose-Response Data 4-38
4.2.1.3 Exposure Assessment 4-45
4.2.1.4 Regulatory Benchmarks 4-49
4.2.2 Risk Assessment Results 4-49
4.2.2.1 Carcinogenic Risks 4-49
4.2.2.2 Non-carcinogenic Risks 4-51
4.3 SURFACE WATER IMPACTS 4-51
4.3.1 Construction-Related 4-53
4.3.2.1 AES Discharges 4-55
4.3.2.2 CBC Discharges 4-55
4.3.2.3 SK-Only Discharges 4-60
4.3.2.4 Water Quality Comparison 4-60
4.4 GROUNDWATER IMPACTS 4-62
Vlll
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)
4.4.1 Construction-Related 4-62
4.4.2 Operation-Related 4-62
4.5 ECOLOGICAL IMPACTS 4-65
4.5.1 Construction-Related 4-65
4.5.1.1 Terrestrial 4-66
4.5.1.2 Aquatic 4-66
4.5.2 Operation-Related 4-67
4.5.2.1 Ecological Risk Assessment 4-67
4.5.2.2 Terrestrial 4-70
4.5.2.2.1 Deposition Impacts 4-70
4.5.2.2.2 Salt Drift Impacts 4-73
4.5.2.3 Aquatic 4.74
4.6 NOISE IMPACTS 4.79
4.6.1 Construction-Related 4-80
4.6.2 Operation-Related 4_81
4.7 GEOLOGIC IMPACTS 4.33
4.7.1 Construction-Related 4.33
4.7.2 Operation-Related 4.34
4.8 SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACTS 4.35
4.8.1 Population 4.35
IX
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)
4.8.2 Economic Conditions 4-86
4.8.3 Community Services 4-86
4.8.4 Land Use 4-86
4.8.5 Aesthetic 4-87
4.8.6 Recreation 4-87
4.9 CULTURAL RESOURCE IMPACTS 4-87
4.10 TRANSPORTATION IMPACTS 4-88
4.11 ENERGY IMPACTS 4-88
5.0 SUMMARY AND MITIGATION OF ADVERSE IMPACTS 4-90
5.1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS 5-1
5.2 SUMMARY OF MITIGATION 5-4
6.0 EPA'S RECOMMENDATIONS 5-5
7.0 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 7-1
7.1 SCOPING 7-1
7.2 PUBLIC HEARING ON DRAFT EIS/SAR AND DRAFT NPDES PERMIT 7-2
7.3 PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING NPDES CONSTRUCTION RUNOFF
PERMIT PUBLIC HEARING 7-5
7.4 STATE AND LOCAL PUBLIC HEARINGS 7-7
7.5 AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS INCLUDED IN THE EIS REVIEW PROCESS
REFERENCES • R-l
LIST OF PREPARERS P-l
GLOSSARY G-1
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)
LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX A
APPENDIX B
APPENDIX C
APPENDIX D
APPENDIX E
APPENDIX F
APPENDIX G
APPENDIX H
APPENDIX I
APPENDIX J
APPENDIX K
APPENDIX L
APPENDIX M
APPENDIX N
APPENDIX O
APPENDIX P
APPENDIX Q
Draft NPDES Permit No. FL0061204
State of florida's Final Order Approving Modification of Certification
Settlement Agreemnt and conditions of Certification
Executive summary Enviornmental Impact Statement/State Analysis Report
Cedar Bay cogeneration Project May 1990
Permit No. PSD-FL-137 and Final Determination
Florida Public Service commission Order Granting Determination of Need
and Order Approving Second Amended Cogeneration AGreement
Federal Aviation Administration Response to FAA Form 7460-1
Florida Department of Environmental REgulation REview of the Proposed
Modification of Certified Electric Power Plant Site
Stormwater
Cedar Bay Zero Discharge System Summary Description
Executive Summary Air Quality Impacts Analysis
Executive Summary Comparative Human Health and Ecological Risk
Assessment
Florida Department of Environmental Regulation Correspondence
Regarding Lime Mud Composition
Timucuan Ecological & Historic Preserve Information From the National
Park Service's Agency Briefing Booklet
Florida Division of Historic Resources Correspondence REgarding
Cultural REsource Assessment Request
Basics of Sound and Noise
Gopher Tortoise Relocation Report
Resolution of Unresolved Issues from the Draft EIS/SAR
XI
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Page
TABLE 1-1 CEDAR BAY COGENERATION PROJECT HISTORY TIMELINE . . . 1-16
TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF CHANGES TO THE ORIGINALLY PROPOSED
PROJECT 2-3
TABLE 2-2 TYPICAL MAKEUP WATER CHARACTERISTICS FROM SK 2-16
TABLE 2-3 PROJECTED PRETREATMENT CLARIFIER INFLUENT AND
EFFLUENT CHARACTERISTICS 2-17
TABLE 2-4 PROJECTED SLOWDOWN CLARIFIER INFLUENT
CHARACTERISTICS 2-19
TABLE 2-5 EXPECTED CONSTITUENTS IN CRYSTALLIZER SOLIDS 2-22
TABLE 2-6 MAJOR RESOURCE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CBCP
(M = MILLION; B = BILLION) 2-27
TABLE 3-1 EXISTING AIR QUALITY 3-4
TABLE 3-2 FEDERAL AND FLORIDA AMBIENT AIR QUALITY
STANDARDS 3-6
TABLE 3-3 PSD CLASS I AND CLASS II AIR QUALITY INCREMENTS 3-7
TABLE 3-4 DEATH RATES PER 100,000 POPULATION FOR SELECTED
CAUSES DURING 1978 3-10
TABLE 3-5 MORTALITY RATES FOR LUNG CANCER (LISTING OF THE 10
METROPOLITAN COUNTIES IN THE U.S.A. WITH THE HIGHEST
AGE-ADJUSTED RATES AMONG WHITE MALES, 1970-75) 3-12
TABLE 3-6 EXISTING NOISE LEVELS 3-15
TABLE 3-7 STATE WATER QUALITY STANDARDS 3-17
TABLE 3-8 STATE AND FEDERAL GROUNDWATER QUALITY CRITERIA . . 3-25
TABLE 3-9 POPULATION ESTIMATE FOR DUVAL COUNTY, FLORIDA, BY
PLANNING DISTRICT AND MUNICIPALITY (APRIL 1, 1987) .... 3-35
TABLE 3-10 POPULATION PROJECTIONS FOR 1988 AND 1990 3-36
TABLE 3-11 EMPLOYMENT TRENDS IN DUVAL COUNTY,
FLORIDA 1980 TO 1987 3-37
TABLE 3-12 HOUSEHOLD INCOME IN DUVAL COUNTY, FLORIDA 3-39
TABLE 3-13 PROJECTED HOUSEHOLD POPULATION AND DWELLING UNITS
FOR DUVAL COUNTY, FLORIDA (1980-2010) 3-41
xn
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Page
TABLE 3-13 PROJECTED HOUSEHOLD POPULATION AND DWELLING UNITS
FOR DUVAL COUNTY, FLORIDA (1980-2010) 3-41
TABLE 3-14 EXISTING LAND USE ACREAGE - NORTHEAST FLORIDA REGION
(JACKSONVILLE AREA PLANNING BOARD 1977A IN JEA/FPL
1981A) 3-44
TABLE 3-15 SUMMARY OF LAND USE EXISTING IN 1985 IN THE AREA
SURROUNDING THE PLANT (CENSUS TRACTS 102.01 AND
102.02)(AES-CB/SK 1988) 3-46
TABLE 4-1 MAXIMUM REGULATED POLLUTANT EMISSIONS FOR THE
ALTERNATIVES 4-4
TABLE 4-2 MAXIMUM NON-REGULATED POLLUTANT EMISSIONS
COMPARISON FOR THE ALTERNATIVES 4-6
TABLE 4-3 COMPARISON OF MAXIMUM PREDICTED IMPACTS AND NET
AIR QUALITY EFFECTS OF THE ALTERNATIVES 4-8
TABLE 4-4 NATIONAL AND FLORIDA AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS
Oig/m3) FOR POLLUTANTS BEING MODELED 4-14
TABLE 4-5 COMPLIANCE OF THE CBC ALTERNATIVE (AS CONSTRUCTED
BY U.S. GENERATING) WITH TOTAL AMBIENT SO2 AAQS .... 4-16
TABLE 4-6 COMPLIANCE OF THE CBC ALTERNATIVE (AS CONSTRUCTED
BY U.S. GENERATING) WITH TOTAL AMBIENT PM-10 AAQS . . . 4-17
TABLE 4-7 COMPLIANCE OF THE CBC ALTERNATIVE (AS CONSTRUCTED
BY U.S. GENERATING) WITH TOTAL AMBIENT NO2 AAQS .... 4-18
TABLE 4-8 FEDERAL AND FLORIDA PSD INCREMENTS 4-20
TABLE 4-9 MAXIMUM PREDICTED INCREASES IN SO2 AT PSD CLASS II
AREAS FROM ALL NEW SOURCES TO WHICH THE CBC
ALTERNATIVE SIGNIFICANTLY CONTRIBUTES 4-21
TABLE 4-10 MAXIMUM PREDICTED INCREASES IN SO2AT PSD CLASS I
AREAS FROM ALL NEW SOURCES TO WHICH THE CBC
ALTERNATIVE SIGNIFICANTLY CONTRIBUTES 4-22
TABLE 4-11 MAXIMUM PREDICTED INCREASES IN TSP AT PSD CLASS II
AREAS FROM ALL NEW SOURCES TO WHICH THE CBC
ALTERNATIVE SIGNIFICANTLY CONTRIBUTES 4-23
xiii
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Page
TABLE 4-12 MAXIMUM PREDICTED INCREASES IN NO2 AT PSD CLASS II
AREAS FROM ALL NEW SOURCES TO WHICH THE CBC
ALTENATIVE SIGNIFICANTLY CONTRIBUTES 4-24
TABLE 4-13 MAXIMUM PREDICTED INCREASES IN TSP AT PSD CLASS I
AREAS FROM ALL NEW SOURCES TO WHICH THE CBC
ALTERNATIVE SIGNIFICANTLY CONTRIBUTES 4-25
TABLE 4-14 MAXIMUM PREDICTED INCREASES IN NO2 AT PSD CLASS I
AREAS FROM ALL NEW SOURCES TO WHICH THE CBC
ALTERNATIVE SIGNIFICANTLY CONTRIBUTES 4-26
TABLE 4-15 MAXIMUM PREDICTED CONTRIBUTIONS (BASED ON 1983-1987
METEOROLOGICAL DATA) OF THE CBC ALTERNATIVE TO AIR
TOXICS CONCENTRATIONS 4-28
TABLE 4-16 RESULTS OF LEVEL 2 ANALYSIS OF IMPACTS FROM THE CBCP
ON THE 40 KM VISUAL RANGE AT THE OKEFENOKEE
WILDERNESS AREA 4-32
TABLE 4-17 VISIBILITY OF CBCP STACK PLUME IN CLASS II AREAS (I.E., IN
THE VICINITY OF THE FACILITY) 4-34
TABLE 4-18 DOSE-RESPONSE INFORMATION FOR INORGANIC AND
ORGANIC CHEMICALS WITH POTENTIAL CARCINOGENIC
EFFECTS 4-39
TABLE 4-19 DOSE-RESPONSE INFORMATION FOR INORGANIC AND
ORGANIC CHEMICALS WITH POTENTIAL NONCARCINOGENIC
CHRONIC EFFECTS FROM ORAL EXPOSURE 4-41
TABLE 4-20 DOSE-RESPONSE INFORMATION FOR INORGANIC AND
ORGANIC CHEMICALS WITH POTENTIAL NONCARCINOGENIC
CHRONIC EFFECTS FROM INHALATION EXPOSURE 4-43
TABLE 4-21 RECEPTOR LOCATION INFORMATION USED FOR THE HUMAN
HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT 4-48
TABLE 4-22 POTENTIAL HUMAN HEALTH CANCER RISK COMPARISON
FROM THE CBC ALTERNATIVE AND THE SK-ONLY
ALTERNATIVE 4-50
xiv
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Page
TABLE 4-23 POTENTIAL HUMAN HEALTH NON-CANCER RISK COMPARISON
FROM THE CBC ALTERNATIVE AND THE SK-ONLY
ALTERNATIVE 4-52
TABLE 4-24 COMPOSITION OF TREATED PROCESS WASTEWATER FROM THE
SK RECYCLING OPERATIONS 4-54
TABLE 4-25 SUMMARY OF AES ALTERNATIVE WASTEWATER
DISCHARGES 4-56
TABLE 4-26 ESTIMATED QUALITY OF THE WASTEWATER DISCHARGED BY
THE AES ALTERNATIVE (mg/1) 4-57
TABLE 4-27 BREAKDOWN OF AVERAGE WATER REQUIREMENTS FOR THE
THREE ALTERNATIVES 4-63
TABLE 4-28 MAMMALIAN CHEMICAL DOSE-RESPONSE VALUES USED IN
THE ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT 4-68
TABLE 4-29 AVIAN CHEMICAL DOSE-RESPONSE VALUES USED IN THE
ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT 4-69
TABLE 4-30 SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL HAZARD QUOTIENTS FROM THE
CBC ALTERNATIVE 4-71
TABLE 4-31 SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL HAZARD QUOTIENTS FROM THE SK-
ONLY ALTERNATIVE 4-72
TABLE 4-32 OKEFENOKEE SWAMP COMPARISON OF ELEMENTAL
DEPOSITION WITH EPA SCREENING LEVELS 4-75
TABLE 4-33 WOLF ISLAND COMPARISON OF ELEMENTAL DEPOSITION
WITH EPA SCREENING LEVELS 4-76
TABLE 4-34 TIMUCUAN PRESERVE COMPARISON OF ELEMENTAL
DEPOSITION WITH EPA SCREENING LEVELS 4-77
TABLE 4-35 CLASS II AREA (VICINITY OF CBCP) COMPARISON OF
ELEMENTAL DEPOSITION WITH EPA SCREENING LEVELS .... 4-78
TABLE 4-36 JACKSONVILLE NOISE ORDINANCE OCTAVE BAND FREQUENCY
LIMITS AND OVERALL A-WEIGHTED LEVELS AT CLASS B
AREAS 4-80
xv
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
FIGURE 1-1 SITE LOCATION 1-5
FIGURE 1-2 SITE VICINITY 1-6
FIGURE 2-1 BUILDING AND STACK CONFIGURATION 2-6
FIGURE 2-2 DESIGN WATER BALANCE DIAGRAM 3/12/93 2-12
FIGURE 2-3 OPERATIONAL STORMWATER RUNOFF 2-23
FIGURE 3-1 LOCATION OF MAJOR EMISSION SOURCES 3-3
FIGURE 4-1 EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT MODEL USED TO EVALUATE
POTENTIAL HUMAN HEALTH RISK FROM
THE CBCP AND SK 4-46
FIGURE 4-2 RECEPTOR LOCATIONS FOR THE HUMAN HEALTH RISK
ASSESSMENT 4-47
xvi
-------
LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
-------
-------
LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
AAQS
AES-CB
AREA
As
Ambient Air Quality Standards
Applied Energy Services Cedar Bay, Inc.
American Railroad Engineering Association
Arsenic
B
BACT
Be
BESD
BMP
BOD
Btu
Btu/h
Btu/Kwh
CAA
CAAA
CBC
CBCP
CCA
Cd
CFB
CFR
cfs
CO
COD
COM
CSX
CWA
dBA
DNL
DOAH
Boron
Best Available Control Technology
Beryllium
The Bio-Environmental Services Department for the City of Jacksonville
(now the Regulatory/Environmental Services Department)
Best Management Practices
Biochemical Oxygen Demand
British thermal unit
British thermal unit per hour
British thermal unit of energy required to
produce 1 kilowatt-hour of electricity
Clean Air Act
Clean Air Act Amendments
Cedar Bay Cogeneration, Inc.
Cedar Bay Cogeneration Project
Chromated Copper Arsenate
Cadmium
Circulating Fluidized Bed
Code of Federal Regulations
Cubic feet per second
Carbon Monoxide
Chemical Oxygen Demand
Coal-Oil Mixture
Classic System Express
Clean Water Act
Decibels (A-weighted)
Day-night average sound level
The Florida Division of Administrative Hearings
xvn
-------
ECFRPC
EHS
EID
EIS
EIS/SAR
EPA
EPRI
ERA
ESP
F
FAA
FAC
FAWPCA
FCG
FCREPA
FDA
FDAHR
FDCA
FDER
FDOT
FDS DHR
FECL
FEECA
FEPPSA
FERC
FGD
FGFWFC
FGT
FICON
Fl
FPC
FPL
FPS
FPSC
F.S.
Fuel Use Act
The Eastern Central Florida Regional Planning Commission
Extremely Hazardous Substance
Environmental Information Document
Environmental Impact Statement
Environmental Impact Statement/State Analysis Report
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
The Electrical Power Research Institute
The Economic Regulatory Administration
Electrostatic Precipitator
Degrees Fahrenheit
The Federal Aviation Administration
Florida Administrative Code
The Florida Air and Water Pollution Control Act
The Florida Electric Power Coordination Group
The Florida Committee on Rare & Endangered Plants & Animals
The Florida Department of Agriculture
The Florida Division of Archives, History and Records
The Florida Department of Community Affairs
The Florida Department of Environmental Regulation
The Florida Department of Transportation
The Florida Department of State, Division of Historical Resources
The Florida East Coast Line
Florida Energy Efficiency and Conservation Act
Florida Electrical Power Plant Siting Act (also referred
to as the Siting Act)
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Flue Gas Desulfurization
The Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission
Florida Gas Transmission
Federal Interagency committee on Noise
Fluoride
The Florida Power Corporation
The Florida Power & Light Company
Feet per second
The Florida Public Service Commission
Florida Statutes
Federal Power Plant and Industrial Fuel Use Act of 1978
g
GEP
gpm
gr/dscf
GU
GWh
Grams
Good Engineering Practice
Gallons per day
Gallons per minute
Grains per dry standard cubic foot of air
Government Use
Gigawatts - hours = one billion watt-hours
XVlll
-------
LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
(Continued)
HC
HC1
Hg
HRSG
H2SO4
HUD
IH
ISCST
IW
IWTP
IWTS
JAPB
JEA
JEPB
JPD
Km
KRB
kV
KWh
Ib/hr
Ib/MBtu
LC50
Ldn
Leq
LWBZ
Mcf/d
MOD
mg/1
mg/m3
Mo
MW
MWBZ
MWh
Hydrocarbons
Hydrochloric acid
Mercury
Heat recovery steam generators
Sulfuric Acid
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
Industrial Heavy Zone
Industrial Source Complex Short Term (air pollutant dispersion model)
Industrial Waterfront Zone
Industrial Wastewater Treatment Plant
Industrial Wastewater Treatment System
The Jacksonville Area Planning Board
The Jacksonville Electric Authority
Jacksonville Environmental Protection Board
The Jacksonville Planning & Development Department
Kilometers (1 Km = 0.6214 mile)
Kraft Recovery Boiler
Kilovolt = one thousand volts
Kilowatt hours = one thousand watt-hours
Pounds per hour
Pounds per million British thermal units
Lethal concentration of a pollutant at which 50% of the test
population die in 96 hours
Day-night average sound level
Equivalent sound level over 24-hour periods (time weighted average)
Lower water bearing zone, refers to the Oldsmar Limestone
Stratigraphic Unit of the Floridan Aquifer System
Million cubic feet per day
Million gallons per day
Milligrams per liter (~ parts per million)
Milligrams per cubic meter
Molybdenum
Megawatts
Middle Water Bearing Zone, refers to the Ocala Group
Stratigraphic Unit of the Floridan Aquifer System
Megawatt hour = one million watt-hours
xix
-------
LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
(Continued)
NAA
NAAQS
NaCl
NaOH
NCA
NDP
NEA
NEPA
NERC
NGVD
NOX
NO2
NPDES
NSPS
NSR
OR
OSN
Pb
pCi/1
PG&E
PM
PM 10
POD
ppm
PPSA
PSC
PSD
psi
psig
PURPA
RDF
RESD
RO
ROD
Non-Attainment Area
National Ambient Air Quality Standards
Sodium Chloride
Sodium Hydroxide
Noise Control Act
North District Plan
National Energy Act of 1978
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
The National Electric Reliability Council
National Geodetic Vertical Datum
Nitrogen Oxides
Nitrogen Dioxide
National Pollution Discharge Elimination System
New Source Performance Standards
New Source Review
Open Rural
NPDES Outfall Serial Number
Lead
Piccauries per liter
Pacific Gas & Electric Company
Paniculate Matter
Paniculate Matter Less Than 10 Micrometers in Diameter
Point of Discharge
Parts per million t=_ milligrams per liter)
Florida Electrical Power Plant Siting Act
Florida Power Service Commission
Prevention of Significant Deterioration
Pounds per square inch
Pounds per square inch gauge
Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978
Refuse Derived Fuel
The City of Jacksonville Regulatory/Environmental Services Department
Recommended Order
Record of Decision
xx
-------
LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
(Continued)
SAR
SARP
SCA/EID
SCL
SCR
SERC
SHPO
SIP
Siting Act
SJRPP
SJRWMD
SK
SNCR
S02
SOX
SOU
tcf
TDS
TPY
TRS
TSP
TSS
TVA
ug
ug/m3
USCG
USCOE
USDOE
USFWS
USGen
USGS
USSCS
UWBZ
VOC
WTP
YARP
State Analysis Report
Storage Area Runoff Pond
Site Certification Application/Environmental
Information Document prepared by AES-CB
Seaboard Coast Line
Selective Catalytic Reduction
Southeastern Electric Reliability Council
State Historic Preservation Officer
State Implementation Plan
Florida Electrical Power Plant Siting Act (see FEPPSA)
The St. Johns River Power Park
The St. Johns River Water Management District
The Seminole-Kraft Corporation
Selective Non-Catalytic Reduction
Sulfur Dioxide
Sulfur Oxides
The Southern Company
Trillion Cubic Feet
Total Dissolved Solids
Tons per year
Total Reduced Sulfur
Total Suspended Particulates
Total Suspended Solids
The Tennessee Valley Authority
Microgram
Micrograms per cubic meter
The U.S. Coast Guard
The U.S. Corps of Engineers
The U.S. Department of Energy
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
U.S. Generating Company
The U.S. Geological Survey
The U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service
Upper water bearing zone, refers to the Ocala Group
Stratigraphic Unit of the Floridan Aquifer System
Volatile Organic Compounds
Wastewater Treatment Plant
Yard Area Runoff Pond
xxi
-------
-------
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
-------
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Cedar Bay Cogeneration, Inc. (CBC) proposes to operate a coal-fired power and steam
producing facility known as the Cedar Bay Cogeneration Project (CBCP) currently under
construction in Jacksonville, Florida. The CBCP will provide electricity for sale to Florida
Power and Light Company (FPL) and steam to the adjacent Seminole Kraft (SK) recycle mill.
AES/Cedar Bay, Inc. (AES-CB) initially applied to the United States Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) and the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation (FDER) (now the
Florida Department for Environmental Protection) in November, 1988, for permits necessary
to operate the CBCP. Project ownership/management changed in October, 1992, from AES-CB
to CBC.
CBC has applied to EPA for a permit to discharge overflows of stormwater runoff from
the materials (eg., coal, limestone) storage area and yard area during facility operation. This
permit is part of the Clean Water Act's (CWA's) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES). The CBCP NPDES permit is considered a "new source" permit because the
discharge is subject to New Source Performance Standards (see Section 1.2.1). EPA administers
the NPDES permit program in Florida.
EPA must comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) before issuance
of a new source NPDES permit. This Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was prepared as
part of the NEPA process.
A Draft ElS/State Analysis Report (EIS/SAR) was issued by EPA and FDER in June
1990 (Executive Summary included in Appendix C). At that time, the CBCP was designed to
discharge various NPDES-regulated construction and operational wastewaters. Since then, the
applicant modified the project design to eliminate all discharges except stormwater overflows.
The Florida Power Plant Siting Board granted Site Certification to the CBCP on May 11,
1993 (Appendix B). On May 14, 1993, the applicant withdrew the obsolete NPDES permit
application for process wastewaters; they then submitted a new NPDES permit application to
EPA for stormwater discharges during CBCP operations. The new permit application
reactivated EPA's NEPA process and, as part of the NEPA process, this Final EIS was
prepared.
At this time, EPA's decision is whether to issue, issue with conditions, or deny the new
source NPDES permit. This Final EIS will serve as a tool in EPA's decision-making process.
1-1
-------
Permit issuance would allow stormwater overflow discharges to the Broward River up to the
limits specified in the permit. Denial of the NPDES permit would be the No Federal Action
Alternative.
AES-CB began construction of the CBCP in June 1991 before receiving all required
permits. Except for the NPDES permit for stormwater, the applicant has now received all
permits necessary for operation of the facility for which construction is nearly complete.
The CBCP received conditional Site Certification from the state Siting Board in February,
1991, the principal condition being that AES-CB was prohibited from using groundwater for
cooling purposes. The applicant was required to submit project modifications for FDER and
EPA approval before operating the facility. Nevertheless, the Siting Board's action provided
the state approval necessary for construction.
The state also issued a permit for air pollution emissions, with EPA concurrence, in
March, 1991 (Appendix D). This permit, which is not subject to NEPA requirements, limits
air emissions from the CBCP and also requires the permanent shutdown of five antiquated
boilers at the SK facility.
Another change which enabled the applicant to proceed with construction before final
project approval was the elimination of a "dewatering" discharge. (Dewatering involves
pumping groundwater out of an excavation to keep it dry during construction.) Elimination of
this discharge made unnecessary an EPA new source NPDES permit, and therefore completion
of the NEPA process, for construction activities. The CBCP did require an NPDES permit for
discharge of construction-related stormwater (Appendix H); however, this permit is exempt from
NEPA requirements.
Subsequent changes to the project, including lower air emissions, use of SK and CBCP
wastewater for cooling, and a zero discharge system, led the Siting Board to grant final Site
Certification on May 11, 1993. In the zero discharge system, the only potential discharge is
stormwater overflows from the Yard Area Runoff Pond and the Materials Storage Area Runoff
Pond. This implied that a only a stormwater NPDES permit, similar to that for construction-
related runoff, was needed and thus exempt from NEPA.
However, based on the permit application submitted on May 14, 1993, EPA determined
that the stormwater discharge is a new source. The runoff from the coal pile will contain
contaminants that are subject to New Source Performance Standards. This new source permit
1-2
-------
action, as mentioned above, reactivated the NEPA process (For more information, the reader
is referred to Section 1.3, History of the CBCP, Section 1.2.1. EPA Responsibilities, and
Appendix A)
EPA proposes to issue the NPDES permit for the CBCP. All proposed limitations of the
draft NPDES permit are tentative and subject to comment from all reviewers during the public
comment period. A copy of the NPDES permit (No. FL0061204) is in Appendix A.
1.1 THE CEDAR BAY COGENERATION PROJECT
1.1.1 Purpose and Need of Project
The CBCP will produce up to 380,000 pounds per hour of steam for the adjacent SK
recycle mill and up to 250 megawatts (MW) of electricity for sale to FPL.
The CBCP-produced steam will allow SK to shutdown five antiquated boilers (3 oil-fired,
2 bark-fired) that currently power their operations. These boilers are not subject to stringent air
quality standards because they were installed before the standards were issued. When SK
converted to a recycling operation in summer 1992, they eliminated three recovery boilers that
provided additional steam. SK will install three new gas-fired boilers to make up for this loss.
With the three new boilers and CBCP operation, elimination of the five old boilers will result
in a net reduction in most air pollutant emissions.
Elimination of the five old boilers will also eliminate current SK withdrawals from the
Broward River for once-through cooling water. The new SK gas-fired boilers will be cooled
with water from the CBCP "zero-discharge" system which uses recycled water (see Section
2.3.3.4, Water Systems).
Based on power supply planning, FPL has identified a need for additional capacity
resources. FPL experienced an average annual compound growth in summer peak demand of
approximately 4.0 percent from 1978 through 1988. Furthermore, demands within the FPL
service territory were projected to grow at a rate of approximately 2.4 percent per year over the
next 20 years (1988 - 2008). According to FPL, this growth in electric power demand is
primarily the result of population growth within FPL service territory (EPA, 1991).
FPL means for meeting power demand include alternatives such as construction (by FPL)
of new generating facilities, conservation, interruptible load, residential load control, purchasing
1-3
-------
power from other utilities, and purchasing power from "qualifying" cogeneration facilities.
Qualifying facilities are defined by the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (PURPA).
The Florida Public Service Commission (FPSC) is the regulatory authority that makes
the determination of need for a new steam electric generating facility in Florida. 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 cogeneration facility as
defined in PURPA guidelines. AES-CB had negotiated a contract with FPL for the sale of
capacity and energy at less than the statewide avoided cost; therefore FPSC determined the
CBCP to be a cost-effective alternative. Avoided cost is the energy and capacity costs that a
utility avoids by purchasing power from a cogenerator.
On October 23, 1990, the FPSC granted approval of an Amended Cogeneration
Agreement between FPL and AES-CB in the FPSC Order No. 23651. The Amended Contract
allows for the sale of additional electricity to FPL available as a result of SK's conversion to a
recycling operation. The Order states, "Since the language in the amended agreement allows for
a range of committed capacity, just like the original agreement, we find that the amended
agreement is consistent with the determination of need granted by this Commission pursuant to
Order No. 21491."
The FPSC issued Order No. 23907 on December 20, 1990 in response to an FPL petition
on Order No. 21491. The petition disputed the correctness of certain statements in the Order
concerning the standard of comparison for negotiated contracts for the sale of firm capacity and
energy. See Appendix E.
1.1.2 Project Location
The CBCP site is located approximately seven miles north-northeast of downtown
Jacksonville in Duval County, Florida near the confluence of the Broward and St. Johns Rivers
(Figures 1-1 and 1-2). The CBCP will be situated adjacent to their steam customer, SK. SK
owns a 425-acre site at the intersection of Hecksher Drive and Eastport Road. Hecksher Drive
is the southern boundary of the SK site; Eastport Road bisects the SK property from north to
south. The Broward River forms the western boundary of the SK/CBCP site.
1-4
-------
America:: Be
— ^^^^^^^^^^^^•^^^riHI^^BB^^^lB^B^^^^ ^ij ••^•^^IW^^^
Tffie^^ 'V < M~4"s-^ "I"'"- _j ;N
\^?Lookoiit tower ^" '; '• T |
)fe V ( '- \-P3Wo^eys,
^ ' ** "
.5
Scate /n Miles
.5 1
-^
Sca/e In Kilometers
FIGURE 1-1
SITE LOCATION
Cedar Bay Cogeneration Project
SOURCE: ENSR
1-5
-------
B
.5
Scate In Miles
0 51
Scale In Kilometers
FIGURE 1-2
SITE VICINITY
Cedar Bay Cogeneration Project
SOURCE: ENSR
1-6
-------
The CBCP site will occupy approximately 35 acres of SK property and is located west
of the SK mill, east of the Broward River. The area occupied by CBCP was formerly used for
storage of construction debris and lime mud from the mill. A rail yard is located to the north
and west of the CBCP site.
1.1.3 Identification of Applicants
The proposed project is a joint venture between CBC and SK. CBC is the lead applicant
for the necessary permits.
1.1.3.1 Cedar Bay Generating Company, Limited Partnership
Cedar Bay Generating Company, Limited Partnership is a Delaware limited partnership
that owns one hundred percent (100%) of the CBCP. CBC is the permit holder for the project.
It is also a general partner for Cedar Bay Generating Company, Limited Partnership.
The general partners of CBC are wholly-owned subsidiaries of Pacific Gas and Electric
Company (PG&E) and the Bechtel Group. Other CBCP participants have certain ownership
interest in these wholly-owned subsidiaries. U.S. Generating Company (USGen), a California
general partnership also comprised of wholly-owned subsidiaries of PG&E and the Bechtel
Group, manages the construction and operation of the CBCP.
In addition to CBCP, USGen manages the development, construction and operation of
a number of other power generation projects for other limited partnerships created by wholly-
owned subsidiaries of PG&E and the Bechtel Group. Currently, USGen has other projects either
in operation or construction in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York, Montana, and
Massachusetts that total more than 1,500 MW.
1.1.3.2 Seminole Kraft Corporation
SK is a privately held corporation which owns and operates the SK mill. St. Regis'
Jacksonville Kraft Mill was built in 1952 at Hecksher Drive and Eastport Road. The mill,
which produced liner-board and kraft paperboard, ceased operation in 1985. SK purchased the
facility, rehabilitated it, and reopened it in 1987. The SK paper mill continued to produce
unbleached liner-board and kraft paper from wood.
1-7
-------
Stone Container Corporation, which owns 80 percent of SK common stock, has
management responsibility for the mill and buys all the mill's output. The mill currently
employs approximately 350 people.
SK initiated conversion of their kraft operation in the summer of 1992 to a 100% waste
paperboard recycle operation. This new process produces unbleached liner-board from old
corrugated containers. The post-conversion production rate of product output is to remain at the
present level of 1,700 tons per day of liner-board.
1.1.4 Description of Project
The Cedar Bay Cogeneration Project is a 250-megawatt (MW), coal-fueled cogeneration
plant, producing two forms of energy: electricity and steam. It will provide electricity-enough
for about 190,000 homes~to Florida Power and Light Company, and steam, approximately
380,000 Ib/hr, to Seminole Kraft Corporation's adjacent recycled linerboard plant. CBCP will
be fueled by low-sulfur coal. It will have three circulating fluidized-bed (CFB) boilers. A
"fluidized-bed" is a suspension of crushed limestone and coal in a flow of hot air. The
limestone strips the sulfur from the coal during combustion, minimizing sulfur emissions. CBCP
will use selective non-catalytic reduction (SNCR) to reduce nitrogen oxides (NOJ. The SNCR
process introduces an ammonia and water solution into the exhaust stream, reducing NOX
emissions. CBCP will use SK wastewater for cooling and plant make-up. A zero-discharge
water treatment system will recycle wastewater internally, eliminating any wastewater discharges
to the Broward/St. Johns Rivers. CBCP has also implemented a variety of measures, including
retention ponds and an emergency storage tank, to allow stormwater runoff only in the event of
an extreme storm event (50 year/24 hour rainfall).
1.1.5 Permits Required
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) has granted a Certification to CBCP
as a Qualifying Facility under PURPA and the Florida Power Service Commission (PSC) has
determined a Need for Power (Appendix E). In order to construct the Project, CBC has had to
address permit requirements at the Federal, State, and local levels. In the State of Florida,
under the Florida Electrical Power Plant Siting Act (PPSA, Chapter 403.501-519, Florida
Statutes), CBCP has received a site certification from the State DER that encompasses the
majority of permits required to begin construction (see Section 1.2.2), including a PSD permit
for air emissions (Appendix D). At the Federal level, FAA has granted a Stack Height Waiver
(Appendix F). EPA has issued a NPDES permit to cover water discharges during construction
1-8
-------
(Appendix H). A NPDES permit for operations (Appendix A) is pending upon the successful
completion of this EIS.
1.2 ROLE OF FEDERAL AND STATE AGENCIES
1.2.1 EPA Responsibilities
1.2.1.1 NPDES Permit
The 1972 amendments to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, called the CWA (Title
33 of the United States Code, Part 1251 et seq.), created the NPDES. This system requires that
any discharger of pollutants to the waters of the United States obtain a permit. The NPDES
permit, the basic enforcement tool for water pollutant abatement under federal law, imposes
legally enforceable limitations on the discharger. Once the permit is issued, the discharger is
legally bound to meet its requirements. Any permit violation is subject to criminal and civil
penalties. EPA administers the NPDES permit program in Florida.
The CWA and associated regulations created three kinds of NPDES permits: existing
dischargers, new sources, and new dischargers. Existing dischargers are parties who were
dischargers of pollutants to waters of the United States before enactment of the NPDES program.
New sources are dischargers who initiate construction of a facility after EPA has developed New
Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for that particular industry. A new discharger is a
discharger who initiated construction of a discharging facility after the NPDES permit program
was initiated but before the issuance of the applicable NSPS.
NSPS have been issued for the steam electric generating industry at Title 40 of the Code
of Federal Regulations, Part 423.15 (written 40 CFR 423.15). The CBCP is determined to be
a new source covered by these NSPS. New source NPDES permits are subject to NEPA
requirements (see Section 1.2.1.2 EIS, below).
An NPDES permit sets limits on pollutants that could be generated by the permitted
activity. The permit may also contain monitoring and reporting conditions that help evaluate the
effectiveness of the pollution control systems. Only conditions related to water quality may be
added to the NPDES permit.
If it is determined that a proposed discharge will not be in compliance with NSPS or
water quality standards, EPA would deny the NPDES permit. Furthermore, EPA could deny
1-9
-------
the permit if environmental resources such as air quality, endangered species, or wetlands are
significantly impacted and measures proposed for mitigating the impacts are unacceptable.
If the permit is denied by EPA, an applicant would have the options of legally disputing
the determination; redesigning the project to respond to stated deficiencies and resubmitting the
application; locating and evaluating another site; redesigning the project to eliminate water
discharges and the consequent need for the NPDES permit; or discontinuing their permit request.
The applicant has received all permits necessary to begin operation of the CBCP except
a new source NPDES permit which is required for stormwater discharges from the site during
plant operation. The CBCP is a zero discharge facility with the potential to discharge
stormwater runoff in a high rainfall event. Thus, the applicant may operate the facility without
the NPDES permit if confident no discharges will occur. However, any discharge of wastewater
or runoff from the site would be a violation of the CWA.
Issuance of the new source NPDES permit for the CBCP would allow for stormwater
overflows discharges to the Broward River up to the limits in the permit. EPA proposes to issue
the NPDES permit for the CBCP. All proposed limitations of the draft NPDES permit are
tentative and subject to comment from all reviewers during the public comment period. A copy
of the NPDES permit (No. FL0061204) is in Appendix A.
1.2.1.2 EIS
EPA must comply with NEPA environmental review procedures in 40 CFR 6.600 et seq.
before issuance of a new source NPDES permit. NEPA requires that federal agencies prepare
an EIS on every major federal action which significantly affects the quality of the human
environment. (Note: A new source under the Clean Air Act is not subject to independent NEPA
review.)
Under NEPA regulatory guidelines, a federal agency must consider all environmental
impacts of a proposed action in their decision-making process. NEPA also requires
coordination of other federal laws such as the Endangered Species Act, the National Historic
Preservation Act, and Executive Order 11990 for the Protection of Wetlands. Public
involvement is an integral part of the NEPA process.
1-10
-------
EPA's NEPA regulations outline procedures for preparing an EIS. The EIS preparation
process begins with a Notice of Intent to prepare an EIS. Then an agency conducts project
"scoping," often including a public scoping meeting, to determine what key issues are to be
addressed in the document. A Draft EIS is prepared which includes discussions of:
• the purpose of and need for the action,
• alternatives,
• the affected environment,
• the environmental consequences, and
• mitigative measures for the proposed project.
Distribution of the Draft EIS to interested parties initiates a public comment period of
no less than 45 days, during which EPA accepts written comments on the document. After at
least 30 days into the comment period, EPA may hold a Public Hearing to receive comments
on the Draft EIS.
All comments received on the Draft EIS are considered and documented in a Final EIS.
The Final EIS is distributed and comments are again welcomed during a period of no less than
30 days.
Assuming resolution of all outstanding issues, EPA would then issue a Record of
Decision (ROD) (and, in this case, the NPDES permit). The ROD, which is a formal approval
of the proposed action, would include EPA's response to any comments received during the
Final EIS comment period. Any interested person may contest EPA's decision by submitting
a timely request for an evidentiary hearing (procedures given in 40 CFR 124.74).
The Florida Power Plant Siting Board granted Site Certification to the CBCP on May 11,
1993 (Appendix B). On May 14, 1993, the applicant withdrew the obsolete NPDES permit
application for process wastewaters. They also submitted a new NPDES permit application to
EPA for stormwater discharges during CBCP operations. The new permit application
reactivated EPA's NEPA process and this Final EIS was prepared.
EPA typically addresses all comments on a Draft EIS in the Final EIS. Most comments
made on the 1990 Draft EIS/SAR have been addressed at the state and local levels as evidenced
by the subsequent changes to the project. Any comments not resolved by project changes as
1-11
-------
described in this Final EIS have been addressed in Chapter 7, Public Participation. Chapter 7
also contains an summary of oral and written comments that EPA received during the EIS
process.
No additional public meetings are planned in conjunction with this Final EIS unless there
is significant public demand for it or important issues are raised which were not addressed in
previous meetings or in this document. Written comments are encouraged and will be
considered in the NEPA process.
Under NEPA, EPA would hold a Public Hearing if (1) there is substantial environmental
controversy concerning the proposed action or substantial interest in holding the meeting; or (2)
EPA receives a request for a Hearing by another agency with jurisdiction over the action
supported by reasons why a Hearing would be helpful [CEQ regulations 36 CFR 1506.6(c)
(1,2)]. Criteria for holding a Public Hearing under the NPDES regulations are given in the
Draft NPDES permit in Appendix A.
1.2.1.3 PSD Permit
The Clean Air Act requires that a facility receive a Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD) permit before construction. A PSD permit typically addresses emission
controls (including NSPS and Best Available Control Technology, or BACT); existing ambient
air quality; projected impacts on air quality due to the proposed facility; impacts on soils and
vegetation; impacts on visibility-especially at PSD Class I areas; and secondary impacts due to
population growth resulting from the project.
FDER has full PSD permitting authority through its State Implementation Plan. EPA's
role is one of program oversight and technical assistance. FDER's permitting process is
discussed in Section 1.1.2.2.
1.2.2 Florida PEP Responsibilities
1.2.2.1 Power Plant Siting Act
Under the Florida Electrical Power Plant Siting Act (PPSA, Chapter 403.501-519,
Florida Statutes), FDER must prepare an SAR upon which the State's decision to license any
1-12
-------
new steam electric power plant will be made. Accordance to the PPSA, no construction or
expansion of a new electrical power plant may be initiated without Site Certification by the State.
The objective of the PPSA program is to provide a comprehensive, coordinated, one-stop
permitting approach to the state's evaluation of electric power plant location and operation.
To obtain Site Certification, an applicant files a SCA with FDER pursuant to Chapter 17-
17, Florida Administrative Code (FAC). Following its review of the SCA, FDER develops the
SAR including Conditions of Certification in consultation with EPA and other state and local
agencies. The FPSC, the Florida Department of Community Affairs (FDCA), and the St. Johns
River Water Management District (SJRWMD) are required by statute or rule to prepare reports
on a Site Certification SCA on matters within their jurisdiction. Copies of the SCA are also sent
to other State, regional, and municipal agencies with a request for comments. The Jacksonville
Regulatory/ Environmental Services Department (RESD) was involved in the CBCP SCA
review.
The SAR and Conditions of Certification are considered by a state Hearing Officer
appointed by the Florida Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH) and a state hearing is
held. The purpose of the hearing is to determine whether the state Siting Board should approve
in whole, approve with modifications, or deny the issuance of Certification. If Certification is
to be approved, the proper Conditions of Certification would be developed during the hearing.
If Certification is to be denied, the action(s) the applicant would have to take to secure approval
are decided.
The hearing officer prepares a Recommended Order (RO) for consideration by the
Florida Governor and Cabinet who comprise the Power Plant Siting Board. The Siting Board
makes the final decision regarding Site Certification of the proposed project.
The CBCP was granted conditional Site Certification in February 1991, and full
Certification in May 1993. The reader is referred to Section 1.3, History of the CBCP, for
more information. Appendix B contains a copy of the Siting Board's Final Order and the state's
Conditions of Certification.
1-13
-------
1.2.2.2 401 Certification
FDER administers a wastewater discharge permit program under the Florida Air and
Water Pollution Control Act. For the CBCP, however, EPA is responsible for writing the
NPDES permit. Before the NPDES permit becomes effective, FDER must certify it under
Section 401 of the CWA.
1.2.2.3 PSD Permit
The PSD permit application review occurs concurrently with review of the SCA. FDER
issues a preliminary determination on the PSD permit at the same time as the SAR issuance.
This includes a public notice which initiates a public comment period during which a PSD public
hearing may be requested. The State Certification Hearing proceedings on the SCA often
includes a PSD summary and must include PSD information if a PSD hearing is requested. If
the Hearing Officer recommends Certification of the project in the RO, PSD permit issuance
(with a final determination) would follow Siting Board concurrence with the RO.
Should FDER recommend denial of the PSD permit, an applicant could redesign the
facility to reduce emissions or attempt to reduce emissions from other facilities. Further, the
PSD permit and the Site Certification cannot be issued if the NAAQS are predicted to be
exceeded in the impact area of the project. If exceedences are predicted to occur, or if there
will be a significant increase in the level of a pollutant in a non-attainment area, the applicant
would be given the opportunity to mitigate those impacts (see Section 3.1.3).
FDER issued a PSD permit for the CBCP (Appendix D), with EPA concurrence, on
March 28, 1991. Subsequent modifications to project design are expected to lower emissions.
The state Conditions of Certification (May 1993) now impose lower emission limits than those
stated in the 1991 PSD permit. The applicant has requested that the 1991 PSD permit be
modified to reflect the lower limits.
1.2.3 Other Federal and State Requirements
Because of the CBCP's proximity to Jacksonville International Airport, the applicant was
required to notify the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) of construction activities. The
FAA found that "the proposed construction would not exceed FAA obstruction standards and
1-14
-------
would not be hazard to air navigation." The FAA does require that the 425 foot stack be
marked and lighted (Appendix F).
The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, signed into law in November 1990 may have
an impact on the CBCP in the future but does not affect the current permitting process. Title
IV, Acid Deposition Control, of this act is designed specifically for coal burning plants. The
goal of reducing the total emissions of sulfur and nitrogen oxides from power plants may affect
the CBCP facility. The schedule dates for these reductions are the year 1997 for nitrogen oxides
and 2000 for sulfur oxides. Refer to Section 3.1.3 for more detailed information on this topic.
1.3 HISTORY OF PROJECT
Table 1-1 presents a summary of major events by date.
St. Regis' Jacksonville Kraft Mill was built in 1952 at Hecksher Drive and Eastport
Road, east of the Broward River. The mill, which produced liner-board and kraft paperboard,
ceased operation in 1985. SK purchased the facility, rehabilitated it, and reopened it in 1987.
The SK paper mill continued to produce unbleached liner-board and kraft paper.
The CBCP was developed after a series of studies conducted by AES-CB and SK. AES-
CB was searching for a suitable cogeneration site. SK was seeking to modernize the paper mill
and to replace their chemical recovery boilers to comply with new air emission limitations on
total reduced sulfur (TRS), a significant source of odors.
Steam provided by the CBCP would allow SK to shut down five antiquated boilers not
subject to current air quality standards. Initial plans also included replacement of three recovery
boilers with one larger recovery boiler. The reduction in air emissions from these modernization
efforts was expected to offset CBCP emissions at the SK site.
On November 14, 1988, AES-CB and SK submitted a SCA and an NPDES permit
application to FDER and EPA, respectively. The NPDES application triggered the EIS process
(see Section 1.2.1). EPA and FDER sponsored a public scoping meeting on January 25, 1989,
in Jacksonville, Florida, to obtain public input on key issues to be addressed in the joint
EIS/SAR. Issues of concern raised at the scoping meeting included air and water pollution,
groundwater usage, ecological impacts, export of power to south Florida, noise and traffic
impacts, solid waste disposal, and impacts of a coal conveyor across the Broward River. Refer
to Chapter 7, Public Participation, for a complete list of issues.
1-15
-------
TABLE 1-1
CEDAR BAY COGENERATION PROJECT
HISTORY TIMELINE
Date
November 1988
January 1989
June 1989
February 1990
July 1990
August 1990
October 1990
February 1991
March 1991
June 1991
July 1991
November 1991
March 1992
March 1992
April 1992
May 1992
June 1992
October 1992
October 1992
March 1993
April 1993
May 1993
May 1993
December 1993
Event
AES-CB and SK submit SCA and NPDES permit
Draft EIS/SAR Scoping Meeting
FPSC Determination of Need for power
State Site Certification Hearing
Draft EIS/SAR Public Hearing
Siting Board RO Remand to DOAH
Supplemental Site Certification Hearings
Conditional Site Certification granted
PSD (air emissions) permit issued
Construction initiated
AES-CB submits revised NPDES permit application with
request to bifurcate (construction separate from operation
discharges)
SK announces plans to refurbish boilers
Special Council appointed to investigate whether Siting
Board was misled on the boiler issue
EPA public meetings on EIS and construction discharge
permit
SK plans to install new boilers instead of refurbishing old
ones
Siting Board votes to revoke Certification
Siting Board agrees to modified approach rather than
revocation
EPA construction stormwater discharge permit effective
USGen takes over project management
FDER approval of project modifications
Site Certification Hearing on modifications canceled after
settlement reached
Siting Board grants Site Certification
Applicant withdrawal of NPDES permit; submits revised
application
CBCP scheduled to begin operation
1-16
-------
In the ensuing months, EPA and FDER prepared the Draft EIS/SAR, which described
the proposed project, alternatives, impacts, and mitigative measures. (The PPSA requires FDER
to prepare an SAR containing information similar to that required in an EIS. This requirement
led EPA and FDER to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding and to agree to prepare a
single document.)
Also during this time, local opposition to the project was growing. The Jacksonville City
Council passed a Resolution on June 27, 1989, opposing the CBCP. A Citizen's Committee,
which was set up to investigate the project's environmental impacts, became leaders of the
opposition movement. Several local civic and environmental groups joined forces with the
Citizen's Committee. Some of these groups eventually became formal intervenors in the state's
Site Certification process.
As required by the PPSA (see Section 1.2.2), the Florida DOAH conducted State
Certification Hearings (February 5-7, 1990). The Hearing Officer prepared an RO for
consideration by the State Siting Board. The RO recommended that the Siting Board certify the
project with the proper Conditions of Certification.
The joint Draft EIS/SAR, which included a draft NPDES permit, was issued on June 8,
1990. EPA held a Public Hearing in Jacksonville, Florida on July 12, 1990 to receive
comments on the document and permit. Several issues were raised during the Draft EIS/SAR
comment period. Many of the concerns that had been raised at the scoping meeting were
reiterated. Air and water pollution and groundwater usage were the issues of most concern.
Noise, traffic, solid waste disposal, and export of power were still concerns. New concerns
included SK odor problems, light pollution, leaking petroleum tanks, impact of train passage on
emergency routes, cumulative impacts, stack height, land use policies, and human health
impacts. Refer to Chapter 7, Public Participation, for a complete list.
The state Siting Board met on August 14, 1990 for consideration of the CBCP (Case No.
88-5740). After review of the RO and argument of interested parties in the matter, the Board
concluded that several issues had not been adequately addressed in the RO. The project was
remanded back to the DOAH with a request to prepare a supplemental RO dealing with the
following issues: (1) whether a balance between the need for the facility and the environmental
impacts had been achieved; (2) whether the design of the project and choice of fuels would
produce minimal adverse effects; (3) whether there were other methods to treat or mitigate for
copper in the proposed dewatering discharge; and (4) whether the applicant could use some
source other than groundwater as the permanent primary source of cooling water.
1-17
-------
Issue number (4), above, stemmed from public concerns about the proposed use of
potable water from the Floridan Aquifer for cooling. Water restrictions in Jacksonville had
raised the sensitivity of citizens to the permitting of new withdrawals of groundwater (the city's
drinking water source) for industrial use. Also, Florida, through the state Water Policy (FAC
17-40), encourages the use of water of the lowest acceptable quality for the purpose intended.
Consequently, AES-CB proposed several modifications to the CBCP. These included (1)
reducing the dewatering flows to achieve the copper discharge limit, (2) a commitment to use
either surface water or reclaimed water (treated wastewater effluent) for cooling unless neither
was permittable by FDER and EPA, and (3) implementation of a "Groundwater Mitigation Plan"
if groundwater was ultimately used for cooling.
DOAH conducted a supplemental state Certification Hearing on October 29 and 30, 1990,
to address the Siting Board's concerns and the proposed project revisions. On December 5,
1990, the Hearing Officer issued the supplemental RO. The RO recommended that the Siting
Board certify the CBCP with modified Conditions of Certification which reflected AES-CB's
proposed changes.
On February 11, 1991, the state Siting Board issued conditional Certification to the
CBCP, providing the necessary state approval for construction of the facility. Certification was
conditional in that it prohibited the use of groundwater for cooling. As AES-CB's NPDES
permit application was based on use of groundwater for cooling, EPA's review of the CBCP
application and EIS preparation was temporarily suspended. AES-CB began a major redesign
effort in response to the Board's order.
On March 28, 1991, FDER issued the PSD permit (Permit No. PSD-FL-137) for the
CBCP (see Section 1.2). EPA submitted concerns to FDER regarding the PSD permit but
deferred the permit decision to FDER. FDER addressed EPA's concerns in their Final
Determination (Appendix D).
AES-CB began construction of the CBCP in June 1991 before receiving all permits
necessary for operation. The CBCP had received all state approvals necessary to initiate
construction. AES-CB had eliminated the dewatering discharge which made a new source
NPDES permit and Final EIS unnecessary for construction activities.
On July 15, 1991, AES-CB submitted revisions to the NPDES permit application. These
revisions reflected the selection of SK wastewater as the cooling source for the CBCP and the
1-18
-------
deletion of the dewatering discharge. FDER and EPA began reviewing AES-CB's project
modifications. At this point, EPA began preparation of a Revised Draft EIS. The EIS was to
include a risk assessment to determine human health impacts from CBCP air emissions.
The CBCP did require an NPDES permit to allow discharge of construction-related
stormwater. AES-CB requested that EPA separate the construction stormwater discharge permit
from the other discharges under review (i.e., operational discharges).
This "bifurcation" of the NPDES permit was requested because AES-CB had begun construction
activities at the site. A construction discharge permit of this type is not subject to NEPA
requirements; thus completion of the EIS was not required for its issuance.
During 1990, SK had decided to convert their kraft paper mill to a recycled paperboard
operation by mid-1992. This conversion would eliminate the need for any recovery boilers and
would allow SK to comply with TRS limitations.
In November 1991, SK announced plans to refurbish three of the five old boilers that
were to be shut down when CBCP began operation. The refurbished boilers were needed to
provide the SK process steam that was to have been provided by the new recovery boiler. This
was apparently contrary to the Conditions of Certification which required that the five specific
boilers (three oil-, two bark-fired) were to be shut down permanently.
On March 6, 1992, in response to that contradiction, the Siting Board requested that the
Attorney General appoint a Special Counsel to investigate the CBCP Certification to determine
(1) whether any material false statements were made by any party in connection with the
Certification application, (2) if so, whether a true statement in place of the false statements
would have warranted the Siting Board's refusal to recommend Certification for the facility as
proposed, and (3) whether any fact or circumstance warrants suspension, revocation, or other
disciplinary action directed at the CBCP Certification. The reader is referred to FDER's revised
SAR in Appendix G for a more complete discussion of the issues.
In February 1992, EPA issued a draft NPDES permit for construction-related stormwater
discharges. EPA held two public meetings in Jacksonville on March 11, 1992. The first
meeting, enthusiastically attended by a divided group of approximately 500 opponents and
supporters, was an informational meeting to discuss the progress of the Revised Draft EIS and
risk assessment. The second meeting was a Public Hearing on the construction-related
stormwater NPDES permit.
1-19
-------
In early April 1992, SK announced their intention not to refurbish the boilers, but rather
to replace them with new gas-fired boilers.
On April 14, 1992, the Special Counsel found that although AES-CB and SK withheld
information concerning the SK boilers, there was no legal cause to warrant suspension or
revocation of the Site Certification. FDER reviewed the Special Counsel's report and issued a
response to the Siting Board which disagreed with the conclusion of the Special Counsel. FDER
recommended that the Siting Board direct AES-CB and SK to show cause why the CBCP Site
Certification should not be suspended or revoked.
On May 5, 1992, the Siting Board voted to begin proceedings to revoke the Site
Certification. AES-CB began negotiations with FDER in an effort to seek modification rather
than total revocation of the Certification. AES-CB proposed several modifications, including
provision of funds to purchase environmentally sensitive lands, reductions in air emissions, and
a new wastewater treatment scheme.
AES-CB's proposed wastewater treatment scheme was as follows: In Phase I, the CBCP
would use a percentage of treated SK wastewater for cooling tower makeup. AES-CB would
install a zero-discharge system to eliminate all CBCP process wastewater discharges. Treated
water would be recycled back to the cooling system and the SK cooling system, reducing SK
ground water withdrawals. In Phase II if an NPDES permit could be obtained, and if
environmental benefits could be demonstrated, AES-CB would convert the zero discharge system
to a system that would provide further treatment for all of the treated SK wastewater and
discharge the portion not evaporated in both cooling processes to the St. Johns River.
The Siting Board met on June 16, 1992, to decide whether to accept these modifications
or revoke the Certification. The Board agreed not to proceed with revocation; but ordered that
the proposed modifications must be such that, on balance, the environmental impacts of the
"modified" CBCP plus the addition of any boilers on the SK site, will be less than the impacts
of the SK operation without the power plant.
After this decision, the lending consortium financing construction of the CBCP withdrew
their support of AES-CB and sought a new project management team. In October 1992, USGen
took over management of the CBCP (see Section 1.1.3 Identification of Applicants). Still bound
to implement the modifications proposed by AES-CB and bound to the requirements of the Siting
Board, USGen continued design of the CBCP. Meanwhile, the EPA NPDES permit for
construction-related storm water discharges became effective on October 1, 1992 (Appendix H).
1-20
-------
The new applicant proposed several design changes to the zero-discharge scheme (Phase
I) including a Reverse Osmosis technology and the recycling of other CBCP wastewater streams.
the applicant's analysis of Phase II of the wastewater treatment system showed, to the
satisfaction of FDER, that no environmental benefits would be realized with its implementation.
The applicant proposed additional design changes to the project, including Selective Non-
Catalytic Reduction controls for nitrogen oxide emissions, testing of a carbon injection system
for removal of mercury, and use of coal with lower sulfur content than previously permitted.
The applicant also prepared a human health and ecological risk assessment on CBCP air
emissions to supplement and complete the analyses done by FDER and EPA.
FDER approved the modifications on March 24, 1993 and issued revisions to their SAR
(Appendix G). The state Modification hearing was scheduled for mid-April. During the
preliminary hearing, all intervenors dropped their opposition to the project and agreed to a
settlement (Appendix B). The hearing was canceled and the Hearing Officer submitted an RO
recommending approval of the modifications to the Siting Board. The Jacksonville City Council
passed a resolution in support of the revised project on April 14, 1993.
On May 11, 1993, the Siting Board approved the proposed modifications, thereby
granting final state Site Certification to the CBCP (Appendix B). The CBCP is scheduled to
begin operation in December 1993.
On May 14, 1993, the applicant asked EPA to withdraw the obsolete NPDES permit
application for process wastewaters; they then submitted a new NPDES permit application for
stormwater discharges during CBCP operations. The new permit application re-started EPA's
NEPA process and preparation of this Final EIS.
1-21
-------
-------
CHAPTER 2
ALTERNATIVES EVALUATED
-------
-------
2.0 ALTERNATIVES EVALUATED
NEPA requires that an EIS describe project alternatives including those available to EPA
or other permitting agencies as well as alternatives considered by the applicant. EPA's
regulatory alternatives are discussed in Section 2.1, below. Project design alternatives
considered by AES-CB, for the project as it was originally proposed, are included in the 1990
Draft EIS/SAR.
The fact that the CBCP has already received state Site Certification and has almost
completed construction somewhat restricts the alternatives analysis in this Final EIS. Section
2.2 presents the originally-proposed CBCP as an alternative for comparison with the CBCP as
certified. The CBCP as certified is described in Section 2.3. The No Build Alternative is also
presented in Section 2.4.
2.1 REGULATORY ALTERNATIVES
The applicant has received all permits necessary to begin operation of the CBCP except
an NPDES permit which is required for stormwater discharges from the site during plant
operation. The CBCP is a zero discharge facility with the potential to discharge stormwater
runoff in a high rainfall event. Thus, the applicant may operate the facility without the NPDES
permit if confident no discharges will occur. However, any discharge of wastewater or runoff
from the site would be a violation of the CWA.
The alternatives available to EPA under Section 402 of the CWA are to issue, issue with
conditions, or to deny the new source NPDES permit requested for the CBCP stormwater
discharges.
Issuance of the NPDES permit will allow discharge of stormwater overflow due to high
rainfall runoff to the Broward River up to the limits set forth in the permit. The permit may be
modified by certain conditions, such as additional monitoring and reporting, to evaluate the
effectiveness of the pollution control systems. Such conditions are added to a permit if the
impacts of the plant operation require special mitigation practices. Denial of the NPDES permit
would be the No Federal Action Alternative.
EPA proposes to issue the NPDES permit for the CBCP. All proposed limitations of the
draft NPDES permit are tentative and subject to comment from all reviewers during the public
comment period. A copy of the NPDES permit (No. FL0061204) can be found in Appendix A.
2-1
-------
If it is determined that the proposed CBCP operational discharges into the Broward River
will not be in compliance with NSPS or water quality standards, EPA would deny the NPDES
permit. Furthermore, EPA could deny the permit if environmental resources such as air quality,
endangered species, historic or archeological sites, wetlands, or floodplains are significantly
impacted and measures proposed for mitigating the impacts are unacceptable.
If the permit is denied by EPA, the applicant would have the options of adjudicating the
determination; redesigning the project to respond to stated deficiencies and resubmitting the
application; redesigning the project to eliminate water discharges and the consequent need for
the NPDES permit; or discontinuing their permit request.
2.2 THE CBCP AS PROPOSED BY AES/CB
In 1988, AES-CB proposed to construct and operate the CBCP at the SK site. The
project as originally proposed and project alternatives were described in the Draft EIS/SAR
issued by EPA in May 1990. Copies of this document are available on request (see inside
cover) and the Executive Summary of the Draft EIS/SAR is included in Appendix C.
Since the Draft EIS/SAR was issued, the CBCP has undergone several changes in project
design (see Section 1.3, History, for explanation). The CBCP as finally certified by the state
is described in Section 2.3. This Section presents the originally proposed CBCP as an
alternative for comparison with the CBCP as certified.
The major elements of the originally proposed project which have since changed are
summarized in Table 2-1. Many of the project design changes were required by FDER and the
state Siting Board. The reader is referred to Section 1.3 History of the Project for a discussion.
2.3 THE CBCP AS CONSTRUCTED BY THE APPLICANT (CBC ALTERNATIVE)
CBC proposes to construct and operate a new coal-fired steam electric cogeneration
facility currently under construction on the site of the existing SK paper mill. The CBCP will
produce up to 250 MW for sale to FPL as well as up to 380,000 Ib/hr of steam for use by SK.
2.3.1 The Project Site
The CBCP is located in an industrial area outside of Jacksonville, approximately seven
miles north-northeast of downtown (see Figures 1-1 and 1-2). CBCP will occupy 35 acres of
2-2
-------
TABLE 2-1
COMPARISON OF AES ALTERNATIVE AND CBC ALTERNATIVE
CBCP
As Originally Proposed
225 MW for sale to FPL
640,000 Ib/hr steam to SK
Use groundwater for cooling
Maximum of 7 MOD groundwater withdrawal
Several NPDES-regulated wastewater discharges to
St. Johns and Broward Rivers:
construction dewatering
cooling tower blowdown
boiler blowdown
metal cleaning wastes
low volume wastes
stormwater overflows
Control for NOx by proper boiler design and
operation
No special control for mercury emissions
Coal sulfur content (annual average): 3.3%
Construction of coal conveyor across Broward River
Total air emissions permitted: 15,000 TPY
SK to shut down 5 old boilers; SK plans to replace
3 recovery boilers with 1 large recovery boiler
Possible impact to small wetland on site from rail
line construction
detailed project description as originally proposed
can be found in the 1990 Draft EIS/SAR
CBCP
As Certified
250 MW for sale to FPL
380,000 Ib/hr steam to SK
Use SK wastewater and recycle internal waste
streams for cooling
Maximum of 1.2 MGD groundwater withdrawal
Zero-discharge facility; only one NPDES-regulated
discharge to Broward River:
stormwater overflow
Selective Non-catalytic Reduction control for NOx
Test a carbon injection system for mercury control
Coal sulfur content (annual average): 1.2%
Conveyor across Broward River eliminated from
project design
Total air emissions permitted: 8,000 TPY
SK to shut down 5 old boilers; SK plans for 3 new
gas-fired boilers
On site wetland impact avoided
refer to detailed project description as certified
in Section 2.3 of this Final EIS
2-3
-------
425 acres owned by SK. The plant is being built on an area that was formerly used for storage
of lime mud and is located to the west adjacent to the existing SK mill.
CBCP is located near two Jacksonville Electric Authority (TEA) power plants - the St.
Johns River Power Park (SJRPP) and the Northside Power Plant. The SJRPP is located east of
CBCP approximately 3 miles away, and Northside Power Plant is also located to the east, about
4 miles away.
2.3.2 Plant Orientation and Appearance
The CBCP will consist of three CFB boilers, a single steam turbine driven electrical
generator, steam pipelines to supply the SK paper mill, mechanical draft cooling towers, 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 Jacksonville
Electric Authority (JEA) and FPL power network systems. The CBCP has been designed to
blend in with the profile of the existing SK paper mill, with the exception of the exhaust stack
which is much taller (425 feet). The mechanical draft cooling tower array is located near the
center of the CBCP plant area. Existing vegetation along the Broward River will provide a
partial screen for the plant facilities.
2.3.3 Facility Description
2.3.3.1 Power Generation System
The CBCP will employ a single steam driven turbine electrical generator using steam
produced by the three coal-fired CFB boilers. The boilers will produce steam at 1890 pounds
per square inch, gauge (psig), for the single automatic extraction condensing turbine generator.
This system will produce up to 250 MW for sale to FPL as well as electricity for operation of
the CBCP and 380,000 Ib/hr of 600 psig steam for sale to the SK paper mill.
Fossil-fueled steam electric power plants such as the CBCP produce electricity in a four
stage process:
• Fossil fuel is burned in a boiler furnace, heating the boiler water which produces
pressurized and superheated steam.
2-4
-------
• Steam is used to turn the blades of a turbine which drive an electric generator to
produce electricity. In the CBCP, some steam will be provided to SK for use in
their operations.
• Low pressure steam leaving the turbine enters a condenser where it is condensed
to water. The steam's heat is transferred to a cooling medium which is normally
water. In the CBCP, approximately 73% of the cooling water will evaporate in
the mechanical draft cooling towers; the remainder will be treated for reuse.
• Finally, some of the condensed steam is pumped back into the boiler to complete
the cycle. A small percentage of this water, called blowdown, must be drawn off
and replaced with fresh boiler makeup water. This prevents buildup of
contaminants in the boiler water.
2.3.3.2 Materials Handling
2.3.3.2.1 Fuel Transportation and Handling
The CBCP facility is permitted to burn 1.17 million tons of eastern Kentucky coal per
year. Short fiber recycle rejects from SK operations are permitted up to 139,179 cubic yards
per year (wet). Within a year after initial emissions compliance, there will be a 30-day trial
burn of short fiber rejects. The test burn will be designed to ascertain (1) whether the CFBs can
burn the rejects as supplemental fuel without exceeding any of the limitations on emissions and
fuel usage contained in the Conditions of Certification, (2) without causing any operational
problems, and (3) without violating any other environmental regulations. All estimates of fuel
transportation and handling were based on 100 percent coal-fired operation.
The coal will be delivered to the site by train using the existing CSX Railroad lines via
an existing spur to the SK site. The line from which the SK spur branches is currently used for
unit train coal delivery to the SJRPP a few miles east of the SK site. This line is not expected
to need upgrading for the CBCP. Modifications will, however, be necessary to the SK spur.
The applicant has upgraded the track south of the switchyard. This required a double track
extension after the causeway until a point near the emergency water storage tank, where the
double track merges into a single track for engine switching. The rail corridor and extension
layout are shown in Figure 2-1.
2-5
-------
K)
O\
402.51 CB1 -CFB
63' CB2 - Limestone Dryers
63' CB3- - '
2001 SKI - Package Boiler
106' SK2 - Power Boiler
SK3- " "
SK4- • '
136' SK5- Bark Boiler
SK6- ' •
- ±j Mill onic» 11 Chemical Storage | | |
FIGURE 2-1
BUILDING AND STACK
CONFIGURATION
Cedar Bay Cogeneration Project
-------
There will be a maximum of one train every three days with approximately 90 cars per
train, and a maximum of 106 tons of coal per car. The railcars will be unloaded within an
enclosed building. The bottom dumping facility will unload coal by positioning slow moving
cars over a receiving hopper and opening the railcar hopper doors to drop the coal. Cars will
be unloaded at a rate of 6 to 15 cars per hour.
The coal stockout system after rail car unloading will consist of an automatically loaded
conveyor which moves the coal from the receiving hopper to the coal storage lowering well.
Mobile equipment will be used to move the coal from the lowering well to the lined storage
area. The coal storage area is to be located south of the steam generation building. It is
designed to hold 105,000 tons of coal, which is approximately a 30 day supply. Stormwater
runoff from the storage area will be collected and routed to a lined retention basin.
2.3.3.2.2 Limestone Handling
Handling of limestone, which will be used during CFB boiler operation to control sulfur
emissions, consists of delivery, unloading, stockout, reclaiming, preparation, drying, and
storage. Stormwater runoff from the storage area (shown in Figure 2-1) is to be collected and
routed to a lined retention basin.
Limestone will be transported from the barge terminal at Blount Island to the site via
truck. No more than 320,000 tons per year will be used or handled.
2.3.3.3 Emission Controls
Air pollution control equipment will be used on the CFB boilers to control emissions of
the major criteria pollutants. These include sulfur oxides (SOX, primarily SO^, NOX, CO,
VOCs, particulates [including total paniculate matter (PM) and paniculate matter less than 10
micrometers in diameter (PM 10)], and fugitive dust. Other trace pollutants will be controlled
by the air pollution equipment used for the major criteria pollutants. The applicant will test an
additional control to reduce mercury emissions (see Section 2.3.3.3.4 Controls for Mercury).
All air pollution control systems are designed to meet federal NSPS and the more
stringent BACT requirements of the PSD permit. Section 3.1 Air Resources, includes a
summary of the state and federal regulatory requirements for CBCP air emissions. The air
quality control systems are designed to the maximum, "worst case", basis assuming the
maximum permitted sulfur contents of 1.7% (train-load basis) and 1.2% (annual basis) by weight
2-7
-------
and ash content of 16% in the coal, and a minimum heating value of 12,000 British thermal units
(Btu) per pound.
The burning of short fiber recycle rejects is limited to no more than 210 cubic yards
(wet) per day for Boiler B and Boiler C. Maximum combined total capacity charging rate of
short fiber recycle rejects is 420 ydVday (wet basis) or 139,176 ydVyr (wet basis). Because
short fiber rejects comprise such a small percentage of the total, all air quality evaluations for
the CBCP were based on 100 percent coal-fired operation.
The CFB is considered a "concurrent combustion/emission control process" technology;
that is, air emissions are controlled within the combustion chamber, in this case by limestone
injection and efficient combustion. Much of the sulfur is removed during combustion by the
absorbent limestone. Also, in this process, nitrogen oxides (NOJ production is low because of
the relatively low temperature at which the combustion reaction takes place. NOX will be further
controlled in the CFB boilers with the selective non-catalytic reduction (SNCR) process.
2.3.3.3.1 PM and Fugitive Dust Controls
PM from the CFB boilers will be controlled by a fabric filter system. At the permitted
annual heat input, 234 TPY of PM will be emitted.
Fugitive particulates may be generated by the dissolved and suspended solids in the
cooling tower. PM in the cooling tower drift will be controlled by the use of drift eliminators.
Drift, as used in this document, is defined in the Glossary (Appendix Q).
PM emissions may also be generated by coal handling, limestone handling, fly ash
handling, and the flue gas desulfurization (FGD) waste handling and disposal systems. Control
measures are planned as follows:
• Fabric Filters - fabric filters, or baghouse controls, will be installed on the
following sources: coal crusher building, coal silo conveyor, limestone pulverizer
and 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.
Each of these sources will have an emission limitation of 0.003 grains per dry
standard cubic foot of air (gr/dscf).
2-8
-------
• Wet Suppression - wet suppression/removal techniques will be used to control
emissions from the following sources: coal car unloading, ash pellet hydrator,
ash pellet curing silo, ash pelletizing. Each of these sources will have an
emission limitation of 0.01 gr/dscf.
2.3.3.3.2 SOn Controls
SOX will be controlled by chemical reaction with limestone injected into the CFB.
Combustion within the fluidized bed places the SOX in direct contact with calcium in the
limestone. The chemical reaction between SOX and calcium effectively removes much of the SOX
from the exhaust gases.
With the PSD permit requirement to concurrently shut down the SK oil fired Power
Boilers (three units), as well as the Bark Boilers (two units), the net emissions of SQ for the
project will be lowered; e.g., a decrease of 384 TPY. The state Conditions of Certification
place a requirement that the emissions from the three CBCP CFB boilers not exceed 2,598 TPY
(see Appendix B).
2.3.3.3.3 NO, Controls
Emissions of NOX from the CFB boilers are proposed to be controlled using selective
non-catalytic reduction (SNCR). The SNCR process is based on the chemical reaction between
NOX and injected ammonia to produce gaseous nitrogen and water vapor. Controlled NOX
emissions from each of the three CFB boilers will be 0.17 Ib/MMBtu (30 day rolling average
basis). Maximum permitted emissions of NOX are 2,208 TPY for all three units.
2.3.3.3.4 Controls for Mercury
Trace quantities of mercury are present in coal. Most of this mercury is expected to
volatilize during combustion, then either condense on submicron particles and be collected by
the fabric filter or be emitted as vapor. The applicant has evaluated the anticipated control
efficiency for mercury from the fabric filter and the levels of mercury in the contracted coal.
Based on these evaluations, the CBCP will meet an emission limitation of 2.89 x 10~5 Ib/MMBtu.
Fabric filtration is the most commonly used control alternative for mercury controls from
CFB boilers. While other alternative mercury controls are being evaluated for other source
types such as waste-to-energy facilities, none of these alternatives have been demonstrated as
2-9
-------
technically feasible on CFB boilers. However, the CBCP will conduct a test on one CFB boiler
to determine whether substantial additional removal of mercury can be obtained through the use
of injecting carbon between the boiler and the fabric filter.
2.3.3.3.5 Controls for Other Emissions
Other emissions of regulatory concern include CO, VOC, H2SO4, and toxic organic
compounds (Pb, Be, and Fl). CO and VOC emissions from the CFB boilers will be controlled
using combustor design and combustion optimization, which is the only technically feasible
control alternative. This alternative seeks to maintain the proper conditions to ensure complete
combustion through design features which enhance uniform fuel/air distribution and mixing,
along with oxygen monitoring and adjustment of the staged air combustion to suppress CO and
VOC formation. This process must be optimized with efforts to reduce NOX emissions which
often increase when steps to lower CO and VOC emissions are taken.
Other emissions from the CFB boilers will also be controlled by combustion design and
operation. According to the state Conditions of Certification, collective emissions from the three
CFB boilers are not to exceed the following levels:
Maximum Permitted
Pollutant Emissions (TPY)
CO 2,273
VOC 195
H2SO4 mist 6.1
Fl 9.7
Pb 0.78
Be 0.11
2.3.3.3.6 Stack Height
The CBCP stack height of 425 feet was based on Good Engineering Practice (GEP) and
on the dimensions of nearby buildings. The stacks for the limestone dryers are below the
minimum GEP of 213 feet.
2-10
-------
2.3.3.4 Water Systems
The CBCP requires water for several plant processes. The primary water demand is for
cooling purposes. Cooling water represents 80% of the total external water demand. A smaller
amount of high quality water is required for boiler makeup, plant service, and potable water.
The CBCP will employ a zero-discharge system that will eliminate all process wastewater
discharges. All wastewater streams will be reused or recycled within the system. A water
balance diagram for the CBCP is shown in Figure 2-2.
The primary external source of water for the CBCP will be reuse of treated process
wastewater from the SK mill. As shown on the water balance diagram, approximately 2,586
gallons per minute (gpm) [3.7 million gallons per day (MOD)] will be provided by SK. The
other external sources will be the existing SK wells, which will supply a maximum of 1.45
MGD of groundwater from the Floridan aquifer, and potable water from SK. Other water
demands will be met by recycling internal wastewater steams.
Facility water demands will be satisfied through a combination of sources:
• reuse of treated process wastewater from SK;
• recycle and/or treatment of internally generated plant waste streams for reuse
on-site;
• recycle of condensate return water from SK;
• treatment and reuse of site stormwater runoff;
• use of potable water from SK; and
• use of groundwater from SK production wells.
CBC will minimize the use of fresh water, primarily relying on SK wastewater to meet
cooling needs. Water discharges will be eliminated with a zero-discharge water treatment
system, except for stormwater runoff in an extreme storm event. All process wastewater
generated will be internally recycled, treated for reuse or processed in the zero-discharge post
treatment system. Also, note that the CBCP will recycle some pretreated water back to SK for
use in their cooling tower.
2-11
-------
to
1
to
M(SC 70 SK COOLING TOWER
PLANT DRAINS MAKEUP
STORAGE 15 -^
RUNOFF ^-/ fO
500 yv
WASIhWATER V_A_A_y
' ' .. 849
{^s PRETREATMENT 2768 2268 3117
35 ( pV~» W-AHIHtH ^
SLUDGE
THICKENER
(fART OF SALT CAKE
CLARIFIER) T0 LANDFILL
A ^ © '
vv
SLUDGE T
UhWAItHINh 1
j 5 CRYSTALLIZER J!!L-
DEWATER'ED SLUDGE
POTABLE
WATER — — — — — — +. POTABLE
FROM SK USES
70 MISC.
1 *• USES
SKWELL
559 489 DEM!N 437 CONDENSATE
»- owoTrn • • — »> nrMIN f^TflDAr
TANK
52 456
SK 4ot> POMHPKJQATP
REGEN WASTE RETURN " POLISHER
TO PRETREATMENT CONDNSATE KULIbHfcH
CLARIFIER
EVAPORATION
2290
^^ YARD AREA RUNOFF
(H)53
Y 20
Don onn COOLING
COOLING 88° ' 90° TOWER 885
lOWhH " BLOWDOWN *
BLOWDOWN
110
<^L^ 125 / A W-
EVAPORATOR , W^ Drtimrr
RO UNIT
BACKWASH
(^B) 350 (p) 35
FILTERS
500
250
1d:> FROM
19^ FILTER *"^
EVAPORATOR , ,-s RO UNIT
[B)— 125 (A/*-
110 125
NOTES:
760 EXPORT DPROC
ti&M
250
iESS FLOWS ARE
rED TYPICAL FLOWS
. OQ-J 2) TANKS, PUMPS AND
V- B93 ROMFR nn CHEMICAL FEED SYSTEMS
C ^ BUILtH 2 ^ ARE NOT SHOW.
MISC.
l 1 LOSSES
— (0)
^} ^
V_x ^C^y ^^
REGEN WASTE o/-\n i-r» i^
TO PRETREATMENT BOILER U
CLARIFIER BLOWDOWN gy^
C
FIGURE 2-2
ESIGN WATER
ANCE DIAGRAM
Cedar Bay
Regeneration Project
SOURCE: ENSR
-------
CBCP groundwater usage for non-cooling processes is expected to average 1,039 MOD
(maximum permitted is 1.45 MOD). This will require an increased withdrawal of 722 gpm from
the SK wells. The SK production well network consists of seven wells which are used on a
rotating basis to produce an average of 12 MGD (maximum of 18 MGD) for SK operations.
The wells are approximately 1,400 feet deep, each with a free flowing production capacity of
approximately 7,500 gpm. The groundwater used by the CBCP will be softened and filtered in
the existing SK pretreatment system.
Groundwater will be used for boiler makeup, service water, fire protection, and metal
cleaning. Boiler makeup is discussed in Section 2.3.3.4.3 Boiler Makeup Water. Service water
uses include water for water seals, cleaning and flushing. The fire protection system would only
be activated under emergency conditions, therefore water requirements are relatively small.
High quality water is required to prevent corrosion and scaling in the storage and distribution
system. Small quantities (less than 200,000 gallons) of metal cleaning water will be required
periodically for cleaning the steam generator and preboiler cycle piping.
Potable water uses include water for drinking, washing, and for sanitary purposes. The
projected average is 4,100 gpd based on an average plant staff of 75 people and an average
potable water requirement of 55 gallons per capita per day. This potable water flow includes
use at both the CBCP and the SK paper mill.
Major system components required for the above are further described in the subsections
which follow. Additional engineering details for each system are contained in Appendix I.
2.3.3.4.1 Cooling Water Pretreatment System
The bulk of the plant's cooling water makeup requirements will be satisfied through
recycle/reuse of internally generated plant waste streams and supplemented through reuse of
treated effluent from the SK mill. As shown in Figure 2-3, the CBCP will recycle and reuse
the following internally generated waste streams:
• neutralized demineralizer regenerant wastes;
• blowdown clarifier wastes;
• sand filter backwash;
• sand filter effluent;
• plant service water;
• site stormwater runoff;
2-13
-------
• reverse osmosis product water;
• boiler blowdown;
• filtrate from sludge dewatering;
• evaporator distillate; and
• crystallizer distillate.
Neutralized demineralizer regenerant wastes, blowdown clarifier wastes, filtrate from
sludge dewatering and sand filter backwash will be routed directly to the cooling water
pretreatment clarifier. Plant service water (i.e., water collected in plant floor drains) will be
directed to oil/water separators, where required, and subsequently processed in the pretreatment
clarifier. The clarifier will also process stormwater runoff from the facilities Storage Area
Runoff Pond (SARP). The SARP collects runoff from the facility's Materials Storage Area.
This includes the ash pelletizing and storage area, the limestone storage area, and the coal
storage area. As described further in Section 2.3.3.4.10 Site Stormwater Management, runoff
from the plant yard area, stormwater collected in the Yard Area Runoff Pond (YARP), will be
treated for reuse in the cooling tower blowdown clarifier.
Other recyclable process streams will be routed directly to the cooling tower basin.
These include boiler blowdown, a portion of the sand filter effluent, reverse osmosis product
water and distillate from the evaporators and crystallizer.
Any additional cooling water makeup requirements will be satisfied through use of treated
wastewater from the SK mill. Currently, SK's process wastewater is treated on-site and they
discharge roughly 10.0 MGD to the St. Johns River. Prior to discharge, CBCP will withdraw,
on average, 3.7 MGD for reuse as cooling water makeup. Following pretreatment,
approximately 3.25 MGD will be used in the CBCP mechanical draft cooling towers. The
remainder will be pumped back to SK for cooling use at the mill.
The cooling water pretreatment system consists of a premix tank, a combination
clarifier/sludge thickener, chemical storage and feed equipment, and a sludge dewatering system.
It will be operated to provide a softened effluent suitable for use in the cooling towers. Only
water which causes little to no fouling of the heat exchanger surfaces is suitable for use. The
water will be reused up to the point where fouling is a possible, at which time, it will be sent
to the zero discharge system for further treatment. In short, the cooling towers will be operated
at a reasonable number of "cycles of concentration" without causing fouling of heat exchanger
surfaces.
2-14
-------
Wastewater entering the system will be received in the premix tank and conditioned using
lime and soda ash for softening, aluminum or iron salts for coagulation, and polymers as
coagulant aids. Water from the premix tank will then enter the clarifier for solids removal.
Settled solids will thicken at the bottom of the clarifier. The clarifier will also be equipped with
chemical feed equipment for process adjustment and control. Clarified effluent .will discharge
to a clearwell for final pH adjustment using sulfuric acid. Following thickening, sludge from
the clarifier will be dewatered for off-site disposal.
System design is based on receiving effluent from the SK wastewater treatment system
with typical quality characteristics listed in Table 2-2. The expected mixed influent and effluent
characteristics for the pretreatment clarifier are listed in Table 2-3.
A detailed description of the CBCP Cooling Tower Makeup Pretreatment System is
contained in Appendix I.
2.3.3.4.2 Sludge Dewatering System
Sludge collected in the thickener portion of the pretreatment clarifier will be pumped on
a batch basis to a plate and frame type filter press for dewatering. Solids will be captured and
retained on cloth filters within the press. Filtrate will be returned to the pretreatment clarifier.
After dewatering, the filter cake is expected to contain 40 to 60% solids and consist
primarily of calcium carbonate and magnesium hydroxide from the lime soda softening process.
Sludge production is anticipated to be 80 tons per day assuming a solids content of 40%.
Dewatered filter cake will be transported off-site for final disposal at an approved site (see
Section 2.3.3.5).
2.3.3.4.3 Boiler Makeup Water
Boiler makeup requirements, including export steam to SK, will typically average 1.3
MGD. Makeup requirements will be partially satisfied through recycle of condensate return
from the SK mill, averaging approximately 0.66 MGD, and supplemented through use of SK
lime softened groundwater, typically 0.64 MGD [Note that an additional 0.1 MGD of lime
softened groundwater will be used for site service water needs.]. Prior to reuse at CBCP,
condensate return from SK will be treated using a weak acid cation/anion exchange mixed bed
polisher. Prior to demineralization, lime softened groundwater will be filtered to remove
suspended solids.
2-15
-------
TABLE 2-2
Typical Makeup Water Characteristics from SK
'"-'-" : Sab&ttiieii -& ^ -""''"»
pH
Alkalinity
Sulfate
Chloride
Solids, Dissolved
Silica
Calcium
Magnesium
Sodium
Potassium
Iron
Manganese
* , Uhft$ '
-------
TABLE 2-3
Projected Pretreatment Clarifier
Influent and Effluent Characteristics
„;, : ^Qv&touK*' ,\ /^
- ' % Hs':^ ^, ^s^^ fv-^v." - *$f
••'&•&. -.
pH
M-Alkalinity
Sulfate
Chloride
Solids, Dissolved
Silica
Calcium
Magnesium
Sodium
Potassium
Iron
Manganese
Phosphate
Fluoride
Boron
Aluminum
Barium
Strontium
Total Organic Carbon
Solids, Suspended
i * tlnlt*-y' -4
Vs. ^- * -
standard
mg/l CaCOg
mg/l CaCO3
mg/l CaCO3
mg/l
mg/l .
mg/l CaCO3
mg/l CaCO3
mg/l CaCOg
mg/l CaCOg
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l PO4
mg/l CaCOg
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
^ Combined ;
* n«fta»v^
6.0 to 9.0
540
890
300
2400
59
545
270
903
15
1.1
0.7
2.0
3
2.4
2.1
0.2
1.6
115
50
Effluent
"y,^ \ •»
sf *-
8.0 to 10.0
60
890
322
1900
25
50
50
1,160
15
0.1
0.05
0.2
3
2.4
0.2
0.05
1.0
105
10
Source:
Zero Discharge System: Engineering Description, Bechtel Corporation, 1993.
2-17
-------
Demineralization is required to produce a high purity boiler makeup water (i.e., low
dissolved solids feed water) to prevent scale formation in the high pressure boiler.
Demineralization will be accomplished using a cation/anion exchange process. Regenerant
wastes from the demineralization system will be neutralized and sent to the pretreatment clarifier
for reuse as cooling tower makeup.
Effluent from the condensate polisher and demineralization system will be combined and
temporarily stored in a Demineralized Water Storage Tank. The boiler feed water system will
also be equipped with chemical feed systems for the addition of boiler water conditioning
chemicals. These will include feeds for oxygen scavengers and antiscalants.
2.3.3.4.4 Cooling Tower Slowdown Zero Discharge Handling System
Blowdown from the Cedar Bay cooling tower and general site stormwater runoff will be
treated in the zero discharge system. The system is-designed to maximize reuse of process water
as cooling tower makeup by using a post treatment train consisting of clarification and softening,
filtration, reverse osmosis (RO), evaporation and crystallization. Major components in the
system are described below. More detailed descriptions of individual components are contained
in Appendix I.
2.3.3.4.5 Cooling Tower Blowdown Clarifier
Blowdown from the Cedar Bay cooling tower will be combined with plant yard area
runoff (i.e., stormwater collected in the YARP) and directed to the cooling tower blowdown
clarifier. In addition to removing suspended solids, the clarifier will be "soften" the water.
Softening will be accomplished through the addition of lime, soda ash, sodium hydroxide, and
magnesium chloride. The chemical feed systems will reduce the concentrations of calcium,
magnesium, bicarbonate, suspended solids, barium, organics and silica in the cooling tower
blowdown to acceptable levels for reuse.
The system will be designed to treat up to 1,000 gpm in a non-scraping type accelerated
rate settling tank. The settling tank will be preceded by a premix/reaction tank (for chemical
feed systems) to produce a softened effluent of the desired chemistry. Chemical feed systems
will be designed to provide flexibility to treat an influent water having typical characteristics
listed in Table 2-4. Effluent from the system is expected to have the following characteristics:
2-18
-------
TABLE 2-4
Projected Slowdown Clarifier Influent Characteristics
&ota4BfeuMnt - Sr* * *
%"i ~ , «%•. '* ,«s i
> h ' ' \ -* - *$ 4\
PH
M-Alkalinity
P-Alkalinity
Sulfate
Chloride
Solids, Dissolved
Silica
Calcium
Magnesium
Sodium
Potassium
Iron
Manganese
Phosphate2
Fluoride
Boron
Aluminum
Barium
Strontium
Total Organic Carbon
Solids, Suspended
P«; ~$M*' I
' -'^ V V* ' N f\
standard
mg/l CaCOg
mg/l CaCOg
mg/l CaCOg
mg/l CaCO3
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l CaCOg
mg/l CaCO3
mg/l CaCOg
mg/l CaCOg
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l PO4
mg/l CaCOg
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
: to*?: .
Value?
7.0
50
0
3,300
1,000
6,000
60
150
150
4,000
50
0.5
0.05
0.1
10
5
0.1
0.5
5
200
50
4Ty^al J
U'Mu&^
8.0
150
0
6,800
2,300
12,500
120
350
300
8,475
150
2
0.1
2
25
20
0.5
1
10
500
100
!vH!gi*,;;j
% Value* ^i
8.3
200
0
8,000
3,000
15,000
150
1,000
400
10,000
200
5
1
10
30
30
5
2.5
15
800
150
1) The low and high values are the expected ranges of each constituent. The actual
analysis may contain some constituents at the high end of the concentration range and
some constituents at the low end of the concentration range.
2) Phosphates could be as high as 10 to 15 mg/l (as POJ based on the scale/corrosion
inhibitor selected.
2-19
-------
Constituent Concentration
Calcium 150 mg/1 as CaCO3
Magnesium 50 mg/1 as CaCO3
Silica 40 mg/1 as SiOj
The pH of the softened blowdown will be adjusted in the clarifier clearwell using sulfuric
acid. Sludge from the clarifier will be recycled back the pretreatment clarifier for thickening,
dewatering and ultimate disposal.
2.3.3.4.6 Sand Filters
Effluent from the clarifier clearwell will be filtered to prevent fouling of the RO unit
membrane surfaces. The system will consist of four 33% capacity dual media filters capable
of operating at full RO feed flow (i.e., 650 gpm) with one filter in the backwash mode. Filter
backwash will be directed to the pretreatment clarifier for reuse as cooling tower makeup.
2.3.3.4.7 Reverse Osmosis System
The reverse osmosis (RO) system will serve to reduce the total dissolved solids (TDS)
concentration of the softened blowdown. The system is designed to recover from 35 to 60
percent of the feed water for reuse as cooling tower makeup.
The system will be designed for an average 90% TDS removal efficiency. RO brine will
be discharged to the emergency water storage tank for subsequent processing in the
evaporators/crystallizer. System pH will be controlled at the inlet header through sulfuric acid
addition. Biofouling will be controlled using sodium hypochlorite, if necessary. Provisions for
antiscalant addition will also be incorporated.
2.3.3.4.8 Evaporator
The primary function of the evaporator is to increase the brine concentration of the RO
waste stream and reduce its volume for subsequent processing in the crystallizer. The system
will consist of two evaporator trains each capable of handling an RO brine feed flow of 150
gpm. The evaporators are designed to produce a distillate or product water stream and a
concentrated brine stream. The distillate stream will have a dissolved solids concentration of
2-20
-------
approximately 10 mg/1 and be discharged directly to the cooling tower basin. The concentrated
brine stream will be further processed in the crystallizer/centrifuge system.
2.3.3.4.9 Crystallizer and Centrifuge
The crystallizer and centrifuge will receive concentrated brine from the evaporator. The
crystallizer portion of the system is designed to further concentrate the evaporator slurry. The
centrifuge will serve to dewater remaining solids to produce a near dry salt cake for off-site
disposal. The crystallizer product water will be directed to the cooling tower basin. Additional
chemical feeds, such as antifoaming agents and sodium hydroxide will be used, if required.
Salt cake from the crystallizer, approximately 25 tons per day, will be disposed of off-site
at an approved landfill (See Section 2.3.3.5.2 Sludge). Projected characteristics of the salt cake
are summarized in Table 2-5.
2.3.3.4.10 Site Storm water Management
The CBCP storm water management system was developed using guidelines,
recommendations, and requirements of the SJRWMD, the City of Jacksonville, FDER, and
EPA. EPA regulations for the Steam Electric Generating Point Source Category can be found
at 40 CFR Part 423.
A schematic diagram of the storm water system is presented in Figure 2-3. Site
storm water runoff will be collected and conveyed to one of two on-site retention ponds. Runoff
from the storage area — including the ash pelletizing area, the coal pile and the limestone pile -
- will be collected in a common sump and discharged to the lined SARP. Runoff from the yard
and power block areas will be collected and conveyed via gravity flow to the unlined YARP.
Runoff from undeveloped areas will discharge off-site via overland flow through the existing,
natural drainage system.
The SARP is designed to hold runoff for storms up to the 50-year, 24-hour event. A 50-
year, 24-hour storm event is the largest storm of 24-hour duration expected to occur on average
once in 50 years. Runoff from the coal storage area will contain contaminants that are subject
to NSPS (thus, a new source NPDES permit is required; see Appendix A). The applicant has
built mitigation into the CBCP design in an effort to prevent this discharge.
2-21
-------
TABLE 2-5
Expected Constituents in Crystallizer Solids1'4*5
' v'*£ ";<&a^eht%4% %:^
Cyanide
Antimony
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Zinc
Titanium
Phenols
Chloroform
f % '*,* sv. •. W
; \; uriits^ :?\
Ibs/day
Ibs/day
Ibs/day
Ibs/day
Ibs/day
Ibs/day
Ibs/day
. Ibs/day
Ibs/day
Ibs/day
Ibs/day
Ibs/day
Ibs/day
Ibs/day
Ibs/day
Ibs/day
.'•'' •• s * X X- ' ^®& <•$»• A < -.
i^ \'£/W*ufr?v < ^
0.892
1.492
0.89
0.152
0.062
0.45
0.293
0.29
0.0062
0.29
0.152
0.001 43
3.48
0.152
3.28
0.052
1) Data based on SK clarifier effluent samples collected on February 10,1993 and analyzed
by Betz.
2) Constituent NOT reported above analytical detection limits in SK clarifier effluent.
3) Based on SK permitted discharge concentration.
4) Concentrations assume the cooling towers are operated at 10 cycles of concentration.
5) Variation in actual concentrations can be expected for the following reasons:
a) Only limited data are avialable to characterize SK effluent for cardboard recycling
operations.
b) SK lagoon effluent quality may be different from SK clarifier effluent quality.
c) Coprecipitation reactions in the cooling tower pretreatment clarifier and blowdown
clarifier were assumed negligible. Partial removal of some constituents can,
however, be expected to occur.
d) Internal wastewater streams from Cedar Bay have not been included in the
analysis.
2-22
-------
STORAGE AREA
RUNOFF
S3
I
YARD AREA
RUNOFF
COOLING
WATER
MAKE-UP
PRETREATMENT
SYSTEM
EMERGENCY
WATER
STORAGE
TANK
EMERGENCY
STORMWATER
DISCHARGE
TO THE
BROWARD
RIVER
ZERO
DISCHARGE
SYSTEM
COOLING
TOWER
SOLID
WASTE
1
SARP - STORAGE AREA RUNOFF POND, OUTFALL OO8
*YARP - YARD AREA RUNOFF POND, OUTFALL OO3
NORMAL OPERATING CONDITIONS
EMERGENCY OVERFLOW CONDITIONS
FIGURE 2- 3
Operational Stormwater Runoff
M930202
-------
Except under severe rainfall conditions, collected storm water will be treated and reused
for cooling tower makeup. Water retained in the SARP can be diverted to the 1 million gallon
emergency storage tank or directed straight to the zero discharge system (see beginning of this
Section). During extreme storm events, both retention ponds may overflow into the Broward
River.
The CBCP will employ "Best Management Practices" (BMP). The BMP program
includes use of good housekeeping practices, routine inspection and maintenance programs, a
spill prevention and counter-measure control plan, an employee training program, and record-
keeping and reporting procedures. (See Appendix H)
2.3.3.5 Solid Waste Handling and Disposal
Construction activities resulted in the relocation of lime mud which had been stored on site.
This is described in Section 2.3.4.1 Lime Mud Relocation. Solid waste generated by operation
of the CBCP will consist primarily of fly ash and bed ash (including spent limestone). The
zero-water discharged facility will create up to 80 tons per day of sludge waste. The CBCP will
not generate hazardous waste in significant amounts.
2.3.3.5.1 Coal Ash Disposal
The combustion products to be generated by the CBCP include fly ash and bed ash. The
ash will be formed into pellets ("pelletized") to reduce volume and for easier handling. The
exact quantities of waste to be produced will depend on the properties of the coal and limestone
used in the combustion process.
The applicant estimates that bed ash production will be approximately 88,000 TPY. The
bed ash is to be conveyed from the boiler ash coolers to a storage hopper by mechanical ash
conveyors. From the hopper, the bed ash will be conveyed via a vacuum transport system to
a silo.
The applicant estimates that fly ash will be produced at a rate of 336,000 TPY. Most
of this fly ash will be collected by a fabric filter system (baghouse), then conveyed by an
enclosed vacuum transport system to a storage silo.
2-24
-------
Bag filters are proposed to control fugitive dust emissions from the ash silo and vacuum
system. Fly ash expected to accumulate in the air heater hoppers (18,000 TPY) will also be
conveyed to the silo via the vacuum transport system.
On April 21, 1989, AES-CB signed a Fuel Supply and Ash Disposal Agreement with
Costain Coal, Inc. In this agreement, AES-CB was to pelletize the fly and bottom ash from the
CBCP and load the pelletized ash onto those rail cars used to deliver the coal to the site.
Costain has a purchase option agreement on property for the disposal of the pelletized ash. The
disposal site(s) will be permitted in accordance with the state laws of Kentucky governing
Residual Landfills designed specifically for the handling of this material. The site(s) will be in
close proximity to the coal mining and loadout operations. CBC plans to either continue this
agreement with Costain or to transport, via rail, the pelletized ash to another out-of-state
licensed, permitted disposal facility.
CBC agreed to maintain a previously adopted paragraph to Conditions of Certification
IV (see Appendix B) with FDER and the City of Jacksonville Regulatory/Environmental Services
Department (formerly BESD) stating:
Bottom ash and fly ash will be pelletized, and either shipped back to the mine
utilizing the trains to deliver the coal, or sold as an additive to concrete. The
bottom ash and fly ash shall not be disposed of in a landfill within Duval County.
If the permittees decide to dispose of the bottom ash or fly ash by other than
returning it to the mine, they shall notify BESD and [FDER].
2.3.3.5.2 Sludge
Two types of sludge waste, inorganic or salts, will be produced by the zero-water
discharge system. Approximately 80 tons per day will be created: 55 tons of inorganic from
the clarifier and 25 tons of salt form the crystallizer. These waste streams will be sent to a
recycling facility or a licensed non-hazardous landfill. Projected characteristics of the salt cake
are given in Table 2-5 (in section 2.3.3.4.9 Crystallizer and Centrifuge).
2.3.3.5.3 Hazardous Waste
The applicant expects that no hazardous waste will be produced on a continuous,
long-term basis. Any hazardous waste produced by an intermittent, short duration process, such
2-25
-------
as cleaning solvent containing rags, will be transported to a licensed, permitted treatment,
storage and disposal facility.
2.3.3.6 Transmission Facilities
An interconnection from the CBCP to the JEA electric power grid will be made by
constructing a 138 KV transmission line from the CBCP to the JEA Eastport substation. The
Eastport substation is located directly southeast and adjacent to the SK paper mill property.
Since the interconnecting transmission line will be constructed over already disturbed SK
property and on JEA right-of-way, the environmental impacts will be slight.
2.3.3.7 Resource Requirements
The major resource requirements of the CBCP, on a yearly and lifetime basis, are
summarized in Table 2-6. Coal will be burned in the boilers and Number 2 fuel oil or natural
gas will be used for boiler startup. Limestone will be used for adsorption of SOx as the coal
is burned. According to the state Conditions of Certification, consumptive uses of groundwater
include boiler makeup, service water, and potable water.
2.3.4 Construction Procedures
2.3.4.1 Lime Mud Relocation
Initial site preparation required the relocation of an estimated 500,000 cubic yards of the
lime mud which had been stored on the plant site. The lime mud was placed in a lime mud
storage area in the northwestern portion of the SK property. Construction of the storage area
included a geomembrane cap and seeded earth cover, which inhibit rainfall infiltration from
leaching contaminants into the groundwater. These design elements are provided to ensure
compliance with groundwater quality criteria specified in FDER rules (17-28 and 17-550).
AES-CB and FDER confirmed that the lime mud deposits are not hazardous wastes under the
provisions of Title 40 CFR 261 and 17-7630, F.A.C., the federal and state regulations which
define hazardous waste (See Appendix L). All water from the lime mud ponds and former
storage area was directed to the existing SK IWTS for treatment and discharge.
2-26
-------
TABLE 2-6
MAJOR RESOURCE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CBCP
(M = MILLION; B = BILLION)
Resource Yearly 30 Year Service Life
Coal (1) 1.170 Mtons 35.1 Mtons
Fuel Oil (2) 1.9 MGals 57 Mgals
Limestone 0.320 Mtons 9.6 Mtons
Groundwater (3) 0.529 BGals 15.88 Bgals
(1) Based on a maximum annual average coal consumption rate of 135.56 tons per hour, a
design capacity factor of 93 percent and maximum coal properties of 12% ash and 1.7%
sulfur by weight on a shipment basis.
(2) Assumes that each of the 3 steam generators will experience 5 cold or 12 hot startups per
year.
(3) Based on maximum allowable daily use of 1.45 MGD for 365 days a year.
2-27
-------
2.3.4.2 Clearing and Grubbing
The existing SK site, because it was already used for industrial purposes, was essentially
clear of vegetation.
2.3.4.3 Dewatering Minimization
To minimize dewatering requirements, the applicant raised the site elevation by 5 feet.
The result of this action was that most dewatering, with its consequent impacts on the Broward
River and on ground water movement, was no longer necessary.
Fabrication of the coal receiving structure required excavating a pit forty (40) feet below
ground level. Ground water infusion was reduced by lining the pit with corrugated piling; the
ground piling reduced the flow rate to about five gallons per minute, which was removed from
the pit using portable pumps.
2.3.4.4 Stormwater Management
The only wastewater discharges expected to occur during construction are stormwater
runoff and sanitary wastes. The stormwater discharge is regulated by NPDES permit (Appendix
H-3) issued in October 1992. An Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan was developed to
minimize construction-related runoff impacts. Various techniques, including sedimentation, are
currently being used to control construction-related runoff. Runoff from areas of the site not
disturbed by construction activities is being directed to the natural drainage systems within the
area. Runoff from areas of the site disturbed by construction activities or plant operations is
being collected in a ditch system and/or catchbasin and underground piping system and directed
to ponds as described in the following paragraphs. Drainage systems have been designed for
gravity flow wherever site conditions allow.
Temporary ditches and the primary permanent drainage ditches and catch basins were
constructed early in the construction period. All construction runoff is being directed to this
collection system and routed to the YARP and/or SARP. The construction runoff resulting from
a 10-year, 24-hour storm is being contained in the ditches and ponds. A 10-year, 24-hour storm
is the largest storm of 24-hour duration expected to occur on average once in 10 years.
Off site runoff will not be collected in the onsite drainage system. Swales are provided
to direct runoff which originates in offsite, upgradient areas around the site perimeter into
2-28
-------
existing drainage patterns. These swales are designed to preserve the existing drainage
conditions and water quality to the maximum extent possible.
During plant construction, the peak manpower is expected to be approximately 800
people. Of this, approximately 200 people are expected to use portable, self-contained toilet
facilities. Wastes from the portable facilities will be disposed of off-site by licensed contractors.
The remainder of the work force is expected to use temporary and permanent toilet facilities.
Wastewater from these facilities will be collected by the existing SK sanitary system which
conveys wastewater to the SK IWTS before discharge to the St. Johns River.
2.3.4.5 Solid Wastes
Pre-operational boiler and condensate system metal cleaning wastes will be transported
to a licensed Treatment, Storage and Disposal Facility for off-site treatment and disposal.
2.4 SK-ONLY ALTERNATIVE
For this evaluation the No Action Alternative is the operation of SK without the CBCP
steam and power supply for manufacturing processes. The SK operation would be required to
supply steam and power for their operation from existing boilers, which are the existing oil and
bark fired boilers. The recovery boilers would be shutdown under this alterantaive due to the
facility changing to a recycling operation, which does not require the use of a liquor recovery
system.
In addition, the No Action Alternative is evaluated based on the CBCP not being built
on the adjacent land area and this this area would conutinue to be used as a disposal site for SK
operations.
2-29
-------
-------
CHAPTERS
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
-------
-------
3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
This chapter describes the existing environment at those locations which could potentially
be affected by the project. More detailed descriptions of the environmental resources are
provided in the Draft EIS/SAR.
3.1 AIR RESOURCES
3.1.1 Climate/Meteorology
The terrain surrounding the CBCP site is level. Easterly maritime winds blow about 40%
of the time producing a moderate climate. The annual mean temperature at Jacksonville is
68.4°F. Summers are long, warm and relatively humid (average temperature SOT). Winters
are mild, with occasional cold snaps (average temperature, 55°F).
Annual rainfall averages about 54 to 55 inches. Rainfall averages over seven inches per
month during the summer. Infrequently, heavy rains associated with tropical storms can deposit
several inches of rain in a short period of time. The driest months are November, December,
and January when precipitation averages less than three inches per month. The highest annual
10-year, 24-hour rainfall event is about 7.5 inches. The 100-year, 24-hour rainfall event is
about 11 inches.
The average relative humidity is about 15%. In the early morning relative humidities
average about 90% while afternoon humidities average 55%. Daily sunshine in December
averages 5.5 hours; in May the average daily sunshine is 9.0 hours.
Prevailing winds are northeasterly in the autumn and early winter shifting to
northwesterly in late winter and early spring. In spring and summer winds move to the
southwest then to the southeast as sea breezes exert their influences. Wind speeds average
slightly less than nine miles per hour overall. Wind speed is slightly higher during spring than
in other seasons.
The height of the surface "mixing layer" is defined by the heat distribution in the vertical.
The mixing layer or mixing height is measured from the vertical temperature distribution and
represents the layer where vigorous vertical mixing of the atmosphere occurs. A temperature
increase with height, or also called a temperature inversion, caps the layer. Jacksonville has an
annual average morning mixing height of 1,457 feet (444 meters) and an annual average
afternoon mixing height of 4,672 feet (1,424 meters). The annual average morning mixing
3-1
-------
height is one of the smallest in Florida, but larger then those further inland in Georgia and other
states. The afternoon annual average mixing height is one of the largest in Florida, but smaller
than those formed away from large water bodies.
3.1.2 Existing Air Pollution Sources
The locations of major air pollution sources in the area is depicted in Figure 3-1. In
addition to these major sources, there are a large number of minor sources in the area which
also contribute to air pollution. FDER is working with a number of the existing sources to
resolve certain modeled SO2 violations, described below.
3.1.3 Air Quality
Table 3-1 summarizes the existing air quality in the study area. The central area of
Jacksonville, bounded by the St. Johns River to the east and south, Trout River on the north,
and 1-95 on the west is designated unclassified for PM10. Duval County has not experienced
an exceedance of the PM10 standard in almost three years.
Annual values of SO2 in outlying areas of Jacksonville are 5 to 15 ug/m3. Annual values
in areas close to major sources have been reported to be in the range of 20 ug/m3. Highest
24-hour values in outlying areas are primarily in the range of 30 to 60 ug/m3, whereas monitors
close to the major emissions sources have recorded highest 24-hour averages of 100 to 200
ug/m3 and highest 1-hour averages of 400 to 900 ug/m3. Because of their relative location to
the sources of emissions, it appears that most of the monitors are significantly influenced by the
existing major sources of SO2. While Jacksonville is considered attainment for SO2, recent
modeling submitted with consideration of downwash have indicated potential modeling violations
of air quality standards in certain of the industrial areas.
Annual NO2 concentrations in outlying areas average less than 20 ug/m3, whereas
downtown values are about 40 ug/m3. Although some monitors are affected by major point
sources and others are presumably influenced by transportation sources, monitored values are
well below the standard of 100 ug/m3.
Maximum CO levels are about 8000 ug/m3 (8-hour average) and 14,000 ug/m3 (1-hour
average). These levels are well below the allowable standard of 10,000 ug/m3 (8-hour average)
and 40,000 ug/m3 (1-hour average).
3-2
-------
JAOCSONTILLE
INTERNATIONAL
AIRPORT
SK£5TI£U> fP)
JEA NORTHSIDE
- BERLIN (P.S.N)
BLOVX7
ISLAND (S.-V)
EDES7IELD.CP
. CAROLINE
(P.S)
• CAROLIHE
• 2800 UNIVTRSITlf (P.S.K)
JEA
^
SOTTHSIDE LIBRART (S)
VERXA (P,S,N)»
LENOX (T. S)
• SPRING PARK (P.S)
U. S. NAVAL I
AIR /
STATION '
FIGURE 3-1
LOCATIONS OF MAJOR
EMISSION SOURCES AND
MONITORING SITES IN THE
JACKSONVILLE AREA
Cedar Bay Congenoration Project
B MAJOR EMISSION' 3017.CZ
MONITORING SITE
P - PARTICJLATE5
S • SUITOR DIOXIDE
N • NITROGEN DIOXIDE
'///. TSP NONATTAINKENT AREA
SOURCE: JEA/FP&L 1981
3-3
-------
TABLE 3-1
EXISTING AIR QUALITY
Pollutant
SO2
Nox
PM10*
CO
03*
Pb
Sampling Period
Annual
24-hour
3-hour
Annual
Annual
24-hour
8-hour
1-hour
1-hour
Calendar
Quarter
Jacksonville Central Area
ug/m3
20
100 to 200
400 to 900
40
<60 (unclassified)
< 150 (unclassified)
8,000
14,000
<235 (transitional)
—
Outlying Areas of
Jacksonville Area
ug/m'
5 to 15
30 to 60
_.
<20
<40
<90
—
—
<235 (transitional)
—
At the end of 1991 Duval County had three years of monitoring data sufficient to be classified as attainment
for PM10 and ozone. Currently the county is unclassified for PM10 and transitional for ozone.
3-4
-------
Sulfates are associated with acidic precipitation and therefore have received more
attention in recent years even though there are no ambient sulfate standards. In 1979 FDER
determined that concentrations of sulfate had a mean of 9.06 micrograms per cubic meter
(ug/m3) with a range of 2.90 ug/m3 to 18.20 ug/m3. Acid rain measurements in the
Jacksonville area during 1978 to 1979 indicated a volume-weighted pH of 4.74.
3.1.4 Regulatory Framework
3.1.4.1 Federal Regulatory Requirements
Because the CBCP is a major stationary source of air pollution, it is required by the
Clean Air Act (CAA) to obtain an air permit before operation. The process is called new source
review (NSR).
The CBCP must meet two major federal requirements in its NSR: National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS) and Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD). The NAAQS
establishes a limit for air quality degradation in all areas of the United States. The PSD program
establishes an amount of increase (increment) over a baseline level above which a new industry
may not deteriorate air quality.
Areas where NAAQS are exceeded are called "non-attainment" areas. Projects located
in non-attainment areas are subject to Non-Attainment Area (NAA) permits. Areas where air
quality conditions are acceptable are called "attainment" or unclassified areas. PSD permitting
applies in these areas. A source is subject to PSD permitting requirements if it will emit any
PSD pollutant in amounts equal to or exceeding a 100 TPY threshold.
The CAA requires EPA to set NAAQS for certain pollutants (criteria pollutants) and the
levels of each that should not be exceeded for the protection of public health (primary standards)
and welfare (secondary standards) (Table 3-2). In areas of non-attainment, new pollution
sources are restricted through the requirements of pollution offsets. This means that before
construction of a new significant contributor of the non-attainment pollutant in or near a non-
attainment area, an equal of greater reduction of that pollutant from another source in the area
must be secured.
In attainment areas, where PSD applies, the amount of incremental increase allowed
depends on the classification of the area affected (Table 3-3). In Class I areas, which are
predominately large national parks, the increment is very small. A moderate increment is
3-5
-------
TABLE 3-2
FEDERAL AND FLORIDA AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS
Pollutants
Sulfur Dioxide (SO;,)
Nitrogen Dioxide (NOj)
Paniculate Matter (PM10
Carbon Monoxide* (CO)
Ozone (O3)
Lead (Pb)
Averaging
Period
ug/m3
Annual
24-hour
3-hour
Annual
Annual
24-hour
8-hour
1-hour
1-hour
Calendar
Quarter
Federal Standards
Primary
ub/m3
80
365
100
50
150
10
40
235
1.5
Secondary
ug/m3
—
100
50
150
___
235
1.5
Florida
Pollutant
Standards
60
260
1,300
100
50
150
10
40
235
1.5
* Units are mg/m3
3-6
-------
TABLE 3-3
PSD CLASS I AND CLASS H AIR QUALITY INCREMENTS
Pollutant
SO2
Annual
24-hour
3-hour
Particulates
Annual
24-hour
NOX
Class I Increment
2
5(1)
25<"
5
10
2.5
Class n Increment
20
91<"
512(1)
19
37
25
(1)
Increments that are not to be exceeded more than once per year.
3-7
-------
allowed in Class II areas, while the greatest increments are allowed in Class III areas. Presently
there are no Class III areas in Florida.
To ensure that PSD increments are not exceeded, other sources which have either
expanded or consumed increment since the baseline date must be accounted for if they affect the
increment within the impact area of the proposed source. Typically, these are sources located
within about 50 km of a proposed source which have either received PSD permits or have retired
older emissions units.
The CBCP is located in a transitional ozone non-attainment area. Because of this, CBCP
emissions of VOCs (a precursor to ozone) must be offset with emission reductions. The
concurrent shut-down of the SK boilers will result in a net decrease of VOCs in the project area.
The CBCP is not subject to NAA permit requirements.
Two additional federal requirements associated with the NSR include the New Source
Performance Standards (NSPS) and Best Available Control Technology (BACT). The NSPS
establish industry- specific emission limitations. Fossil fuel-fired steam generating units of more
than 250 MMBtu/hr of heat input produce three types of emissions for which EPA has
established NSPS (see 40 CFR 60, Subpart D): PM, SO2 and NOX.
BACT is defined as an emission limitation based on the maximum degree of reduction
which EPA, taking into account energy, environmental and economic impacts, determines is
achievable for a source. A BACT evaluation is required for pollutants which will be emitted
in amounts equal to or exceeding the PSD significant emission rate.
3.1.4.2 Projected Regulatory Requirements
The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (CAAA) are the only future regulations under
development over the coming years that could potentially impact the CBCP. Title I -Non-
attainment Areas provisions mandate more stringent requirements for more and smaller sources
of VOC and NOX in ozone non-attainment areas. However, Duval County is classified as a
transitional ozone non-attainment area. This essentially means that it is already becoming an
attainment area and therefore not subject to the new requirements.
Title III - Air Toxics provisions require EPA to study public health risks from exposure
to hazardous air pollutants from existing utilities and make recommendations, if needed, for
specific regulations. It is not known at this time if EPA will recommend additional
3-8
-------
requirements. However, new plants such as the CBCP, with advanced emissions control
technology, should not be impacted, if at all, to the degree that older utility plants may. Title
III of the 1990 CAAA also requires regulation of Extremely Hazardous Substances (EHS) to
prevent accidental releases. However, the CBCP will likely not store any EHSs in quantities
that would trigger such requirements.
The CBCP will not be subject to requirements under Title IV, Acid Deposition Control,
based on its status as a qualifying cogeneration facility. Nevertheless, the CBCP SO2 and NOX
emission limitations are already below those that will be required for existing utilities. As a
newly permitted major source with extensive monitoring and reporting requirements, the CBCP
should have no problem complying with the state's operating permit program under Title V of
the 1990 CAAA, which is primarily aimed at sources in existence prior to the 1977 CAA.
3.1.4.3 State Regulatory Requirements
Under the CAA, each state must prepare a State Implementation Plan (SIP) describing
how it will control emissions to meet the NAAQS. The Florida rules and regulations pertaining
to air quality are similar to the federal regulations. The Florida Air Quality Regulations are
defined in FAC 17-2, and administered by the FDER (see Table 3-2). The primary difference
between the federal requirements and Florida's requirements is in the NSPS.
3.2 HUMAN HEALTH
A number of studies on mortality have been carried out on a county-by-county basis for
the entire United States and for metropolitan areas of the United States. In addition, analyses
have been made on the effects on human health of specific chemical elements and compounds.
The results of these studies and analyses are summarized in this section.
3.2.1 Mortality and Morbidity
The mortality data for Duval, Volusia, and Seminole Counties, State of Florida, and the
United States are presented in Table 3-4. The data indicate that mortality rates of selected
causes during 1978 in Duval County are comparable to national rates except that deaths due to
chronic obstructive lung disease and cirrhosis of the liver are higher for Duval, Seminole, and
Volusia Counties. The chronic obstructive lung disease group includes bronchitis, emphysema,
asthma, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. The four causes combined constituted the
fifth leading cause of death in 1978 in Florida and in Duval, Volusia, and Seminole Counties.
3-9
-------
TABLE 3-4
DEATH RATES PER 100,000 POPULATION
FOR SELECTED CAUSES DURING 1978 (a)
Cause
Heart Disease
Cancer
Stroke
Accidents
Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease
Influenza
Cirrhosis of Liver
Arteriosclerosis
Diabetes
Suicide
Homicide
Prenatal Condition
All Causes
Duval County
376.0
175.4
64.6
40.1
28.7
23.2
22.8
8.4
12.4
14.6
13.6
11.0
840.0
Volusia/Seminole
Counties
550.8
239.1
110.5
44.6
31.4
31.4
16.5
11.7
16.9
18.0
9.6
5.0
1,075.0
Florida
530.4
241.2
99.1
47.8
32.4
32.4
18.5
13.4
17.2
17.1
11.4
7.6
1,103.7
USA
334.3
181.9
80.5
48.4
23.1
23.1
13.8
13.3
15.5
12.5
9.4
10.1
883.4
National Center for Health Statistics, 1978; and, State of Florida Department of Health, 1978.
3-10
-------
This cause group is probably more directly related to cigarette smoking and/or air pollution than
any other with the exception of lung cancer (State of Florida 1978). The death rate due to heart
disease and stroke for Duval County during 1978 was lower than for Volusia and Seminole
Counties and the State of Florida.
3.2.2 Lung Cancer in the Jacksonville Area
A county-by-county survey of mortality in the United States (1950 - 1969) revealed that
Duval County had one of the highest rates of lung cancer in the United States. An update of
the same survey for the period 1970 to 1975 also indicated that lung cancer mortality among
white males in Duval County was the highest recorded among all metropolitan counties of the
United States, and was greater than the national average by more than 50% (Table 3-5).
The finding that white males had an approximately 50% greater likelihood of lung cancer
than the rest of the country was also reported in an update of the epidemiologic data from 1975
to 1984 (McDonagh, et al, 1991). In this study, a somewhat smaller excess of lung cancer was
seen in white females and no significant differences were seen in non-whites when compared to
U.S. statistics. This study revealed no clusters of cancer when investigating the data by census
tract.
A study (Blot et al. 1981) to identify reasons for the high cancer mortality in Duval
County and along the northeast coast of Florida concluded that increased risks on the order of
40% to 50% were associated with employment in the shipbuilding, construction, and
lumber/wood industries, particularly among workers with reported exposures to asbestos or wool
dust. Excess risks were also linked to fishing and forestry occupations, although the number
of cases involved was small. An ongoing study, led by the St. Vincent's Medical Center Heart
and Lung Institute, is being conducted to discern other possible causes and has, to date,
identified a possible contributor in an excess smoking rate among white males in Duval County.
It should be noted that although Duval County leads the nation in lung cancer incidence, the
overall cancer rate is lower than Volusia and Seminole Counties, as well as the nation as a
whole.
3.3 NOISE
3.3.1 Noise Basics
All noise and sound data relate to an "A-weighted" sound level since this sound level is
the closest to the range of human hearing. The A-weighted sound level is measured in decibel
3-11
-------
TABLE 3-5
MORTALITY RATES FOR LUNG CANCER
(LISTING OF THE 10 METROPOLITAN COUNTIES w IN THE U.S.A. WITH THE
HIGHEST AGE-ADJUSTED RATES AMONG WHITE MALES, 1970-75 *>(c))
Ranking
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
8
9
10
County
Duval, FL
St. Louis City, MO
Baltimore City, MD
Chesapeake, VA (d)
Orleans, LA
Mobile, AL
Jefferson, KY
James City, VA (e)
Chesterfield, VA <°
Marion, IN
Mortality Rate
(deaths/year/10)
93.2
90.9
88.4
87.2
86.1
83.8
82.8
80.4
79.3
77.6
w Includes all counties with at least 500,000 person-years of observation among white males during
1970-75
*} Deaths for 1972 are excluded since not all were ascertained for this year
-------
(dB) units and is expressed in various metric descriptors that average sound energy over given
time periods. Noise conditions at the proposed CBCP are given in dBs and expressed in the
following common descriptors:
• equivalent sound level for 24-hour periods [Leq(24)] which is a time-weighed
average of the sound energy present over 24 hours; and
• day-night average sound level (DNL or Ldn) which considers the intrusiveness
of nighttime noise by adding 10 dB noise events occurring between 10 p.m. and
7 a.m.
Existing noise conditions can also be compared to the levels identified by EPA as
protective in the EPA report "Information on Levels of Environmental Noise," generally known
as the "Levels Document" (EPA, 1974). EPA, like all federal agencies, must comply with the
Noise Control Act (NCA) of 1972. In addition, EPA is responsible for the enforcement of the
NCA and has review authority for noise impacts in NEPA documents prepared by other federal
agencies. Although funding for the EPA noise program is currently limited to the EPA
Headquarters office in Washington, B.C., EPA has recently enforced the NCA in a civil case
regarding the inaccurate labeling of protective hearing devices (U.S. Department of Justice and
EPA, 1993).
EPA is also part of the Federal Interagency Committee on Noise (FICON) which was
organized to review federal policies regarding the noise impact assessments of airports. FICON
has recommended criteria for airport analyses, which although developed to address airport
noise, are also reasonably applicable to any project that causes an increase in environmental
noise. If screening analysis shows that noise-sensitive areas will be at or above DNL 65 dB and
will have an increase of DNL 1.5 dB or more, further analysis should be conducted (FICON,
1992).
EPA believes that actual noise levels, incremental increases and single-event (intermittent
peak) levels are important in characterizing and documenting project noise impacts. In general,
noise levels of 55 dB and less at project property line represent a useful target for the protection
of the affected human environment. EPA also believes that any noise increase produced by a
project may result in a noise impact. A 10 dB and greater increase is considered a significant
impact. Intrusive single-event noise levels (e.g. train whistles, power plant flare stack noise,
blow-out cleaning of power plant piping during construction, etc.) should be documented to
3-13
-------
supplement the cumulative noise level metrics (e.g., Ldn and Leq) which essentially average
noise contributions over a given period of time.
EPA encourages noise avoidance and mitigation for unavoidable noise impacts. Source
reduction, noise source or receptor insulation, public announcement prior to known significant
noise events, dense evergreen vegetation, barrier construction, realignments, and residential
displacement compensation (i.e., buy-outs), etc. are desirable mitigative approaches, as
appropriate.
In addition to the EPA guidelines, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) has established noise guidelines that provide minimum standards to protect
citizens against excessive noise in their communities and residential areas. Three categories of
acceptability have been defined: acceptable if the Ldn is less than 65 dB; normally unacceptable
if the Ldn is greater than 65 dB and less than 75 dB; and unacceptable if the Ldn is greater than
75 dB (HUD, 1979). These noise levels are to be based on noise from all sources, including
highway, railroad, and construction-related activities.
Additional noise information entitled "Basics of Sound and Noise" is provided in
Appendix O.
3.3.2 Existing Conditions
This section describes the ambient sound environment for the proposed site prior to
construction. The study area included noise receptors that could possibly be affected by noise
from the CBCP. Noise sources in the area included roadways, railroads, industrial plants, the
SK mill, and airports. A noise survey was prepared in March and July 1988 at three locations
around the site. One location was at the Junction of Eastport Road and the northeast entrance
to the SK site. Another location was at the junction of Hecksher Drive and Eastport Road. The
last location was in a residential area along Cedar Bay Road. Monitored noise levels are listed
in Table 3-6.
The noise receptor most likely to be affected by the CBCP is located near residences
across the Broward River along Cedar Bay Road some 2,000 feet west of the site. Measured
noise levels ranged from a Leq of 46.3 decibels (dB) during nighttime hours to 83.1 dB during
daytime hours. While making measurements, insect noise, a sewage treatment plant and the SK
mill were the most identifiable noise sources. The Cedar Bay Road area would be the most
sensitive area for plant induced noises. Other noise sensitive locations would be residential areas
along the rail line to the northwest of the site.
3-14
-------
TABLE 3-6
EXISTING NOISE LEVELS
NML
*
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
Period
Nighttime
Daytime
Nighttime
Daytime
Nighttime
Daytime
Nighttime
Daytime
Nighttime
Daytime
Nighttime
Daytime
Day
3-10-88
3-10-88
7-28-88
7-28-88
3-10-88
3-10-88
7-28-88
7-28-88
3-10-88
3-10-88
7-28-88
7-28-88
Time
1:20 a.m.
10:55 a.m.
2: 18 a.m.
3:45 p.m.
1:35 a.m.
10:35 a.m.
2:25 a.m.
3:25 p.m.
2: 10a.m.
11:20 a.m.
1:48 a.m.
4:11 p.m.
dBA
'eg
48.3
50.0
60.7
70.0
68.7
66.2
64.2
63.6
68.2
64.5
64.6
69.9
68.7
72.0
71.1
63.3
63.5
64.6
76.5
59.2
69.0
46.6
46.3
58.2
65.7
62.1
51.6
51.6
51.5
49.9
49.0
53.3
'max
51.7
54.6
81.8
79.6
77.4
75.3
67.8
67.7
78.0
73.8
70.7
74.5
73.3
78.5
83.2
65.2
65.2
70.9
93.2
65.7
83.1
49.3
48.3
68.4
81.9
73.8
53.3
53.1
54.7
55.8
50.8
57.7
Identifiable Sources
Paper mill plant
Train horn
Train horn and two car passes in
distance
Traffic on Hecksher Road, paper mill
plant
Train horn, leaf rustling
Same as above
Generator for construction lights and
arrows on nearby bridge
Traffic noise and generator
Same as above
Approximately 30 car and truck passes
Approximately 25 car and truck passes
Approximately 15 car and truck passes
and airplane overhead
Paper mill plant
Same as above
Paper mill plant, wind noise, flapping
flag, auto traffic
Truck noise
Paper mill plant
Paper mill plant
Paper mill plant
Paper mill plant, traffic
Paper mill plant, traffic
Paper mill plant, traffic
Paper mill, insects
Paper mill, insects
Wild noise, sewage treatment plant
Wind noise, sewage treatment plant
Wind noise, sewage treatment plant,
one car pass
Insect noise, sewage treatment plant
Insect noise, sewage treatment plant
Insect noise, sewage treatment plant
Insect noise, sewage treatment plant,
paper mill
Insect noise, sewage treatment plant,
paper mill
Insect noise, sewage treatment plant,
paper mill
* Noise Measurement Location
3-15
-------
3.3.3 Applicable Guidelines and Regulations
There are no existing federal or state noise control regulations that apply directly to
off site noise levels resulting from the CBCP. Two local ordinances regulating noise levels are
applicable to the CBCP: the Land Use Regulations for the City of Jacksonville, Florida and the
restrictions established by the Jacksonville Environmental Protection Board (JEPB).
Noise Pollution Control. Rule 4.0. produced by the JEPB, requires that the noise from
an industrial emitter cannot exceed a set of octave band frequency limits or an overall A-
weighted level at a residential area as follows:
Daytime (7 a.m. to 10 p.m.)
Octave Band Center Frequency, Hz.
31 63 125 250 5QQ 1000 2000 4000 8000 dB
80 78 73 67 61 56 52 48 45 65
Nighttime (10 p.m. to 7 a.m.')
Octave Band Center Frequency, Hz.
31 63 125 250 5QQ 1000 2000 4000 8000 dB
75 74 67 63 56 51 47 45 40 60
3.4 SURFACE WATER RESOURCES
The waters of concern which may be affected by the CBCP include the St. Johns River
and the Broward River. The Broward River serves as the western boundary of the proposed
site. These rivers have been classified by the State of Florida as Class III marine waters -
"Recreation, Propagation and Maintenance of a Healthy, Well-Balanced Population of Fish and
Wildlife," (FAC 17-3.161). State Water Quality Standards for Class II and III waters are
presented in Table 3-7.
3-16
-------
TABLE 3-7
STATE WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
Parameter
Alkalinity
Aluminum
Ammonia, unionized
Antimony
Arsenic
Beryllium
Biological Integrity
Bromates
Bromine
Cadmium
Chlorides
Chlorine (Total
Residual)
Chromium, total (After
mixing)
Coliforms, Fecal
Class II
—
<.1.5 mg/1
—
.<0.02 mg/1
_<0.05 mg/1
..
Shannon-Weaver Diversity
Index (H) of benthic
macroinvertebrates shall not
be reduced to less than 75 %
of established background
.< 100 mg/1
^.0.1 mg/1 as free Br
_<5.0 ug/1
< 10% increase over normal
background levels in
predominantly marine waters
.<0.01 mg/1
0_<..05 mg/1
_O4 counts/100 ml median;
43 counts/100 ml in < 10%
of samples
Class n - Fresh
.>20 mg/1 as CaCO3
—
.<0.02 mg/1
—
_<0.05 mg/1
_<_0.011 mg/1 when
hardness .<.150 mg/1
jC.1.10 mg/1 when hardness
> 150 mg/1
Shannon-Weaver Diversity
Index (H) of benthic
macroinvertebrates shall
not be reduced to less than
75% of established
background
—
-
< 0. 8 ug/1 when hardness
.< 150 mg/1
< 1.2 u/1 when hardness
> 150 mg/1
< 10% increase over
normal background levels
in predominantly marine
waters
<_ 0.01 mg/1
_<0.05 mg/1
< 200 counts/ 100 ml
monthly average; 400
counts/100 ml in < 10% of
samples per month; <800
counts/ 100 ml on any one
day
Class m - Marine
—
<.1.5 mg/1
-
_<0.02 mg/1
.<0.05 mg/I
—
Shannon-Weaver
Diversity Index (H) of
benthic
macroinvertebrates
shall not be reduced to
less than 75 % of
established background
^.100 mg/1
_<0. 1 mg/1 as free Br
<5.0 ug/1
< 10% increase over
normal background
levels in predominantly
marine waters
<.0.01/mg/l
^.0.05 mg/1
<200 counts/ 100 ml
monthly average; 400
counts/100 ml in
< 10% of samples per
month; j^SOO
counts/ 100 ml on any
one day
3-17
-------
TABLE 3-7
STATE WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
(continued)
Parameter
Coliforms, Total
Copper
Cyanide
Detergents
Dissolved Gases, Total
Dissolved Oxygen
Fluoride
Iron
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Nutrients
Class H
5 mg/1 24 hour average;
_>.4.0 mg/1 instantaneous
_< 1.5 mg/1
.<0.3 mg/1
<0.05 mg/1
<0.1 mg/1
<0.1 ug/1
.<0.1 mg/1
Shall not be altered so as to
cause an imbalance in natural
populations of aquatic flora
and fauna
Class n- Fresh
.< 1,000 counts/100 ml
monthly average; 1,000
counts/ 100 ml in <20% of
samples per month; _<.2,400
counts/ 100 ml at any time
^.0.03 mg/1
<5.0 ug/1
.<0.5 mg/1
^.110% saturation
_>5.0 mg/1
< 10 mg/1 as fluoride ion
<.1.0 mg/1
<0.03 mg/1
—
<0.2 ug/1
<0.1 mg/1
Shall not be altered so as to
cause an imbalance in natural
populations of aquatic flora
and fauna
Class m - Marine
^.1,000 counts/100 ml
monthly average; 1,000
counts/100 ml in <20% of
samples per month; ^.2,400
counts/100 ml at any time
< 0.015 mg/1
< 5.0 ug/1
<0.5 mg/1
<110% saturation
.>. 5.0 mg/1 24 hour average;
>4.0 mg/1 instantaneous
<5.0 mg/1
<0.3 mg/1
<0.05 mg/1
—
<0.1 ug/1
<0.1 mg/1
Shall not be altered so as to
cause an imbalance in natural
populations of aquatic flora
and fauna
3-18
-------
TABLE 3-7
STATE WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
(continued)
Parameter
Oil and Grease
Dissolved or Emulsified
Undissolved
Class H
Class n - Fresh
Class in - Marine
<5.0 mg/1
No visible oil to interfere with
beneficial use
j<5.0 mg/1
No visible oil to interfere with
beneficial use
Pesticides and Herbicides
Aldrin Plus Dieldrin
Chlordane
DDT
Demeton
Endosulfan
Endrin
Guthion
Heptachlor
Lindane
Malathion
Methoxychlor
Mirex
Parathion
Toxaphene
pH Range
pH Variation from
Background
Phenol
Phenolic Compounds
Phosphorous
(Elemental)
Phthalate Esters
<0.003 ug/1
<0.004 ug/1
.< 0.001 ug/1
_<0.1 ug/1
<0.001 ug/1
<0.004 ug/1
<0.01 ug/1
^.0.001 ug/1
^.0.004 ug/1
<0.1 ug/1
_<0.03 ug/1
<0.001 ug/1
^.0.04 ug/1
^.0.005 ug/1
6.5 to 8.5
± 1.0
<. 1.0 ug/1
<.1.0ug/l
<0.1 ug/1
—
<_0.003 ug/1
<_0.01 ug/1
^.0.001 ug/1
_<_0. lug/1
.<0.003 ug/1
<. 0.004 ug/1
^.0.01 ug/1
^.0.001 ug/1
_<.0.01 ug/1
^.0.1 ug/1
<.0.03 ug/1
<.0.001 ug/1
^.0.04 ug/1
.<0.005 ug/1
6.0 to 8.5
±1.0
<.1.0ug/l
<.1.0ug/l
-
_<3.0 ug/1
<5.0 mg/1
No visible oil to interfere
with beneficial use
j<0.003 ug/1
_<0.004 ug/1
<0.001 ug/1
j<0.1 ug/1
^.0.001 ug/1
_<0.004 ug/1
^.0.01 ug/1
_<0.001 ug/1
^.0.004 ug/1
<.0.1 ug/1
<0.03 ug/1
^.0.001 ug/1
j<0.04 ug/1
^.0.005 ug/1
6.5 to 8.5
±1.0
<.1.0ug/l
^.1.0 ug/1
<0.1 ug/1
-
3-19
-------
TABLE 3-7
STATE WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
(continued)
Parameter
Polychlorinated
Biphenyl
Radioactive Substances:
Radium 226 and 228
Gross Alpha
Selenium
Silver
Specific Conductance
Transparency from
background
Turbidity from
background
Zinc
Class H
.<0.001 ug/1
.<5 pCi/1
<.15 pCi/1
^.0.025 mg/1
.<0.05 ug/1
Shall not be increased more
than 50% above background
or to 1,275 umhos/cm,
whichever is greater
.<.10% reduction from
background
<29 NTU increase from
background
_< 1.0 mg/1
Class H- Fresh
^.0.001 ug/1
_<5 pCi/1
<.15 pCi/1
<0.025 mg/1
.<0.07 ug/1
Shall not be increased more
than 50 % above background
or to 1,275 umhos/cm,
whichever is greater
j<.10% reduction from
background
<29 NTU increase from
background
_<0.03 mg/1
Class El - Marine
<0.001 ug/1
<5 pCi/1
<.15 pCi/1
<.0.025 mg/1
^.0.05 ug/1
™"
^.10 % reduction from
background
<29 NTU increase from
background
.< 1.0 mg/1
3-20
-------
3.4.1 Surface Water Systems
3.4.1.1 St. Johns River at Jacksonville
At the CBCP site, the St. Johns River runs in an east-west direction lying south of the
site. The SK mill discharge pipeline extends into the river to a point near the main shipping
channel. The river in the vicinity of CBCP is greatly influenced by the Atlantic Ocean. Due
to the tidal influence, currents are highly varied and the flow in the St. Johns River may change
direction up to four times per day. The estimated freshwater flow in the St. Johns River is
approximately 9300 cubic feet per second (cfs). During 1979-1980, flow measurements were
made in the river approximately three miles east of the site. Velocities varied from 0.45 feet
per second (fps) to 1.76 fps during flood tide and 0.43 to 1.79 fps at ebb tide. Flows varied
from 40,000 cfs at flood stage to 29,000 cfs at ebb stage. On some occasions during a dry fall
with strong northeast winds, the river may reverse flow against tidal influences for a short
period of time.
Data collected in the late 1980s in the river showed that ambient water quality
concentrations of the following pollutants have been found to exceed the state water quality
standards for Class III marine waters: aluminum, total residual chlorine, copper, total coliform,
cyanide, iron, mercury, oil and grease, and silver.
3.4.1.2 Broward River
Water quality data for the Broward River just upstream of its confluence with the St.
Johns River was obtained from the City of Jacksonville RESD. Data indicates occasional
exceedances of State water quality standards criteria for pH, iron, lead, and copper.
3.4.2 Surface Water Uses
The St. Johns River is under the jurisdiction of the SJRWMD. The SJRWMD develops
policies to ensure a continued adequate supply of surface water for various uses including public,
industrial, power generation, irrigation, rural, and recreational. Primary surface water uses in
the site vicinity include cooling for power generation, navigation, and recreation. Population
growth in the region as well as increased leisure time has resulted in a high demand for
recreational uses. The St. Johns River is a prime recreational resource. Boating, water skiing,
and fishing are enjoyed by both residents and tourists in the area. The St. Johns River is also
used for commercial navigation serving domestic and foreign cargo lines at the Port of
Jacksonville (including Blount Island) as well as ports upstream as far as Sanford.
3-21
-------
3.4.2.1 Water Withdrawals
Total freshwater use in the Lower St. Johns River Basin (from Lake St. George to the
Atlantic Ocean) in 1975 was estimated to be 398.8 MOD . Of this total, surface water use was
estimated to be 185.6 MGD. A significant portion of water use for industry and power
generation was obtained from surface water sources, principally the St. Johns River.
The Northside Generating Station and SJRPP are major users of surface water from the
St. Johns River in the area. JEA withdraws approximately 806 MGD total for the two power
plants.
3.4.2.2 Surface Water Discharges
The SK mill currently discharges 11 MGD of wastewater from its industrial wastewater
treatment system (IWTS).
3.5 GROUNDWATER RESOURCES
3.5.1 Regional Groundwater Systems
Peninsular Florida's sedimentary rock sequences consist of about 8,000 feet of marine,
littoral, and terrestrial deposits. The Paleozoic and Mesozoic sequences comprise about 5,000
feet while Cenozoic strata extend from the ground surface down to a depth of approximately
3,000 feet. The Cenozoic sediments include the following geologic and hydrologic formations
pertinent to this project:
• The Cedar Keys Limestone, which is the lowest confining unit (aquiclude) for the
Floridan aquifer;
• The Floridan aquifer, which includes the Lake City Limestone, the Avon Park
Limestone, and the Ocala Group;
• The Hawthorn Formation, which is the upper confining unit for the Floridan
aquifer; and
• The Choctawhatchee Formation.
3-22
-------
The post-Miocene sediments in peninsular Florida are characterized by a complex series
of unconsolidated sands, clays, and shell. Where present, undifferentiated upper Miocene and
Pliocene sediments consist of poorly sorted sands, gray clays, and shell beds with abundant
mollusks. Pleistocene and Holocene comprise the upper 10 to 90 feet in northern peninsular
Florida. These are yellow to tan sands with scattered thin clay layers. These sediments contain
a second important source of fresh water known as the shallow aquifer system. This aquifer lies
between the ground surface and a depth of approximately 100 feet in the Duval County area.
Two shallow aquifers underlie the CBCP site: the water table aquifer 7 to 30 feet below
ground surface and the shallow rock aquifer 40 to 100 feet below ground surface. They are
collectively referred to as the shallow aquifer system. The shallow rock aquifer produces water
that is generally acceptable for most domestic, commercial, and industrial uses. Well yields in
the shallow aquifer zone are generally less than 100 gallons per minute (gpm), although yields
of up to 200 gpm have been reported. Water wells completed in surficial sands (water table
aquifer) generally yield less than 10 gpm. Recharge to the shallow aquifer system occurs from
rainfall and surface water. Movement of groundwater at the plant site is generally towards the
adjacent Broward River or St. Johns River. The water table aquifer lies about seven feet below
the ground surface in the plant area.
The CBCP site is underlain by the shallow aquifer system and the deeper Floridan
aquifer. The Floridan aquifer is encountered at depths ranging from 400 and 600 feet in the
Duval County area and consists of two distinctly separate zones referred to as the upper and
lower permeable zones. The upper permeable zone is the principle source of fresh water in
Duval County. Use of water from the lower permeable zone has been limited since adequate
yields of fresh water are obtained from the upper zone. Recharge to the Floridan aquifer in this
region occurs in western Putnam and Clay Counties and eastern Alachua and Bradford Counties.
Recharge occurs where rain and surface water enter the Floridan aquifer through breaches in the
overlying aquicludes. Groundwater movement in the Floridan is from these recharge areas to
the north and east.
3.5.2 Groundwater Use
The Floridan aquifer is the principal source of fresh water for the Jacksonville area.
Users include utilities, private domestic water systems, the military, commercial businesses and
industry. In 1989 , the Floridan aquifer provided approximately 168 MGD for Duval County.
A breakdown of groundwater use in the surrounding area includes the following estimates:
3-23
-------
User Amount (MOD)
Public Water Supply Systems 94.1
Domestic Uses 13.4
Industry 39.9
Agriculture/Irrigation 9.2
Thermal Electric 4.4
Miscellaneous 6.7
Total 167.7
Fresh water use in Duval County is 168.8 MOD, with 167.7 MGD from groundwater.
Power generation in Duval County requires 4.44 MGD of groundwater. The CBCP would
increase the daily requirement for power generation to 5.48 MGD.
The potentiometric surface for the Floridan aquifer in Jacksonville was observed to be
declining at a rate of 0.5 to 2.0 feet per year between the 1940's and 1962 due to increased
pumping. Wells on Fort George Island to the east of the site have shown evidence of salt water
intrusion. Localized depressions in the potentiometric surface have been observed in the vicinity
of Eastport and Jacksonville where heavy pumping occurs. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) files
indicated in 1979 that the potentiometric surface near the site was about 35 feet above mean sea
level. Water levels (piezometric levels) in three nearby USGS observation wells have varied
from 41 feet to 32 feet National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD) over the last nine years. The
well grade elevations are approximately 16 feet NGVD. The Floridan Aquifer at the project site
is, therefore, free flowing artesian. The SK wells, which draw from the Floridan Aquifer, flow
at approximately 7,500 gpm at 9.5 pounds per square inch (psi) pressure at the ground surface.
3.5.3 Groundwater Quality
State water quality standards for groundwater are contained in rules of the FDER Chapter
17-3, FAC Sections 17-3.401 to 17-3.404 and 17-22.104. These standards state that "all
groundwater with total dissolved solids of less than 10,000 mg/1 are classified as Class I-B."
The water quality criteria (Table 3-8) for Class I-B are applicable except within zones of
discharge.
3-24
-------
TABLE 3-8
STATE AND FEDERAL GROUNDWATER QUALITY CRITERIA'
Constituent
State of Florida1"
Class t-B Waters
EPA Drinking Water Standards'
Primary
Inorganic
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmuim
Chloride
Chromium
Color
Copper
Fluoride
Foaming Agents
Iron
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Nitrate (As N)
Odor
pH
Selenium
Silver
Sulfate
Total Dissolved Solids
Zinc
0.05
1.0
0.01
0.05
1.5"
0.05
0.002
10.0
0.01
0.05
0.05
1.0
0.010
0.05
1.4-2.4'
0.05
0.002
10.0
0.01
0.05
Secondary
250
15
1
0.5
0.3
0.05
3
6.5-8.5
250
500
5
Radioactive Substances
Radium (226f + 228)
Gross Alpha
5
15
5
15
3-25
-------
TABLE 3-8
STATE AND FEDERAL GROUNDWATER QUALITY CRITERIA'
(Continued)
Constituent
State of Florida"
Class I-B Waters
EPA Drinking Water Standards'
Primary
Secondary
Organic Chemicals
Endrin
Lindane
Methozychlor
Toxaphene
2, 3-D
2, 4, 5-TP
0.0002
0.004
0.1
0.1
0.01
0.0002
0.004
0.1
0.005
0.1
0.01
0.005
All values in milligrams per liter (mg/1) except color which is in color units, odor which is in odor
unites, pH which is in Standard Units, and radioactive substances which are in picocuries per liter
(pCi/1).
Florida Administrative Code, Chapter 17-3, March 1, 1979.
Environmental Protection Agency, National Interim Primary and Secondary Drinking Water
Regulations; 40 CFR Parts 141 and 143, as amended.
1.5 mg/1 or background levels, whichever is greater.
Specific limit depends upon average maximum daily temperature.
Including radium 226; excluding radon and uranium.
3-26
-------
The quality of the water from the Floridan aquifer is variable depending on the sampling
location, sampling depth, and date of sampling. Contaminants such as hydrogen sulfide gas (1-3
mg/1) and chlorides (10-30 mg/1) have been found in wells in the Floridan aquifer in Duval
County. Increases in chloride concentrations have been documented in several high yield wells
and are attributed to high rates of pumping which cause a distinct cone of depression and lower
the potentiometric surface. Chloride concentrations increased during the 1940 to 1962 time
period were due to heavy pumping. Wells penetrating permeable zones deeper than the Ocala
Group generally have higher chloride concentrations because there is less hydrologic separation
from the inferior quality water within the Cedar Key Limestone and underlying formations. In
some areas, however, confining beds may retard movement between the zones of high and low
salinity.
Testing of water samples from Floridan aquifer wells on or near the SK paper mill was
conducted in 1972-1975 and in 1985 (Law Engineering Testing Company, 1983) indicated that
the water is of the calcium-bicarbonate type. SK Well No. 2 showed increases in concentrations
of sodium, conductivity, and dissolved and total solids in the 1972-1975 time period. That well
displayed higher values than other wells located at a greater distance from the St. Johns River.
Sampling in 1983 also indicated that the conductivity in Well No.'s 1 and 2 had significantly
higher values than other wells tested.
Water in the "shallow-rock" aquifer and the intermediate sand zone at the site is also of
the calcium-bicarbonate type. Some sodium and chloride ions are present as a higher percentage
of the total ionic weight in the water. Water in the water table aquifer has a lower concentration
of total dissolved solids than that of deeper aquifers and other shallow aquifers. In general,
water produced from the water table and shallow rock aquifer has a quality that compares
favorably with both state criteria for Class I-B waters. In the instance of the SK property,
however, the long term accumulation of spent lime mud has led to contamination of the shallow
aquifer. Groundwater analyses of surficial wells were conducted in 1988 and 1989 by Black &
Veatch, Dames & Moore, and Environmental Resources Management -South, Inc. The pH was
noted to be elevated in some areas. Metallic ions such as zinc, cadmium, mercury, arsenic,
aluminum , chromium, copper, iron and lead show values in excess of state water quality
criteria. Nickel levels are elevated as is phenol and certain hydrocarbon compounds due to oil
spills on site.
3-27
-------
3.6 ECOLOGICAL RESOURCES
This section provides a summary of the existing ecological resources in the vicinity of
the CBCP site prior to construction. Since the CBCP site area was previously used by the SK
paper mill, and is historically an industrial site, on-site terrestrial resources are limited.
The Timucuan Ecological and Historic Preserve, named a National Park Unit in 1988,
is located approximately 10 miles away (see Appendix M) and encompasses salt and fresh water
marshes between the St. Johns and Nassau Rivers.
3.6.1 Aquatic Ecology
The CBCP site is adjacent to the extreme northern portion of the St. Johns River.
Aquatic communities near the site are typical of southeastern estuaries, but are currently stressed
by poor water quality caused by elevated nutrient and pollutant loadings. Aquatic plants
important to the ecology of the estuary include phytoplankton, periphyton, and emergent marsh
vegetation. These primary producers support animal life within the estuary either directly or via
production of detritus (dead plant material). Aquatic animal life in the area includes
zooplankton, benthic invertebrates, fish, and marine mammals, including an occasional manatee.
Although stressed by poor water quality, the St. Johns River in the vicinity of the SK mill is
nevertheless a highly productive estuarine area.
3.6.1.1 Aquatic Flora
Phytoplankton are the most important primary producers in the open waters of the St.
Johns River estuary. Densities, rates of production, and species composition of phytoplankton
populations all indicate that the St. Johns River is subject to excessive nutrient and pollutant
loadings. It has been reported (USCOE, 1976) that diatoms were the most abundant
phytoplankton in waters of Duval County. Studies at the JEA Northside Generating Station a
few miles east of the site, showed that phytoplankton communities were dominated by pennate
and centric diatoms, dinoflagellates, and cryptomonads with occasional reports of green and
bluegreen algae blooms (JEA 1976). JEA (1976) indicated that total densities of algae ranged
from 200 to 6,750 organisms per millimeter during a one-year study period. Periphyton
populations in the upper St. Johns River are composed primarily of diatoms (Weston, Inc.
1978). Periphyton are important primary producers in area salt marshes (JEA/FPL 1981a).
3-28
-------
Tidal salt marshes border the CBCP site on both the south and east sides. The dominant
emergent plants in these areas are black needlerush (Juncus roemerianus) and salt marsh
cordgrass (Spartina alterniflora; S. patens). Areas of the Broward River and the St. Johns River
in the vicinity of the CBCP site are bordered by narrow marshy areas with growths of black
needlerush and cordgrass. Extensive undisturbed tidal salt marshes also border Dunn's Creek
to the east of the site. Submerged aquatic vascular plants occur in seasonally flooded wetlands
on one small area of the site. Tidal salt marsh communities provide nursing, spawning, and/or
feeding habitats for many species of commercially important fish and shellfish. Salt marshes
also produce large amounts of dead plant material (detritus) which support the estuarine food
web. These communities also maintain the ecological balance of the estuary by helping to filter
pollutants, nutrients, and sediments which otherwise might flow directly into sensitive nursery
and spawning grounds. Wetlands also act as aquifer recharge zones and help to maintain salinity
patterns.
3.6.1.2 Aquatic Fauna
3.6.1.2.1 Zooplankton
The principal zooplankton in the St. Johns River estuary are copepods of the genus
Acartia, cladocerans, larval forms of benthic animals (primarily barnicle nauplii and cypris
larvae), arrow worms (Sagitta sp.), and mysid shrimp (JEA/FPL 1981a). Zooplankton are an
important intermediate component of estuarine food webs. They are preyed upon intensively by
many commercially important species (e.g., menhaden) as well as by non-commercial but
ecologically important fishes (e.g., anchovies, silversides).
3.6.1.2.2 Macroinvertebrates
Benthic macroinvertebrate populations in the study area are dominated by polychaetes,
obligochaetes, and small crustaceans (JEA/FPL 1981a). Benthic population densities in the
vicinity of the site are generally low with scattered, high density patches of several opportunistic
species. Benthic invertebrates are consumed by redfish, sea trout, croakers, and many other
predators.
3.6.1.2.3 Shellfish
Oysters, shrimp, and crabs are abundant in the St. Johns River estuary. Commercial
shrimp and blue crab spawn offshore and move into tidal creeks and salt marsh areas of the St.
3-29
-------
Johns River where they grow and mature. Commercially important species include white shrimp
(Penaeus setiferus), brown shrimp (P. aztecus), pink shrimp (P. duoraruni), and blue crab
(Callinectes sapidus). A limited number of oysters are commercially harvested from a small
area in northeast Duval County (USCOE 1980). However, the FDER has not approved the St.
Johns River in Duval County for shellfish harvesting (JEA/FPL 198la).
3.6.1.2.4 Fish and Ichthyoplankton
The St. Johns River estuary supports an abundant and varied fish community as both
seasonal and permanent residents of the estuary (mummichog, menhaden, weakfish, perch, spot,
spotted seatrout), anadromous species (shad, striped bass), occasional oceanic species (bluefish,
tarpon, jacks) and strays from freshwater areas (gars, catfish). Freshwater creeks, tidal creeks,
and the St. Johns River have been previously surveyed in the vicinity of the CBCP site
(JEA/FPL 198la). This study lists 113 species of fish from the estuarine portion of the St.
Johns River. Many of these species are commercially important and use the area near the site
as spawning and nursery grounds during different seasons of the year. The availability of these
areas is essential to the maintenance of a viable commercial fisheries industry.
3.6.2 Terrestrial Ecology
3.6.2.1 Terrestrial Flora
Northeastern Florida falls within the southern mixed forest category as defined by
Kuchler (1964). The region is characterized as a tall forest with broadleaf deciduous and
evergreen species. Dominant trees are sweetgum, southern magnolia, slash pine, loblolly pine,
and oaks.
The project site is located on industrialized land which had been used for pulp mill
operations for at least 30 years. During that period alteration of the natural vegetation of the
area had occurred, with the exception of the northern portion where there was habitat suitable
to the gopher tortoise (a Florida species of special concern). The majority of the onsite
vegetation consisted of a mix of annual and perennial weedy invasive species. A narrow band
of trees has grown up along the bank of the Broward River. A majority of the site was covered
by weedy species such as briar, ragweed, dog fennel, and Bermuda grass. Shrubby grounsel
trees occurred along the river and on certain isolated portions of the site. Other species in
shrubby wooded sections consisted of black cherry, wax myrtle, and cabbage palm. Along the
shore of the Broward River is a Spartina-Juncus marsh .
3-30
-------
3.6.2.2 Terrestrial Fauna
Prior to construction, onsite wildlife habitat was limited, scattered in small patches, and
of poor quality. Wildlife use of the site is limited to those species which are able to adapt to
human activity and a disturbed, industrial environment. Animals observed on site included
rabbits, snakes, tortoises, and armadillos. Raccoons, skunks, mice, and opossums were likely
onsite. Due to lack of useful habitat, larger mammals such as deer may have only occasionally
visited fringe areas of the site.
3.6.3 Ecologically Sensitive Resources
Biologically sensitive areas on the CBCP site include the Spartina-Juncus marsh bordering
the river and habitats for rare, threatened, or endangered species. The marsh system bordering
the Broward River is a part of the estuarine system of the St Johns River. It provides habitat
for breeding and nursery functions for aquatic organisms.
According to the Florida Natural Areas Inventory, there are no records of federally or
Florida listed threatened or endangered species onsite. However, the West Indian Manatee, a
federally and Florida endangered species, inhabits the waters of the St. Johns River and has been
observed in the Broward River.
Habitat suitable for the gopher tortoise existed on the northern portion of the SK site.
The gopher tortoise can potentially harbor in its burrows at least 30 types of commensal animals,
including the endangered indigo snake. The gopher tortoise is a federal C2 candidate species
and a species of special concern in Florida. Nine gopher tortoises were found on-site and were
relocated under the guidance of the Florida Game and Freshwater Commission. See Section
4.6.1 Construction-related Ecological Impacts and Appendix P.
Avian species of concern that may visit the site include Bachman's sparrow, snowy egret,
Louisiana or tricolored heron, and the red cockaded woodpecker. The American alligator,
which inhabits ponds, lakes, and rivers, may potentially be onsite near the river or north of the
site in a small wetland area. Due to a recent increase in population it has been reduced in rank
to a federal listing of "threatened due to similarity of appearance" and a Florida listing of special
concern. Its superficial resemblance to the rarer American crocodile has resulted in its current
continued federal listing.
3-31
-------
Shallow freshwater, brackish, and saltwater wetlands are the habitats of wading birds
such as the little blue heron, snowy egret, and Louisiana heron. These wading birds are
classified as species of special concern in Florida and may utilize the shallow waters and
low-tide mudflats near the proposed site. The water adjacent to the site may also be a hunting
area for osprey.
No rare, threatened or endangered species of vegetation have been found on site.
3.7 GEOLOGIC RESOURCES
This section includes descriptions of the existing local and regional physiography,
topography, soils, and geology of the CBCP site. The site is located in the St. Johns River
Basin, an elongated area of approximately 51,200 square miles in northeast Florida. The area
is underlain by limestone and sands of Pleistocene to Eocene age and the surface is generally
comprised of sands and gravels of Pleistocene and Holocene terrace deposits. The terrace
deposits parallel the shoreline and form the topography of northeast Florida.
3.7.1 Physiography and Topography
Florida can be divided into three major transpeninsular physiographic zones: the
Northern or Proximal Zone; the Central or Mid-peninsular Zone; and the Southern or Distal
Zone. The CBCP site is in the Northern Zone. The topography of the site is controlled by
Pleistocene marine terraces and beach ridges bordered by tidal marsh and estuaries of the St.
Johns River. The site topography is gently sloping from the northeast to the southwest with
surface elevations varying between 20 feet and sea level. Surficial deposits are sands, silty
sands, and clayey sands to depths of 55 to 80 feet.
3.7.2 Soils and Geotechnical Conditions
Borings made on site show that the natural deposits are very erratic. In some areas the
site has been used to store lime mud and wood chips. Borings show that these materials may
be as much as 19 feet deep, overlying the natural soils. Natural soils are medium to dense sands
and silty sands that vary greatly with depth and from one location to another, typical of marine
terrace deposits. These soils are about 80 feet deep and overlie the Hawthorne formation. The
Hawthorne formation consists of interbedded sandy clays, clayey sands, and limestone. It serves
as the Floridan aquifer's confining unit. Due to the high water table (three to eight feet below
3-32
-------
ground level) and the loose, unconsolidated nature of the soils, special construction techniques
were necessary to provide a firm foundation.
Foundations for heavy structures were placed on a combination of friction and bearing
piles, driven into the dense sands or the Hawthorne formation. More lightly loaded structures
were placed on shallow footings, mats, or piles as necessary. Removal of lime mud and wood
chips was also necessary for construction of the CBCP.
3.7.3 Regional Geology
Peninsular Florida is part of the Eastern Gulf Coast Sedimentary Basin with a
sedimentary sequence of limestones, dolomites, evaporites, and unconsolidated sands, gravels,
and clays that ranges in depth from 8,000 feet in northern Florida to 18,000 in the southern
portion of the state. These strata are of late Mesozoic to Recent ages. The present land surface
is covered with Pliocene and younger unconsolidated sediments resulting from fluctuations in
sea level. They are generally marine terrace and beach ridge deposits. Eocene and younger
rocks comprise the strata encountered at the surface and are penetrated by most water wells in
the area. The principal aquifers used in the Jacksonville area are of Eocene or younger age.
3.7.4 Site Geology
The site is covered with unconsolidated sediments of the Pleistocene to Recent age that
are primarily marine terrace and beach ridge deposits. These sands and gravel overlie
Mio-Pliocene deposits and the Hawthorne formation. The Mio-Pliocene strata consist of
semi-consolidated sands, gravels, shells, and clay materials. The Hawthorne formation is the
upper confining layer for the Floridan aquifer in most areas and consists of clays, sands and
some limestones.
Beneath the Hawthorne formation lies the Ocala Group. At the site the Ocala is
approximately 450 feet deep. The Ocala Group overlies, in descending order, the Avon Park
Limestone, the Lake City Limestone, and usually the Oldsmar Limestone. These strata are
limestones and dolomites, generally very permeable, and yield high quantities of groundwater.
3.8 SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS
The primary impact area of the CBCP project is considered to be the City of Jacksonville
and Duval County. This area will be referred to as the project area. The six surrounding
3-33
-------
counties which include Baker, Clay, Flagler, Nassau, Putnam, and St. Johns Counties are
considered to be secondary impact areas and will be referred to as the project region. The
following analysis identifies the existing social and economic conditions of both the project area
and project region which could be affected by the CBCP project.
3.8.1. Population Levels
The population of Duval County has grown rapidly during the 1980s, primarily because
of increased immigration to the area, and this growth is forecast by JPD to continue. The total
population in 1987 was 670,688, an increase of almost 100,000 from 1980. The annual growth
rate for the area population has been 2.49 percent, double the rate of the 1970s. The
geographical pattern of growth has been uneven during this period, with the largest gains in the
southeast regions of the county, and estimated decreases in population in the urban core. The
estimated annual rate of growth in the Southeast District from 1980-87 was 5.76 percent, versus
3.21 percent in the North District (where CBCP will be located) and negative 0.63 percent in
the urban core. Much of the expansion has been due to a large increase in opportunities for
white-collar workers in the service sector. Another major factor in the population growth has
been the further development of three U.S. Navy bases located in the county.
Table 3-9 presents the population profile of Duval County for the period 1980-87,
showing the population trends for each of the districts in the county. These data are from the
U.S. Department of Commerce and from JPD. Table 3-10 provides estimated population
figures for 1988 and 1990 for districts within the county. The estimates for 1988 are obtained
by extrapolating the 1987 population estimates by the 1980-87 average annual population growth
rate for each of the districts. The population projections for 1990 were prepared by JPD.
JPD has forecast that the population growth of Duval County will continue through the
year 2010, with an average annual growth rate (in the period 1980-2010) of 1.50 percent.
3.8.2 Economic Conditions
It is expected that the area principally affected by the CBCP will be Duval County. The
data included in this section were collected from several sources, including the 2005
Development Plan for Duval County, the North District Plan, the 1987 Northeast Florida
Comprehensive Regional Policy Plan, the 1980 Census of Population and Housing for
Jacksonville, and the 1987 Annual Statistical Package prepared by the Jacksonville Planning
Department. While there may be some secondary impacts realized in other counties of the
3-34
-------
TABLE 3-9
POPULATION ESTIMATE FOR DUVAL COUNTY, FLORIDA,
BY PLANNING DISTRICT AND MUNICIPALITY
(APRIL 1, 1987)
District/
Municipality
Duval County
1980 Actual
Population
571,003
1987 Estimated
Population
670,688
1980-87 Net
Change
99,685
1980-87 Percent
Change
17.46
Average Annual
Percent Change
2.49
Planning Districts
North District
Greater Arlington
District
Southeast District
Southwest District
Northwest District
Urban Core District
City of Jacksonville
Atlantic Beach
Baldwin
Jacksonville Beach
Neptune Beach
Other
Municipalities
33,408
110,286
95,753
102,861
142,317
56,295
540,920
7,847
1,526
15,462
5,248
30,083
40,912
136,497
134,380
121,793
147,056
53,831
634,469
10,901
1,612
17,649
6,057
36,219
7,504
26,211
38,627
18,932
4,739
-2,464
93,549
3,054
86
2,187
809
6,136
22.46
23.77
40.34
18.41
3.33
-4.38
17.29
38.92
5.64
14.14
15.42
20.40
3.21
3.40
5.76
2.63
0.48
-0.63
2.47
5.56
0.81
2.02
2.20
2.91
Source: US Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1980 Census of Population and Housing (JPD, August
1987).
3-35
-------
TABLE 3-10
POPULATION PROJECTIONS FOR 1988 AND 1990
Area
Duval County
1988 Estimated Population
687,388
1990 Projected Population
690,354
Planning Districts
North District
Greater Arlington District
Southeast District
Southwest District
Northwest District
Urban Core District
City of Jacksonville
42,225
141,137
142,120
124,996
147,761
53,491
650,140
43,187
139,988
144,601
127,294
147,876
51,101
654,047
NOTES:
1. 1988 population estimate based on extrapolating 1987 JPD estimate by 1980-87 growth rate.
2. 1990 projected population prepared by JPD.
3-36
-------
project region, it is not expected that their public or private services and community
infrastructure will be directly affected by CBCP.
3.8.2.1 Employment
The increase in population in Duval County has been paralleled by a dramatic increase
in employment. During the period 1980-87, nonagricultural employment grew by 32 percent,
from 288,600 persons to 382,200 persons. The rate of unemployment has ranged from a low
5.0 percent in 1980 to 7.8 percent in 1983. It currently stands at 5.2 percent (August 1988).
Table 3-11 provides a sector-by-sector analysis of employment from 1980-87 to give a clearer
picture of the employment trends in the county. The dramatic expansions for construction
activity, retail trade, and services are an indication of the economic growth of the area.
Manufacturing and wholesale trade employment has not kept pace with the growth of the
county's economy, an indication of the trend toward service-based industries. Employment in
the Government sector grew slightly during this period, primarily because of the continued
development of the naval bases.
TABLE 3-11
EMPLOYMENT TRENDS IN DUVAL COUNTY, FLORIDA
1980 TO 1987
Employment Sector
Construction
Manufacturing
Transportation
Wholesale Trade
Retail Trade
Finance, Insurance
and Real Estate
Services and Mining
Government
Total County
Number of Jobs
1980
15,500
34,100
23,700
22,600
51,700
27,200
60,400
53,400
288,600
% of Total
5.4
11.8
8.2
7.9
17.9
9.4
24.3
18.5
100.0
1987
27,200
38,000
27,200
27,800
75,200
36,300
93,000
57,500
382,200
% of Total
7.1
10.0
7.1
7.3
19.7
9.5
24.3
15.0
100.0
Percent Increase
75.5
11.4
14.8
23.0
45.4
33.5
54.4
7.6
32.0
3-37
-------
3.8.2.2 Income
The growth in the level of household income in Duval County from 1970 to 1980 is
detailed in Table 3-12. In 1980, an estimated 12.7 percent of families in Duval County had
incomes below the poverty line. The 1985 per capita income was $10,565, an increase of 55
percent from 1980.
3.8.2.3 Housing
This section presents a profile of the existing housing stock, along with trends in housing
construction since 1980, the average size of the household, and the stock of housing for the next
two decades. Data for this section are largely drawn from the 1987 Statistical Package prepared
by JPD.
The profile of the existing housing stock is summarized below:
1980 1987 Percent Change
Single Family 142,310 161,482 13.47
Duplexes 6,811 7,753 13.83
Tri/Quad-plexes 9,841 16,286 65.49
Five or More 41,562 54,333 30.73
Mobile Homes 13,032 23,460 80.83
Demolitions 0_ -1.802 —
Total 213,556 261,512 22.46
The greatest percentage increase has been in mobile homes and multifamily units; 53.49
percent of this new multifamily construction has been in the Southeast District. A total of 92.9
percent of these new multifamily dwellings has been built in three areas of the county: Southeast
District, Greater Arlington District, and Southwest District.
In addition to the dwellings listed above, there were an estimated 21,966 seasonal units
(transitory apartments, rooming houses, hotels and campgrounds) in 1985. This number was
forecast to grow to 26,965 by 1995. The average household size during this same period has
declined dramatically, from 3.35 persons per dwelling in 1980 to 2.6 persons in 1987. This is
a 22.4 percent decrease.
3-38
-------
TABLE 3-12
HOUSEHOLD INCOME IN DUVAL COUNTY, FLORIDA
Type of Household
1970
1980
Percent Change
Families
Median
Mean
8,671
9,931
17,661
20,784
103.7
109.3
Households
Median
Mean
Per Capita (Age 15 + )
6,642
8,039
2,834
14,938
18,377
6,822
124.9
128.6
140.7
Source: 1980 Census of Population and Housing, Jacksonville SMSA,
US Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1983.
3-39
-------
JPD has forecast that housing stock in Duval County will continue to grow, expanding
60.6 percent by the year 2010, to a total of 363,831 units. A table summarizing the projected
housing growth pattern is included in Table 3-13. This continued growth is demonstrated by
number of new building permits issued in the period from April 1987 through May 1988, as
follows:
Building Type Number of Permits Percent of Total
Single Family 4,550 61
Multifamily 2,071 28
Mobile Homes 837 11
Source: JPD
3.8.3 Community Services
3.8.3.1 Water Supply and Wastewater Treatment
The Jacksonville/Duval County public works function includes sewage, water, and
sanitation services. At present, each component is operating with excess capacity. The total
sewage component has a current design capacity of approximately 87.41 MOD while the current
wastewater flow is about 44.99 MOD or an excess capacity of approximately 42.42 MOD. The
current design capacity of the water treatment component is about 175 MOD while the current
demand is approximately 65.45 MGD or an excess of over 109.55 MOD. City water is not
available and therefore will not be used by the CBCP.
The service level capacity of the sanitation component was 1.1 million pounds per day
in 1980. Resident demand for this public service function at that time was about 864,000 total
pounds per day. However, remaining space in existing landfills is becoming critically small.
At the present time, there are two municipal landfills in operation. One of these was to be
closed in 1989 but was re-opened two months later. Another landfill was opened in August,
1992. The County had also filed a request for expansion of the present North District landfill
but withdrew the permit request. The system capacity will be approximately 1,800 tons per day
of usable space, or 26 years.
3-40
-------
TABLE 3-13
PROJECTED HOUSEHOLD POPULATION AND DWELLING UNITS
FOR DUVAL COUNTY, FLORIDA (1980-2010)
Year
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
Total
Population
571,003
633,920
690,354
733,914
769,565
799,467
827,151
Group Quarter
Population
Household
Population
559,694
617,885
672,570
715,804
751,129
780,705
808,063
Total
11,309
16,035
17,784
18,110
18,436
18,762
19,088
Dwelling Units
Civilian
6,235
6,561
6,887
7,213
7,539
7,865
8,191
Military*
5,074
9,474
10,897
10,897
10,897
10,897
10,897
Household
Size
2.69
2.61
2.56
2.51
2.47
2.43
2.43
Total
226,611
258,518
285,756
310,747
332,285
351,090
363,831
Occupied
208,151
236,799
262,610
285,204
304,606
321,423
332,687
Vacant
18,260
21,719
23,146
25,543
27,679
29,667
31,144
Percent
Vacant
8.06
8.40
8.10
8.22
8.33
8.45
8.56
* Includes only 28.32 percent of the personnel projected to be assigned aboard ships for N.S. Mayport basin (because
the projected remainder has another place of residence within 50 miles), and other unaccompanied personnel for
all three naval facilities.
Source: US Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census, 1980 Census of Population and Housing
(Jacksonville Planning Department, October 1985).
3-41
-------
3.8.3.2 Public Safety
The public safety service function includes law enforcement and fire protection. Based
on U.S. Department of Commerce standards, the law enforcement component for 1979-80 had
adequate personnel to meet public demand in the Jacksonville/Duval area. A city of this size
reportedly requires 1,325 enforcement officers and support personnel to satisfy the public
demand. Jacksonville/Duval County currently has a staff of 1,485 which actually represents an
excess of 160 full-time personnel (JEA/FPL 198la). The evaluation of the Duval County police
facilities for the 2005 Comprehensive Plan recommended the construction of a new jail and the
possible construction of new police stations, if a decentralized policy were adopted.
Within the North District, there were eight fire stations in 1985, manned by a
combination of paid and volunteer personnel. Two of the facilities are manned only by
volunteers. Structural conditions of the facilities vary from fair for most stations to very good
for the newer facilities. Because of the large geographic area in the North District, very few
areas are serviced with an average response time of less than three minutes from existing
stations. This is expected to improve somewhat with the relocation of one of the fire stations
and the addition of new equipment. The station is being moved from the Navy Fuel Depot to
the intersection of Busch Drive and North Main Street.
3.8.3.3 Education
The public school system of Jacksonville/Duval County area consists of 132 schools and
has the physical capacity to accommodate an enrollment of approximately 104,300 students. The
current physical capacity of the school system in pupil stations is slightly more than 107,000,
resulting in an excess of approximately 2,700 pupil stations. There are also approximately 60
private and parochial schools located in Duval County. These schools range from 3 grades to
13 grades (k-12) and include two special education centers (Jacksonville Area Planning Board
1979 in JEA/FPL 1981a). The Jacksonville area also has several postsecondary educational
institutions.
There was a decline in Duval County school enrollment during the 1970's, but enrollment
is expected to increase during the period of 1980-2000. In 1977-78, 14.5 percent of elementary
school students and 12.5 percent of secondary students were enrolled in private or parochial
schools. If it is assumed that the percentage of students enrolled in these schools remains
constant in the future, then the forecast enrollment and capacity needs for Duval County are as
follows (data from the Duval County 2005 Comprehensive Plan).
3-42
-------
Projected Additional
Enrollment Schools
Elementary Schools
1980 49,582 2
1990 56,570 0
2005 65,200 8
Secondary Schools
1980 52,170 0
1990 52,273 0
2005 63,709 6
An alternative assumption is that the absolute number of students in non-government
schools remains constant. In this case, the number of additional schools required would be
slightly lower in some cases.
3.8.3.4 Health Care
Based on U.S. Department of Commerce standards, a city of Jacksonville's size should
maintain a public health staff of approximately 750 personnel. The public health service
function of Jacksonville/Duval County has a staff of only 165, resulting in a deficiency of
approximately 590 personnel (JEA/FPL 198la). One explanation for this public health service
deficiency could be the abundance of non-public health facilities (hospitals) in the city. The
various private hospitals in Jacksonville/Duval County are currently maintaining a service level
of approximately 1,065,000 patient days. With a current resident demand of about 779,200, this
equates to a current excess of approximately 286,000 patient days or a 73% capacity level. The
capacity benchmark utilized by a majority of the area's hospitals is 80% (JEA/FPL 198la).
It should be noted that, at present, there is no hospital in the North District of Duval
County. The nearest two facilities are located approximately 4.5 miles south on 1-95. These
two hospitals (Methodist Hospital, Inc. and the University Hospital of Jacksonville) are
multipurpose facilities. In addition, there are other hospitals farther from the District. JPD has
forecast the need for small-to-medium size facility to service the needs of the expanding
population in this North District.
There are numerous medical and dental private offices and clinics in the North District
with the majority of these located in the southern and central portions.
3.8.4 Land Use
3.8.4.1 Region and Area
Land use in the seven county project region is predominantly agricultural with
approximately 2,336,500 acres (82%) devoted to this use (Table 3-14). Other land uses in the
3-43
-------
TABLE 3-14
EXISTING LAND USE ACREAGE - NORTHEAST FLORIDA REGION
(JACKSONVILLE AREA PLANNING BOARD 1977A IN JEA/FPL 1981A)
Classification
Residential"'
Commercial & Services
Industrial
Transportation®
Communication & Utilities
Institutional
Recreational'3'
Mixed
Extractive
Total Developed
Total Land Area
Developed as % of Total Land
Agriculture
Agriculture as % of Total
Land
County
Baker
2,568
84
83
3,849
321
315
161
-
182
7,674
374,14
4
21
357,56
2
95.6
Claj
11,382
845
674
4,284
175
67,991
1,884
-
3,891
91,126
379,52
0
24.0
346,97
1
91.4
Duval
58,247
5,754
4,819
20,677
843
26,378
6,660
318
2,214
125,90
9
490,04
8
25.7
288,24
0
58.8
Flagler
1,774
244
110
3,296
39
188
264
-
-
5,916
311,87
2
1.9
282,37
8
90.5
Nassau
7,316
416
300
5,167
42
255
1,861
63
76
15,495
416,000
3.7
348,452
83.8
Putnam
10,304
534
545
4,288
1,145
729
525
430
666
19,166
498,368
3.8
379,452
76.2
St. Johns
11,234
740
446
54,564
176
673
791
11
.
19,637
387,008
5.1
333,306
86.1
Region
102,934
8,617
6,978
47,125
2,741
94,530
12,146
822
7,029
284,922
2,856,9
60
10.0
2,336,5
20
81.8
(1) Includes local street right-of-way.
(2) Includes an estimated 11,316 acres of rights-of-way.
(3) Excludes national forest and/or swamp lands and game management areas or refuge.
Note: Columns may not total exactly due to rounding.
3-44
-------
region include residential; commercial; industrial; and extractive (mining/quarrying). The
greatest urban-related use in the Northeast Region is residential land use (approximately 102,930
acres or 4%). Low density development is located primarily near the St. Johns River and
transportation corridors throughout the region. Medium and high density residential areas are
found along the coast and near downtown Jacksonville as well as St. Augustine, Jacksonville
Beach, and Atlantic Beach. In contrast to the region, Duval County has only 58.8% of its land
in agricultural uses. The most predominant developed land use in Duval County is residential
comprising 58,247 acres (11.9%) while industrial, institutional, and commercial uses constitute
36,950 acres or approximately 7.5% of the total land area (Jacksonville Area Planning Board
1977a in JEA/FPL 1981a).
3.8.4.1.1 Existing J^and Cover
Most of the land within the five mile radius of the CBCP site is within the North District
of the City of Jacksonville. A total of 116,545 acres can be considered suitable for
development. Approximately 27% of this total was covered with urban development in 1985.
Of this urban development, 32% is residential; mostly single family. Most of the residential
areas are south or west of the St. Johns River or west of Main Street. Transportation facilities
cover 31 % of the acreage within this district. Parks and recreational areas cover approximately
16% of the acreage.
3.8.4.1.2 Existing Land Uses
The land use within a five mile radius of the proposed CBCP is concentrated primarily
in the northern half of Duval County located near the St. Johns River. Land use in the vicinity
of the proposed CBCP is largely related to uses of the St. Johns River and is expected to
continue in such related uses (Table 3-15).
Demands are heavy for that land which is easily accessible to the river. These demands
are primarily for industrial, commercial, residential, and recreational land uses. Recent land use
trends in the vicinity of the site since 1985 can be ascertained from building permit data for
Census Tracts 102.01 and 102.02. These tracts are bordered by Duval Station road on the
north, by Dunn Creek on the east, by Main Street on the west and by the St. Johns River on the
south.
The proposed site is currently zoned for heavy industrial use which may include power
plant siting. The land contiguous to the north, east, and south of the proposed site is zoned
industrial as well. The Broward River is to the west of the site. Industries are locating in this
area not only because of the St. Johns River, but also because of the proximity to interstate
3-45
-------
TABLE 3-15
SUMMARY OF LAND USE EXISTING IN 1985 IN THE AREA
SURROUNDING THE PLANT
(CENSUS TRACTS 102.01 AND 102.02)(AES-CB/SK 1988)
Land Use
Gross Area
Less Water
Less Salt Marsh
Net Land Area
Urbanized Development
Single Family
Multi-Family
Acreage
Census Tract 102.1
5,565.24
624.91
294.17
4,646.16
Census Tract 102.02
5,777.92
938.90
362.01
4,477.01
Total
11,343.16
1,563.81
656.18
9,123.17
1,089.70
0
436.32
0.00
1,526.02
0.00
Percent of
Developable Land
16.7
0.00.0
Parks & Recreation
Institutional
Commercial & Service
Communications & Utilities
Major Transportation
Industrial
Total Urbanized
20.19
44.52
33.00
186.90
179.55
1,553.86
158.00
30.65
13.63
316.85
789.01
1,744.46
178.19
75.17
46.63
503.75
968.56
3,298.32
2.0
0.8
0.5
5.5
10.6
36.1
Note: Census Tracts 102.01 and 102.2 are bordered by: Duval Station Road on the north, Dunn Creek on the east,
Main Street on the west, and the St. Johns River on the south.
3-46
-------
highways and the Jacksonville International Airport. In 1985, 10.6 % of developable land in
census tracts 102.01 and 102.02 was devoted to industrial use. Between 1985 and 1988, 24
building permits were issued for industrial sites in this area representing over 44 acres of new
industrial development. Most of this industrial development occurred along Hecksher Drive,
Eastport and Busch Roads, and Main Street.
Residential land use constituted 16.7% of the developable land in this area in 1985,
encompassing 1526 acres and 2977 dwelling units. By September of 1988, residential land use
had expanded to approximately 18% of the developable land area due to issuance of an
additional 237 residential permits, about 4 miles from the site. The closer residential areas are
a mixture of mobile homes and single-family dwellings of varying conditions and ages. The
area farther from the site is separated by commercial districts and consists primarily of
well-maintained, middle to upper income family dwellings.
In 1985, less than one percent of the developable land in Census Tract 102.01 and 102.02
was used for commercial or service activities. Between 1985 and 1988, 72 building permits
were issued representing over 57 acres of commercial development. This development occurred
primarily along Main Street, New Berlin Road, and Busch Drive, with some development along
Eastport Road and Hecksher Drive.
3.8.4.1.3 Projected Land Uses
The Northeast Region is expected to experience an increase in urban-related land uses
as the decline in agricultural uses continues. However, the growth of urban-related land uses
is likely to occur in a restricted pattern. Natural resource factors such as the availability of
adequate water supplies may condition the location of such future development.
Future land uses within the five mile radius are expected to continue focusing on
activities associated with the St. Johns River. Heavy demands are projected for the shores of
the river by industry, water-related commercial, and residential land uses. JPD's 2005
Comprehensive Plan calls for port- and water-related industry development and provides for the
protection of wetland areas in the vicinity of the proposed project (JEA/FPL 198la).
The area along Hecksher Drive from Interstate 95 east to just north of Blount Island (near
the SJRPP) is expected to continue developing as industrial and storage facilities. By the year
2005, the area of the proposed CBCP should have experienced major industrial development.
Blount Island is expected to continue developing as a center for water-related industries.
3-47
-------
3.8.4.1.4 Existing Zoning
Land in the primary project area is zoned for industrial uses. The proposed CBCP site
has been zoned for heavy industrial use (IH). Power plants are permissible uses in IH zones.
A 1.9 acre portion of the original site is zoned Open Rural (OR). The Jacksonville City Council
declined to rezone this parcel. Consequently AES-CB deleted the 1.9 acre parcel from the site
and added a one acre parcel on the pulp mill property that was zoned IH. The paper mill's
existing wastewater treatment ponds are located on property zoned OR. The use of the OR land
for a wastewater treatment plant is allowed for the paper mill as an essential service.
Existing land use ordinances refers to a single industrial use under the Essential Services
definition. The City granted an exception on March 16, 1989, to allow the wastewater treatment
facility to treat wastewater from the CBCP (note that this is no longer part of project plans).
The state has found the site to be in compliance with local land use and zoning plans.
3.8.5 Recreational Resources
Recreational areas in the region center around the coast and the river. Within a five
mile radius of the proposed CBCP is the Jacksonville Municipal Zoo and Yellow Bluff Fort, an
undeveloped park at the site of Confederate Army gun placements located in the Timucuan
Preserve. The Timucuan Ecological and Historic Preserve, established as a National Park in
1988, is located between the St. Johns and Nassau Rivers and includes the Fort Caroline
National Memorial. It contains 46,000 acres, most of which are wetlands. A number of areas
also exist that are not officially designated as parks. These areas are normally used for fishing,
sunbathing, and picnicking.
Between seven and ten miles from the proposed site are two regional parks located in the
Timucuan Preserve. One of these parks is the Kingsley Plantation, a state historic and
recreational site located on Fort George Island near the beaches. The Jacksonville Area
Planning Board (JAPB) estimates that over 35,000 people visit the plantation each year
(JEA/FPL 1981a). Also located on Fort George Island is the Rollins Bird and Plant Sanctuary.
To the east is the 2,500-acre Little Talbot Island State Park. This park provides beach
recreation to over 35,000 visitors each year (JEA/FPL 198la). The Fort Caroline National
Memorial, a 120-acre reconstruction of a French fort built in 1564, is located approximately
eight miles southeast of the site. JAPB estimates that visitation to the fort averages around
400,000 people per year.
3-48
-------
North of Jacksonville on the Florida/Georgia border is the Okefenokee Swamp, a
National Wildlife Area. The swamp is over 40 miles long and 20 miles wide, and contains
abundant wildlife including rare species of flora and fauna. Also located north of Jacksonville
at St. Mary's, Georgia, is the Cumberland Island National Seashore. Cumberland Island is a
National Park offering camping, biking, swimming, and fishing in a natural wildlife setting.
3.8.6 Aesthetic Conditions
The site of the proposed CBCP is a relatively flat area on the eastern shore of the
Broward River and in the western portion of an industrial area. The general vista is open to the
south and west due to the rivers. To the south the vista is influenced by industrial development
associated with existing oil terminals. Adjacent to the proposed site is the SK mill.
The viewshed of the proposed site extends mostly to the south because of the St. Johns
River and the marshes. Homes located on the western shore of the Broward River are most
affected by the view of industrial structures in the area. The only major road south of the St.
Johns River that offers a view of the industrial structures is Fort Caroline Road which runs
contiguous up to the marshes and Mill Cove. The CBCP can also be seen from the Dames Point
Bridge. On the north side of the St. Johns River south of the proposed site, a view of the
proposed CBCP is possible from Hecksher Drive.
This view includes CBCP's 425 foot tall stack, which has medium intensity flashing white
lights. The lights, which are required by the Federal Aviation Administration as navigational
aids, could impact citizens in the line of sight of the stack. This view was previously dominated
by the paper mill in the foreground and is typical of the industrialized section of Hecksher
Drive. East of the site, the tree cover allows only a limited view of most of the structures.
3.9 CULTURAL RESOURCES
Cultural resource data, including comments from the State Historic Preservation Officer
(SHPO) of the Florida Department of State, Division of Historical Resources (FDS DHR), were
used to describe the existing environment at the proposed CBCP site.
3.9.1 CBCP Site
The CBCP site is located within the Northern St. Johns Archaeological Area. This
region between the mouths of the St. Johns and St. Marys Rivers is referred to as a transition
3-49
-------
zone between the Georgia Coastal tradition and the St. Johns tradition of East Florida (Wood
and Rudolph 1980b). Many of the recorded prehistoric shell middens and mounds along the St.
Johns River have been destroyed by residential and industrial development (FDAHR 1980).
Sources of information on the project area include the 1976 cultural resource survey of Duval
County (FDAHR 1980), a cultural reconnaissance report (Wood and Rudolph 1980a), a report
of the testing of eleven archaeological sites (Wood and Rudolph 1980b), and the applicants' SCA
(AES/SK 1988). These sources indicate no presence of historic resources within the project area
which would be eligible for nomination to the National Register of Historic Places (Percy/Tesar
1988).
Site - specific cultural resources information for the CBCP site was requested from the
Florida SHPO. The SHPO stated in a letter dated June 21, 1990: "... 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, 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..." (See Appendix N)
3.9.2 Surrounding Area
legislation introduced by Congressman Charles Bennett established Florida's newest
National Park Unit, the Timucuan Ecological and Historic Preserve on February 16, 1988.
Located entirely within the Jacksonville city limits in Duval County, the approximately
46,000-acre Preserve encompasses salt and fresh water marshes between the St. Johns and
Nassau rivers. The Preserve, which lies east of the CBCP site, includes cultural resources Fort
Caroline National Memorial and Zephaniah Kingsley Plantation.
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. (See Appendix M)
3.10 TRANSPORTATION RESOURCES
Northeast Florida was considered to be the regional transportation study area in order to
determine the existing transportation facilities available to the proposed CBCP. This study area
includes the transportation facilities of Jacksonville, Florida which will provide direct access to
the proposed project.
3-50
-------
Transportation systems of importance to the Jacksonville area are highways, railroads,
airports, and ship facilities. Major highways (see Figure 3-2) include Interstate Highways 10,
95 and 295; US Highways 1, 17, 23, and 90 and State Roads 9A, 13, and 115. Two rail
systems serve the area: the Southern Railway and the Chessie System Express (CSX). Only
the CSX serves the Cedar Bay area. Major airports include Jacksonville International Airport,
Craig Airport, Herlong Airport, and the Mayport Naval Air Field. Major port facilities include
Blount Island and the Talleyrand Docks and Terminals.
Roads expected to provide access to the proposed CBCP site are Hecksher Drive,
Eastport Road, and Main Street. Traffic counts indicate that (under existing conditions) all
signalized locations and roadways in the area operate at the standard minimum acceptable levels
of service with additional capacity available (JPD Traffic Circulation Element/Comprehensive
Plan 1990).
According to the NDP, the project site is wholly contained in a region intended for
industrial development. Also the NDP proposes a number of improvements to the transportation
facilities in the area of the City that includes the project site. These improvements are designed
to facilitate traffic flow in the face of increasing numbers of long coal trains needed to serve the
SJRPP located a few miles east of the CBCP site. These recommended improvements include
five overpasses: on North Main Street near Eastport Road, on Eastport Road near North Main
Street, on Westport Road near Faye Road, on Alta Drive near Faye Road, and on New Berlin
Road near Faye Road. The trains for coal delivery to CBCP are expected to use the same route
as the trains serving the SJRPP and, hence, the impact on road traffic flow (see Section 4.12)
in that area of the city would be minimized.
The Jacksonville International Airport provides commercial service directly to Atlanta
and other southeastern cities as well as to several other major airports. In addition, this Airport
provides general aviation facilities. It is the only civil airport in the region that is capable of
accommodating higher performance, more sophisticated general aviation aircraft (JEA/FPL
1981a).
Jacksonville functions as a major port facility serving the southeastern United States.
Many Jacksonville industries are dependent on barge and oceangoing vessels for transportation
of raw materials and finished products. Port facilities serve as an asset in attracting new
industries to the City. The USCOE maintains a channel depth of 38 feet in the St. Johns River
near the project area (Moulding 1981).
3-51
-------
3.11 ENERGY RESOURCES
3.11.1 Florida
The following section addresses the energy sources, energy consumption and overall
current condition of traditional and non-traditional energy means both in the state of Florida and
in Peninsular Florida. Some of the terms used in this section may not be familiar to the layman.
Most are defined in the Glossary in Appendix Q.
3.11.1.1 Traditional Energy Sources
In 1987, the State of Florida relied on petroleum and natural gas for 59.3% of its energy
needs. Petroleum constituted 48.2 % and natural gas constituted 11.1 % of the total consumption
of primary energy. Coal supplies produce 20.8% and nuclear power 7.2% of Florida's energy
needs. The state uses less coal, natural gas, petroleum, and nuclear energy on a per capita basis
than the average U.S. citizen.
Floridians used 26% less energy than the average U.S. citizen in 1987. Part of this
difference may be attributed to the lack of heavy industry in the state. Since most of the energy
in Florida is imported, industries which use less energy or renewable resources have a
competitive advantage over more energy intensive industries.
In 1987, coal supplied 23.6% of the nation's energy, as compared to 20.8% in Florida's.
Nationwide, 84.3% of all coal consumption is for electric generation, compared with 95.6% in
Florida. The state's small industrial sector uses relatively less coal. Florida purchased more
interstate electricity in 1987 than in previous years, a direct result of higher prices for residual
oil.
In Florida homes, air conditioning and water heating are the primary electrical energy
consumers. These uses consume a much higher percentage of total residential energy than in
other states. Conversely, heating of Florida homes uses far less energy than the national average
(Florida Governors Energy Office 1981).
In 1987, 41.5% of Florida's electricity was generated from coal, more than any other
fuel. Until 1984, petroleum was the primary generating fuel. Petroleum supplied only 13.5%
of the energy used for generation in 1987, compared to the high of 58.3 % in 1972. Nuclear fuel
provided another 15% of the energy used for electricity, while natural gas accounted for 13.6%
, both down from 1986. The use of wood and waste as an electricity generating fuel increased
significantly in 1987 over the 1986 level.
3-52
-------
Electricity produced by non-utility generators also contributes to the state's total electric
supply. (Degeneration is the combined production of heat and electricity from one energy
source. Heat and electricity can be produced together at a lower cost than either alone. Several
of Florida's businesses and industries that use process heat also generate electricity.
degeneration can assist in providing an uninterrupted supply of power.
degeneration is encouraged by the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978
(PURPA P.I. 95617). This law requires utilities to purchase electricity from qualifying
cogenerators at mutually agreeable prices or at the utility's avoided cost ("avoided cost" is the
energy and capacity costs that a utility avoids by purchasing power from the cogenerator.) By
1990, Florida had over 800 MW of cogenerating capacity. Net generation from cogenerators
totaled 8.5 million Btu during 1987.
Interstate purchases are an important component of Florida's electric supply. Due to
rising petroleum prices, these imports increased 44.6% from 1986, but provided only 14.6% of
Florida's electricity in 1987. Purchases of out-of-state electricity during 1987 totaled 65 trillion
Btu. The majority of interstate purchases are from coal-fired plants located in Georgia.
Electric sales rose 5% in from 1986 to 1987, to a total of 122.128 gigawatt hours (GWh).
The largest increases were in the commercial and industrial sectors both up 6%. Residential
sales of electricity were up 4% in 1987.
Within Florida there is a heavier reliance on petroleum in the production of electrical
energy than in the nation as a whole, doal utilization nationally is significantly higher than in
Florida. In the production of electrical energy for Florida's consumers in 1979, petroleum was
used for 47.4% and coal was used for 18.6% of the energy production. On a national basis,
petroleum was only used to produce 14.5% of the electricity while coal was used to produce
46.1% (Florida Governor's Energy Office 1981).
3.11.1.2 Other Energy Sources
Other energy sources are currently being developed in Florida. These include direct
solar, indirect solar (primarily wood burning), alcohol, crop residue, and hydropower. These
sources represented only 1.8% (24 trillion Btus) of the total energy consumption in Florida in
1987. Total energy from direct solar (0.7 trillion Btus), alcohol (0.2 million Btus), crop
residues, and hydropower (2.7 trillion Btus) is small. The remainder is attributable to wood and
municipal waste burning (21.6 trillion Btus) (Florida Governor's Energy Office 1981).
3-53
-------
3.11.2 Peninsular Florida
Peninsular Florida is the portion of Florida east of the Apalachicola River. The utility
industry in Peninsular Florida consists of 42 utility systems with 17 of those providing nearly
100% of the electric energy generated in the region. In 1987, the net electrical energy capacity
in peninsular Florida was 33,913 MW. In order to allow for scheduled and unscheduled
interruptions in output from one or more units, reserve margins must be at least between 20%
and 25%. Higher reserve margins are suggestive of excess capacity.
3.11.2.1 FPL
FPL is an investor owned utility which services retail customers in 35 counties in
southern and eastern portions of Florida. As of December 31, 1991, FPL served a total of
3,325,517 customers. During 1991, the net energy for load generated by FPL was used as
follows (FPSC 1981b):
User Category GWH Percent
Rural and Residential 35,629 25.0
Commercial 27,508 19.3
Industrial 3,917 2.7
Railroads & Railways 82
Street & Highway Lighting 351
Other Sales to Public Authorities 680
Total Sales to Ultimate Customers 68,167 47.8
Sales for Resale 839
Utility Use & Losses 5.323 3.7
Total 142,496 98.5
Existing generating capacity and planned additions through 1991 consist of 15 active
plants comprised of the following types and numbers of units:
Unit Type
Internal Combustion 1
Nuclear Power 2
Steam Unit 14
Gas Turbine 4
Combined Cycle 8
Bituminous Coal 4
Integrated Coal Gasification
Combined Cycle ~
Total 33
3-54
-------
Fuels used to produce a total of 73,160 Gwh of electricity in 1991 included 29% from
Annual Energy Interchange, 28% residual oil, 19% nuclear, 4% coal, and 18% natural gas (FPL
1992). Additional needs by FPL were addressed in the FPL Martin County Project EIS (EPA
1991).
3.11.2.2 JEA
TEA is a municipally-owned electric utility serving retail customers in Duval County and
parts of St. Johns and Clay Counties. As of December 31, 1988, JEA served a total of 278,675
customers. During 1988, the net energy for load generated by JEA was used as follows:
User Category % of Net Energy Uses
Residential 40.8%
Commercial 11.1%
Industrial 39.3%
Street and Highway Lighting 0.7%
Sales and Resale 2.2%
Utility Use and Losses 5.9%
Total 100.0%
Existing generating capacity in the JEA system consists of four power plants comprised
of 2 coal-fired units, 11 oil-fired steam-generating units and 9 gas turbines. In 1988, JEA
consumed 4.5 million barrels of oil. Total energy production from oil amounted to 2,732 GWh.
JEA consumed 2.2 million tons of coal in 1988.
3-55
-------
-------
CHAPTER 4
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
OF THE ALTERNATIVES
-------
-------
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE ALTERNATIVES
This chapter summarizes the potential impacts on the natural and man-made environment
of the three alternatives described in Chapter 2. Briefly, the three alternatives are: the AES
Alternative is the CBCP as it was originally proposed, which includes elimination of all boilers
at SK; the CBC Alternative is the CBCP as constructed by USGen, which includes three package
boilers at SK and; the SK-only Alternative is the "No Action Alternative", which would be the
SK as a recycling facility with its existing oil and bark fired boilers. Additional alternatives
were considered and evaluated in the 1990 Draft EIS/SAR.
The potential impacts of the alternatives are analyzed using information presented by the
applicant and information gathered and developed during the preparation of this EIS. This
information about the site and the proposed project was used to assess environmental
consequences of the three alternatives. For a number of environmental concerns, modeling was
used to estimate and compare potential impacts associated with each alternative (e.g., air quality
and human health).
4.1 AIR QUALITY IMPACTS
The combustion of fuels to produce steam and electricity releases air pollutants that can
impact surrounding and regional air quality. Air quality is normally the principal and pivotal
issue that must be addressed for fossil-fuel power facilities. This section evaluates the potential
air quality impacts of the three alternatives. Included in this section is: a descriptive evaluation
of construction-related emissions; a qualitative evaluation of materials handling emissions (i.e.,
fugitive dust) and; a quantitative comparison of controlled operation-related combustion
emissions and resulting air quality.
4.1.1 Construction-Related
Construction-related emissions result from clearing and grubbing, excavation, material
hauling and handling, and open burning. These activities are common to most major
construction projects and impacts are normally limited to the construction site and adjacent areas.
The primary air pollutant emitted during construction activities is fugitive dust, which
is caused by exposure of cleared areas to vehicles, construction equipment and wind. Fugitive
dust during construction was controlled by watering in active areas and soil stabilization.
Stabilization included laying down a surface (e.g., rock), which inhibits particles from becoming
4-1
-------
airborne. Other measures for fugitive dust control included: planned and prudent operation of
on-site equipment; reduced vehicle speeds over haul roads and; revegetation of cleared areas
after construction. These control measures for fugitive dust are adequate to limit impacts to the
construction site and adjacent areas.
Open burning of cleared vegetation is an additional source of air emissions during
construction. Typical emissions from burning activities include paniculate matter, carbon
monoxide, hydrocarbons, sulfur oxides, and nitrogen oxides, the amount of which depends on
the amount and moisture content of the material burned. No specific control measures for open
burning were required and burning conducted during periods of good atmospheric dispersion
(e.g., clear sunny days) would not be expected to cause any substantial air quality impacts to
areas surrounding the construction site.
Exhausts of heavy machinery and truck traffic produce air pollutants, consisting mainly
of carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, nitrogen oxides, sulfur oxides, and paniculate matter. Due
to the limited construction area (20 to 30 acres), these emissions are likely to be minor and
limited to the site.
With implementation of standard control measures, construction-related air quality
impacts were expected to be minimal and not have a substantial impact to surrounding areas.
4.1.2 Operation-Related
Operation-related impacts on air quality would be due to materials handling and release
of combustion products. The following sections provide a descriptive analysis of materials
handling impacts and a quantitative analysis of emissions and air quality for the alternatives.
4.1.2.1 Materials Handling
Both the AES and CBC Alternatives included control measures for fugitive dust control
associated with coal, limestone, fly and bed ash handling (includes pelletizer). The controls
described previously for the AES Alternative (1990 Draft EIS/SAR) and the CBC Alternative
(Section 2.3.3.3.1) include use of wetting agents, fabric dust collectors, water sprays and
enclosure. The control measures for either Alternative will adequately minimize fugitive dust
impacts and are considered adequate mitigation.
4-2
-------
4.1.2.2 Combustion Products Emissions Comparison
Air quality impacts from operation are primarily the result of combustion of fuels (e.g.,
gas, oil, coal and bark) and the subsequent release of combustion products (e.g., SOX, NOX, and
CO) through stacks. Air quality (discussed in the next section) is directly related to the amount
of pollutant emissions and the dispersion of the pollutants. This section compares the quantities
of pollutants expected to be released by each of the three alternatives.
In an Air Quality Analysis, performed by ENSR for the applicant, regulated and non-
regulated emissions were estimated for each of the alternatives. The Executive summary of the
applicant's "Air Quality Analysis" document is contained in Appendix J and the document is
available for review upon request. Emission rates for each alternative were based on the number
of emission sources, types and quantities of fuels burned at each source, expected efficiencies
of pollution control systems, and power generation (electricity and steam). For this analysis,
emissions for the three alternatives were based on the following:
• AES Alternative - three coal-fired CFBs and two oil-fired (No. 2 distillate)
limestone dryers producing a total of 640,000 Ibs/hr of steam to SK and 225 MW
of electricity;
• CBC Alternative - three coal-fired CFBs, two oil-fired (No. 2 distillate) limestone
dryers at CBCP producing a total of 380,000 Ibs/hr of steam for SK and 250 MW
of electricity and three gas-fired package boilers at SK producing 260,000 Ibs/hr
of steam.
• SK-only Alternative - three oil-fired (No. 6 distillate) power boilers, two bark
boilers fired with any combination of bark, oil (No. 6 distillate) and recycle
rejects at SK producing a total of 640,000 Ibs/hr of steam.
The results of this analysis are summarized below.
Regulated emissions for the three alternatives are summarized in Table 4-1. The sum
of all regulated emissions for the CBC Alternative (8067.4 TPY) was lower than for the other
two alternatives. Of the eleven regulated pollutants, six (SO2, TSP, PM-10, VOC, fluorides,
and H2SO4 mist) were lower for the CBC Alternative. The sum of all regulated emissions for
the SK-only Alternative (9259 TPY) were slightly higher than the CBC Alternative; however,
4-3
-------
TABLE 4-1
MAXIMUM REGULATED POLLUTANT EMISSIONS FOR THE ALTERNATIVES
Pollutant
SK-Only
{Total ton/yr)
CBC
(tons/yr)
AES
(tons/yr)
SO,
3,560.0
2404.1
4,058.8
NO.
1,736.0
2356.5
3,788.0
CO
2,191.0
2661.6
2,473.2
TSP
572.0
223.7
262.2
PM,,
460.0
223.7
259.2
VOC
451.0
181.5
195.4
Lead
0.19
0.72
91.0
Mercury
0.012
0.10
1.5
Beryllium
0.013
0.35
3.4
Fluorides
203.2
8.9
1,122.0
H2SO4 mist
85.2
6.2
309.8
TOTAL
9259.0
8067.4
12,564.5
Notes:
NA = Not Applicable
(a) Source: final Order and Certification PA-88-24 (2/11/91) and Amended Petition for
Modification of Certification (July 22, 1992 Before the State of Florida, Division of
Administrative Hearings, In Re: AES Cedar Bay Cogeneration Project, Power Plant Site
Certification Application PA-88-24) plus additional improvements by CBCP.
(b) 12 month running average
(c) 30 day running average
(d) Lb/hr values represent emission limits for each of two limestone dryers
Annual emissions are for both dryers and are based on maximum operation of 8 hours/day
each, 365 days/yr
(e) Firing natural gas - Ib/hr values for each of three boilers - emissions data from ENSR 1993
4-4
-------
five of the individual pollutant emissions (NOX, CO, lead, mercury and beryllium) were less than
determined for the CBC Alternative. The sum and individual regulated emissions for the AES
Alternative were greater than the other two alternatives.
Non-regulated emissions for the three alternatives are summarized in Table 4-2. The sum
of all non-regulated emissions for the SK-only Alternative (70.7 TPY) was lower than
determined for the other two alternatives. Ten of the twenty non-regulated pollutants were lower
for the SK-only Alternative than for the other alternatives. The sum of all non-regulated
emissions for the CBC Alternative (95.5 TPY) were slightly higher than the SK-only Alternative;
however, the remaining (ten) individual pollutant emissions were lower for the CBC Alternative
than determined for the SK-only Alternative. This suggests that one or two pollutants, in this
case zinc, cause the difference in total non-regulated emissions between the two alternatives and
that the two non-regulated emission amounts are similar. As was found for regulated pollutants,
the sum and individual non-regulated emissions for the AES Alternative were greater than the
other two alternatives.
The lower regulated pollutant emissions for the CBC Alternative (CBCP as constructed)
in comparison to the AES Alternative (CBCP as proposed) and the SK-only Alternative (SK as
a recycling facility) are the result of more efficient boilers, improved reactor temperature
control, and emission control measures for SO2, PM, and NOX that are summarized in Chapter
2.0. The lower non-regulated emissions for the CBC Alternative, in comparison to the AES
Alternative, are primarily the result of improved PM removal in the baghouse by more efficient
operation and bag material selection. The lower non-regulated emissions estimated for the SK-
only Alternative than the other two alternatives are due to the fuel type and quantity of fuel used.
Emissions are only one consideration in evaluating impacts of pollutant emissions on air
quality. The degree of dispersion (i.e., mixing of pollutants) will affect the concentration of the
pollutants in the surrounding area. The following section evaluates the air quality resulting from
each of the alternatives.
4.1.2.3 Air Quality Comparison
Air quality resulting from each alternative is not only influenced by the quantity of
pollutant emissions, but also by the dispersion of the pollutants. Dispersion of the pollutants into
the surrounding atmosphere is affected by a number of factors including: meteorologic conditions
(e.g., temperature, wind speed and wind direction); the height of the stack; the location (with
respect to other structures) of the stack; and the temperature of the flue gas. To evaluate the
effects of each alternative on air quality, the applicant performed dispersion modeling in
accordance with EPA and DER requirements for new source review, which requires the
4-5
-------
TABLE 4-2
MAXIMUM NON-REGULATED POLLUTANT EMISSIONS
COMPARISON FOR THE ALTERNATIVES
PoDotant
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Bromine
Cadmium
Cobalt
HCI
Indium
Chromium VI
Copper
Formaldehyde
Manganese
Molybdenum
Nickel
Phosphorous
POM
Selenium
Tin
Vanadium
Zinc
Radionuclides (d)
Totals
SK-Only
(Total tons/yr)
0.050
0.057
0.76
15.82
0.057
5.30
21.8
1.39
0.0009
0.72
2.38
0.18
2.82
3.09
0.74
0.44
0.008
2.49
10.95
1.65
70.70
CBC
(tons/yr)
0.13
1.7
7.3
3.47e-04
0.38
0.45
21.6
1.67e-03
1.27e-02
0.97
1.6
6.0
1.2
0.97
4.0
0.22
0.19
0.49
3.8
44.5
0.020
95.53
AES
(tons/yr)
0.14
1.9
7.9
1.04e-03
4.12e-01
0.50
23.6
1.82e-03
1.38e-02
1.0
1.8
6.5
1.3
1.0
4.4
0.24
0.21
0.56
4.3
48.5
0.022
104.30
Notes:
NA - Not applicable
(a) Source: emission factors developed by Bechtel Power
(b) Annual Average
(c) Lb/hr values represent emission limits for each of two limestone dryers
Annual emissions are for both dryers and are based on maximum operation of 8 hours/day each,
365 days/yr
(d) Firing natural gas - Ib/hr values for each of three boilers - emissions data from ENSR 1993
(e) Emission units expressed as curies
4-6
-------
evaluation be based on maximum allowable emission rates for all sources. The analysis included
an evaluation based on relevant loads (i.e., power production at CBCP and/or 640,000 Ibs/hr
of steam for SK) and the associated emission rates. The Executive Summary of the applicant's
"Air Quality Analysis" document is contained in Appendix J and the document is available for
review upon request.
For this analysis the applicant selected the EPA's Industrial Source Complex Short Term
(ISCST2) model (ver. 92062), which is a model recommended in EPA's "Guidelines on Air
Quality Models" (EPA 1986, 1987). The model requires input of hourly meteorologic data for
wind speed, wind direction, temperature, atmospheric stability, and boundary layer mixing
depth. To obtain a representative profile of expected future conditions, EPA recommends the
model be run for a five year historical meteorologic period using the nearest national weather
service stations, which were Jacksonville International Airport, in Jacksonville, Florida (surface
meteorology) and Ware County Airport in Waycross, Georgia (upper air observations).
The ISCST2 model was used to predict the net air quality impacts for each alternative
at 1008 receptors for five pollutants (SOz, NOX, PM-10, CO, and Lead) that have ambient
standards and an aggregate of trace pollutants (total air toxics). Receptors were located based
on a circular (polar) grid, centered on the CBCP CFB stack location, using 36 radials and 28
concentric circles at variable intervals out to a distance of 25 kilometers (15.5 miles). This grid
system places 720 receptors of the 1008 within 5 kilometers (3 miles), which is the distance
within which the greatest air quality impacts are expected from the CBCP.
Maximum predicted impacts for each parameter, averaging period and alternative are
presented in Table 4-3. The maximum SO2 impacts were lowest for the CBC Alternative, except
for short-term (1 hr) averaging periods, which were lowest for the AES Alternative. The
maximum predicted carbon monoxide (CO) impacts were lowest for the AES Alternative. The
remaining pollutants' predicted maximums were lower for the CBC Alternative than the other
two alternatives. The higher short-term SO2 maximums for the CBC Alternative were the result
of meteorologic conditions (i.e., wind velocity and direction) that caused severe downwashing
of pollutants from the three SK package boilers in areas adjacent to the CBCP. Higher CO
maximums for the CBC Alternative were caused by the higher CO emissions (includes the SK
package boilers) of this alternative and the short-term averaging, which reflects local
downwashing from the SK boilers, as was observed for short-term SOj predictions. The
predicted pollutant maximums for the SK-only Alternative were all highest of the three
alternatives and were due to the higher emission rates and lower stack height (125 ft), which
resulted in local downwashing.
4-7
-------
TABLE 4-3
COMPARISON OF MAXIMUM PREDICTED IMPACTS AND NET
AIR QUALITY EFFECTS OF THE ALTERNATIVES
Pollutant
SO2
Averaging
Period
3hr
24 hr
Annual
Meteorological
Year
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
Maximum Predicted Impacts
Oig/m3)
AES
165.60
173.48
236.12
210.39
173.15
60.99
89.88
70.75
81.04
72.54
9.33
9.84
9.82
12.39
10.10
CBC
443.11
232.14
299.64
260.70
267.90
112.51
68.84
83.23
65.46
86.35
3.74
2.81
3.71
2.64
3.42
SK-only
677.67
637.65
500.03
460.42
528.98
281.03
189.90
259.03
184.22
171.44
5.98
4.88
6.08
5.01
9.26
Comparison or CBC
Alternative and AES
Alternative
Net Air Quality
Effect
(Mg/m8)
5.71
6.95
9.75
7.04
6.11
3.12
4.23
3.71
3.59
3.37
0.47
0.50
0.49
0.51
0.47
Number of
Receptors
Improved
831
829
841
808
845
742
766
809
768
750
468
477
483
497
460
Comparison of CBC
Alternative and SK-only
Alternative
Net Air Quality
Effect
0«g/n»J)
85.35
72.60
71.04
64.68
70.51
27.51
22.18
20.40
21.89
22.24
1.49
1.37
1.41
1.30
1.51
Number of
Receptors
Improved*"
989
1001
997
985
990
997
1004
997
993
989
1004
1003
1004
1003
1004
oo
-------
TABLE 4-3
(Continued)
COMPARISON OF MAXIMUM PREDICTED IMPACTS AND NET
AIR QUALITY EFFECTS OF THE ALTNERNATIVES
Pollutant
PM10
CO
Averaging
Period
24 hr
Annual
1 hr
Meteorological
Year
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
Maximum Predicted Impacts
(Mg/m3)
AES
35.91
33.00
33.73
32.91
33.77
3.97
4.75
3.71
4.31
3.85
47.38
57.94
60.60
69.07
52.69
CBC
20.43
19.52
20.07
24.89
19.31
3.04
3.49
3.39
3.70
2.89
367.00
356.02
366.01
365.43
369.33
SK-only
39.80
32.56
46.21
39.24
36.26
2.14
2.18
2.16
1.99
2.93
980.12
943.78
922.11
910.40
1036.23
Comparison of CBC
Alternative and AES
Alternative
Net Air Quality
Effect
C*g/m3)
0.55
0.53
0.50
0.45
0.45
-0.009
-0.014
-0.013
-0.017
-0.005
-15.84
-15.38
-15.41
-15.37
-15.20
Number of
Receptors
Improved
755
653
738
736
676
369
308
337
310
383
87
91
90
95
96
Comparison of CBC
Alternative and SK-only
Alternative
Net Air Quality
Effect
teg/m3)
4.94
4.49
4.34
4.37
4.56
0.28
0.25
0.28
0.24
0.28
203.00
204.44
204.14
206.40
209.60
Number of
Receptors
Improved**
994
988
986
991
992
942
931
943
914
935
1004
1004
1004
1004
1004
-------
TABLE 4-3
(Continued)
COMPARISON OF MAXIMUM PREDICTED IMPACTS AND NET
AIR QUALITY EFFECTS OF THE ALTNERNATIVES
Pollutant
CO (continued)
NO2
Pb
Averaging
Period
8hr
Annual
Monthly
Meteorological
Year
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
Maximum Predicted Impacts
(Mg/m3)
AES
14.17
16.84
16.86
16.39
15.58
4.47
4.72
4.70
5.94
4.83
1.9e-02
1.8e-02
1.9e-02
2.9e-02
2.1e-02
CBC
147.08
96.23
131.09
132.16
111.10
2.48
1.86
2.46
1.73
2.24
3.2e-04
2.4e-04
3.5e-04
3.6e-04
3.8e-04
SK-only
410.77
367.68
431.98
365.36
380.01
5.75
5.55
5.85
5.00
8.21
2.27e-03
2.83e-03
2.52e-03
2.00e-03
2.88e-03
Comparison of CBC
Alternative and AES
Alternative
Net Air Quality
Effect
(Mg/m3)
-5.36
-5.26
-5.41
-5.28
-5.23
0.20
0.22
0.22
0.23
0.21
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.007
0.006
Number of
Receptors
Improved
117
115
113
114
115
446
555
506
544
535
977
976
978
978
976
Comparison of CBC
Alternative and SK-only
Alternative
Net Air Quality
Effect
dtgim3)
80.64
78.98
78.03
75.33
78.12
1.40
1.33
1.37
1.28
1.42
5.01e-04
4.75e-04
4.59e-04
4.91e-04
5.31e-04
Number of
Receptors
Improved"1
1003
1003
1004
1004
1004
1004
1004
1004
1004
1004
945
936
950
034
939
-fi.
I
I—•
o
-------
TABLE 4-3
(Continued)
COMPARISON OF MAXIMUM PREDICTED IMPACTS AND NET
AIR QUALITY EFFECTS OF THE ALTNERNATIVES
Pollutant
Pb (continued)
Total Air Toxics
Averaging
Period
Annual
8hr
24 hr
Meteorological
Year
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
Maximum Predicted Impacts
Otg/m3)
AES
6.2e-03
7.0e-03
6.3e-03
7.6e-03
7.9e-03
9.71
11.54
11.55
11.23
10.67
5.02
7.39
5.82
6.66
5.96
CBC
l.le-04
l.Oe-04
l.le-04
l.le-04
l.le-04
9.36
11.02
9.51
9.27
8.66
3.95
2.44
2.95
2.31
3.04
SK-only
9.3e-04
9.5e-04
9.4e-04
8.7e-04
1.27e-03
55.14
49.30
57.45
51.50
55.28
33.06
28.93
37.31
34.68
30.52
Comparison of CBC
Alternative and AES
Alternative
Net Air Quality
Effect
0«g/m3)
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
1.94
2.10
2.25
1.96
1.96
0.99
1.12
1.12
1.01
1.02
Number of
Receptors
Improved
976
976
976
978
977
966
964
965
966
966
964
968
965
972
967
Comparison of CBC
Alternative and SK-only
Alternative
Net Air Quality
Effect
teg/m3)
2.18e-04
2.09e-04
2.16e-04
2.02e-04
2.21e-04
11.48
11.16
11.08
10.68
11.03
6.46
6.30
5.99
5.96
6.18
Number of
Receptors
Improved*4
922
921
933
927
923
1004
1004
1004
1004
1004
1004
1004
1004
1004
1004
-------
TABLE 4-3
(Continued)
COMPARISON OF MAXIMUM PREDICTED IMPACTS AND NET
AIR QUALITY EFFECTS OF THE ALTNERNATIVES
Pollutant
Total Air Toxics
(continued)
Averaging
Period
Annual
Meteorological
Year
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
Maximum Predicted Impacts
fog/m3)
AES
0.77
0.81
0.81
1.02
0.83
CBC
0.22
0.19
0.22
0.18
0.21
SK-only
1.95
2.04
1.97
1.87
2.63
Comparison of CBC
Alternative and AES
Alternative
Net Air Quality
Effect
0*g/m3)
0.07
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.07
Number of
Receptors
Improved
963
964
962
971
966
Comparison of CBC
Alternative and SK-only
Alternative
Net Air Quality
Effect
Gig/no')
0.49
0.48
0.50
0.47
0.50
Number of
Receptors
Improved*'
1004
1004
1004
1004
1004
to
Out of a total of 1008
-------
Also in Table 4-3, are comparison between alternatives presented as net air quality
differences and the number of receptors with improved air quality. Net air quality is the average
of modeled differences between two alternatives at all stations; a positive value indicates an air
quality improvement and a negative value indicates an air quality degradation. The results
indicate that for the CBC Alternative, in comparison to the AES Alternative and the SK-only
Alternative, air quality would be better for all parameters except CO and PM-10 (annual average
only), which would be better for the AES Alternative. The PM-10 net air quality for the AES
Alternative to the CBC Alternative comparison were nearly zero indicating the difference is
trivial. As mentioned in the previous paragraph, the differences in CO air quality is a result of
downwashing from the SK package boilers included in the CBC Alternative.
Based on the air quality comparison of the three alternatives, both maximum predicted
impacts and net air quality impacts, the CBC Alternative appears to have less negative impacts
on air quality. The CBC Alternative received further analysis to determine whether this
alternative would cause or contribute to a violation of federal or state AAQSs, NTLs, or
allowable PSD increments. The results are discussed in the following sections.
4.1.2.3.1 AAOS Compliance Evaluation
State and federal AAQS for pollutants considered for the CBC Alternative (CBCP as
constructed) are contained in Table 4-4, along with EPA SILs for the pollutants. SILs
(Significant Impact Levels) are the levels of increase in pollutants that can occur without
significantly contributing to an increase in ambient air concentrations. Comparison of the SILs
with the maximum predicted increases in pollutant concentrations for the CBC Alternative (see
Table 4-3), indicates only SO2, NOX, and PM-10 concentrations exceed the SILs. CO and lead
concentrations are well below the SILs, indicating the levels do not significantly contribute to
an exceedance of AAQS; therefore, these pollutants were not considered in the AAQS
compliance evaluation.
The applicant conducted the compliance evaluation, in the "Air Quality Analysis"
document, for the CBC Alternative using similar procedures and modelling methods as used for
the Net Air Quality Comparison. In addition, this analysis considered other pollution sources
in the area as well as measured background concentrations of each pollutant. Receptors beyond
5 kilometers (3 miles) were not considered because concentrations modelled for pollutants at
these receptors were well below the SILs. However, two receptors were added beyond the 5
kilometer distance at two PSD Class I areas: the Okefenokee and Wolf Island Wilderness Areas
in Georgia.
4-13
-------
TABLE 4-4
NATIONAL AND FLORIDA AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS (jig/m3)
FOR POLLUTANTS BEING MODELED
Pollutant
SO2
NO2
PM10
CO
Lead (Pb)
Averaging
Period
Annual
24-hour
3-hour
Annual
Annual
24-hour
8-hour
1-hour
Calendar
Quarter
NAAQS Standards
Primary
80
365
-
100
50
150
10,000
40,000
1.5
Secondary
—
—
1,300
100
50
150
—
—
1.5
Florida State
Standards
60
260
1,300
100
50
150
10,000
40,000
1.5
EPA
Significant
Impact
Levelw
1
5
25
1
1
5
500
2,000
0.03W
"" 40CFR51.165(b)(2)
*' Florida Administration Code, 17-212.100(63)(e)
4-14
-------
The applicant identified the maximum predicted value for averaging periods for each
parameter. In the case of short-term averaging periods (i.e., 3-hour and 24-hour), the highest
predicted concentrations were elminated and the highest-second-high was used, based on
procedures consistent with EPA and FDER. The applicant compared the contribution from the
CBC Alternative to the SILs, eliminating predicted maximums to which the CBC Alternative did
not contribute at concentrations above the SILs. Using this methodology, maximum predicted
air concentrations to which the CBC Alternative contributed at concentrations above the SILs
were identified.
The results of the modeling and identification procedure for SO2, NOX, and PM-10 are
summarized in Tables 4-5 through 4-7. The tables indicate the maximum predicted ambient
concentrations to which the CBC Alternative contributes at levels above the SILs. The tables
also indicate the concentration contributed by the CBC Alternative to the maximum predicted
concentration. The annual average maximums predicted for SO2 and PM-10 are in close
proximity, but less than the AAQS. The remaining predicted AAQS for the three pollutants are
well below the respective AAQS. The results of the modeling also indicate the CBC Alternative,
typically contributes less than one-third of the predicted maximum concentrations. Further, the
locations of the predicted maximum concentrations usually occur within the building cavity of
the CBCP boiler structures or on the CBCP and SK property.
Emissions of VOC (volatile organic compounds), which can be precursors to ozone,
should be evaluated to determine compliance of the CBC Alternative with AAQS for ozone;
however, due to the complexity of sources and photochemical process involved, quantitative air
quality modeling can not sufficiently characterize and predict impacts of VOC from a single
source on ozone concentrations. To evaluate compliance of the CBC Alternative with AAQS
for ozone, a qualitative evaluation of ozone air quality was conducted through comparison of
VOC emissions between the current SK emissions to expected emissions from the CBC
Alternative. Examination of Table 4-1 indicates expected VOC emissions for the CBC
Alternative are lower than the SK-only Alternative emissions. The SK operations, prior to
converting to recycling, would emit greater VOC than the SK-only Alternative, due to more
sources (e.g., recovery boilers). This suggests VOC emissions would be reduced by more than
270 TPY by the CBC Alternative in comparison to existing SK operations and should result in
a corresponding decrease in ozone by the CBC Alternative. Since existing ambient air quality
is in compliance with AAQS for ozone, the CBC Alternative should also be in compliance with
the AAQS for ozone.
Based on the AAQS compliance evaluation, the CBC Alternative is expected to be in
compliance with state and federal AAQS.
4-15
-------
TABLE 4-5
COMPLIANCE OF THE CBC ALTERNATIVE
(AS CONSTRUCTED BY U.S. GENERATING)
WITH TOTAL AMBIENT SO2 AAQS
Averaging
Period
3-Hour
24-Hour
Annual
Year
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
Maximum Concentration to
Which CBCP Contributes
Significantly
0«g/mJ)
653.2*
653.4*
775.6*
577.7*
596.2*
177.2*
186.8*
186.5*
165.0*
194.6*
43.6*
43.1*
46.3*
42.7*
41.0*
AAQS
fog/m3)
1300
260
60
Cedar Bay
Contribution
Oig/m3)
179.2
179.2
179.2
179.2
179.2
26.5
26.5
26.5
26.5
26.5
6.64
6.64
6.64
6.64
6.64
•Impact falls within the CFB building cavity region.
'•'Excluding the highest total concentration for 3, 24-hour averages.
4-16
-------
TABLE 4-6
COMPLIANCE OF THE CBC ALTERNATIVE (AS CONSTRUCTED BY U.S.
GENERATING) WITH TOTAL AMBIENT PM-10 AAQS
Averaging
Period
24-Hour
Annual
Year
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
Maximum Concentration to
Which CBCP Contributes
Significantly*0
te/m3)
60.7
62.8
61.9
58.9*
58.6
35.3*
35.5*
36.0*
35.8*
35.4*
AAQS
teg/m3)
150
50
Cedar Bay
Contribution
teg/m3)
12.2
14.8
14.3
11.2
15.1
5.08
4.81
5.23
5.13
5.14
"'Excluding the highest total concentration for 24-hour average.
•Impact occurs within the CFB building cavity region.
4-17
-------
TABLE 4-7
COMPLIANCE OF THE CBC ALTERNATIVE (AS CONSTRUCTED BY U.S.
GENERATING) WITH TOTAL AMBIENT NO2 AAQS
Averaging
Period
Annual
Year
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
Maximum rnnrentratirai tn Which
CBCP Contributes Significantly
(Mg/m3)
34.69*
34.57*
35.17*
34.09*
33.90*
AAQS
(«g/m3)
100
Cedar Bay
Contribution
(Mg/m3)
3.16
3.16
3.16
3.16
3.16
•Impact falls within the CFB building cavity region.
4-18
-------
4.1.2.3.2 PSD Compliance Evaluation
Compliance of the CBC Alternative with PSD (Prevention of Significant Deterioration)
Class I and II attainment areas was also assessed. Permissible increase increments for Class I
and Class n areas are summarized in Table 4-8, which indicates the Class I increments are
similar to SILs for AAQS compliance. Similar to AAQS compliance, PSD compliance was only
evaluated for three pollutants (SC^, NOX, and PM-10) that exceeded SILs. In the case of this
analysis the applicant assumed PM-10 would represent a conservative estimate of TSP (total
suspended particulates). For PSD increment calculations, the analysis considered both new
sources that have increased air pollution and closure or refurbishment of sources that have
decreased air pollution since the baseline year.
The maximum predicted SO2 concentrations for all sources and the CBC Alternative are
summarized in Table 4-9. The PSD Class II evaluation indicates that neither predicted
maximums from the CBC Alternative or maximums from all sources to which the CBC
Alternative significantly contributes are above the allowable Class II increments. As was
observed for the AAQS evaluation the maximum predicted values are located within the CBCP
building cavity. Table 4-10 also indicates the maximum increase from all sources and the
maximum contribution by the CBC Alternative were below the allowable Class I increments.
The negative values for annual SO2 averages in the two Class I areas suggest air quality
improved and the available PSD increment increased from the shutdown or refurbishment of
existing air pollution discharges (e.g., the shutdown of SK bark and recovery boilers).
The results of the PSD compliance evaluation for TSP and NOX are summarized in Tables
4-11 and 4-12. Similar to the SO2 evaluation, the allowable PSD TSP and NOX increments for
Class II attainment areas were not exceeded by either the maximum value contributed by the
CBC Alternative or the predicted maximum concentration of all sources when the CBC
Alternative contribution exceeded the SIL. The maximum modeled TSP and NOX values at the
two Class I areas (see Tables 4-13 and 4-14) were also in compliance with the allowable Class I
increments. As was observed for the SO2 evaluation, the predicted annual averages for these
two pollutants were negative suggesting air quality has improved and the available increment has
increased.
Based on this analysis, the CBC Alternative is expected to not cause or contribute to a
violation of a Class I or Class II PSD increment for SO2, NOX, and TSP. The CBC Alternative,
based on annual averages for the three parameters, may improve air quality and increase the
increment at the Class I areas.
4-19
-------
TABLE 4-8
FEDERAL AND FLORIDA PSD INCREMENTS
Pollutant
SO2
TSP
NO2
Averaging
Period
3 -hour
24-hour
Annual
24-hour
Annual
Annual
PSD Area
Classification
Class I
25
5
2
10
5
2.5
Class H
512
91
20
37
19
25
PSD Class H
Significant
Impact Levels
25
5
1
5
1
1
4-20
-------
TABLE 4-9
MAXIMUM PREDICTED INCREASES IN SO2 AT PSD CLASS H AREAS FROM
ALL NEW SOURCES TO WHICH THE CBC ALTERNATIVE SIGNIFICANTLY
CONTRIBUTES
Averaging
Period
3-Hour
24-Hour
Annual
Year
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
Maximum Increment Consumption to
Which CBCP Contributes Significantly w
Gig/m3)
284.7*
291.7*
278.4*
283.8*
295.9*
55.9*
54.3*
55.7*
52.6*
52.4*
8.87*
8.28*
8.83*
8.06*
8.46*
Class D
Increment
512
91
20
Cedar Bay
Contribution
Gtg/mJ)
179.2
179.2
179.2
179.2
179.2
26.5
26.5
26.5
26.5
26.5
6.64
6.64
6.64
6.64
6.64
* Impact occurs within the CFB Building cavity region.
tm) Excluding the highest total concentration for 3, 24-hour average.
4-21
-------
TABLE 4-10
MAXIMUM PREDICTED INCREASES IN SO2AT PSD CLASS I AREAS FROM ALL NEW SOURCES
TO WHICH THE CBC ALTERNATIVE SIGNIFICANTLY CONTRIBUTES
Averaging
Period
3-Hour
24-Hour
Annual
Year
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
Allowable
Increment
(/ig/m3)
25
5
2
Okefenokee Concentrations (/tg/m3) for
Compliance Evaluation
Concentration for
Compliance Evaluation
13.2
15.9
16.8
16.7
14.5
3.4
3.3
3.4
3.5
2.8
-0.02
-0.01
-0.02
-0.03
0.003
Cedar Bay
Contribution
1.2
0.9
0.7
1.6
0.2
0.3
0.6
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.02
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
Wolf Island Concentrations (/ig/m3) for
Compliance Evaluation
Concentration for
Compliance Evaluation
10.6
9.1
12.3
7.8
9.7
1.8
1.8
2.1
1.5
2.2
-0.07
-0.12
-0.12
-0.06
-0.09
Cedar Bay
Contribution
0.29
0.45
0.94
0.63
0.42
0.04
0.06
0.17
0.04
0.06
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
to
K)
-------
TABLE 4-11
MAXIMUM PREDICTED INCREASES IN TSP AT PSD CLASS H AREAS
FROM ALL NEW SOURCES TO WHICH THE CBC
ALTERNATIVE SIGNIFICANTLY CONTRIBUTES
Averaging
Period
24-Hour
Annual
Year
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
Maximum Increment Consumption to
Which CBCP Contributes Significantly"*
fag/m3)
25.2*
27.0*
29.1*
33.1
25.4*
5.80*
5.53*
5.86*
5.92*
5.86*
Class H
Increment
37
19
Cedar Bay
Contribution
(pg/m3)
8.0
8.0
8.0
33.1
8.0
1.94
1.94
1.94
1.94
1.94
* Impact occurs within CFB Building cavity region.
'" Excluding the highest total conentration for 24-hour average*.
4-23
-------
TABLE 4-12
MAXIMUM PREDICTED INCREASES IN NO2 AT PSD CLASS H AREAS
FROM ALL NEW SOURCES TO WHICH THE CBC
ALTENATTVE SIGNIFICANTLY CONTRIBUTES
Averaging
Period
Annual
Year
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
Maximum Increment Consumption to
Which CBCP Contributes Significantly
tog/m3)
3.16*
3.16*
3.16*
3.16*
3.16*
Class H
Increment
25
Cedar Bay
Contribution
0*g/m3)
3.16
3.16
3.16
3.16
3.16
* Impact foils with CFB building cavity region.
4-24
-------
TABLE 4-13
MAXIMUM PREDICTED INCREASES IN TSP AT PSD CLASS I AREAS FROM ALL NEW SOURCES TO WHICH
THE CBC ALTERNATIVE SIGNIFICANTLY CONTRIBUTES
Averaging
Period
24-Hour
Annual
Year
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
Allowable
Increment
(/ig/m3)
10
5
Okefenokee Concentrations (/tg/m3)
for Compliance Evaluation
Concentration
for Compliance
Evaluation
0.06
0.07
0.07
0.05
0.07
-0.012
-0.009
-0.015
-0.008
-0.01
Cedar Bay
Contribution
0.006
0.012
0.003
0.006
0.011
0.003
0.002
0.003
0.002
0.003
Wolf Island Concentrations (jig/m3)
for Compliance Evaluation
Concentration
for Compliance Evaluation
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.04
0.08
-0.01
-0.02
-0.02
-0.02
-0.02
Cedar Bay
Contribution
0.003
0.008
0.002
0.006
0.004
0.002
0.003
0.003
0.002
0.003
K)
-------
TABLE 4-14
MAXIMUM PREDICTED INCREASES IN NO2 AT PSD CLASS I AREAS
FROM ALL NEW SOURCES TO WHICH THE CBC
ALTERNATIVE SIGNIFICANTLY CONTRIBUTES
Year
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
Allowable
Increment
(W/mJ)
2.5
Okefenokee Concentrations
G«g/m3)
Highest
-0.009
-0.007
-0.012
-0.006
-0.007
Cedar Bay
Contribution
To Highest
====^==
0.024
0.017
0.018
0.013
0.022
==^=^==5=
Wolf Island Concentrations
Gtg/m3)
Highest
==^=
-0.015
-0.027
-0.020
-0.017
-0.020
Cedar Bay
Contribution
To Highest
0.013
0.016
0.020
0.014
0.013
4-26
-------
4.1.2.3.3 NTL Compliance Evaluation
FDER has developed a draft list of potentially toxic substances and identified
concentrations that do not pose a threat to human health, called No Threat Levels (NTLs). To
evaluate compliance of air toxic emissions from the CBC Alternative with draft NTLs, the
applicant conducted modeling to predict maximum pollutant concentration for each averaging
period (i.e., 8-hour, 24-hour and annual). The maximum concentrations for each averaging
period over the five-year modeling period are presented in Table 4-15, along with, for
comparison sake, the draft NTL. The maximum predicted concentrations for the air toxins
were, for the most part, at least an order of magnitude less than the draft NTLs. Only two
parameters, arsenic and sulfuric acid mist, approached the draft NTL. The maximum predicted
concentrations for arsenic were well below the draft NTL for each averaging period except for
the annual average, which approached the NTL. The maximum predicted sulfuric acid mist
concentration approached the draft NTL for both the 8 and 24 hour averaging period. As was
indicated in previous analyses, the predicted maximums occur at receptors within the building
cavity or on the CBCP and SK properties. Based on these results, emissions contributed by the
CBC Alternative will not cause an exceedance of draft NTLs.
4.1.2.4 Visibility Impacts
Visibility impairment is defined as any humanly perceptible change in visibility (visual
range, contrast, coloration) from that which would have existed under natural conditions. The
emission of pollutants (e.g., NOX, and PM-10) from the CBC Alternative may cause impacts in
the surrounding area through visibility of the stack plume and, regionally, by decreased viewing
distance. The visual impacts occur when the plume appears darker, lighter, or discolored with
respect to the background sky or terrain. The applicant performed a screening analysis to assess
the potential adverse visibility impairment of the CBC Alternative on Class I and II areas using
procedures consistent with the requirements and procedures contained in the EPA's "Workbook
for Plume Visual Impact Screening and Analysis". The results are contained in the "Air Quality
Analysis" document and summarized below.
4.1.2.4.1 Class I Areas
The analysis was performed for the two nearest Class I areas, Okefenokee National
Wildlife Refuge and Wolf Island Wilderness Area, at points 55 km (35 miles) northwest and
about 100 km (65 miles) north of the CBCP, respectively. The reference points were the nearest
points to the CBCP at each Class I area. Potential plume visibility impacts at the two areas is
most prevalent during stable dispersion conditions when stack emissions travel long distances
with little dilution.
4-27
-------
TABLE 4-15
MAXIMUM PREDICTED CONTRIBUTIONS
(BASED ON 1983-1987 METEOROLOGICAL DATA)
OF THE CBC ALTERNATIVE TO AIR TOXICS CONCENTRATIONS
Pollutant
Acetaldehyde
Acetic Acid
Antimony
Compounds
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium VI
Compounds
Cobalt
Averaging
Period
8-hour
24-hour
Annual
8-hour
24-hour
8-hour
24-hour
Annual
8-hour
24-hour
Annual
8-hour
24-hour
Annual
8-hour
24-hour
Annual
8-hour
24-hour
8-hour
24-hour
Annual
8-hour
24-hour
Annual
8-hour
24-hour
Year
1985
1985
1987
1983
1987
1983
1987
1987
1987
1987
1987
1985
1985
1987
1983
1985
1983-1987
1983
1987
1983
1985
1987
1983, 1985
1985
1983-1987
1983
1987
Maximum
Concentration
tar/™3)
0.76
0.27
0.013
6.25
1.14
2.5e-03
4.5e-04
4.0e-05
0.025
9.0e-03
1.9e-04
0.071
0.025
8.1e-04
1.6e-03
3.5e-04
2.0e-05
4.4e-03
8.0e-04
6.6e-03
1.5e-03
l.Oe-04
1.3e-04
5.0e-05
<1.0e-05
0.039
7.1e-03
Draft No Threat
Levels
Otg/m3)
1800
432
0.45
250
60
5
1.2
3.0e-01
2
0.48
2.3e-04
5
1.2
5.0e+01
0.02
0.0048
4.2e-04
6.6
1.584
0.5
0.12
5.6e-04
0.5
0.12
8.3e-05
0.5
0.12
4-28
-------
TABLE 4-15
(Continued)
MAXIMUM PREDICTED CONTRIBUTIONS
(BASED ON 1983-1987 METEOROLOGICAL DATA)
OF THE CBC ALTERNATIVE TO AIR TOXICS CONCENTRATIONS
Pollutant
Copper
Fluorides
(asF)
Formaldehyde
Hydrogen
Chloride
Indium
Compounds
Lead Compounds
Manganese
Mercury Alkyl
Compounds
Molybdenum
Nickel
Averaging
Period
8-hour
24-hour
8-hour
24-hour
8-hour
24-hour
Annual
8-hour
24-hour
Annual
8-hour
24-hour
8-hour
24-hour
Annual
8-hour
24-hour
Annual
8-hour
24-hour
8-hour
24-hour
8-hour
24-hour
Year
1983
1987
1985
1985
1983
1987
1987
1983
1987
1987
1985, 1987
1984, 1985, 1987
1983
1985
1987
1985
1985
1987
1985
1985
1983
1987
1983
1987
Maximum
Concentration
Oig/m3)
0.18
0.032
0.065
0.023
0.25
0.046
4.0e-03
0.415
0.075
6.5e-03
2.0e-05
l.Oe-05
5.6e-03
1.8e-03
9.0e-05
0.058
0.021
6.7e-04
3.6e-03
1.3e-03
0.031
5.6e-03
0.11
0.019
Draft No Threat
Levels
fog/m3)
10
2.4
25
6
12
2.88
7.7e-02
75
18
7.0e+00
1
0.24
0.5
0.12
9.0e-02
50
12
4.0e-01
0.1
0.024
50
12
1
0.24
4-29
-------
TABLE 4-15
(Continued)
MAXIMUM PREDICTED CONTRIBUTIONS
(BASED ON 1983-1987 METEOROLOGICAL DATA)
OF THE CBC ALTERNATIVE TO AIR TOXICS CONCENTRATIONS
Pollutant
Phenol
Phosphorous
Pyridine
Selenium
Sulfuric Acid
Mist (H2SO4)
Tin
Vanadium
Averaging
Period
8-hour
24-hour
Annual
8-hour
24-hour
8-hour
24-hour
Annual
8-hour
24-hour
8-hour
24-hour
8-hour
24-hour
8-hour
24-hour
Annual
Year
1983
1987
1987
1983
1985
1983
1987
1987
1983
1987
1983
1987
1983
1987
1983
1987
1987
Maximum
Concentration
Olg/m3)
6.25
1.14
0.099
0.067
0.014
6.25
1.14
0.099
7.1e-03
1.3e-03
7.36
1.34
0.21
0.038
0.47
0.085
7.4e-03
Draft No Threat
Levels
(jig/m3)
190
45.6
30
1
0.24
160
38.4
1
2
0.48
10
2.4
1
0.24
0.5
0.12
2.0e+01
4-30
-------
The EPA Workbook identifies two levels of screening to evaluate plume visibility
impairment. Level 1 is designed to represent generic "worst-case" atmospheric dispersion
conditions. In Level 2, an analysis using actual meteorological data is conducted to determine
the site-specific worst-case conditions that could transport the plume from the source to the Class
I area. Both the Level 1 and Level 2 analyses make use of the EPA VISCREEN model, which
calculates two visibility impairment parameters, plume contrast and plume perceptibility.
Critical values for these two parameters used to determine significant visual impacts are ± 0.05
for contrast (E) and 2.0 for perceptibility (C).
The background visual range for Okefenokee and Wolf Island Wilderness areas is 25 km
(16 miles), as determined from the map in the EPA Workbook. However, because the line on
the map marking the boundary between the 25 km and 40 km visual range appears to pass close
to the eastern portion of the Okefenokee Wilderness Area (about 20 km), the Level 1 visibility
screening analysis was conducted for this area using the 40 km (26 miles) background distance
as well. Because modeled visibility impairment is inversely related to background visual range,
using the higher value will result in an even more conservative assessment.
The VISCREEN Level 1 analysis for the CBC Alternative, using the 25 km background
visibility, resulted in maximum screening values much less than the significant impact criteria
for contrast and perceptibility at the Okefenokee (max. E = 1.34; max. C = -0.009) and Wolf
Island Wilderness Areas (max. E = 0.45; max. C = -0.004). However, the Level 1 values for
the 40 km background perceptibility at Okefenokee Wilderness Area were above the screening
criteria while the values of plume contrast (against both the sky and terrain) were determined
to be below the screening criteria. As a result, a Level 2 analysis was conducted for the
Okefenokee Wilderness Area.
Differences between Level 1 and Level 2 analysis result from considering meteorologic
information that affect plume transport. Meteorologic conditions for plume transport were
determined based on procedures in the EPA Workbook using five years (1983-87) of
meteorologic data (e.g., wind direction, wind speed and atmospheric stability) from the
Jacksonville airport. In general, the method determines wind directions that are most likely to
transport the plume to the Class I area, which were SE and ESE, and the worst case (one-
percentile) meteorologic conditions (i.e., wind speed and atmospheric stability). The plume
contrast and perceptibility are calculated for these conditions.
The results of the Level 2 screening analysis are summarized in Table 4-16. The
predicted values of plume perceptibility and plume contrast to the sky and terrain for the worst
case meteorologic conditions are below the screening criteria values. The emissions from the
CBC Alternative should not impact visibility at the Okefenokee Class I areas.
4-31
-------
TABLE 4-16
RESULTS OF LEVEL 2 ANALYSIS OF IMPACTS
FROM TBOE CBCP ON THE 40 KM VISUAL RANGE
AT THE OKEFENOKEE WILDERNESS AREA
Visibility
Impairment
Parameter
Plume Perceptibility
(AE)
Plume Contrast
(CP)
Wind
Director
Section
ESE
SE
ESE
SE
Closest Distance to Class
I Area
(km)
55.0
59.5
55.0
59.5
Maximum
Calculated
Value
1.261
0.989
0.667
0.503
1.613
1.098
-0.008
-0.006
-0.004
-0.003
-0.010
-0.007
Screening Criteria
Value
2.0
±0.05
4-32
-------
4.1.2.4.1 Class II Areas
A VISCREEN analysis was also performed to evaluate plume visibility in the area
surrounding the facility. Although specifically designed to evaluate plume visibility at somewhat
distant Class I areas, VISCREEN, with appropriate limitations, can be applied in a more
generalized context. Some of the limitations employed include: only the VISCREEN visibility
parameters applicable to the effect of the plume against the background sky were used, since the
vicinity of the CBCP contains no elevated terrain; the observer distance was limited to a
minimum of 5 km (3.2 miles) out to a maximum of 25 km (16 miles) since VISCREEN
simulates the emissions as a point source, which makes simulations of closer observer distances
inappropriate; and only two sight-lines were considered with the observer either looking straight
down the centerline of the plume in the direction of the stack or with the observer at a right
angle to the plume direction, which would be more applicable to the general observer. The
modelling effort also considered relatively conservative meteorologic conditions of neutral
atmospheric stability typical of early morning hours before surface heating and a wind speed of
3 m/s (6.6 miles per hour).
The results of the Class II plume visibility analysis are summarized in Table 4-17. Based
on the Class II analysis, the plume for the CBC Alternative would only be detectable when
directly viewing the facility at distances within 20 km. Given the assumed line-of-sight, the
facility would be in full view, which suggests the visibility of the plume against the sky would
be secondary to the contrast of the facility against the sky. For the general observer, the
potential for a visible plume is limited to the closest distance modeled (5 km). At greater
distances, the modeled visibility parameters fall off rapidly and are much less than the critical
values. The visual impacts of a plume from the CBCP are expected to be localized and occur
only under light wind and neutral dispersion conditions, which occur primarily during early
daylight hours.
4.1.2.5 Regional/Global
4.1.2.5.1 Acidic Deposition
In recent years public awareness regarding the potential impacts of acidic deposition (or
rain) on the natural and man-made environments has increased. Acidic deposition, both wet (as
rain, snow and fog) and dry (paniculate fallout), refers to the increase in acidity of deposition
(wet and dry) from anthropogenic (man-made) sources. Background rainfall normally has a
slightly acidic pH in the range of 4.5 to 5.5, which is due to the introduction of acid causing
agents from natural sources (e.g., volcanoes, wetlands, oceans, vegetation and animals);
4-33
-------
TABLE 4-17
VISIBILITY OF CBCP STACK PLUME IN CLASS H AREAS
(I.E., IN THE VICINITY OF THE FACILITY)
Distance (Ion)
5
10
15
20
25
View Towards
Source
AE
8.0
6.6
4.0
2.1
1.3
Cp
-0.044
-0.039
-0.026
-0.016
-0.008
Cross Plume
View
AE
3.0
1.5
0.7
0.4
0.3
Cp
-0.016
-0.009
-0.005
0.004
-0.002
Notes:
Detectability thresholds: AE = 2.0, Cp = ±0.05
Meteorological Conditions: Stability D, 3 m/sec wind speed
4-34
-------
however, anthropogenic sources of SO2 and NOX are believed to have increased rainfall acidity
in many regions, particularly industrial areas.
SO2 and NOX, which result from the combustion of fossil fuels (oil, gasoline, and coal),
undergo chemical transformations in the atmosphere to produce sulfuric and nitric acid.
Depending on the natural buffering capacity, acidic deposition has been found to contribute to:
acidification (chronic and episodic) of stream and lakes resulting in damage to fisheries;
acidification of forest soils, releasing toxic chemicals (e.g., aluminum), and causing decreased
productivity or mortality of vegetation; formation of "acid fog" which destroys plant tissues
(e.g., leaves and needles); leaching of nutrients from agricultural soils deceasing productivity
and/or increasing the need for fertilizers; and damage to building materials (e.g., steel, concrete,
limestone and marble).
Impacts of the alternatives can be evaluated by comparison of the total SO^ and NOX
emissions from each alternative to pre-conversion of SK to recycling operations. The total SO2
and NOX emissions from each source were summarized in Table 4-1. The estimated total acid
gas emission rate of 4760 TPY (sum of SOj and NOJ for the CBC Alternative is lower than the
AES and SK-only Alternatives, which have total emission rates of 7850 TPY and 5300 TPY,
respectively. In addition, the CBC Alternative is also expected to lower acid gas emissions over
pre-conversion emissions at SK, which should be somewhat higher than the SK-only Alternative
(SK as a recycle facility) emissions. The lower emission rates of the CBC Alternative are due
to the use of lower sulfur coal than the AES Alternative, and greater SO2 and NOX control at the
CBC Alternative than either the AES and SK-only Alternatives.
The decrease in acid gases emissions that would result from the CBC Alternative should
have a net improvement on acidic deposition impacts; however, the release of acid gases by this
alternative will continue to cause, albeit somewhat less, acidic deposition impacts. The areas
of impact are controlled by prevailing wind directions and travel distances. The prevailing
winds vary considerably with season from NE to SE, but predominately vary from the NW to
SW. Chemical transformation of SO2 and NOX emissions to sulfuric and nitric acid occur at
slow rates and impacts to areas within 50 km (32 miles) of the CBCP are likely to be low.
Based on these assumptions the area of greatest deposition will occur NE to SE of the facility,
which, at distances greater than 50 km, is the Atlantic Ocean. This area would not likely be
impacted by acidic deposition due to the high buffering capacity of marine waters (250 mg/kg
as CaCO3). Areas of lesser deposition are the Okefenokee Swamp to the NW and the Central
Florida lake belt to the SW. These areas contain soils and surface waters with limited buffering
capacity, that may be more susceptible to acidic deposition impacts.
4-35
-------
4.1.2.5.2 Global
The release of anthropogenic gases, primarily carbon dioxide, but including methane,
nitrous oxides, chlorfluorocarbons, have been identified as contributing to a global problem,
called the "Greenhouse Effect". This is due to the ability of these gases to trap infrared
radiation (heat) from both the sun and the earth causing a warming effect somewhat analogous
with a greenhouse. Recent mathematical modeling of the greenhouse gases effects predict a
global warming of between 0 and 4°C over the next 50 years; however, the uncertainties in the
predictions are high due to our limited understanding of interactive processes (e.g., increased
cloud formation). The temperature increases are predicted, by some climatologist, to cause a
global rise in sea level, changing precipitation patterns resulting in changing climates, and
increase in severity in violent meteorologic events (e.g., hurricanes).
Global anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide, released by combustion of fossil fuels,
exceed six billion metric tons annually. Expected emissions from the AES and CBC Alternatives
are expected to be less than 2.5 million metric tons annually. Due to much lower fuel
consumption, the SK-only Alternative carbon dioxide emissions will be considerably lower. The
three alternatives represent a very small percent of the total global carbon dioxide emissions.
Further, the energy produced by the CBCP will replace older SK boilers and may replace older
less efficient fossil-fuel fired generating capacity in Florida; however, expected future population
growth and energy consumption in Florida suggest the facility will be used to meet future power
requirements. This information suggests each alternative does not, individually, cause an effect,
but, when viewed cumulatively with all anthropogenic sources, may represent a substantial
global "Greenhouse Effect" concern.
4.2 HUMAN HEALTH IMPACTS
Potential human health impacts from the CBCP are likely to be associated with operation
and not construction; specifically combustion product emissions. To evaluate direct health
impacts associated with air pollutants discharged during the operation of the CBCP, Section
4. 1 .2.3 Air Quality compared air quality from the CBCP to state and federal AAQS. In addition
to this analysis and in response to public concerns regarding potential longterm human health
(e.g., cancer) impacts, a human health risk assessment was conducted by ENSR for the
applicant. The Executive Summary of the ENSR document is contained in Appendix K and the
complete document is available for review upon request.
The results of this analysis are summarized in the following sections. The AES
Alternative was similar in stack design to the CBC Alternative, but was expected to discharge
greater amounts of air pollutants (See Table 4-1 and 4-2). This indicates the AES Alternative
4-36
-------
of human health impacts between the CBC Alternative and the SK-only Alternative was
conducted.
4.2.1 Risk Assessment Methods
In assessing human health risks, the applicant followed procedures recommended by the
National Research Council (NAS, 1983) and EPA (EPA 1986a, EPA 1989b, EPA 1989d, and
EPA 1990b). The risk assessment is a stepwise procedure that includes: hazard or chemical
identification; evaluation of available dose-response information for each chemical identified;
assessment of human exposure to identified chemicals; and determination of potential risks to
each chemical.
4.2.1.1 Chemical Identification
Chemicals initially identified as potential human hazards were the five criteria pollutants
and the 26 other organic and inorganic substances that were included on the Draft Florida Air
Toxics List and modelled as part of the Air Quality Analysis. Based on their relative toxicity,
the list was further reduced to include 10 metals, polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH),
formaldehyde and total radionuclides.
The ten metals identified for the human health risk assessment were antimony, arsenic,
barium, beryllium, cadmium, hexavalent chromium, lead, mercury and nickel. These metals
were not only selected based upon their toxicity, but also because of their persistence in the
environment, which can lead to accumulation in the environment and in tissues. PAH were
included because they are considered probable carcinogens by EPA. Formaldehyde and
radionuclides were included in the risk assessment by the applicant, because of public concern
regarding the release of these chemicals from the CBCP.
All the identified chemicals were evaluated for both the CBC Alternative and the SK-only
Alternative, except for radionuclides, which are not expected to occur at significant
concentrations from the SK oil-fired boilers (SK-only Alternative). In addition to the above,
chlorinated dioxins and furans were included in the assessment for the SK-only Alternative, since
these two chemicals were reported in emissions from bark burners (Sassenrah 1991).
4-37
-------
4.2.1.2 Dose-Response Data
Dose-response is the relationship between dose or exposure of a chemical and the
likelihood that a health effect will occur. Exposure to a chemical can occur by a number of
pathways that include: ingestion of food (e.g., fish and vegetables); accidental ingestion of soils;
inhalation of airborne pollutants and soil particles (i.e., dust); and absorption through the skin.
Health effects from exposure are typically categorized into carcinogenic effects and non-
carcinogenic effects, which can include chronic effects such as decreased longevity, respiratory
ailments, and liver and kidney disfunction. The dose-response information, identified by the
applicant in the human health risk assessment are contained in Table 4-18 (carcinogenic) and
Table 4-19 and 4-20 (non-carcinogenic).
Carcinogenic data (Table 4-18), obtained from EPA sources, incorporates a number of
conservative dose-response assumptions. EPA assumes that there is no threshold effect of
carcinogenic chemicals and that there is a potential risk at any dose above a zero concentration.
In addition, EPA uses models to extrapolate dose-response data on experimental animals (e.g.,
rats) to expected human dose-response, which assumes humans are more sensitive to the effects
of the chemicals than the test animals. The EPA models also statistically estimate, from the
range of dose-response slopes of all chemicals, an upper bound of dose-response slopes. The
final value from the model is known as a cancer slope factor (CSF), which will likely
overestimate true carcinogenic dose-responses of human exposure to a chemical and thus be
more protective of human health. This approach is considered to be conservative.
Non-carcinogenic data (Table 4-19 and 4-20) was also obtained from EPA sources and
are based on observed effects in animal experiments and accidental exposures of humans. The
non-carcinogenic values represent a dose "threshold" (i.e., the dose below which no adverse
human health effects would occur) and are called No Observed Adverse Effect Levels (NOAEL).
To be protective of sensitive individuals within a population (e.g., elderly and children), EPA
requires adjustment of the NOAEL by "uncertainty factors" to obtain a Reference Dose (RfD).
The "uncertainty factors" result in RfDs that are conservative and protective of the most
sensitive individuals within the population.
4-38
-------
TABLE 4-18
DOSE-RESPONSE INFORMATION FOR INORGANIC AND
ORGANIC CHEMICALS WITH POTENTIAL CARCINOGENIC EFFECTS
Compound
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium VI
Formaldehyde
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
PAH [B(a)P]
TCDD-TE
CAS
Number
7440-36-0
7440-38-2
7440-39-3
7440-41-7
7440-43-9
7440-47-3
50-0-0
7439-92-1
7439-97-6
7440-02-0
50-32-8
1746-01-6
EPA
Care.
Class
ND
A
ND
B2
Bl
A
Bl
B2
D
A
B2
B2
Oral
CSF
U/(mg/kg-day)J
NA
1.75E-01
ND
4.30E+00
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
7.30E+00
1.50E+05
Ref. (Last
Verified)
NA
IRIS (9/92)
NA
IRIS (10/92)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
IRIS (2/93)
HEAST (1992)
Study
Animal
NA
human
NA
rat
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
mouse
rat
Inhalation
CSF
[l/(mt/kg-day)j
ND
1.50E+01
ND
8.40E+00
6.30E+00
4.20E+01
4.55E-02
ND
ND
8.40E-01*
6.10E+00
1.50E+05
Ref. (Last
Verified)
NA
IRIS (9/92)
NA
IRIS (10/92)
IRIS (10/92)
IRIS (9/92)
IRIS (11/92)
NA
NA
IRIS (7/92)
HEAST (1992)
HEAST (1992)
Study
Animal
NA
human
NA
human
human
human
rat
NA
NA
human
hamster
rat
U)
vo
-------
TABLE 4-18
(Continued)
DOSE-RESPONSE INFORMATION FOR INORGANIC AND
ORGANIC CHEMICALS WITH POTENTIAL CARCINOGENIC EFFECTS
Compound
Antimony
Radionuclides
Vanadium
CAS
Number
7440-36-0
NA
7440-62-2
EPA
Care.
Class
ND
**
ND
CSF
U/
-------
TABLE 4-19
DOSE-RESPONSE INFORMATION FOR INORGANIC AND ORGANIC CHEMICALS WITH POTENTIAL
NONCARCINOGENIC CHRONIC EFFECTS FROM ORAL EXPOSURE
Compound
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium VI
Formaldehyde
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
PAH [B(a)P]
TCDD-TE
CAS
Number
7440-36-0
7440-38-2
7440-39-3
7440-41-7
7440-43-9
7440-47-3
50-0-0
7439-92-1
7439-97-6
7440-02-0
50-32-8
1746-01-6
Oral Dose-
Response
Value (mg/kg-
day)
4.00E-04
3.00E-04
7.00E-02
5.00E-03
l.OOE-03
5.00E-03
2.00E-01
4.30E-04
3.00E-04
2.00E-02*
ND
ND
Reference (Last
Verified), Type
IRIS (2/93), RfD
IRIS (9/92), RfD
IRIS (1/93), RfD
IRIS (10/92), RfD
IRIS (10/92), RfD
IRIS (9/92), RfD
IRIS (11/92), RfD
TTAL
HEAST (1992), RfD
IRIS (10/92), RfD
NA
NA
Target Organ/Critical Effect at
LOAEL
longevity, blood glucose & cholesterol
keratosis
increased blood pressure
no adverse effects observed
protein in urine
no adverse effects observed
reduced weight gain; histopathology
ND
kidney effects
decreased body & organ weights
NA
NA
Study
Animal
rat
human
human
rat
human
rat
rat
ND
rat
rat
NA
NA
Uncertainty
and
Modifying
Factors
(UFXMF)
1000
3
3
100
10
500
100
ND
1000
300
NA
NA
-------
TABLE 4-19
DOSE-RESPONSE INFORMATION FOR INORGANIC AND ORGANIC CHEMICALS WITH POTENTIAL NONCARCBMOGENIC CHRONIC
EFFECTS FROM ORAL EXPOSURE
Compound
Antimony
Arsenic
Radionuclides
Vanadium
CAS
Number
7440-36-0
7440-38-2
NA
7440-62-2
Oral Dose-
Response
Value (mg/kg-
day)
4.00E-04
3.00E-04
NA
7.00E-03
Reference (Last
Verified), Type
IRIS (2/93), RfD
IRIS (9/92), RfD
NA
HEAST (1992), RfD
Target Organ/Critical Effect at
LOAEL
longevity, blood glucose & cholesterol
keratosis
NA
no adverse effects observed
Study
Animal
rat
human
NA
rat
Uncertainty
and
Modifying
Factors
(UFxMF)
1000
3
NA
100
Notes:
CAS - Chemical Abstracts Service.
LOAEL - Lowest Observed Adverse Effects Level.
RfD • Reference Dose.
IRIS - Integrated Risk Information System, an on-line computer database of toxkotogkal information (U.S. EPA, 1993 J.
HEAST - Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables, published annually by the U.S. EPA (1992 ).
ND - Not Determined by die U.S. EPA.
NA - Not Applicable.
* - Value for nickel refinery dust.
Source: ENSR 1993
*»
NJ
-------
TABLE 4-20
DOSE-RESPONSE INFORMATION FOR INORGANIC AND ORGANIC CHEMICALS WITH POTENTIAL
NONCARCINOGENIC CHRONIC EFFECTS FROM INHALATION EXPOSURE
Compound
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium VI
Formaldehyde
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
PAH [B(a)P]
TCDD-TE
Total Radionuclides
CAS
Number
7440-36-0
7440-38-2
7440-39-3
7440-41-7
7440-43-9
7440-47-3
50-0-0
7439-92-1
7439-97-6
7440-02-0
50-32-8
1746-01-6
NA
Inh. Dose-
Response Value
(mg/kg-day)
ND
ND
1.43E-04
ND
ND
ND
ND
4.30E-04
8.57E-05
ND
ND
ND
NA
Reference {Last
Verified), Type
NA
NA
HEAST (1992), Alt.
RfC
NA
NA
NA
NA
HEAST (1992),
NAAQS
HEAST (1992), RfC
NA
NA
NA
NA
Target
Organ/Critical
Effect at LOAEL
NA
NA
fetus
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
nervous system
NA
NA
NA
NA
Study
Animal
NA
NA
rat
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
human
NA
NA
NA
NA
RFC
(mg/cu.m)
ND
ND
5.00E-04
ND
ND
ND
ND
NA
3.00E-04
ND
ND
ND
ND
Uncertainty
and
Modifying
Factors
(UFxMF)
NA
NA
1000
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
30
NA
NA
NA
NA
-------
TABLE 4-20
(Continued)
DOSE-RESPONSE INFORMATION FOR INORGANIC AND ORGANIC CHEMICALS WITH POTENTIAL NONCARCINOGENIC CHRONIC
EFFECTS FROM INHALATION EXPOSURE
Compound
Antimony
Arsenic
Vanadium
CAS
Number
7440-36-0
7440-38-2
7440-62-2
Inn. Dose-
Response Value
(mg/kg-day)
ND
ND
ND
Reference (Last
Verified), Type
NA
NA
NA
Target
Organ/Critical
Effect at LOAEL
NA
NA
NA
Study
Animal
NA
NA
NA
RFC
(mg/cu.m)
ND
ND
ND
Uncertainty
and
Modifying
Factors
(UFxMF)
NA
NA
NA
Notes:
CAS - Chemical Abstracts Service.
LOAEL - Lowest Observed Advene Effects Level.
RfC - Reference Concentration.
IRIS - Integrated Risk Information System, an on-line computer database of (oncological information (U.S. EPA, 1992 J.
HEAST - Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables, published annually by th U.S. EPA (1992 J.
ND - Not Determined by the U.S. EPA.
NA - Not Applicable.
* - An acceptable air concentration of 0.07 mg/cu.m was estimated by Carson et al. (1981) for sulfuric add from available data.
Source: ENSR 1993.
-------
4.2.1.3 Exposure Assessment
The applicant used a multi-step procedure to quantify human exposure to pollutants
discharged by the CBCP and SK. Their process included: identification of ways in which
humans may be exposed to emissions released into the environment (i.e, exposure scenarios);
identification of receptors or locations at which human exposure should be evaluated; and
estimation of amounts to which humans may be exposed.
The exposure scenarios considered for the human health assessment, presented in Figure
4-1, were based on two types of chemical release in the environment (i.e., air dispersion and
deposition). The two types of release resulted in human exposure through: inhalation of air
suspended chemicals; consumption of local fish and home-grown vegetables contaminated by
pollutants; and ingestion and dermal absorption of soils contaminated by the chemicals.
A number of receptors were identified (Figure 4-2 and Table 4-21) in the vicinity of the
CBCP site. The locations identified included: residential areas that are in close proximity to the
facility and are expected to have the highest ambient air and deposition exposure; and schools
and playgrounds in the vicinity of the CBCP, which were included as sensitive areas.
The applicant used the EPA ISC2 model to estimate chemical concentrations for each
exposure pathway and receptor. Air dispersion models (ISCST2) were used to estimate ambient
air concentration and the concentrations of chemicals that may be inhaled. A deposition model
was used to estimate soil and water contamination in the area, which was used to determine
concentrations in locally grown and consumed fish and vegetables and in contaminated soils that
may be ingested.
Exposure estimates were made for a "Reasonably Maximally Exposed" individual (RME),
which is a hypothetically exposed individual. This hypothetical individual is a person that is
used to quantify exposure to pollutants via the various pathways. To be protective of the
population, conservative assumptions are made regarding "reasonable maximum" exposure
scenarios. Examples of protective assumptions in the assessment made for the RME include:
consumption of one-half pound of fish from the Broward River per week for nine months of the
year; consumption of two pounds of home-grown vegetables per week every week of the year;
and inhalation of air at receptors 24 hours per day 365 days per year. The applicant also
considered exposures for young and older children, which have different body weights and
exposure scenarios than adults. These conservative assumptions likely resulted in estimations
that are much higher than the average individual and a risk assessment that overestimates risk
of the population.
4-45
-------
EMISSION ESTIMATES
Deposition
Modeling
Deposition
Modeling
Deposition and
Runoff into Surface
Water
Deposition onto
Leafy Vegetables
Root Uptake
Deposition and Mixing
in Soil
Fish Uptake
Ambient Air
Concentration
Fish Concentration
Vegetable
Concentration
Soil Concentration
Inhalation
Consumption
Total Exposure
FIGURE 4-1
EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT MODEL USED
TO EVALUATE POTENTIAL HUMAN
HEALTH RISK FROM THE CBCP AND SK
Cedar Bay Cogeneration Project
SOURCE: ENSR
4-46
-------
Ip^Wp'CTN
Scale In Miles
0__.5__1
rH~H~H~H~H
Scale In Kilometers
e
U.S.G.S. 7.5 minute series quadrangle of
Jacksonville, Florida
Legend:
• Residential Location
• Parks and Schools
FIGURE 4-2
RECEPTOR LOCATIONS FOR THE
HUMAN HEALTH RISK
ASSESSMENT
Cedar Bay Cogeneration Project
SOURCE: ENSR
4-47
-------
TABLE 4-21
RECEPTOR LOCATION INFORMATION USED FOR THE
HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
Location
Dames Point Manor
Cedar Bay Road
Polly Town
Arlington
Kraft Road Ballfield
San Mateo Elementary
School
Almadale Christian School
Panama Park
Ft. Caroline Elementary
School
Receptor
Number
182
803
50
278
861
484
467
344
265
Distance
(Meters)
4000
500
2000
4000
1500
3000
2500
5000
6000
Location
(Degrees from
north)
120
300
40
180
0
310
300
220
170
Comment
Residential Receptor RME
for air impact
Residential Receptor Nearest
neighbor, RME (a,b)
Residential Receptor Nearest
neighbor (a)
Residential Receptor
San Mateo Little League
ballfields
School with ballfields (c)
School (a)
Downtown park with softball
fields (c)
School with ballfields and
pedestrian trails. Also near
Ft. Caroline playground, (c)
(a) Source: U.S.G.S, 7,5. minute maps.
(b) Personal Communication, Moore/Bowers landuse consultants.
(c) Jacksonville Planning and Development Department, 1989a.
4-48
-------
4.2.1.4 Regulatory Benchmarks
Interpretation of results from a human health risk assessment (cancer and non-cancer) are
subject to debate. In the case of cancer risk, the assessment quantifies risks as probabilities
(e.g., number of chances in 100,000) of increased cancer risk of an individual, which as
previously indicated are for a "Reasonably Maximally Exposed" individual. The applicant used
a cancer risk benchmark of 1 chance in 100,000 for any individual chemical exposure. For
carcinogenic risk, EPA generally chooses a range of interest between one chance in 100,000 to
one chance in a million excess cancer risk. This risk level is used as a point of departure for
determining the need for corrective action. Below this risk level, corrective action is generally
considered unnecessary. Individual contaminants or pathway totals with carcinogenic risk
exceeding this range are cause for concern.
Non-carcinogenic health risks were based on calculation of parameters called hazard
quotients, which are the relationship between the dose that is considered safe (RfD) and the
estimated dose of the RME. Regulatory programs typically require the hazard quotient for
individual chemical exposure to be less than one; however, this may not reflect exposure of
individuals to other sources. The applicant also calculated a hazard index, which is the sum of
the hazard quotients for all individual chemicals. A value of less than 0.2 for the hazard index
was considered adequate protection, based on the use of this value by EPA for setting primary
drinking water standards.
4.2.2 Risk Assessment Results
4.2.2.1 Carcinogenic Risks
The potential cancer risks associated with the CBC Alternative are presented in Table 4-
22. The highest estimated cancer risk associated with the CBC Alternative (0.24 in 100,000)
was observed in the Cedar Bay residential area. This is well below the applicant's established
cancer risk benchmark and was within EPA's range of interest. All the remaining locations
evaluated for the CBC Alternative were well below 0.1 in 100,000, indicating this alternative
should not pose any cancer risk to the population in the vicinity of the facility.
The SK-only Alternative also had cancer risks less than the benchmark and would not
likely pose a cancer risk to the local community. However, as can be seen in Table 4-22, the
SK-only Alternative has higher cancer risks at the majority of evaluated locations (except Cedar
Bay Road) than the CBC Alternative. Further, as previously mentioned, the AES Alternative
has greater emissions for all of the chemicals evaluated and would likely have greater estimated
4-49
-------
TABLE 4-22
POTENTIAL HUMAN HEALTH CANCER RISK COMPARISON FROM
THE CBC ALTERNATIVE AND THE SK-ONLY ALTERNATIVE
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
Cancer Risk
(Chances in 100,000}
CBCP and
Package Boilers
0.05
0.24
0.03
0.02
0.05
0.03
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
4-50
-------
cancer risks than the CBC Alternative. This suggests the CBC Alternative has the least impact
on cancer risk of the three alternatives.
4.2.2.2 Non-carcinogenic Risks
The potential non-carcinogenic health impacts of the CBC Alternative and the SK-only
Alternative are presented in Table 4-23. The highest chemical hazard index estimated for the
CBC Alternative was 0.1 at the Cedar Bay Road residential location, which is below the 0.2
benchmark. The hazard indices estimated for all other locations were all 0.03 or less. This also
indicates that all hazard quotients for individual chemicals at all locations are much less than one
and that the CBC Alternative should not pose any non-cancer health effects on the local
population.
The SK-only Alternative also had hazard indices less than the benchmark and would not
likely pose any non-cancer risk to the local community. However, as can be seen in Table 4-23,
the SK-only Alternative has the same or higher hazard indices at the majority of evaluated
locations (except Cedar Bay Road and Arlington) than the CBC Alternative. As was mentioned
for cancer risks, the AES Alternative (CBCP as proposed) has greater predicted emissions for
all of the chemicals evaluated and would likely have greater non-cancer risks than the CBC
Alternative (CBCP as constructed). This suggests the CBC Alternative also has the least impact
on non-cancer health risks of the three alternatives.
4.3 SURFACE WATER IMPACTS
The potential impacts of the alternatives on surface water resources are a direct result of
discharges to the St. Johns and Broward Rivers. These two rivers have been classified as Class
III marine waters with protected uses that include: propagation and maintenance of a healthy,
well-balanced population offish and wildlife, recreation (e.g., boating, water skiing and fishing),
navigation and non-potable water use (e.g., cooling water). These water uses are protected
through state and federal water quality criteria. These criteria are pollutant concentrations below
which no adverse toxic impact (either acute or chronic) on the biotic community would be
expected. Discharges, associated with either construction and/or operation of the CBCP and SK,
can cause or contribute to an exceedance of a criteria, which would impact the waterbodies
protected uses. The potential surface water impacts are summarized in this section.
4-51
-------
TABLE 4-23
POTENTIAL HUMAN HEALTH NON-CANCER RISK COMPARISON
FROM THE CBC ALTERNATIVE AND THE SK-ONLY ALTERNATIVE
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
4-52
-------
4.3.1 Construction-Related
Two types of construction-related surface water discharges expected from the AES
Alternative were stormwater runoff and groundwater dewatering. Groundwater dewatering was
eliminated from the CBC Alternative and only stormwater was expected to be discharged.
To minimize construction-related runoff impacts (e.g., suspended solids and siltation) on
the St. Johns and Broward Rivers, an approved erosion and sedimentation control plan was
implemented at the CBCP. This plan included: seeding and mulching of exposed areas;
conscientious use of equipment; installation of a barrier (e.g., silt fences) along the western
perimeter; and a stormwater management system. The stormwater system directed runoff
generated on the site, via temporary ditches and piping, to one of two permanent retention ponds
(YARP and SARP) or temporary sedimentation basins located southwest of the railroad spur.
Ponds were also equipped with fabric filter perforated pipes to reduce suspended solids and
discharges were directed to the Broward River. Only during extreme rain events was unfiltered
runoff discharged; however, surface water impacts were minimal due to high ambient suspended
solids and flows under these extreme conditions.
The AES Alternative also would have included a discharge of construction dewatering
wastewater to the YARP prior to discharge to the Broward River. This dewatering,
approximately 200 gpm, had been expected to last for a period of six to nine months. The
quality of this water was not known; however, the SK treatment system would have likely
reduced any pollutant contained in this discharge.
The remaining source of wastewater during construction is associated with the work
forces use of portable, self contained toilet facilities and temporary and permanent facilities.
Wastes from portable units were disposed at off-site facilities by licensed contractors and the
remainder were collected, treated and discharged by the SK wastewater treatment system. No
other construction-related surface water impacts were expected or occurred.
4.3.2 Operation-Related Impacts
Proposed/expected surface water discharges to the St. Johns and Broward River vary
considerably from one alternative to the next and include process, cooling and stormwater
discharges. The various discharges and potential impacts from each alternative are summarized
below. The onl discharge common to all three alternatives is the release of treated process
wastewater from SK recycling operations, with a composition as summarized in Table 4-24.
The SK wastewater flow varies between alternatives and will be included in the summaries.
4-53
-------
TABLE 4-24
COMPOSITION OF TREATED PROCESS WASTEWATER FROM THE
SK RECYCLING OPERATIONS
Constituent
pH (units)
Conductivity, (umhos)
Alkalinity (as CaCO3)
Total Suspended Solids
Total Dissolved Solids
BOD5
COD
Calcium
Magnesium
Sodium
Phosphate, Total (as PO4)
Potassium
Sulfate (as SO4)
Chloride
Silica (as SiO2
Ammonia Nitrogen
Iron
Concentration
(mg/I)
6-8
2500
560
115
2300
70
500
560
260
680
3.4
15
388
84
55
1.5
1.0
Constituent
Antimony
Silver
Aluminum
Copper
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium, total
Cobalt
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Tin
Titanium
Thallium
Zinc
Concentration
(mg/I)
< 0.005
<0.05
<2.2
< 0.015
< 0.005
<1.0
< 0.005
< 0.005
<0.05
<0.10
<0.05
<0.7
< 0.005
<0.1
<0.05
<0.1
<0.01
<1.0
4-54
-------
4.3.2.1 AES Discharges
The AES Alternative proposed a variety of process, cooling water and stormwater
discharges that are summarized in Table 4-25. The major source of wastewater (i.e., cooling
tower blowdown), with a discharge volume of almost 1 MGD, was to be discharged directly to
the St. Johns River via the SK discharge system. Table 4-26 contains the estimated quality of
the combined wastewater discharge from the AES Alternative.
A number of infrequent, low volume waste streams (e.g., metal cleaning and
demineralizer regeneration waste), were to be generated on an infrequent basis during operation
of the CBCP. These waste streams were to be pre-treated at the CBCP using caustic to remove
metals and then discharged to the SK wastewater treatment system for further treatment.
In addition, stormwater runoff from the materials (coal and limestone) storage area and
yard area was to be detained in the SARP and YARP and discharged via the SK discharge to
the St. Johns River. AES did not estimate quality of these discharges, because water quality
would be dependent on coal and limestone characteristics; however, the storage area runoff could
have contained high metal concentrations (e.g., iron, aluminum, manganese) from oxidation of
sulfide minerals associated with coal, suspended solids, and high acidity. The ponds were to
be designed to release stormwater at a rate equal to background flows up to a 24-hour storm
event that occurs at a frequency of 25 years.
Under the AES Alternative, SK operations would have discharged all of their treated
process wastewater, which would have been a flow of approximately 10 MGD. The expected
composition is summarized in Table 4-24. Therefore, under normal operating conditions the
total amount of wastewater that would have been discharged by the AES Alternative to the St.
Johns and Broward Rivers would have exceeded 11 MGD.
4.3.2.2 CBC Discharges
The CBC Alternative, under normal operating conditions, will be the CBCP as a zero
discharge facility. The zero discharge system (discussed in section ??) will produce cooling
water for the CBCP from treatment of process wastewater, cooling water blowdown, stormwater
runoff, and a portion of treated SK wastewater.
Metal cleaning, floor drains and the demineralizer system are all sources of infrequent
to periodic wastewater. These wastewaters will be directed into the zero discharge system at
the pre-treatment clarifier where the wastewater will be treated to remove particulates and
4-55
-------
TABLE 4-25
SUMMARY OF AES ALTERNATIVE WASTEWATER DISCHARGES
NPDES
Outfall
Serial
Number
001
002
003
004
005
006
007
008
Type and Source
ofWastewater
Main Plant Discharge via SK Discharge
Systems (receives effluent from OSN
002, 003, 005 and 008 (Construction
flows only)
Cooling Tower Blowdown to OSN 001
Yard Area Runoff Pond Effluent
(includes construction runoff and roof
and yard drains) to OSN 001
Yard Area Runoff Pond (includes roof
and yard drains) to OSN 001
Emergency Overflow
Boiler Blowdown to the Cooling Tower
for Reuse
Construction Dewatering Wastes to
OSN 001 via the SK Once-through
Cooling Water Effluent Line
Pretreated Low Volume Wastes
(demineralizer regeneration, floor
drains, lab drains, and similar wastes)
and Discharge 007 to the SK IWTS
Pretreated Metal Cleaning Wastes and
Nonchemical Metal Cleaning Wastes to
OSN 006 (l)
Coal, Limestone and Ash Storage Areas
Runoff Retention Effluent to OSN 001
Coal, Limestone and Ash Storage Areas
Runoff Retention Basin Effluent to the
SKIWTS
Emergency Overflow
Flow Volume (MGD)
Construction
2.88 (design)
—
.007 (avg.)
.500 (max.)
—
N/A
—
1.68 (avg.)
2.88 (max.)
—
—
0.014 (avg.)
—
N/A
Operations
1.150
(design)
0.911 (avg.)
—
0.007 (avg.)
0.005 (max.)
N/A
0.157 (avg.)
—
0.213 (avg.)
0.0 (avg.)
1.261 (max.)
—
0.014 (avg.)
N/A
Receiving Waters
Construction
—
—
St. Johns
—
Broward
—
St. Johns
—
—
St. Johns
—
Broward
Operations
St. Johns
St. Johns
—
St. Johns
Broward
St. Johns
—
St. Johns
St. Johns
—
St. Johns
Broward
(1)
Flow will occur only during maintenance outages.
4-56
-------
TABLE 4-26
ESTIMATED QUALITY OF THE WASTEWATER
DISCHARGED BY THE AES ALTERNATIVE (mg/I)
Constituent
BOD 5-day
COD
TOC
TSS
Ammonia
PH
Oil and Grease
Calcium
Magnesium
Sodium
Potassium
Alkalinity (as CaCO3)
Sulfate
Chloride
Nitrate
Fluoride
Silica
Chlorine
Total Phosphorous
Cyanide
Iron
Manganese
Aluminum
Nickel
Zinc
Copper
Cadmium
Chromium
Average
Concentration (mg/I)
11
32
17
39
1.1
7.1
10
77
141
1,441
4.2
203
3,264
151
5.6
3.0
183
0.00
0.06
0.00054
2.2
0.27
1.8
0.01
0.05
0.005
0.0002
0.006
Maximum
Concentration (mg/I)
11
83
32
58
1.1
9.0
12
81
141
1,492
4.3
210
3,264
157
6.5
3.2
190
0.02
0.07
0.0016
6.6
0.94
6.3
0.04
0.16
0.05
0.00069
0.02
4-57
-------
TABLE 4-27
(Continued)
ESTIMATED QUALITY OF THE WASTEWATER
DISCHARGED BY THE AES ALTERNATIVE (mg/1)
Constituent
Beryllium
Arsenic
Selinium
Antimony
Mercury
Barium
Silver
Lead
Thallium
Average
Concentration (mg/1)
0.00015
0.000045
0.00004
0.000018
0.000037
0.02
0.0001
0.01
0.000018
Maximum
Concentration (mg/1)
0.00052
0.00015
0.00014
0.000063
0.00013
0.067
0.0004
0.027
0.000063
4-58
-------
metals. This system will also recycle and reuse all cooling tower blowdown, a major source of
wastewater at the CBCP. This blowdown will enter the zero discharge system at the cooling
tower blowdown clarifier. The blowdown will be treated by a number of processes prior to
reuse as a cooling water for the CBCP.
In addition, the system will use stormwater runoff from the yard and storage area that
is retained in the YARP and SARP as a cooling water source. Water retained in the YARP and
SARP will enter the zero discharge system at the cooling tower blowdown clarifier and the pre-
treatment clarifier, respectively. Under normal operating and meteorologic conditions, the
CBCP should be able to use all stormwater runoff that is generated on the site; however, under
extreme meteorologic conditions (e.g., 25 year, 24 hour rainfall event) the CBCP will not be
able to use all the stormwater generated and a discharge will occur. USGen has estimated the
YARP and SARP will be able to retain (i.e., no stormwater discharge), when at maximum
storage capacity, up to 24 hour rainfall frequency events of 25 year and 50 year, respectively.
Greater rainfall then these extreme events will result in a discharge from the YARP and SARP.
The effect of longterm precipitation events (e.g., cumulative five and ten day rainfall) were not
compared to CBCP operating conditions, which might result in more frequent discharges;
however, discharges from the ponds are not likely to exceed a frequency of twice per year. At
the "worst-case" pond discharge frequency and flow, the impacts on the receiving waterbodies
(i.e., Broward River) are expected to minimal, due to the high dilution of pollutants with rain
water and high receiving waterbody flow that would be associated with the extreme meteorologic
conditions. The stormwater NPDES permit issued for the CBCP will contain monitoring
requirements for all discharges from the two ponds, which can be used to identify any impacts
from the discharge of stormwater that will require mitigation.
The cooling water needs of the CBCP will also require use of a portion of SK treated
wastewater. The SK wastewater will enter the CBCP zero discharge system at the pre-treatment
clarifier, where it will be treated with chemical agents that will remove contaminants that could
affect the cooling water system. The CBCP will require on average approximately 3.7 MGD
of SK wastewater.
Through pretreatment and reuse of SK mill effluent as cooling water makeup, operation
of the CBCP is expected to reduce SK treated process water to an average of 6.3 MGD
(composition summarized in Table 4-24), which is a 37% reduction in discharge to the St. Johns
River. This reduction as well as the CBCP zero discharge system will result in an average
discharge flow of approximately 6.3 MGD, which is the discharge from the SK.
4-59
-------
4.3.2.3 SK-Only Discharges
The SK-only Alternative would have three types of discharge, treated process wastewater,
cooling water and stormwater runoff, to the St. Johns and Broward River. The treated
wastewater will have a composition similar to that summarized in Table 4-24 and will be
discharged at an average flow of 11 MGD, which is slightly less than the SK flow (12 to 14
MGD) prior to conversion to a recycling facility.
The SK-only Alternative would require the continued use of the three power boilers and
two bark boilers, which are currently utilizing recirculated cooling water. It is our
understanding the cooling tower blowdown, less than 1 MGD, would be discharged to the St.
Johns Rivers along with treated process water. No information was provided regarding the
characteristics of this wastewater; however, general water quality conditions can be evaluated.
Discharged cooling water can have temperatures greater than receiving waterbodies by between
5 to 10°C (9 to 18°F) and can have much greater dissolved solids from evaporation in cooling
towers. In addition, leaching of metals from condenser tubes (e.g., copper, zinc and lead) and
chemical agents (e.g., chlorine) added to reduce biofouling can cause or contribute to toxic
conditions in receiving waters. This discharge would not be expected to cause any surface water
impacts due to high dilution, and dissolved solids in the St. Johns River.
In addition to cooling water and process water, stormwater would be discharged from the
site of the CBCP. Stormwater runoff would have come into contact with the lime mud disposal
area, which was relocated and capped by USGen, and could have been potentially contaminated.
Based on this summary, the average discharge from the SK-only Alternative would have slightly
exceeded 12 MGD and would have had an unknown contamination level associated with the
stormwater runoff and cooling water. This discharge volume would have been a slight decrease
(2 to 4 MGD) from pre-conversion conditions at SK.
4.3.2.4 Water Quality Comparison
No water quality modeling was conducted by the applicant for the pre-existing discharges
or discharge expected from the alternatives. The net average freshwater flow of 6000 MGD
(9300 cfs) in the St. Johns River should provide adequate dilution of the discharges to minimize
any water quality impacts; however, small areas of degraded water quality within mixing zones
can potentially affect receiving stream biota. In general, water quality impacts are likely to be
controlled by quantity and quality of the discharges. A qualitative evaluation based on a quality
and quantity comparison is summarized below.
4-60
-------
All three alternatives had a discharge of treated process water from SK, which is
expected to have the same water quality for all three alternatives. The AES Alternative also had
a cooling tower blowdown discharge with a quality summarized in Table 4-26, a process water
discharge, and a stormwater discharge from the storage and yard areas with variable water
quality. The CBC Alternative did not have any additional discharges other than the SK
operation discharge, except for infrequent stormwater discharges from the yard and storage
areas. The SK-only Alternative had two additional discharges, a cooling water discharge and
stormwater runoff from the lime mud disposal area. Based on this analysis the least water
quality impacting alternative would be the CBC Alternative, because it has one discharge with
similar water quality as the other alternatives compared to multiple discharges for the AES and
SK-only Alternatives. The AES and SK-only Alternatives are likely to have similar water
quality since both contain similar diascharges (i.e., SK wastewater, cooling tower blowdown and
stormwater runoff); therefore, no difference in quality can be ascertained between these two
alternatives.
The St. Johns River flow provides dilution ratios of 550:1 for the AES Alternative
discharges, 950:1 for the CBC Alternative discharge, and 590:1 for the SK-only Alternative
discharges. In general, for discharges of similar characteristic, the higher the ratio the less the
water quality impacts. This suggests, at least with respect to SK wastewater, the CBC
Alternative (6.3 MOD) would have lower impacts than the other alternatives (10 MGD).
Further, due to collection and use of stormwater, the CBC Alternative would likely discharge
lesser quantities of stormwater than the other alternatives. Since these are the only two
discharges associated with the CBC Alternative, this alternative, with respect to quantity, would
be least impacting. Of the other two alternatives, the SK-only Alternative would have lower
impacts than the AES Alternative; however the differences are minimal.
Based on this comparison, the CBC Alternative is likely to result in the lowest water
quality impacts. The AES Alternative would have greater water quality impacts than the CBC
Alternative, but impacts similar to the SK-only Alternative. In comparison to pre-existing
conditions at the SK, all three alternatives would lower water quality impacts, including the SK-
only Alternative. Water quality improvements would be the result of reduced SK wastewater
flow by between 2 and 8 MGD, depending on the alternative. In addition, the preconversion
SK had a 60 MGD discharge of once-through cooling water, which was eliminated by use of a
mechanical cooling towers under all three alternatives. Surface water impacts from once-through
cooling water can include: the release of heated cooling water can create a thermal plume with
temperatures that can cause deleterious effects on receiving water biota; leaching of metals from
4-61
-------
condenser tubes (e.g., copper, zinc and lead) and chemical agents (e.g., chlorine) added to
reduce biofouling can cause or contribute to toxic conditions in receiving waters.
4.4 GROUNDWATER IMPACTS
4.4.1 Construction-Related
The construction of the CBCP as originally proposed (the AES Alternative) required
drilling of pumping wells that would have been used to dewater the construction site. During
excavation and structural construction of the coal receiving structure, it was estimated that 200
gpm would have been withdrawn from the shallow aquifer for a period of six to nine months.
This groundwater would have been discharged directly to the Broward River.
The CBC Alternative did not require groundwater dewatering during construction.
Dewatering was eliminated by raising elevations in some areas with fill and by localized
pumping inside temporary sheet pile. Pumped water from inside the sheet pile was returned to
the outside.
Groundwater quality impacts resulting from infiltration of stormwater during construction
activities for either the AES or CBC Alternative were expected to be negligible. Studies
indicated that infiltrating storm water flows to the shallow water table and travels nearly
horizontally towards the Broward River and the St. Johns River. Further, surface runoff from
the construction site will be directed to the SARP and YARP for settling before ultimate
discharge to surface waters. Any seepage from the un-lined YARP will flow to the water table
and into the Broward River.
In addition to impacts on the shallow aquifer, water for construction purposes was
supplied by the SK production wells in the Floridan Aquifer. Flows required for construction
were minimal and within SK's permitted withdrawal rate.
4.4.2 Operation-Related
The operation of the CBCP will affect both shallow and deep aquifers. Impacts on
shallow aquifers will be the result of reduced infiltration from impervious (i.e., buildings and
pavement) and lined (coal and limestone storage) areas. These waters will be captured and
detained in the YARP and SARP. The stored waters would have been discharged to the
Broward River under the AES Alternative, but will be used for cooling water under the CBC
4-62
-------
Alternative. Although the AES and CBC Alternatives reduce infiltration, both alternatives
protect the quality of the shallow aquifer by inhibiting potentially contaminated water from
infiltrating into the aquifer.
Impacts on shallow groundwater quality from the SK-only Alternative are related to the
lime mud disposal area, which was relocated during the construction of the CBCP. This waste
material would not have been relocated to a more secure site and would have continued to cause
contamination of the shallow aquifer from the leachate released by the lime mud and would
eventually enter the Broward and/or St. Johns Rivers.
Impacts on the deeper Floridan Aquifer are the result of water withdrawals necessary for
production processes (10 to 12 MOD) and boiler cooling water (less than 1 MOD) at the SK,
and cooling and make-up water at the CBCP. Approximate breakdowns of average water
requirements for the three alternatives are summarized in Table 4-27. The AES Alternative will
require 17.44 MOD, the CBC Alternative will require 12.76, and the SK-only Alternative will
require an average of 12 MOD of Floridan Aquifer water via the SK production wells. The SK-
only Alternative water consumption is based on use prior to conversion to a recycling operation
and actual use may be somewhat lower due to changes in manufacturing processes.
TABLE 4-27
BREAKDOWN OF AVERAGE WATER REQUIREMENTS
FOR THE THREE ALTERNATIVES
Alternative
AES
CBC
SK-only
Average Water Use (MGD)
Process Water at
SK
12
12'
12'
Boiler Make-up
at CBCP
1.385
0.70
N/A
Cooling Water
at CBCP
3.99
N/A
<1
Misc. at
CBCP
0.065
0.065
N/A
Total
17.44
12.76
12
Notes: ' actual volumes will be slightly less because CBCP will supply cooling water.
The Floridan Aquifer is the primarily source of public water for Duval County as well
as surrounding counties. Currently, this aquifer is artesian with a potentiometric surface at about
35 feet above mean sea level. Excessive withdrawal from this aquifer can lower this pressure
head possibly resulting in costly installation of pumps on potable water supplies. In addition,
4-63
-------
due to the proximity to the coast and saline waters, excessive withdrawal can lead degradation
of drinking water quality from salt water intrusion. To evaluate effects of the proposed
withdrawal for the AES Alternative on existing users, AES conducted detailed hydrologic
groundwater modeling.
AES-CB used two USGS groundwater models to evaluate possible impacts to
groundwater which could result from the CBCP as originally proposed (the AES Alternative).
The MODFLOW model was used to evaluate the degree to which groundwater pumping would
lower water levels in the main layer of the Floridian aquifer used for water supply, i.e. the
upper water bearing zone. The MOC model was used to evaluate whether chloride
concentrations (salt) would be expected to increase (known as saltwater intrusion). Both the
groundwater flow and transport models used a withdrawal rate of 7.0 MOD, which was the
maximum projected use at CBCP. The modeling results are presented in a report entitled
"Ground Water Investigation Report". The modeling was independently reviewed by the
SJRWMD, BESD, and EPA Region IV and is summarized below.
MODFLOW, developed and supported by the USGS, is one of the most common models
currently being used for groundwater flow modeling. MODFLOW simulates groundwater flow
in two directions and uses a system of layers to approximate flow in a third direction.
MODFLOW does not exactly model groundwater flow, but rather approximates flow between
rectangular cells using a finite difference solution procedure. The use of MODFLOW requires
input of a number of parameters including: aquifer layers and depth, fixed water levels, flow
boundaries, well locations, pumping rates, hydraulic characteristics, etc. Many of the
parameters must be approximated due to variability throughout the aquifer, and lack of specific
information; therefore, MODFLOW predictions are never exact and must be evaluated with a
"sensitivity analysis"(i.e., multiple iterations using a range of possible input parameters).
Similar to MODFLOW, MOC is a commonly used groundwater transport model
developed by the USGS. MOC uses a finite difference procedure to approximate groundwater
flow in two directions for one layer. Transport of mobile groundwater pollutants within the flow
field is estimated using the method of characteristics solution procedure. Pollutants are assumed
to be uniformly distributed over the depth of the aquifer. As is the case with MODFLOW,
MOC predictions are never exact due to model and input data limitations.
The MODFLOW modeling conducted indicated withdrawals of less than 7.0 MGD, for
power generation and cooling tower makeup for the AES Alternative, will not cause adverse
impacts to existing legal users or cause adverse water quality problems. MOC modeling was
performed for this project to determine whether chloride concentrations would increase in the
upper water bearing zone of the Floridan Aquifer from the proposed groundwater withdrawal.
4-64
-------
The modeling suggests chloride concentrations in the upper water bearing zone should not
increase by more than a few milligrams per liter; however, there is a high degree of uncertainty
in these predictions. Based on the MODFLOW and MOC analyses the CBC and SK-only
Alternatives, which have lower groundwater withdrawal rates, would not cause adverse effects
on groundwater use.
Future growth in Duval County will increase the demand for water (potable and non-
potable) from the Floridan Aquifer. This increased demand has the potential for inducing
chloride increases (salt water intrusion) at sensitive locations within the aquifer (e.g., Blount
Island). On a regional basis, higher chloride concentrations in the Floridan Aquifer can
generally be correlated with high rates of production from the aquifer, particularly from deeper
zones (e.g. Fernandina Beach, the City of Jacksonville well field, and the Eastport area west of
the Seminole Kraft site). Increases in chloride concentrations with time can also occur, as has
been observed at wells near the site (from about 25 mg/1 in 1973 to 40 mg/1 in 1979).
Based on longterm declines in the potentiometric surface and recent effects of shorter
term drought conditions, additional consumptive use of Floridan Aquifer water should be
evaluated based on the need for a high quality water source. Process water at the SK is a pre-
existing permitted water use that can not be considered in this evaluation. In the case of the
CBCP, high quality water is needed only for boiler make-up water and potable use; cooling
water typically does not require high quality water. Therefore, although the modeling does not
indicate any impact at the 7.0 MOD withdrawal, the use of Floridan Aquifer water for cooling
water should be considered a substantial impact.
The AES and SK-only Alternatives both use Floridan Aquifer water as a cooling water
source. The CBC Alternative's cooling water sources are stormwater and SK wastewater. The
SK-only Alternative's groundwater consumption is within the permitted withdrawal amount for
the facility and is not an increase in water use. New uses of groundwater withdrawal are only
a consideration for the AES Alternative and should be considered a substantial impact since it
is a cooling water use.
4.5 ECOLOGICAL IMPACTS
4.5.1 Construction-Related
Construction-related impacts of the AES and CBC Alternatives on surrounding ecology
are likely to be similar, since both consider the same site. Although the SK-only Alternative
would not have entailed any proposed construction, past and ongoing SK operations at the site
have associated impacts that must be considered.
4-65
-------
4.5.1.1 Terrestrial
The impacts of construction for the three alternatives on terrestrial wildlife and habitat
would be similar. Construction of the CBCP, either as proposed (the AES Alternative) or as
constructed (the CBC Alternative), disturbs approximately thirty acres of land adjacent to SK.
A large portion of this area is converted to stockpiles and facilities necessary for operation of
the CBCP. The area involved in construction of CBCP facilities was identified as containing
poor quality wildlife habitat, due to industrial activities associated with SK operations. Future
activities or plant expansion by SK (the SK-only Alternative) in this area would continue to
degrade or impact the area similar to the other alternatives.
In addition to the thirty acres, the CBCP requires improvement of a rail spur to bring
coal to the site. A resident gopher tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus) population, which often has
threatened and endangered companion species, was identified during field studies in the vicinity
of the rail spur. Both the AES and CBC Alternatives included mitigation, through relocation,
of the gopher tortoise population and cohort species. The SK-only Alternative (future SK
operation) would not likely have involved any impact to the area.
The marshes adjacent to the site, which appear to be ecologically important as feeding
grounds for numerous aquatic and terrestrial species, are not expected to be directly impacted
by construction (AES and CBC Alternatives). Run-off from the construction site may impact
the area; however, the impacts are likely to be minimal with proper sediment and erosion
control. In addition, under the the SK-only Alternative these areas would continue to receive
runoff from the SK industrial complex and the lime mud disposal area.
4.5.1.2 Aquatic
Site preparation and construction activities associated with either Alternative A or B may
adversely affect aquatic biota in the adjacent surface waters (Broward and St. John's Rivers)
through storm water runoff that can cause sedimentation and increased turbidity; however,
proposed control measures during construction would likely provide adequate protection to
surface waters. Therefore, construction impacts on aquatic life are not expected to be of
concern.
In addition, the relocation of a SK lime mud disposal area from the site to a lined and
capped area adjacent to the site has occurred as a result of the CBCP construction (AES or CBC
Alternatives). As discussed in the Surface Water Section (4.3), this action, which would not
have been performed in the SK-only Alternative, will likely provide some water quality benefits
4-66
-------
to adjacent waters. Therefore, the AES and CBC Alternatives may provide greater protection
to aquatic biota.
4.5.2 Operation-Related
A number of operation-related impacts of the three alternatives on terrestrial wildlife and
aquatic biota will occur. Deposition of combustion-related pollutants and cooling tower salt drift
could have potential deleterious impacts on surrounding ecology. On behalf of USGen, ENSR
conducted an Ecological Risk Assessment for the CBCP (ENSR 1993), which is summarized
below. The Executive Summary of this document is contained in Appendix K.
Additional operation-related impacts of the three alternatives on aquatic and terrestrial
biota are evaluated in the sections following the Ecological Risk Assessment.
4.5.2.1 Ecological Risk Assessment
Similar to the human health risk assessment, the ecological risk assessment conducted by
the applicant was performed to determine incremental impacts for combustion products emitted
from two of the alternatives: the CBC Alternative-CBCP as constructed; and the SK-only
Alternative~SK as a recycling facility (No Action Alternative). The AES Alternative (CBCP
as proposed) was not included in the evaluation, because the higher emissions from this
alternative than the CBC Alternative would likely result in higher ecological risk.
The procedures used for the ecological assessment were similar to the human health risk
assessment (Section 4.2). Chemicals identified for this assessment were the same as the human
health assessment. Chemical specific dose response data used in the ecological assessment are
summarized in Table 4-28 (mammalian) and Table 4-29 (avian).
In order to evaluate potential risk to all species of the surrounding area, the applicant
selected representative mammal and avian species based on examination of the surrounding
habitat and ecology. Representative species are those that best characterize major groups of
animals (e.g., mammals, birds, reptiles and amphibians) and are potentially more highly exposed
than other species. The species selected were the eastern mole (Scalopus aquaticus), river otter
(Lutra canadensis), belted kingfisher (Ceryle alcyori), and snowy egret (Egretta thula).
4-67
-------
TABLE 4-28
MAMMALIAN CHEMICAL DOSE-RESPONSE VALUES USED IN THE ECOLOGICAL
RISK ASSESSMENT
Chemical
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium (1)
Chromium III
Chromium VI
Cobalt (2)
Copper (3)
Lead
Manganese (4)
Mercury-organic
Mercury-inorganic
Molybdenum
Nickel
POM (PAH) (5)
Selenium
TCDD
Vanadium
Zinc (6)
NOAEL (mg/kg/day)
0.262
0.7
0.7
0.54
0.19
0.46
3.5
0.25
0.42
0.9
4
0.003
0.32
0.7
1
0.025
7E-07
0.54
0.38
bdow the observed NO AEL of 1.8 for cl
(2) The NOAEL prorated was for "Intel
(3) A LOAEL presented was for chronic
(4) LOAELs presented were for two can
factor of 10.
(5) The NOAEL presented was for "acut
(6) A LOAEL presented was for chronic
ironic exposure.
rnwdute exposure* and was converted to
exposure and was converted to a NOAEL
e exposure" and was converted to a NOA
exposure and was converted to • NOAEI
Species
rat
rat
rat
rat
mouse
rat
rat
rat
mouse
rat
rat
rat
rat
rat
mouse
rat
guinea pig
mouse
mouse
Reference
ATSDR, 1990
ATSDR, 1991
ATSDR, 1990
ATSDR, 1987
ATSDR, 1992
ATSDR, 1991
ATSDR, 1991
ATSDR, 1990
ATSDR, 1989
ATSDR, 1991
ATSDR, 1990
ATSDR, 1989
ATSDR, 1989
ATSDR, 1991
ATSDR, 1989
ATSDR, 1988
ATSDR, 1987
ATSDR, 1990
ATSDR, 1988
chronic exposure by use of a safety factor of 10. This was
i NOAEL chronic exposure by use of a safety factor of 10.
for chronic exposure by use of a safety factor of 10.
d to a NOAEL for chronic exposure by use of a safety
5L for chronic exposure by use of * safety factor of 10.
.for chrome exposure by use of a safety factor of 10.
4-68
-------
TABLE 4-29
AVIAN CHEMICAL DOSE-RESPONSE VALUES
USED IN THE ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT
Chemical
Lead(l)
Mercury-organic (2)
Mercury-inorganic (3)
Nickel (4)
TCDD (5)
Zinc (6)
NOAEL (mg/kg/day)
0.028
0.044
0.352
7.9
1E-06
3
Species
Starling
Cotumix
Cotumix
Chicken
Reference
Eisler, 1988
Eisler, 1987
Eisler, 1987
EPA, 1992
Eisler, 1986
EPA, 1992
NOTES:
For those chemicals that avian dose-response reformation was not found, the mammalian dose-response values in Table
5-3 were used.
(1) The NOAEL presented was for an 11 day exposure. This converted to a NOAEL for chronk exposure by use of a
safety factor of 100.
(2) The NOAEL of 4 mg/kg in diet was converted to a daily dose. This was converted to a NOAEL for other species by
use of a safety factor of 10.
(3) The NOAEL of 32 mg/kg in diet was converted to a dafly dose. This was converted to a NOAEL for other species by
useof a safety factor of 10.
(4) The NOAEL was converted to a NOAEL for other species by use of a safely factor of 10.
(5) A LOAEL presented was for a 21 day exposure. This was converted to a NOAEL for chronk exposure for other
species by use of a safety factor of 1000.
(6) A LOAEL presented was for chronk exposure. This was converted to a NOAEL for other species by use of a safety
factor of 100.
4-69
-------
An exposure scenario, similar to the human health risk assessment (see Figure 4-1), was
developed for each of the representative species. Some of the pathways considered included:
fish consumption; water ingestion; soil ingestion; and invertebrate consumption. A lifetime
average daily dose was calculated for each species based on the exposure pathways for that
species at locations with high modeled deposition rates. Similar to the human health non-cancer
risk assessment, a hazard quotient was calculated for each species and chemical combination.
The hazard quotient is simply the ratio of the estimated species-chemical dose to the dose-
response value for that chemical. The hazard quotient would have to be greater or equal to one
for a substantial impact to be predicted.
The results of the ecological risk assessment for the CBC Alternative are summarized in
Table 4-30. The highest estimated hazard quotient was 0.1 (vanadium) for the eastern mole,
which is an order of magnitude below the quotient at which an effect would be observed. The
margin of safety built into the risk assessment procedure suggets that this is a conservative
estimate. The hazard quotients for the remaining chemicals and species were all several orders
of magnitude below one, which suggests no ecological risk is likely to occur.
The results of the ecological risk assessment for the SK-only Alternative are summarized
in Table 4-31. As was observed for the CBC Alternative, the highest hazard quotient of 0.5
(vanadium) was estimated for the eastern mole. This value is approaching one and suggests the
SK-only Alternative may cause some deleterious impacts to the surrounding ecology.
Comparison of Tables 4-30 and 4-31 indicates that predicted hazard quotients for the SK-only
Alternative are substantially greater than the quotients estimated for the CBC Alternative.
4.5.2.2 Terrestrial
The CBCP operations are expected to have only minimal adverse impacts on terrestrial
ecology. Operational impacts of the AES and CBC Alternatives, other than described in the
Ecological Risk Section (4.5.2.1), may include: contamination of soils and vegetation from
deposition of toxic pollutants; contamination and toxic effects associated with salt drift from
cooling towers; mortality of migrating birds and mammals during roadway and railroad
crossings; and possible collisions of night flying birds with high CBCP structures (e.g., the
stack). The majority of these are likely to pose minimal ecological risk to terrestrial
communities. Terrestrial impacts associated with deposition and salt drift are discussed below.
4.5.2.2.1 Deposition Impacts
Release of toxic pollutants into the atmosphere, primarily as suspended particulates, can
impact soils by deposition and vegetation by uptake of deposited pollutants. Evaluation of
4-70
-------
TABLE 4-30
SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL HAZARD QUOTIENTS
FROM THE CBC ALTERNATIVE
Chemical
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium III*
Chromium VI
Copper
Lead
Organic Mercury**
Inorganic Mercury***
Nickel
POM
Selenium
Vanadium
Zinc
Snowy Egret
0.0000004
0.000001
0.000005
0.000002
0.000006
0.000003
0.000000004
0.000008
0.0004
0.0002
0.0007
0.0000003
0.0000003
0.00004
0.00002
0.000004
Belted Kingfisher
0.0000005
0.000002
0.000006
0.000002
0.000007
0.000004
0.000000005
0.00001
0.0004
0.0002
0.0008
0.0000004
0.0000003
0.00004
0.00002
0.000005
River Otter
0.0000003
0.000001
0.000004
0.000002
0.000005
0.000002
0.000000003
0.000006
0.00001
0.002
0.0006
0.000003
0.0000002
0.00003
0.00002
0.000002
Eastern Mole
0.003
0.009
0.06
0.002
0.003
0.01
0.00002
0.03
0.004
0.002
0.001
0.01
0.0001
0.0007
0.1
0.04
Notes:
* - Deposition rates for chromium III are assumed to be one hundred times deposition rates for chromium VI.
** - Deposition rates for organic mercury are assumed to be 1 percent of total mercury.
**• - Deposition rates for inorganic mercury are assumed to be 99 percent of total mercury.
-------
TABLE 4-31
SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL HAZARD QUOTIENTS
FROM THE SK-ONLY ALTERNATIVE
Chemical
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium III*
Chromium VI
Copper
Lead
Organic Mercury**
Inorganic Mercury***
Nickel
POM
Selenium
Vanadium
TCDD
Zinc
Snowy Egret
0.0000007
0.0000006
0.0000006
0.000001
0.00001
0.000001
0.000000002
0.000008
0.001
0.00005
0.0002
0.000002
0.000007
0.000004
0.0001
NA
0.000003
Belted Kingfisher
0.0000008
0.0000007
0.000007
0.000001
0.00001
0.000002
0.000000002
0.00001
0.001
0.00006
0.0002
0.000002
0.000008
0.000005
0.0001
NA
0.000003
River Otter
0.0000005
0.0000005
0.000004
0.000001
0.000009
0.000001
0.000000001
0.000006
0.00003
0.0006
0.0002
0.00002
0.000006
0.000004
0.00007
NA
0.000002
Eastern Mole(#675)
0.004
0.002
0.02
0.0005
0.005
0.005
0.000006
0.04
0.005
0.0003
0.0002
0.1
0.00001
0.007
0.5
0.00003
0.009
Eastern Mole(#901)
0.003
0.001
0.03
0.0004
0.004
0.004
0.000006
0.04
0.005
0.0002
0.0002
0.1
0.00002
0.005
0.4
0.00004
0.01
Notes: * - Deposition rates for chromium III are assumed to be one hundred times deposition rates for chromium VI.
** - Deposition rates for organic mercury are assumed to be 1 percent of total mercury,
*** - Deposition rates for inorgank mercury are assumed to be 99 percent of total mercury.
NA - Not applicable.
K)
-------
deposition impacts requires: a review of the soils and vegetation in the area influenced by the
source; identification of emission rates of pollutants by the source; determining levels of soil and
vegetation exposure to the emissions; and a comparison of exposures with screening levels of
acceptability. This section discusses potential impacts of the CBC Alternative on soils and
vegetation in the two PSD Class I areas (the Okefenokee and Wolf Island Wilderness Areas
(WA)), in the immediate vicinity of the CBCP, and in the Timucuan Preserve. This analysis
was only performed for the CBC Alternative; however, impacts of the SK-only Alternative,
which emitted similar levels of toxics (see Section 4.1.2.3), should be similar and impacts
associated with the AES Alternative, which emitted higher amounts of toxic chemicals, should
have greater impacts.
The applicant performed an analysis as part of their "Air Quality Analysis" (Appendix
J), using methods described in the document "A Screening Procedure for the Impacts of Air
Pollution Sources on Plants, Soils, and Animals" (Smith and Levenson, 1980) to determine
adverse effects of trace elements in the four identified areas. The multi-step procedure requires
estimation of annual average concentrations of the trace elements, long-term soil concentrations
and expected tissue concentrations. Maximum annual average concentrations were estimated for
each toxicant and location using the ISCST2 model. Long-term soil concentrations were
determined based on this concentration, the interactive soil depth (3 cm), the expected life of the
CBCP (30 years). Plant tissue concentrations are based on the estimates of soil concentration
and conservative bioconcentration ratios. The estimated concentration of the trace element in
the soil and aerial plant parts were then compared to appropriate screening concentrations.
The calculated concentrations for each pollutant and location are summarized in Tables
4-32 through 4-35, which also include the EPA screening concentrations for each pollutant. The
soil and plant tissue concentrations for each pollutant at all four locations (i.e., the Okefenokee,
Wolf Island, the immediate vicinity of the CBCP, and the Timucuan Preserve) are well below
the EPA screening concentrations. This indicates the deposition of the trace elements into the
four areas by the CBC Alternative would not result in adverse deposition impacts and are likely
to be similar to deposition impacts for the SK-only Alternative and less than deposition impacts
for the AES Alternative.
4.5.2.2.2 Salt Drift Impacts
Salt drift is caused by the discharge of salt particles or concentrated droplets from cooling
towers during convectional heat transfer. The suspended particles settle onto surrounding plants
and soils and can cause damage to some plant species. The severity of salt drift impacts is
4-73
-------
directly related to the volume of evaporated water, the salt concentration in the circulating
cooling water, and the efficiency of the cooling tower drift eliminators. The CBC Alternative
incorporated the use of drift eliminators on the cooling towers, which were not proposed to be
used in the AES Alternative and should lower the impacts of salt drift for the CBC Alternative.
The use of the eliminators for the CBC Alternative are expected to lower drift from 0.003 to
0.001 percent of circulation. The SK-only Alternative would have much lower salt drift due to
much lower cooling water requirements for the power and bark boilers.
ENSR determined the magnitude of salt drift for the CBC Alternative using a model
developed by The Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) called the Seasonal and Annual
Cooling Tower Impacts (SACTI) model. In determining salt drift deposition the SACTI model
considers plume dispersion, droplet breakaway, droplet evaporation, and deposition. Droplet
breakaway refers to the process by which the drift droplets settle out of the dispersing plume.
Variables such as the drift rate, the salt concentration of the circulating water, density of the
salt, and the drift droplet distribution are input to the SACTI model in addition to the tower
design data.
Salt deposition resulting from the CBC Alternative was predicted by dispersion modeling
to occur over a wide area; however, rates greater than 100 mg/m2 were limited to an area within
500 meters in an area predominately east of the cooling tower location. Most of this area is
located on either CBCP or SK property. Vegetation in this area is sparse, comprised primarily
of intertidal wetland plant species associated with the St. Johns River. Coastal plants in tidal
regions are adapted to saline conditions and should not be adversely affected by the operation
of CBCP cooling towers. Therefore, the impacts of salt drift associated with the CBC
Alternative are likely to be minimal.
4.5.2.3 Aquatic
The majority of aquatic biota impacts associated with the three alternatives are related
to water quality and were discussed in the Water Quality Section (4.??). Additional aquatic biota
impacts associated with the three alternatives include: impacts from introduction of freshwater
in a saline estuary; and impingement and entrainment impacts (pre-conversion SK operations).
A potential impact associated with the AES Alternative would be the discharge of cooling
tower blowdown with the SK discharge, which was suggested as possibly attracting the West
Indian manatee (Trichechus manatus). The AES Alternative proposed the use of fresh
groundwater for cooling water, which is likely to result in a blowdown discharge less saline than
receiving waters. Also, the AES Alternative would have eliminated the SK's use of cooling
4-74
-------
TABLE 4-32
OKEFENOKEE SWAMP COMPARISON OF ELEMENTAL DEPOSITION
WITH EPA SCREENING LEVELS1
Element
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Fluoride
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Molybdenum
Nickel
Selenium
Vanadium
Maximum CBCP
ANNUAL IMPACT
pig/m3)
" ====^=:
22.22 x 1O6
3.00 x ia5
1.27 x 104
1.82x 10<
6.60 x 10*
2.20 x la7
8.02 x 10*
1.75 x ia5
1.55 x 104
1.26 x la5
1.04x 1(T4
6.02 x 10*
2.iox ia5
1.73 x ia5
3.32 x 10*
6.89 x ia5
====^===
Deposited
Concentration
4.77 x IV4
6.45 x ID"3
2.73 x 10"2
3.91 x 10"4
1.42x ID"3
4.73 x 10-5
1.72x 10°
3.76 x Iff3
3.33 x Iff2
2.71 x 10"3
2.24 x 10-2
1.29 x lO"3
4.52 x ID"3
3.72 x la3
7.14x 10-4
1.48x lO"2
Plant Tissue
Concentration
9.03 x lO"4
—
—
1.52x ia2
9.46 x ia7
1.89x ID"4
1.77x ia3
9.99 x lO"4
1.22x ia3
1.48 x ia3
2.58 x ia5
—
1.67 x 104
7.14 x 10"4
1.48 x 104
PlantrSoH
Concentration Ratios
0.14
...
...
10.7
0.02
0.11
0.47
0.03
0.45
0.066
0.02 - 0.5
...
0.045
1.0
0.01
EPA Screening Concentration2
Soil
NA
3
NA
2.5
8.4
NA
40
400
1,000
2.5
455
NA
500
13
NA
Plant Tissue
NA
0.25
NA
3
1
19
0.73
310
126
400
NA
NA
60
100
NA
' All units in parts per million by weight, unless otherwise noted.
2 Source: Dvorak and Lewis, et al. 1978, as cited in Smith and Levenson 1980
NA - Not Available
-------
TABLE 4-33
WOLF ISLAND COMPARISON OF ELEMENTAL DEPOSITION
WITH EPA SCREENING LEVELS1
Element
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Fluoride
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Molybdenum
Nickel
Selenium
Vanadium
Maximum CBCP
ANNUAL IMPACT
(wc/m3)
1.23x 10*
1.66 x 1(T5
7.02 x la5
1.01 x 10*
3.65 x 10*
1.20x 1(T7
4.46 x 10*
9.78 x 10*
8.56 x 10"5
6.94 x 10*
5.76 x 1(T5
3.33x 10*
1.16x ia5
9.63 x 10*
1.84x 10*
3.84x 1(T5
Deposited
Concentration
2.64 x Itf4
3.57 x Itf3
1.51 x 10 2
2.17 x 10"4
7.85 x 1CT4
2.58 x ia5
9.59 x lO"4
2.10X 10 3
1.84x ia2
1.49x 10 3
1.24x ia2
7.16x ia4
2.49 x ia3
2.07 x Itf3
3.96 x 104
8.26 x 103
Plant Tissue
Concentration
„.
5.00 x ia4
—
—
8.40 x Iff3
5.16x ia7
1.05x lO^1
9.87 x ia4
5.52 x KT4
6.71 x ia4
8.18x ia4
1.43x 10 5
—
9.32 x 105
3.96 x 1(T4
8.26 x lO"5
PlanttSoil
Concentration Ratios
—
0.14
—
—
10.7
0.02
0.11
0.47
0.03
0.45
0.066
0.02 - 0.5
—
0.045
1.0
0.01
EPA Screening Concentration1
Soil
NA
3
—
NA
2.5
8.4
NA
40
400
1,000
2.5
455
NA
500
13
2.5
Plant Tissue
NA
0.25
—
NA
3
1
19
0.73
310
126
400
NA
NA
60
100
NA
1 All units in parts per million by weight, unless otherwise noted.
2 Source: Dvorak and Lewis, et al. 1978, as cited in Smith and Levenson 1980
NA - Not Available
-------
TABLE 4-34
TBVfUCUAN PRESERVE COMPARISON OF ELEMENTAL DEPOSITION
WITH EPA SCREENING LEVELS1
Element
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Fluoride
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Molybdenum
Nickel
Selenium
Vanadium
Maximum CBCP
ANNUAL IMPACT
)
1.14x 10"3
1.51 x ia4
6.38 x ia4
9.27 x 10«
3.38x ia3
i.i2x la"
4.37 x Itr5
1.03 x 10-4
7.80 x lO"4
6.36 x ia3
5.24 x 104
3.04 x ia3
i.os x ia4
9.61 x 1(X3
1.73 x 10-3
3.87 x IV4
Deposited
Concentration
2.45 x 10-3
3.25 x Itf2
1.37x Iff'
1.99x ia3
7.27 x 10"3
2.41 x 1O4
9.40 x Itf3
2.21 x Iff2
1.68 x la1
1.37 x la2
i.i3x ia'
6.54 x ia3
2.32 x 10"2
2.07 x ia2
3.72 x ia3
8.32 x ia2
Plant Tissue
Concentration
—
4.55 x ia3
—
—
7.78 x lO'2
4.82x 10*
1.03 x 10 3
1.04x 10'2
5.04 x lO'3
6.17x 10-3
7.46 x 10'3
1.31 x 10-4
—
9.32 x 10-4
3.72 x 10'3
8.32 x Itf4
Plant:SoiI
—
0.14
—
—
10.7
0.02
0.11
0.47
0.03
0.45
0.066
0.02 - 0.5
—
0.045
1.0
0.01
EPA Screening Concentration1
Soil
NA
3
NA
2.5
8.4
NA
40
400
1,000
.25
455
NA
500
13
2.5
Plant Tissue
NA
0.25
...
NA
3
1
19
0.73
310
126
400
NA
NA
60
100
NA
-J
-J
1 All units in parts per million by weight, unless otherwise noted.
2 Source: Dvorak and Lewis, et al. 1978, as cited in Smith and Levenson 1980
NA - Not Available
-------
TABLE 4-35
CLASS II AREA (VICINITY OF CBCP) COMPARISON OF ELEMENTAL DEPOSITION
WITH EPA SCREENING LEVELS1
Element
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Fluoride
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Molybdenum
Nickel
Selenium
Vanadium
Maximum CBCP
ANNUAL IMPACT
tea/m3)
4.00 x ia5
1.90x 104
s.iox ia4
2.00 x ia3
1.00 x 1O4
l.OOx lO"5
6.20 x l(r4
2.76 x ia3
l.OOx 10°
9.00 x ia5
6.70 x 1O4
4.00 x ia5
4.80 x 104
1.69 x ia3
i.iox ia4
7.42 x ia3
Deposited
Concentration
8.60 x l(r3
4.09 x 10"2
1.74x 10-'
4.30 x ia3
2.15x 10-2
2.15x ia3
1.33x ia1
5.93 x 10-'
2.15x ia1
1.94x ia2
1.44x ia1
8.60 x ia3
1.03 x 10"'
3.63 x 10-'
2.37 x lO"2
1.59
Plant Tissue
Concentration
—
5.73 x ia3
—
—
2.30 x ia1
4.30 x ia5
1.46x ia2
2.79 x ia1
6.45 x ia3
8.73 x ia3
9.50 x ia3
1.72x ia4
—
1.63 x ia2
2.37 x ia2
1.59 x ia2
Plant:SoiI
Concentration Ratios
—
0.14
—
—
10.7
0.02
0.11
0.47
0.03
0.45
0.066
02.05
—
0.045
1.0
0.01
EPA Screening Concentration1
Soil
NA
3
—
NA
2.5
8.4
NA
40
400
1,000
2.5
455
NA
500
13
2.5
Plant Tissue
NA
0.25
—
NA
3
1
19
0.73
310
126
400
NA
NA
60
100
NA
oo
1 All units in parts per million by weight, unless otherwise noted.
1 Source: Dvorak and Lewis, et al. 1978, as cited in Smith and Levenson 1980
NA - Not Available
-------
water from the brackish Broward River, which is also discharged at through this outfall. The
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) concluded that while the possibility existed that the
originally proposed increased discharge could become an attraction for the manatee, it was not
likely to happen based on several reasons that included: the existing SK outfall does not attract
manatee; the outfall is located in the river at a depth of 20 feet; the area is located on the
shipping channel where currents are very strong; there is no bottom vegetation which would be
consumed by manatees for food; and manatees are not known to use the area.
The pre-conversion SK operations included operation of an intake structure on the
Broward River for once-through cooling water (60 MOD). Mortality of larger aquatic organisms
(e.g., fish and turtles) can occur as a result of impingement on screens that protect the cooling
system from impact damage. Entrainment of aquatic organisms (e.g., fish larvae and
zooplankton) can cause substantial mortality due to exposure to high temperature increases near
condenser tubes and from exposure to anti-biofouling chemicals (e.g., chlorine). No entrainment
and/or impingement information was provided by SK for their intake structure. During permit
reviews at power plants with cooling water intake structures for once-through cooling systems,
entrainment and impingement impacts on aquatic biota have frequently been considered
substantial. Mitigation for these impacts typically require installation of cooling towers.
All three alternatives would result in elimination of the once-through cooling system by:
shut down of all boilers at SK (the AES Alternative); providing SK with closed cycle cooling
water for their package boilers (the CBC Alternative); or use of shutdown recovery boilers'
cooling towers for power and bark boilers (SK-only Alternative). Elimination of the intake and
water withdrawal at the SK operation would likely reduce impacts on biotic communities in the
St. Johns and Broward Rivers.
4.6 NOISE IMPACTS
Noise impacts associated with the AES and CBC Alternatives, will be similar and will
result from construction and operation of the CBCP. Noise impacts associated with the SK-only
Alternative result from the continued operation of SK and are in essence background noise
levels.
All noise and sound data relate to an "A-weighted" sound level since this sound level is
the closest to the range of human hearing. The A-weighted sound level is measured in decibel
(dB) units and is expressed in various metric descriptors that average sound energy over given
time periods. Noise conditions are usually expressed as: an equivalent sound level for 24-hour
4-79
-------
periods Leq24, which is a time-weighted average of the sound energy present over 24 hours; and
a day-night average sound level (DNL or Ldn), which considers the intrusiveness of nighttime
noise by adding 10 dB to noise events occurring between 10 pm and 7 am.
There are no federal or state noise control regulations that apply directly to CBCP off-site
noise levels. City of Jacksonville noise ordinances (Noise Pollution Control, Rule 4.0)
promulgated by the Jacksonville Environmental Protection Board require that noise from a Class
D (industrial) emitter can not exceed an octave band limit or an overall A-weighted level at
Class B (residential) areas as summarized in Table 4-36.
TABLE 4-36
JACKSONVILLE NOISE ORDINANCE OCTAVE BAND FREQUENCY LIMITS AND
OVERALL A-WEIGHTED LEVELS AT CLASS B AREAS
Octave Band Center
Frequency
(Hz)
Daytime
(7:00-22:00)
Nighttime
(22:00-7:00)
31.5
80
75
63
78
74
125
73
67
250
67
63
500
61
56
Ik
56
51
2k
52
47
4k
48
45
8k
45
40
dB
65
60
EPA is responsible for the enforcement and, like all federal agencies, must comply with
the Noise Control Act (NCA) of 1972. EPA is also part of the Federal Interagency Committee
on Noise (FICON), which has recommended criteria for airport analyses of DNL 65 dB and an
increase of DNL 1.5 dB or more (FICON, 1992). In addition to the EPA guidelines, the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has established three categories of noise
acceptability that provide minimum standards to protect citizens against excessive noise in their
communities and residential areas of: acceptable if the Ldn is less than 65 dB; normally
unacceptable if the Ldn is greater than 65 dB and less than 75 dB; and unacceptable if the Ldn
is greater than 75 dB (HUD, 1979).
4.6.1 Construction-Related
Construction-related noise impacts at the CBCP have occurred at different levels during
the several phases of construction including site preparation, concrete paving, machine and
equipment installation, and site clean-up. Intrusive single-event noise levels (e.g., pile drivers
4-80
-------
and steam blow-out cleaning) also can contribute to noise impacts if noise levels exceed tolerance
levels.
Site preparation involved the use of heavy diesel-powered earth moving equipment such
as bulldozers, graders, dump trucks, backhoes and front-end loaders. Concrete pouring involved
the use of equipment such as concrete trucks, and some of the equipment used in site preparation
such as backhoes, front-end loaders and dump trucks. The machinery/equipment installation
phase required the use of cranes in varying sizes, air compressors, welding equipment and
material delivery trucks. The site clean-up stage was considerably quieter than the previous
phases due to use of smaller equipment for less duration. The use of noise controls such as
mufflers and limiting heavy equipment use to daytime hours substantially reduced these impacts.
Construction noise levels (excluding pile during and steam blow out of boiler tubes) were
less than 65 dB, which complies with local ordinances at residential areas. In addition, heavy
construction activities occurred during daylight hours, which further reduced noise impacts.
Two sources of intermittent noise, pile driving and steam blowouts, occurred during
construction. Pile driving occurred early on in the placement of footers for building construction
and had peak levels of approximately 100 dB at 50 feet. The levels decreased with distance to
between 60 and 65 dB at the nearest residential area and to a distant thumping sound. Steam
blowout is post-construction cleaning procedure whereby high pressure steam is injected into all
steam lines in order to remove any debris left after construction. This activity, which will occur
intermittently over a two week period, can generate high frequency noise levels as high as 129
dB at 50 feet. To reduce this impact the applicant employed, which would not have been used
for the project as proposed (the AES Alternative), the use of a muffler system. This muffler
system decreased noise levels to about 90 dB at 5O feet and which would decrease to below 65
dB at the nearest residential areas. In addition, steam blowout was restricted to daytime hours
and with public notice was given to inform the public of the event.
4.6.2 Operation-Related
Potential operational noise impacts associated with the project include CFB boilers, steam
turbine driven electrical generator, mechanical cooling towers, zero discharge water treatment
system (the CBC Alternative only), ash pelletizers, limestone and coal crushers, and unloading
activities. To evaluate impacts of operational noise a computer noise emission model was used
to predict noise levels at surrounding residential areas (e.g., Cedar Bay Road).
Using the engineering drawings of the plant, the applicant identified each piece of
equipment with the potential to generate a significant amount of noise. For each of these
4-81
-------
sources, an initial sound power level was calculated according to the methodologies and formulas
contained in the "Electric Power Plant Environmental Noise Guide" prepared by the Edison
Electric Institute. These formulas, based on functionally dependent parameters (e.g.,
horsepower and megawatt output) contain a statistical allowance toward the higher noise levels,
and are therefore considered conservative.
The CBCP contains two processes, the fly and bed ash pelletizer (the AES and CBC
Alternatives) and the zero discharge water system (the CBC Alternative only), that are relatively
new technology and for which there are no noise data or formulas available. To avoid making
any possibly erroneous assumptions with regard to this source, operating systems similar to the
systems under construction at CBCP were located at an existing plant in Texas (zero discharge
system) and an operating plant in Connecticut (pelletizer). Sound surveys were made to measure
actual noise outputs from each system and the resulting data was added to the model.
Once all source sound levels were obtained, the resultant sound pressure level at the
receptor point (Cedar Bay Road) was calculated by taking into consideration the decay of sound
with distance, normal absorption of sound by air, the effects of terrain, reflections, directivity,
and the effects of intervening barriers or disclosures. In the case of the Cedar Bay residential
area, no excess attenuation, other than normal air absorption, was included in the model since
the majority of the distance between source and receiver is over highly reflective water surface.
The model predicts the CBCP, as currently designed and constructed (the CBC
Alternative), to produce a noise level of approximately 57 dB at the nearest point on Cedar Bay
Road. A slight difference between the day and nighttime noise levels emitted by the CBCP, due
to some fuel handling functions only occurring during the day; however, the predicted levels are
all below the Jacksonville Noise Ordinance's allowable nighttime octave band spectrum, as well
as the overall A-weighted limit of 60 dB. Based on these analyses, the completed plant will be
in compliance with all applicable noise regulations.
It is likely, however, that the plant will be audible to residents on Cedar Bay Road,
similar to the SK operation (the SK-only Alternative), because of relatively low existing sound
levels. Since the SK operation is currently audible, and the CBCP will also be audible, but at
levels below the local ordinances, the three alternatives are not considered to be substantially
different with respect to noise impacts.
CBC will continue to monitor noise levels as the CBCP begins operation to determine
actual compliance of the facility. This monitoring will be used as a comparison to predicted
noise levels and in the event of an exceedance enable CBC to identify and mitigate noise
emission problems.
4-82
-------
4.7 GEOLOGIC IMPACTS
Geologic impacts from the project are either on-site or off-site impacts and are almost
exclusively associated with the AES and CBC Alternatives. On-site impacts would occur almost
exclusively as a result of CBCP construction activities. Off-site impacts would result primarily
from mineral extraction (i.e., coal and limestone), and waste disposal (i.e., ash pellets, water
treatment sludge and crystallizer solids).
4.7.1 Construction-Related
Construction activities, such as clearing of the site, building temporary or permanent
roads, waste disposal, grading and filling, are phases of construction of the CBCP (the AES and
CBC Alternatives) that will affect the site geology. In addition, relocation of the lime mud
storage area to a capped and vegetated location will affect both the geology of the removal and
disposal site.
Erosion of soil from the site can cause destruction of existing soils and change receiving
stream erosion and sedimentation equilibrium. The AES and CBC Alternatives employed
erosion control measures including seeding, mulching and barriers to reduce erosion. In
addition, heavily traveled construction areas and roads were stabilized with shell or rock and
wind loss (i.e., dust) from these high traffic areas was controlled with water sprinkling.
Construction wastes were disposed of in accordance with applicable rules and regulations.
A number of waste materials such as scrap wood and iron were separated, stock piled, and,
when possible salvaged. General waste materials were disposed in dumpsters and disposed at
suitable and approved local landfill areas. The amount of waste generated during construction
was likely to be minimal and should not substantially impact local landfill capacity.
Lime mud waste was excavated from its original disposal area and moved to a location
on the north of the SK mill property. This disposal area was capped with an impervious
material to prevent leaching from the lime mud. Soil was placed on top of the cap and seeded
with grasses. The impacts of the relocation are likely to be minimal, particularly when
compared to the likely water quality (ground and surface) benefits of the activity.
Fill material was brought on to the site to raise site elevation between one and two feet
for the CBC Alternative. This was necessary to reduce shallow groundwater dewatering that
would have been required for the AES Alternative. Removal of fill from the donor site and
placement of fill on the CBCP can have impacts on one or both areas; however, if this activity
is done in accordance with state regulations impacts will most likely be minimal.
4-83
-------
The AES and CBC Alternatives are very similar with respect to on-site geologic impacts
with the only major difference being the use of fill for the CBC Alternative. The SK-only
Alternative on-site impacts are related to the SK mill operation (the SK-only Alternative) which
has affected much of the site as a lime mud disposal, bark and general waste storage area.
4.7.2 Operation-Related
The operation of the CBCP (the AES and CBC Alternatives) will also impact land areas
associated with mineral extraction of coal and limestone. Expected coal and limestone use are
950,000 and 180,000 tons per year, respectively. This will result in mining (surface) of between
3,000 and 5,000 acres of land area for coal (assuming 85 pounds of coal per cubic foot and an
average coal depth of four feet) and 75 acres of land for limestone (assuming 165 pounds of
limestone per cubic foot and an average depth of 20 feet) over the 30 year life of the CBCP.
Mining activities result in extensive changes to overburden and can cause deleterious impacts
to land use, habitat, groundwater and surface water in and around the mined area. However,
these impacts should be minimized if suppliers comply with state and/or federal mining and
reclamation regulations.
Solid waste is generated from a number of sources during operation of the CBCP. The
largest quantity of solid wastes produced by the operation of the CBCP is generated by coal
combustion in the form of fly and bed ash. Approximately 280,000 tons per year of fly and bed
ash are expected to be generated by the CBCP (the AES and CBC Alternatives). Maximum rate
of production of bed and fly ash is expected to be about 33 tons/hour for all units. The ash will
be pneumatically conveyed to temporary storage silos, before mixing with water to form pellets.
The pellets will be highly alkaline (CaCO3) and contain gypsum (CaSO4) and other metals (e.g.,
iron, aluminum, manganese, etc.). After pelletizing, the material will be transported back to
the coal supplier and disposed in accordance with Kentucky's Residual Landfill regulations at
a site in close proximity to coal mining and load-out operations or at an out-of-state permitted
disposal facility. If landfilled this ash material would equate to between five and six acres of
capacity over the 30 year life of the facility (assuming a 30 foot landfill depth).
Compared to the high volume solid wastes, small quantities of solid wastes will be
generated by operations at the CBCP for both the AES and CBC Alternatives. The wastes
produced by both alternatives, except where indicated, include: sediments collected from the
sedimentation pond at a frequency of once per year or less; accumulated solids from cooling
towers at a frequency of approximately once per year; clarifier sludge and crystallizer solids
from the zero discharge water system quantities of which will depend on the stormwater and SK
wastewater characteristics (for CBC Alternative only); and oil-bearing wastes from the oil-water
separators (collected for off-site disposal or reuse by licensed vendors). These miscellaneous
4-84
-------
solid wastes, which will average 80 tons per day (primarily for the zero discharge water system
included in the CBC Alternative) will be, except where indicated, sent to a recycling facility
and/or to a permitted non-hazardous landfill. Therefore, the CBC Alternative will produce
slighlty more wastes than the AES Alternative.
4.8 SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACTS
The analysis of socioeconomic impacts focuses primarily on the CBCP region, which is
considered to be the City of Jacksonville and Duval County. Socioeconomic impacts of a project
of this nature are likely to include distant areas (e.g., mining, disposal, and power recipient
areas); however, only the local area was considered for this evaluation because it is likely to
have the greatest impacts and concerns.
4.8.1 Population
Population impacts (increases) are only anticipated for the AES and CBC Alternatives.
Total employment during construction was between 600 and 700 local and immigrant workers.
Immigrant workers, which will most likely impact local populations, are defined as those skilled
or semi-skilled workers who will immigrate to the Jacksonville area to work on the proposed
project and will remain in the area as long as project work is available. During peak
construction, the immigrant population was approximately 300 persons with the greatest
concentration of immigrant population residing in Duval County. Clay and Nassau Counties are
also expected to have increases in population, but at levels much less than Duval. These
populations are temporary and are expected to depart the area once construction is complete.
Permanent employment of 75 personnel at the CBCP should result in a direct population
increase of 200 for the area, which is based on an estimate of 2.6 individuals per employee
(household). Secondary population growth, from service oriented employment growth, can be
as high as 100% of the direct population growth; however, much of this growth would be
outside the region (e.g., coal mining, trucking and rail transport). To be conservative a
secondary population growth of 200 was considered and was primarily expected to occur in
Duval County (75%) with lesser amounts in surrounding counties. With respect to Duval
County population, the increase from the AES and CBC Alternatives would amount to less than
1 % of projected ten year growth and less than 0.1 % of existing population. This growth for the
AES and CBC Alternatives is minor with respect to projected population growth and may in fact
be part of the Duval County projected growth.
4-85
-------
4.8.2 Economic Conditions
During peak construction, the CBCP (the AES and CBC Alternatives) is expected to
generate a total of approximately 633 new on-site jobs and 1,000 new off-site secondary jobs.
The cumulative income effect of the proposed facility during the entire construction period is
projected to be in excess of $288 million. This economic benefit would not occur for the SK-
only Alternative.
Expected employment during operation of the CBCP will be approximately 75 full time
employees over three shifts. The average salary of the personnel is expected to be
approximately $30,000 per year, which equates to an overall salary increase of over two million
dollars for the area. The average salary at the CBCP equates to $11,540 per capita salary,
which is greater than the 1985 average salary of $10,565 per year. This indicates that in
comparison to the SK-only Alternative, the AES and CBC Alternatives will increase employment
and have higher average per capita income than the surrounding area. In addition, services
required for operation and management of the CBCP should also be of economic benefit to the
area.
4.8.3 Community Services
The population evaluation (section 4.8J) indicated that increases associated with the AES
and CBC Alternatives are minor and probably already reflected in projected population growth
for the area. Based on this analysis potential impacts of the two alternatives on community
services (e.g., schools, water, sewer) have probably been addressed by local planning
organizations, which typically base decisions regarding community needs on population growth
projections. The SK-only Alternative, which is not expected to change current employment
levels at SK or local population, would not likely impact community services either.
4.8.4 Land Use
Impacts of the alternatives on land use would occur if the land use of the site was
redesignated or if because of the project land use of the surrounding area would change. The
project site for the CBCP (the AES and CBC Alternatives) is located on land which is currently
used or zoned for heavy industry and is located adjacent to and within SK (the SK-only
Alternative), a container manufacturer. Land area in the vicinity of the proposed site, along the
St. Johns River, contains industrial, commercial, residential and recreational areas. Based on
current trends in development, the area along Heckscher Drive from Interstate 93 to north Blount
Island (includes the project area) is projected to experience major industrial development with
or without the CBCP. The CBCP (the AES and CBC Alternatives) is an industry that neither
4-86
-------
requires additional service industries nor will cause development of auxiliary industries, the SK-
only Alternative (SK operations) is a long established industry and no new auxiliary industries
are anticipated. Therefore, the alternatives are not expected to change current land use of the
site or alter land use patterns of the surrounding area.
4.8.5 Aesthetic
The aesthetic quality of an area can be degraded by unsightly construction projects. The
CBCP (the AES and CBC Alternatives) facility will have a number of visible features that
includes, but is not limited to, boiler structures, turbine and control room housing, relay
stations, a pelletizer, ash silos, coal and limestone stockpiles, mechanical draft cooling towers
and a 425 feet high stack. No additional structures other than what already exists at SK would
be required for the SK-only Alternative; however, the SK operation contains a variety of
operational and abandoned industrial facilities. The majority of facilities associated with the
CBCP are in close proximity to SK and conform to the industrial type visual quality of the SK.
The only facility at the CBCP that does not conform to the existing visual profile is the 425 foot
stack; however, the degree of protection the high stack provides to local air quality (see section
4.1) out-weighs the visual impacts of the stack. This suggests, with respect to aesthetic impacts,
the three alternatives (other than the stack) are similar.
4.8.6 Recreation
None of the three alternatives are expected to directly impact recreation on the Broward
and St. Johns River and surrounding areas. Indirectly, through improvements to water quality
and ecological resources (see section 4.3. and 4.5), the AES and CBC Alternatives may
improve local fisheries and recreational fishing.
4.9 CULTURAL RESOURCE IMPACTS
There are presently no areas on, nominated to, or eligible for the National Register of
Historic Places of the National Registry of Natural Landmarks within the boundaries of the
CBCP site. The site contains neither lands specially designated under state programs, nor
known areas valued as natural landmarks or for their historic, scenic or cultural significance.
Subsequently, the alternatives will have no known impacts on cultural resources on the site.
In considering off-site cultural resources, the site facilities should not be visible from the
Fort Caroline National Monument or the Kingsley Plantation on Ft. George Island. There does
exist some potential for the CBCP air emissions to contribute to the formulation of acidic rain
which has been documented to contribute to the degradation of building facades, particularly
4-87
-------
historic buildings made of easily corrodible materials, which as an impact was discussed in the
Air Quality section (4.1.).
4.10 TRANSPORTATION IMPACTS
Only two of the alternatives (the AES and CBC Alternatives) are likely to effect local
transportation through increase in traffic flow or access for emergency vehicles at train
crossings. The SK-only Alternative (SK as a recycling facility) is not expected to change
vehicular or train traffic. Heckscher Drive, Eastport Road and Main Street are expected to
provide access to the CBCP for construction and operation. Traffic counts indicate that all
signalized locations and roadways in the area operate at the standard minimum acceptable level
and have additional available capacity. At the employment levels during construction
(approximately 200 to 600 personnel per shift) and operation (between 25 and 50 personnel per
shift) traffic patterns from increased commuter are not expected to cause any substantial traffic
problem.
The additional train traffic during operation of the CBCP (the AES and CBC
Alternatives) may cause temporary access problems to communities during road crossings. Both
alternatives reduce the impact by scheduling trains during off-peak traffic hours. In addition,
train traffic is not expected to limit emergency vehicle accessibility to residents of the San Mateo
area, which lies south of Eastport Road and east of North Main Street, because at no time will
all access and egress routes to San Mateo be closed. Further, the NDP had previously (prior
to this project) recommended overpasses at a number of locations to reduce traffic impacts of
long coal trains that serve SJRPP.
The height of the flue gas stack at the CBCP (the AES and CBC Alternatives) is 425 feet
and could interfere with local air traffic; however, although the stack is located within a take-off
or approach zones for the Jacksonville International Airport, a non-directional radio beacon will
eliminate any adverse effect of the stack on take-off and approach procedures. Therefore, no
impacts of the stack on air traffic are anticipated.
4.11 ENERGY IMPACTS
A number of energy-related impacts of each alternative must be evaluated. The present
and future need of electricity and the impacts of the alternatives on this need and a comparison
of energy efficiencies of the alternatives and local utilities are two factors considered and
summarized below.
-------
Under Section 403.519, FS, a need for the electricity produced by a power generating
facility must be demonstrated. This need, or lack of it, is determined by the FPSC, which, in
the case of CBCP (the AES and CBC Alternatives), has rendered a judgment that there is a
need. Based on power output at the CBCP and customer (residential, commercial and industrial)
consumption rate, the AES Alternative (225 MW) and CBC Alternative (250 MW) will be
required to meet the present and/or future demand of approximately one-half million Florida
electricity customers. The SK-only Alternative would not supply any power to meet the
electricity demand of Florida and could result in the utilities satisfying energy needs by a variety
of means including: constructing their own base load facility; purchasing electricity from other
utilities (if available); imposing conservation measures on consumers; limiting future population
and economic growth of Florida; and/or inflicting "Brown-Outs" on areas when capacity is
exceeded.
Energy efficiency is another consideration to ensure maximum energy return and
minimization of waste heat from combustion of fossil fuels. Cogeneration is the concurrent
production of electricity and utilization of waste thermal energy (e.g., steam) for industry from
combustion of a fuel. Generally, cogeneration is a more efficient use of fossil-fuels than would
occur at two individual facilities, one producing electricity and the other producing using thermal
energy for a manufacturing process. The applicant also indicated the CBCP will be more
efficient with an avoided unit heat rate of 8200 Btu/KWh than the FPSC average of 9790
Btu/KWh. This comparison suggests both the AES and CBC Alternatives would have a more
efficient use of fossil-fuels than the SK-only Alternative and the Florida utilities.
4-89
-------
-------
CHAPTERS
SUMMARY AND MITIGATION
OF ADVERSE IMPACTS
-------
-------
5.0 SUMMARY AND MITIGATION OF ADVERSE IMPACTS
The consequences of the alternatives on the natural and man-made environments were
evaluated in Chapter 4.0. Construction-related impacts were minimal and mitigated by use of
appropriate control measures. Operation-related impacts on the different environments varied
considerably between alternatives; however, results of Chapter 4.0 indicate the CBC Alternative
has the least overall impact on the environment. A summary of the alternatives impacts and
possible mitigation recommendations follow.
5.1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS
The combustion of fossil fuels releases pollutants into the air environment that can have
deleterious impacts. Evaluation of expected emissions from each alternative indicated the CBC
Alternative would release the lowest amount of regulated air pollutants and similar amounts of
non-regulated air pollutants as the SK-only Alternative. The lower emission estimates of the
CBC Alternative were due to efficiency of boilers and emission control measures (e.g.,
baghouse, CFB and SNCR). With respect to air quality, the CBC Alternative was predicted to
have lower impacts on air quality than the other alternatives and improve air quality in
comparison to pre-conversion air quality from SK operations. Further, the modelling indicated
the CBC Alternative would not cause or contribute to any violation of state and federal AAQSs,
state NTLs and PSD in Class I and II attainment areas. In addition, the emission would not
cause any visibility impacts in Class II areas and the plume from the stack was only visible in
close proximity to the project. Expected regional impacts of acid forming gases were lowest for
the CBC Alternative, which had lowest emission estimates for SOX and NOX. Contributions of
CO2, a known "Greenhouse Gas", from combustion of fossil fuels at the CBCP were expected
to be less than 2.5 million metric tons per year, but may represent a substantial global concern.
With respect to human health concerns, the CBC Alternative was predicted to have lower
carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic risks than the other alternatives. The CBC Alternative had
predicted cancer risk probabilities, using conservative assumptions, of less than 0.1 in 100,000
at all sensitive receptors except one, which had a predicted probability less than 1 in 100,000.
The estimated hazard indices for the CBC Alternative were all less than 0.1, indicating a
minimal non-carcinogenic human health risk. The lower risks associated with the CBC
Alternative were due to emission controls included at the CBCP and the high stack height, which
increases dispersion of airborne pollutants.
All three alternatives reduced potential surface water impacts from pre-conversion SK
operations, which were a result of lower discharge volumes of treated process wastewater and
5-1
-------
elimination of a once-through cooling water discharge at SK. Based on a comparison of quantity
and quality of discharges expected from each alternative, the CBC Alternative was determined
to have the least potential impact of the three alternatives. The lower predicted impact was due
to a zero discharge system included in the CBC Alternative that recycled CBCP waste streams
(i.e., boiler blowdown, cooling tower blowdown and cleaning wastes), and used stormwater
runoff collected in the YARP and SARP and treated SK wastewater as a cooling water source
for the CBCP.
Construction impacts on groundwater would have only occurred for the AES Alternative,
which included groundwater dewatering during construction. Based on groundwater modelling
conducted by the applicant, none of the expected operational withdrawal rates for the alternatives
would impart any impacts on other Floridan aquifer users capacity or quality. The SK-only
Alternative was predicted to have the lowest groundwater withdrawal rate; however, the CBC
Alternative rate was only slightly greater (less than 1 MGD) than the SK-only Alternative. The
AES Alternative had the greatest expected withdrawal rates and was the only alternative to use
a large volume of groundwater for cooling water purposes. Groundwater withdrawal rates for
both the CBC or SK-only Alternative would be substantially lower than rates utilized at pre-
conversion SK operations.
Due to pre-construction site conditions, construction related impacts on terrestrial and
aquatic biota for the AES and CBC Alternatives were minimal. Operational impacts on the
surrounding ecology were assessed by the applicant for the CBC and SK-only Alternatives using
ecological risk models, deposition models and salt drift models. Based on these analyses, the
impacts on aquatic and terrestrial biota were predicted to be lowest for the CBC Alternative.
The modeling indicated only slight ecological risk for one indicator species (eastern mole) at
locations within the project site. In addition, all three alternatives would eliminate sources of
aquatic impacts by closure of the once-through cooling system for recovery boilers at the pre-
conversion SK operations and by removal of the unlined lime mud storage area.
Geologic impacts during construction were minimal and operational impacts would be
limited to mineral extraction impacts and increased solid waste production associated with the
AES and CBC Alternatives. Mineral extraction (coal and limestone) will disturb between 3,000
and 5,000 acres of Kentucky land over the life of the CBCP; however impacts should be
minimized if the coal suppliers comply with state and/or federal mining and reclamation
regulations. Limestone mining will impact a substantially smaller area. Fly and bed ash,
produced at a annual rate of 280,000 tons per year, will be the predominate source of waste
produced by the CBCP. Landfilling in the vicinity of the coal mining will require between five
and six acres of landfill capacity over the life. In addition, the zero discharge system
incorporated in the CBC Alternative will produce approximately 75 tons per day of dewatered
5-2
-------
sludge. This will require additional landfill space at an approved and permitted site located
outside the Jacksonville region; however, the CBCP will also burn fiber rejects thereby
eliminating the material from being landfilled.
Construction-related noise impacts at the CBCP varied during the several phases of
construction; however, monitored noise levels were in compliance with local ordinances. The
applicant evaluated operation noise impacts in surrounding areas by modelling expected
equipment noise levels. The modeling indicated the facility noise levels will be noticeable and
will increase background levels at the closest residential area, but will not exceed the federal 10
dB benchmark or local noise ordinances. Monitoring will continue as the facility begins
operation to determine noise compliance of the CBCP.
A number of socioeconomic impacts were evaluated for the AES and CBC Alternatives
including population, economic, community service, recreation, aesthetics and land use. The
two alternatives projected population increases of only one percent of the area's projected ten
year growth suggests the growth may be part of projected growth. This low increase in
population suggests the CBC Alternative will not adversely effect community services. Based
on construction cost, increased employment, and above average salaries (with respect to local
average salaries), the AES and CBC Alternatives will be economically beneficial to the area.
In addition, the CBCP project site is within an industrially zoned area and was designed to
conform with the surrounding industrial SK complex.
Only two of the alternatives, the AES and CBC Alternatives, were likely to effect local
and regional transportation. Increased train traffic may cause temporary congestion at road
crossings; however off-peak scheduling should minimize the impacts. In addition, the NDP had
recommended overpasses to reduce traffic congestion of trains servicing the SJRPP. The height
of the stack at the CBCP was also found to interfere with regional air traffic to and from the
Jacksonville International Airport. This impact will be mitigated by installation of a non-
directional navigation beacon.
The evaluation of energy requirements for the area indicated the CBCP is essential to
future needs of the region. The CBCP, found to have a lower avoided heat rate and utilization
of waste heat at SK, suggests the CBC Alternative is a more efficient use of energy than the SK-
only Alternative and other Florida utilities.
5-3
-------
This summary indicates the environmentally preferred alternative is the CBC Alternative,
which has lower environmental impacts than the AES Alternative (originally proposed) and the
SK-only Alternative (no action alternative). The following section addresses mitigation measures
for impacts of the CBC Alternative.
5.2 SUMMARY OF MITIGATION
The CBC Alternative contained a number of environmentally protective control systems
(e.g., CFB, baghouse, SNCR and zero discharge system) to reduce impacts on local and regional
environments. These mitigation measures were found to adequately address the majority of
impacts that are associated with power generation. Additional suggested mitigation measures
are minimal and discussed below.
Several mitigation measure can be implemented to offset increased regulated gases (e.g.,
CO) and global warming gases (CO2). An old automobile "purchase program" to remove
high-polluting low-efficiency automobiles can be used to offset a variety of pollutants including
CO, VOC, CO2 and NOX. With respect to regulated pollutants the purchase program has been
used by a number of facilities. However, the application of this measure to mitigate greenhouse
gases is difficult to guage and impractical as it requires excessive capitol expenditures. An
additional mitigation scheme to offset global warming gases is the reforestation of open lands.
Tree growth uptakes CO2 and stores it as plant material (i.e., wood). The growth and CO2
fixation of an individual tree can be extrapolated to an area requirement; however, the required
area for this type of mitigation measure requires excessive land areas and capitol expenditures.
The geologic impacts from landfilling wastes generated at the CBCP can be mitigated in
a variety of methods. The ash and sludge wastes generated by the CBCP can be used in the
manufacture of commercial products, which reduce the amount of waste that would be landfilled.
Reuse of waste materials requires site specific evaluation of the materials and the evaluation of
need for the product. Fly and bed ash have been used in the manufacture of concrete products
(e.g., roads) at a number of power plants. It is our understanding that the applicant intends to
investigate the feasibility of this type of mitigation. An additional mitigation alternative would
be to initiate a public recycling involvement program to reduce flow of recyclable products to
receiving landfills. This mitigation measure would reduce waste flow indirectly by compensation
for the volumes of landfilled wastes regenerated by the CBCP.
5-4
-------
CHAPTER 6
EPA'S RECOMMENDATIONS
-------
-------
6.0 EPA'S RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the environmental review of the CBCP, EPA finds that environmental impacts
of the CBCP, with proposed mitigation, will be minimized. Furthermore, the CBCP as certified
by the state is preferable to the project as it was originally proposed (AES Alternative) and to
the SK-only Alternative (no CBCP).
The CBCP has gone through the state's Site Certification process and, after several
modifications, has received Certification from the Siting Board. Most modifications have been
improvements to project design that lessen environmental impacts. It should also be noted that,
historically, the site has been used for industrial activities. The site is zoned for heavy industrial
use (IH).
Environmental improvements offered by the CBCP include:
• The CBCP will produce steam for the SK mill, allowing for removal of old
boilers. This will reduce existing ambient air quality impacts.
• Relocation and capping of SK lime mud has improved groundwater and surface
water quality at the site.
• The CBCP zero discharge system will make use of SK and internal wastewaters,
reducing the existing SK discharge to the St. Johns River. Stormwater runoff will
be the only potential discharge. This discharge is expected to happen only in high
rainfall events; otherwise the collected Stormwater will be treated and used in the
CBCP water system.
• The CBCP will provide cooling water to SK, reducing SK's existing groundwater
withdrawals.
Unavoidable adverse impacts of the project include: impacts of coal and limestone
extraction; disposal of solid wastes; increased rail traffic and noise; and contribution to global
climate change.
EPA proposes to issue the NPDES permit for the CBCP. Permit issuance would allow
Stormwater overflow discharges to the Broward River up to the limits specified in the permit.
All proposed limitations of the draft NPDES permit are tentative and subject to comment from
6-1
-------
all reviewers during the public comment period. A copy of the NPDES permit (No.
FL0061204) is in Appendix A.
If EPA were to deny the NPDES permit (no Federal Action), the applicant could still
operate the CBCP if confident that no discharges would occur. The CBCP is considered a zero
discharge facility with the infrequent possibility of a stormwater discharge. Without an NPDES
permit, any discharge from the site would be considered a violation of the Clean Water Act.
6-2
-------
CHAPTER?
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
-------
-------
7.0 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
The public has been involved throughout preparation of this EIS. A scoping meeting was
held to solicit public comment on the project. The Draft EIS/SAR was distributed for public
comment and review. A Public Hearing was held to present the results of the Draft EIS/SAR
and to receive public comments.
EPA held a public meeting to report on the progress of the EIS and to invite public
comments. A Public Hearing was held concurrently on the NPDES construction permit (see
Section 1.3 History of the Project).
Issues raised at all EPA public meetings are summarized below. Copies of transcripts
and written comments are part of EPA's administrative record and are available upon request
from Heinz J. Mueller, Chief; Environmental Policy Section; FAB-4; EPA Region IV; 345
Courtland Street, N.E.; Atlanta, Georgia 30365.
This Final EIS and draft NPDES operation permit will be distributed for public review
and comment. No additional public meetings are planned unless there is significant public
demand for it or important issues are raised which were not addressed in previous meetings or
in this document. Written comments are encouraged and will be considered in the NEPA
process.
Several public meetings have been held at the state and local levels throughout the Site
Certification process.
7.1 SCOPING
EPA and FDER held a public scoping meeting on January 24, 1989, at the San Mateo
Elementary School in Jacksonville, Florida, to discuss the scope of the Draft EIS/SAR. The
meeting was attended by approximately 70 citizens and leaders from Jacksonville/Duval County,
and state and federal agency representatives. Issues raised at the meeting included the following:
(issues are addressed in the section of this Final EIS noted in parentheses)
• The need for producing power in Jacksonville that would be sold to FPL for other
areas of the state (Section 1.1.1 Purpose and Need of Project);
7-1
-------
• Impacts of a proposed coal conveyor to be built across the Broward River below
the Hecksher Street Bridge (AES-CB eliminated the conveyor from project
design);
• Impacts on the air quality around the Jacksonville area from plant emissions,
especially SO2, CO2, NOX, TRS, and particulates (Section 4.1 Air Quality
Impacts);
• Potential for coal combustion emissions producing acid rain which in turn would
dissolve or deteriorate historic structures such as those made from coquina in St.
Augustine (Sections 4.1 Air Quality Impacts, and 4.9 Cultural Resource
Impacts);
• Noise from increased rail traffic, plant construction and operation (Section 4.6
Noise Impacts).
• Potential deterioration of water quality in the Broward River and impacts on
recreational fishing (all wastewater discharges have been eliminated except
stormwater overflows - Section 4.3 Surface Water Impacts);
• Use of large amounts of high quality groundwater for cooling water makeup
(groundwater will not be used for cooling - Section 4.4 Groundwater Impacts);
• Impacts on wetlands (wetland impacts during construction were avoided; potential
impacts of emissions are discussed in Section 4.5 Ecological Impacts);
• Disposal of waste products from plant operation and the lime sludge located on
the plant site (Section 4.7 Geologic Impacts); and,
• Impacts of increased truck and rail car traffic on transportation corridors and
residential areas (Section 4.10 Transportation Impacts).
7.2 PUBLIC HEARING ON DRAFT EIS/SAR AND DRAFT NPDES PERMIT
EPA distributed the Draft EIS/SAR and draft NPDES permit in June 1990 for public
review and comment. On July 12, 1990, EPA held a Public Hearing at the Oceanway
7-2
-------
Community Center in Jacksonville, Florida, and was attended by approximately 150 people.
Written comments were accepted through July 23, 1990.
At this Hearing, representatives of AES-CB and SK provided an overview of the project.
Also, EPA and FDER representatives explained the federal NPDES and EIS processes, and the
state's Site Certification process. The NPDES permit writer described proposed wastewater
discharges and potential construction and operational impacts of the discharges.
The following concerns were expressed (comments are addressed in the section noted in
parentheses):
• The need for producing power in Jacksonville that would be sold to FPL for other
areas of the state (Section 1.1.1 Purpose and Need for the Project);
• Emissions from the CBCP would exceed present emissions by SK — most of
which are heavy metals not present in SK emissions (Section 4.1 Air Quality
Impacts);
• Pollutants from the CBCP will create greater impacts on air quality during winter
months because of still air (Section 4.1 Air Quality Impacts);
• Current odor problems at SK (paper mill odor has been virtually eliminated due
to conversion to recycle mill - Section 4.1 Air Quality Impacts);
• The height proposed for the stacks of the CBCP will not reduce emissions but
would distribute more pollutants over a broader area — thereby creating more
impacts to other communities (Section 4.1 Air Quality Impacts);
• Cumulative impacts of existing coal and oil-fired generating plants and CBCP on
air, water, human, animal and plant life (Sections 4.1 Air Quality Impacts, 4.2
Human Health Impacts, 4.6 Noise Impacts, and 4.5 Ecological Impacts);
• Impacts on respiratory and cardiopulmonary patients (Section 4.2 Human Health
Impacts);
• Noise impacts (Section 4.6 Noise Impacts);
7-3
-------
• The amount of pollutants to be discharged into the Broward River during
construction dewatering (this dis^narge was eliminated from project design);
• Impact of pollutants that settle out and are later washed through the storm water
system into ditches, creeks, streams, and rivers (Sections 4.3 Surface Water
Impacts and 4.5 Ecological Impacts);
• The proposed use of groundwater in light of an existing water shortage in
Jacksonville; also, the impact of groundwater withdrawals on the Floridan aquifer
and drinking water quality due to salt water intrusion from excessive pumping
(groundwater withdrawals were reduced - Section 4.4 Groundwater Impacts);
• Petroleum leakage from existing SK storage tanks (these tanks were stabilized so
contamination would not spread; also elimination of dewatering reduced concern
about migration of contaminants - Section 4.4 Groundwater Impacts);
• Impact on adjacent ecosytems, wildlife habitats, and national and state parks
(Section 4.5 Ecological Impacts);
• Light pollution impacts (Section 4.8 Social Impacts - Aesthetics);
• Impact of coal and limestone transport and unloading activities on nearby
residences (Section 4.1 Air Quality Impacts, Section 4.6 Noise Impacts, and
Section 4.10 Transportation Impacts);
• Apparent conflict between CBCP and local comprehensive plan policies regarding
sitings and impacts (the CBCP site was (and is) designated for industrial use;
Section 4.8 Social Impacts - Land Use);
• Proximity of CBCP to San Mateo and Cedar Bay communities, which will
experience greater adverse impacts; proximity of schools within 5 and 7 mile
radii of the CBCP, and impacts on children (Section 4.2 Human Health Impacts);
• Economic benefits are outweighed by environmental losses (comment noted;
substantive environmental impacts need to be compensated regardless of project
benefits); and,
7-4
-------
• Increased traffic due to coal train passage; also impact of coal train passage on
emergency routes (Section 4.10 Transportation Impacts).
7.3 PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING NPDES CONSTRUCTION RUNOFF PERMIT
PUBLIC HEARING
On March 11, 1992 EPA held a public meeting at the Marina Hotel in Jacksonville to
discuss the progress of the EIS. Approximately 500 people, almost equally divided between
project opponents and proponents, attended the meeting.
A Public Hearing on the construction-related stormwater NPDES permit began at 8
o'clock at the Marina Hotel. Only comments relative to the NPDES permit were accepted at
the Hearing. Approximately 50 people attended the Hearing.
Issues raised at the "information meeting" included (issues are addressed in the section
of this Final EIS noted in parentheses):
• The Jacksonville City Council's opposition to the project should be given strong
consideration by EPA; and that EPA consider the citizens who are against the
project (all comments from the public, their elected officials, governmental
agencies and other commentors are given due consideration);
• AES-CB's past operating record should be strongly considered (AES-CB is no
longer project owner or manager);
• Natural gas is more acceptable than coal because of its impact on air and the
environment (although natural gas does burn cleaner than coal, the long-term
availability of natural gas as a fuel source for the CBCP is questionable; in
addition, some federal and state policies encourage the use of domestic coal to
reduce dependence on foreign oil);
• Union versus non-union employment (EPA cannot speak to this issue; it is our
understanding that employment issues have been resolved);
• EPA should follow guidelines established by Congress, which has constituents in
Jacksonville (Section 1.2 Role of Federal and State Agencies);
7-5
-------
AES-CB's ability to construct without all necessary permits; the NPDES process
is unfair because it allows AES-CB to build without permits (by February 1991,
AES-CB had received all state approvals necessary to initiate construction; AES-
CB had eliminated the dewatering discharge which made a new source NPDES
permit and Final EIS unnecessary for construction activities, see Section 1.3
History of the Project);
That the economic impact of the project outweighs the environmental impact
(comment noted; substantive environmental impacts need to be compensated
regardless of project benefits);
Quality of life issues such as poverty would be relieved due to employment by the
project (comment noted);
The cumulative environmental impact of CBCP and existing power plants, paper
mills and other industries (Section 4.1 Air Quality Impacts);
The impact on air quality from high sulfur coal (the applicant has agreed to a
lower average sulfur content in the coal to be burned, Section 4.1 Air Quality
Impacts);
Impact of air emissions on public health (Sections 4.1 Air Quality Impacts, and
4.2 Human Health Impacts);
Whether the operation of the project and the subsequent elimination of the SK
boilers will provide cleaner air (Section 4.1 Air Quality Impacts);
Concern for persons in the Jacksonville area that have respiratory illnesses
(Section 4.2 Human Health Impacts);
Impacts of the wastewater discharge into the St. John's River (this discharge has
been eliminated);
AES-CB is permitted to use water from the Floridan aquifer even thought they
have said they will use wastewater from the SK mill (groundwater withdrawals
have been significantly reduced and will be used only where high quality water
7-6
-------
is required; CBC will recycle as much water as possible; Sections 2.3.3.4 Water
Systems, and 4.4 Groundwater Impacts);
• Particulates produced by the project are going to contaminate the soil and the
water (Sections 4.2 Human Health Impacts, and 4.3 Surface Water Impacts);
and,
• The project site remains contaminated (the lime mud on site was relocated,
covered with a geomembrane cap and seeded thereby reducing the likelihood of
contaminant leaching to groundwater; leaking petroleum tanks on the SKsite were
stabilized - Section 4.4 Groundwater Impacts).
Issues brought out at the Public Hearing on the NPDES permit for construction runoff
are presented and addressed in the draft permit (see Appendix A).
7.4 STATE AND LOCAL PUBLIC HEARINGS
Other meetings on the CBCP have been held on the state and local levels throughout the
Site Certification process. A Land Use and Zoning Hearing was held on February 14, 1989.
The Hearing Officer found the applicant's SCA to be in compliance with existing City land use
plans and zoning ordinances. The FPSC held a hearing on April 24 and 25, 1989 in Tallahassee
regarding the need for the project. The FPSC issued an order granting a determination of need
on June 30, 1989.
State Certification Hearings were held in Jacksonville during the weeks of February 5
and 19, 1990. Only formal intervenors are allowed to testify at these hearings. FDER held a
meeting which was open to the public on February 7, 1990. Additional Certification hearings
were held in on October 29 and 30, 1990, that dealt with the Siting Board's remand.
During June 11 through 20, 1991, the Jacksonville City Council held public hearings to
discuss the project and a proposed resolution in opposition to it. The resolution, which stated
the City Council's opposition to the project and requested that EPA hold a public hearing, passed
on June 25, 1991.
See Section 1.3 History of the Project for more details.
7-7
-------
There were other opportunities for the public to be involved throughout the state's Site
Certification process. For more information about the state's process, contact Hamilton S.
Oven, Jr., Siting Coordination Office; Florida Department of Environmental Protection; Marjory
Stoneman Douglas Building; 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard; Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000.
7.5 AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS INCLUDED IN THE EIS REVIEW PROCESS
Federal
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
- Headquarters
- Region IV, Regional Administrator
U.S. Department of Agriculture
- Forest Service
- Agricultural Research Service
- Economic Research Service
- Soil Conservation Service
U.S. Department of the Army
- Corps of Engineers
U.S. Department of Commerce
- Economic Development Administration
- National Marine Fisheries Service
U.S. Department of Energy
Energy Research and Development Administration
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Centers for Disease Control
7-8
-------
U.S. Department of Interior
- Headquarters
- Fish and Wildlife Service
- National Park Service
U.S. Department of Transportation
- Coast Guard
- Federal Highway Administration
State
Florida Department of Environmental Regulation
(now Florida Department of Environmental Protection)
Florida Department of Administration
- Bureau of Intergovernmental Relations
Florida Department of Community Affairs
Florida Department of Natural Resources
(now Florida Department of Environmental Protection)
Florida Department of State
- State Historic Preservation Office
Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission
Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services
Florida Public Service Commission
Northeast Florida Regional Planning Council
St. Johns River Water Management District
Florida Department of Transportation
7-9
-------
Local
City of Jacksonville
- City Council
- Office of General Counsel
- Planning Department
- Public Utilities Department
- Regulatory Environmental Services Division
- Wastewater Division
7-10
-------
REFERENCES
-------
-------
REFERENCES
Abolafia, Eliot. February 1989. Competition will Change the Electric Utility Industry,
published by Power Engineering.
AES-CB. 1988. Site Certification Application - The Cedar Bay Cogeneration Project.
AES-CB. 1989. Responses to First Set of Interrogatories Propounded by the Staff of the
FPSC, Docket No. 881472-EQ, prepared by Frederick M. Bryant and William J. Peebles
of Moore, Williams, Bryant, Peebles & Gautier, P. A.
Babcock & Wilcox. 1978. Steam/Its Generation and Use.
Blot, J.W., E.D. Davis, E.L. Morris, C.W. Nordwall, E. Buiatti, N.G. Alan, and J.F.
Fraumeni. 1981. Occupation and the high risk of lung cancer in northeast Florida (to
be published in Cancer Magazine).
Council of the City of Jacksonville. 1989. Citizen's Committee Report.
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). 1979. Noise Abatement and Control,
Environmental Criteria and Standards. Title 24, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 51,
Subpart B.
EPA. 1991. Final Environmental Impact Statement: Florida Power & Light Company, Martin
Coal Gasification/Combined Cycle Project. Prepared by U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region IV, Atlanta, GA. EPA 904/9-91-001 (a).
EPA, FDER. October 21, 1981. St. Johns River Power Park Draft EIS/SAR, prepared by
EPA, FDER, WAPORA, Inc., and Energy and Environmental Analysis, Inc.
EPRI. National Gas for Electric Power Generation: Strategic Issues, Risks, and Opportunities.
FCG, 1988. 1989 Planning Hearing-Generation Expansion Planning Studies.
FCG, 1988. 1989 Planning Hearing-20 Year Plan.
FDCA Bureau of State Planning. May 26, 1989. Final Report on the Cedar Bay Cogeneration
Project Power Plant SCA.
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.
Florida Department of State, Division of Archives, History and Records Management, Bureau
of Historic Sites and Properties. 1980. Historical, architectural and archaeological
survey of Duval County, Florida. Prepared for the Florida Bicentennial commission and
the Historical and Cultural Conservation Commission, City of Jacksonville.
R-l
-------
REFERENCES
(Continued)
Florida Governor's Energy Office. 1981. Annual report to the Legislature (1980): Save it
Florida. Tallahassee, FL.
FP&L. April 1, 1989. Ten Year Power Plant Site Plan 1989-1998.
FP&L. May 1992. Ten Year Power Plant Site Plan 1992-2001.
FPSC. April 30, 1987. Annual Hearings on Load Forecasts, Generating Expansion Plans and
Cogeneration Prices for Peninsular and Northwest Florida, Order No. 17480, Docket
Nos. 860004-EU and 860004-EU-A.
FPSC. June 30, 1989. Order Granting Determination of Need for the CBCP, Order No.
21491, Docket No. 881472-EQ.
Jacksonville Electric Authority (JEA). 1976. Northside Generating Station 316 demonstration.
Jacksonville, FL.
Jacksonville Electric Authority/Florida Power and Light Company (JEA/FP&L). 198la. Site
certification application - environmental information document for proposed St. Johns
River Power Park. Prepared by Envirosphere, Inc.
Jacksonville Planning Department (JPD). June 1986. North District Plan.
Jacksonville Planning Department (JPD). 1987. The 1987 Annual Statistical Package.
Jacksonville Planning Department, Jacksonville, FL.
Jacksonville Planning Department. April 1990. Comprehensive Plan 2010 Traffic Circulation
Element.
Kuchler, A.W. 1965. Potential natural vegetation of the U.S. American Geographical Society
Publication No. 36.
McDonagh, Dennis J., M.D., Donna L. Mohr, Ph.D., Phyllis M. Tousey, R.N., M.S.P.H.,
and William A. Monaco, Ph.D. 1991. An Assessment of Lung Cancer Mortality in
Duval County, Florida, 1975-1984. Heart and Lung Institute at St. Vincent's Medical
Center, Jacksonville, Florida.
Moulding, John. 1981. Personal communication, John Moulding, U.S. Corps of Engineers,
Jacksonville, FL, 12 August 1981.
Singer, Joseph G. 1981. Combustion Fossil Power Systems, published by Combustion
Engineering, Inc.
R-2
-------
REFERENCES
(Continued)
Smith, Douglas J. March 1989. Independent Power Producers Are Leading the Way, published
by Power Engineering.
Smock, Robert. February 1989. Power Plant Life Extension Trend Takes New Directions,
published by Power Engineering.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USCOE), Jacksonville District. 1976. Cross Florida barge
canal restudy report, draft environmental impact statement. Department of the Army,
Jacksonville, FL.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USCOE), Jacksonville District. 1980a. Metropolitan
Jacksonville, Florida water resources study: Annex III - flood plain management.
Jacksonville, FL.
U.S. Department of Justice (USDOJ) and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 1993.
Enforcement News. Two Companies Pay $900,000 Civil Penalty for Inaccurately
Labeling Ear Plug Ratings. Wednesday, April 7, 1993.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1974. Information on Levels of Environmental
Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of
Safety. EPA/550-9-74-004.
Weston, Inc. 1978. Metropolitan Jacksonville, Florida water resources study. Annex I.
Submitted to U.S. Corps of Engineers.
Wood, W. Dean, and Teresa P. Rudolph. 1981a. A cultural resource reconnaissance of a
proposed coal-fired power plant site. Duval County, Florida. Prepared by Southeastern
Wildlife Resources, Inc. for Envirosphere Company, New York, NY.
Wood, W. Dean, and Teresa P. Rudolph. 1981b. Testing of eleven archaeological sties in the
vicinity of a proposed power plant, Duval county, Florida. Prepared by Southeastern
Wildlife Resources for Envirosphere Co., New York, NY.
R-3
-------
-------
LIST OF PREPARERS
-------
-------
LIST OF PREPARERS
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, REGION IV
Heinz Meuller
Marion Hopkins
Karrie Jo Shell
Charles H. Kaplan, P.E.
Other Contributors
Brian Beals
Gregg Worley
David W. Hill
Nancy Tommelleo
John Deatrick
Victoria George
John R. Stockwell
Van Shrieves
Lee Page
Brenda Johnson
Chief, Environmental Policy Section
Federal Activities Branch
Project Monitor,
Environmental Policy Section
NPDES Permit Coordinator (Final EIS)
NPDES Permit Coordinator (Draft EIS)
National Expert, Steam Electric/Water
Chief, Source Evaluation Unit/
Air Enforcement Branch
Source Evaluation Unit/
Air Enforcement Branch
Regional Expert Engineer
Ground Water Technology Unit
Office of Regional Counsel
Water Quality Management
Office of Regional Counsel
Regional Health Officer
Tide III & Toxics Section
Chief, Air Toxics Unit
Air Toxics Unit
Grants and Monitoring Unit
P-l
-------
LIST OF PREPARERS
(Continued)
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION
Preoarers of SAR
Hamilton S. Oven, Jr.
Barry Andrews
Max Linn
Pradeep Ravel
Bob Leetch
Jerry Owen
Frank Watkins
Marge Coombs
Darryl Joyner
Don Kell
Jan Mandrup-Poulsen
John Reese
Larry Olsen, Ph.D.
Betsy Hewitt
Administrator
Siting Coordination Office
Office of the Secretary
Division of Air Resources Management
Division of Air Resources Management
Division of Air Resources Management
Northeast Florida District Office
Northeast Florida District Office
Northeast Florida District Office
Division of Water Management
Division of Water Facilities
Division of Water Facilities
Division of Water Facilities
Division of Water Facilities
Division of Adminstrative and Technical
Services
Office of General Council
P-2
-------
LIST OF PREPARERS
(Continued)
GANNETT FLEMING, INC.
Thomas M. Rachford, P.E., Ph.D. Program Manager
Marintha K. Bower, P.E.
Philip H. Klotz
Emily Davis
Jonathan Dietz
Robert Hasemeier, P.E.
Mark Kindig, P.E.
Katherine Malarich
Mark Mummert, Ph.D.
John Vaklyes, P.E.
DAMES & MOORE
John J^aRocca
J. Duncan Douglas
Steve Doyon, P.E.
Ronald F. Giovannelli
Stanley Krivo
Elaine Martino
Mike Nelson
Project Director (Draft EIS)
Project Director (Final EIS)
Environmental Toxicologist
Water Resource Specialist
Environmental Engineer
Air Quality Specialist
J^and Use Planner
Water Resource Specialist
Air Quality Specialist
J_and Use Planner
J^and Use Planner
Water Resource Engineer
Water Resource Engineer
Air Quality Specialist
Project Planner
Land Use Planner
P-3
-------
-------
GLOSSARY
-------
-------
GLOSSARY
ALLOWANCE FOR FUNDS USED DURING CONSTRUCTION (AFUDO - The cost of financing
the construction of new facilities before the facilities are included in the rate base. When regulated
utilities are not allowed to earn a return to cover their financing costs during construction, they are
allowed to accumulate these costs during construction for future recovery through AFUDC.
AVOIDED UNIT - A hypothetical unit that would have to be built if no new qualifying facilities were
placed in service in peninsular Florida after 1988.
BITUMINOUS COAL - The most common coal; it is soft, dense and black with well- defined bands
of bright and full material.
SLOWDOWN - Contaminated water removed periodically or continuously from a boiler and/or cooling
tower. This water volume is replaced by higher quality feedwater to maintain a desired quality of water
in the unit. See Makeup.
BRITISH THERMAL UNIT (Btu) - A standard unit for measuring the quantity of heat required to raise
the temperature of one pound of water by one degree Fahrenheit.
BTU CONTENT OF FUEL (Average) - An average heat value per unit quantity of fuel expressed in
Btu as determined from tests of fuel samples or defined by contract specifications. (Example: Btu per
pound of coal, Btu per gallon of oil, Btu per cubic foot of gas).
CAPACITY - The load for which a generating unit, generating station or other electrical apparatus is
rated either by the user or by the manufacturer.
CAPACITY FACTOR - The ratio of the average load placed on a machine or piece of equipment for
the period of time considered, to the capability of the machine or equipment.
CAPACITY MARGIN - The difference between generating capacity and peak system load expressed
as a percent of generating capacity. It is a variation of the reserve margin.
CERTIFIED UNIT - A proposed unit that has received a certificate of need from the FPSC and the
utility has committed to the construction of the unit.
CIRCULATING FLUIDIZED BED BOILER (CFB) - A coal fired boiler in which crushed coal is
burned on a bed of crushed limestone. The limestone is introduced into the boiler for the purpose of
stripping sulfur out of the combustion gases prior to emission through the plant's stack.
COGENERATOR - A power generating unit that simultaneously produces electrical energy and useful
thermal energy from the same fuel such as steam or heat.
G-l
-------
GLOSSARY
(Continued)
COMBINED CYCLE PLANT - A combined cycle module is basically a combination of one or more
oil or gas fired combustion turbine (CT) electric generating unit(s), one heat recovery steam generator
per CT (which converts waste heat from the CT into steam) and a steam turbine electric generating unit.
COMBUSTION TURBINE - Similar to a steam turbine, except it expands hot gases (ignited fuel-air
mixture) instead of steam through the turbine. These turbines also have a compressor to increase the
pressure of the air which increases the temperature of the fuel-air mixture.
COOLING TOWER - A device for cooling hot water by bringing it into contact with large quantities
of air. Heat from the water is transferred to the air and discharged into the atmosphere. Evaporation
of a portion of the water is the primary cooling mechanism. This evaporation (pure water) results in
an increase in dissolved materials contained in the cooled water as the dissolved solids which were in
the evaporated water are left behind. At CBCP, the dissolved solids in the cooling water will be
approximately 5.2 times the concentrations in the intake water.
DEMAND - The rate at which electric energy is delivered to or by a system, part of a system, or piece
of equipment at a given instant or averaged over any designated period of time (see LOAD).
DEMINERALIZER TRAIN - A demineralizer train consists of a number of duplicate water treatment
processes which remove minerals from a water stream producing successively higher quality water as
it moves through the train. Typically, this system consists of a number of ion exchange systems in
series, where the output of each system becomes the input to the next.
DISTILLATE FUEL - The lighter fuel oils, such as kerosene and jet fuel, which are distilled off during
the refining process. Virtually all of the oil used in internal combustion and gas turbine engines is
distillate, or "light", fuel oil.
DRIFT - That small portion of the hot water which is entrained as very small droplets in the air as it
contacts the water in passing through the cooling tower, and is discharged with the air at the top of the
cooling tower. Drift contains the same concentration of dissolved materials as the water in the tower.
EMERGENCY FORCED OUTAGE - Occurs when a unit must be quickly removed from service
because of an equipment problem.
ENERGY BROKER - A mechanism for marketing electric energy among electric utilities that have
sufficient generating capacity to meet their individual loads. It matches potential sellers of electric
energy with potential buyers every hour.
EQUIVALENT FORCED OUTAGE RATE - The percent of time a unit is on forced outage.
EXPECTED UNSERVED ENERGY (EUE> - Expected amount of energy that will not be served due
to insufficient generation. This figure includes all 8,760 hours of the year.
G-2
-------
GLOSSARY
(Continued)
FIRM DEMAND OR FIRM POWER - Power or power producing capacity intended to be available at
all times during the period covered by the associated commitment, even under adverse conditions.
FIXED OPERATION COST - Monies other than those associated with investment in plant which do
not vary or fluctuate with changes in operation or utilization of plant.
FORCED OUTAGE - An outage of generating equipment that results from the failure of one or more
components of the facility, rendering it inoperable.
FOSSIL FUEL - Any naturally occurring fuel of an organic nature, such as coal, crude oil and natural
gas.
FUEL INVENTORY - A supply of fuel accumulated for future use.
FUEL EFFICIENCY - See Thermal Efficiency.
GENERATING UNIT - A collection of fuel feeders, heat producers, energy converters and electrical
generators which must be operated as a single entity in order for electricity to be produced. A unit may
consist of several boilers supplying steam to one or more turbines that drive one or more electric
generators.
HEAT RATE - A measure of generating station thermal efficiency, generally expressed in Btu per
kilowatt hour. It is computed by dividing the total Btu content of fuel burned for electric generation
by the resulting kilowatt-hour of electricity generated.
HIGH-BAND FORECAST - A forecast which represents more growth than the "base" forecast.
INCREMENTAL GENERATING COST - The ratio of the additional cost incurred in producing an
increment of generation to the magnitude of that increment of generation. (Note: All variable costs
should be taken into account including maintenance).
INSTALLED GENERATING CAPACITY - The guaranteed continuous output of a genera- tor at full
load, under specified conditions, as designated by the manu- facturer.
INTERRUPTIBLE LOAD - That load which may be disconnected at the supplier's discretion.
INVESTOR-OWNED ELECTRIC UTILITY - Those electric utilities organized as tax- paying
businesses usually financed by the sale of securities in the free market and whose properties are
managed by representatives regularly elected by their shareholders. Investor-owned electric utilities
may be owned by an individual proprietor or a small group of people but are usually corporations
owned by the general public.
LEVELIZED FIXED CHARGE RATE OR FIXED CHARGES - A fraction which is a function of the
AFUDC amount, the book life of the technology and other financial factors. The fraction, when
multiplied by the capital cost of the equipment, will yield an annual amount (levelized) that will have
G-3
-------
GLOSSARY
(Continued)
the same present worth as the present worth of the actual annual capital costs (not levelized) of the
equipment).
LOAD - The amount of electric power delivered or required at any specific point or points on a system.
LOAD FACTOR - In percent, is calculated by multiplying the annual net energy for load (NEL) by 100
and dividing it by the product of the peak demand and the number of hours in the year.
LOAD SERVING CAPABILITY - The additional amount of load that a system can serve as a result
of the addition of a generating unit while still providing the same level of reliability. The load serving
capability is always less than the rated capacity of the unit since the unit capacity must be reduced by
the additional system capacity margin required because of the addition of the unit.
LOSS OF ENERGY PROBABILITY (LQEP) - An alternate method of expressing the Expected
Unserved Energy (EUE); it is adjusted so the effect of system size can be removed.
LOSS OF LOAD HOURS (LOLH) - A variation on the LOLP method, it represents the expected
number of hours by considering all the hours in the year, not just the daily peak hours.
LOSS OF LOAD PROBABILITY (LOLP) - A mathematical reference which represents the expected
number of days per year when the generation will be insufficient to serve the daily peak load. This
indicates the relative reliability of electric power systems. Generally the availability of assistance from
inter- connected neighboring utilities is included in the calculation of the LOLP whereas voltage
reductions, requests for voluntary load reductions and load curtailments arenot modeled in the
calculations.
LOW-BAND FORECAST - A forecast which represents less growth than the "base" forecast.
MAINTENANCE OUTAGE - Occurs when a generating unit is taken out of service for routine
maintenance.
MAKEUP - Water taken in by a power generating unit to "makeup" for water losses resulting from
evaporation, contamination (blowdown), absorption, etc.
NATURAL GAS - A mixture of hydrocarbon gases, principally methane, occurring in porous geologic
formations beneath the earth's surface, often found in association with petroleum.
NET CAPACITY - The continuous gross capacity, less power required by all auxiliaries associated with
the unit, or the capacity as specified by "SERC Guideline Number 2 for Uniform Generator Ratings for
Reporting".
NET ENERGY FOR LOAD (NEL) - Net system generation plus energy received from Class I and
Class II systems less energy delivered to Class I and Class II systems.
NET ENERGY FOR SYSTEM (NES) - NEL plus energy received from Class El and Class V - energy
delivered to Class HI and Class V systems.
G-4
-------
GLOSSARY
(Continued)
OIL - A mixture of hydrocarbons existing in the liquid state in natural underground reservoirs. Oil is
often found in association with gas.
OUTAGE - Describes the state of a generating transmission or distribution component when it is not
available to perform its intended function due to some event directly associated with the component.
An outage may or may not cause an interruption of service to consumers, depending on system
configura- tion.
OUTAGE RATE - For a particular system component, the number of outages per unit of time.
PEAK DEMAND OR PEAK LOAD - The net 60-minute integrated demand, actual or adjusted.
Forecasts are for normal weather conditions.
PENINSULAR FLORIDA - Those utilities located east of the Apalachicola River.
PERCENT CAPACITY MARGIN - The difference between capacity and peak load expressed as a
percentage of capacity. Does not explicitly evaluate the effects of unit size or performance, the size
of the system or the strength of its interconnections.
POLISHING - Polishing consists of final water treatment process by which certain small quantities of
a substance (e.g.: minerals, hardness) is removed prior to final discharge or usage.
PUBLICLY-OWNED ELECTRIC UTILITY - Electric systems owned by municipals and federal and
state public power projects and cooperatives that are owned by their customers.
PURPA - Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978. Enacted to give preferential rights to non-
utility developers of qualifying facilities (QF). QF status enables the developer of production facilities
to receive backup power, to claim state and federal exemptions and to sell electricity to a utility at its
avoided cost, i.e., the cost that the utility avoids in generating electricity itself or not purchasing it from
another source.
QUALIFYING FACILITY (OF) - Defined in the federal law known as the Public Utility Regulatory
Policies Act of 1978 (PURPA). It includes small-power producers and cogenerators of electricity and
steam (or other form energy) that are not themselves electric utilities.
RATED CAPACITY - See Capacity.
RECIRCULATING COOLING TOWER (also called off-stream or closed-cycle cooling tower) - A
cooling tower in which the water is returned to the power plant after cooling for reuse. This process
of heating and cooling of the water in continuous. In a recirculating tower, a portion of the cooled
water is discharged as "blowdown" in order to maintain a proper chemical equilibrium in the tower and
balance the concentration of dissolved material resulting from evaporation. Intake of ambient water is
required as "make-up" to equal the blowdown, evaporation, draft, and other small losses from the
tower.
G-5
-------
GLOSSARY
(Continued)
RESERVE MARGIN - The difference between generating capacity and peak system load expressed as
a percent of the peak system load.
RESIDUAL FUELS - The fuel oils remaining after the lighter oils have been distilled off during the
refining process. Except for start-up and flame stabilization, virtually all the oil used in steam plants
is residual, or "heavy", fuel oil.
SMALL POWER PRODUCER - A power generating unit with a capacity of 80 MW or less and uses
as its primary energy source, biomass, waste, renewable resources or geothermal resources.
STATE OF FLORIDA - Peninsular Florida utilities plus Gulf Power Company, West Florida Electric
Cooperative, Choctawhatchee Electric Cooperative, Escambia River Electric Cooperative, Gulf Coast
Electric Cooperative, City of Blountstown, Florida Public Utilities Company (Marianna) and Alabama
Electric Cooperative.
STEAM TURBINE - Steam expands and cools as it passes through the turbine blades, turning the blades
which are connected to a shaft. This turbine shaft turns the electric generator shaft.
SUMMER - June 1 through September 30.
TAXA - Classes o*f organisms.
THERMAL EFFICIENCY - A measure of the amount of electrical energy obtained (the work) per unit
of input (the fuel); it is measured in the generating station by the heat rate (see Heat Rate).
WATT - The electrical unit of power or rate of doing work.
WINTER - December 1 through March 31.
YEAR - The calendar year from January 1 through December 31.
G-6
------- |