United States Region 4 EPA 904/9-81-088
Environmental Protection 345 Courtland Street, NE October 1981
Agency Atlanta, GA 30365
&EPA Environmental Draft
Impact Statement
FDER State Analysis Report
PA 81-13
Jacksonville Electric
Authority
St. Johns River Power
Park
-------
« UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION IV
349 COURTLAND STREET
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 3O36S
October 22, 1981
to: All Interested Agencies, Public Groups and Citizens
This Draft Environmental Impact Statement and State Analysis Report
(SAR/EIS) on the proposed St. Johns River Power Park is provided for
your review. The joint document has been prepared to satisfy both
the requirements of USEPA under the National Environmental Policy Act
and of the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation under the
Florida Power Plant Siting Act.
A 45-day review period officially begins on October 30, 1981 when the
availability of the SAR/EIS will be announced in the Federal Register.
Comments on this document, and the proposed actions will be appreciated.
Detailed information supporting the assessments and conclusions of the
SAR/EIS is contained in a separate Technical Reference Document (TRD).
While the SAR/EIS is a complete document, the TRD is part of the record
on this project. A limited number of copies are available for review.
-------
EPA 904/9-81-088
NPOES Application Number:
PL 0037869
Florida Power Plant Siting
Application Number:
PA 81-13
Draft
Environmental Impact Statement
for
Proposed Issuance of a New Source National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit
Florida State Analysis Report
for
Proposed Certification by the Governor and Cabinet
to
Jacksonville Electric Authority
St. Johns River Power Park
Jointly Prepared by:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
and
Florida Department of Environmental Regulation
Jacksonville Electric Authority and Florida Power and Light
Company propose to jointly construct and operate a New Source
1,200 megawatt coal-fired steam electric generating station
known as the St. Johns River Power Park on a 1,656 acre site in
northern Duval County, Florida. This document assesses the
proposed project and alternatives with respect to impacts on
the natural and man-made environments. Potential mitigative
measures are also evaluated.
The comment period will end on December 14, 1981.
Comments or inquiries should be directed to:
F. Theodore Bisterfeld
EIS Project Officer
U.S. EPA, Region IV
345 Courtland St., N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
(404) 881-7458
Hamilton S. Oven, Administrator
Power Plant Siting
Florida DER
2600 Blair Stone Road
Tallahassee, Florida 32301
(904) 488-0130
Approved by:
y
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
AND STATE ANALYSIS REPORT
St. Johns River Power Park
Jacksonville Electric Authority and
Florida Power and Light Company
(X) Draft
( ) Final
US Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV
345 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
Florida Department of Environmental Regulation
Power Plant Siting Section
2600 Blair Stone Road
Tallahassee, Florida 32301
1. Type of Action: Administrative (X) Legislative ( )
2. Description of Action
The Jacksonville Electric Authority (JEA) and Florida Power and Light
Company (FP&L) propose to jointly construct and operate a New Source 1,200
megawatt (MW) coal-fired steam electric generating station known as the St. Johns
River Power Park (SJRPP) on a 1,656-acre site in northern Duval County, Florida.
JEA has applied to the US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), the Florida
Department of Environmental Regulation (FDER), and other Federal agencies for
the permits necessary to construct and operate the proposed facility -
This joint document has been prepared to satisfy both the requirements of
USEPA under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and of FDER under the
Florida Power Plant Siting Act. The USEPA Region IV Administrator has declared
the proposed plant to be a New Source as defined by Section 306 of the Clean
Water Act. Operation of the SJRPP would require a National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NDPES) Permit. Issuance of this Permit would be a major
Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment
and subject to the provisions of NEPA. Consequently, USEPA decided that an
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) should be prepared. Because under the
Power Plant Siting Act FDER is required to prepare a State Analysis Report
(SAR) containing information similar to that required in an EIS, USEPA and
FDER have entered into a Memorandum of Understanding agreeing to prepare a.
single document. This joint document will meet the responsibilities .of both
agencies.
The determination of need for a new steam electric generating facility in
Florida is the responsibility of the Florida Public Service Commission (FPSC)
-------
JEA and FP&L applied to FPSC for a certification of SJRPP Unit 1 in 1985 and
Unit 2 in 1987. The need for SJRPP was argued in two ways: (1) additional
capacity was needed to provide reliable electric service to their customers
and (2) SJRPP would reduce electric rates through the displacement of expen-
sive oil-fired power generation.
Although no need was found for the additional capacity provided by the
SJRPP for 1985 or 1987, the need for economic displacement of oil as the
utilities' primary boiler fuel was'dearly established. It was estimated by
the FPSC based on "expected case" economic assumptions that the SJRPP could
save JEA $95,985,000 in 1986 and $235,055,000 in 1990 and that savings for
FP&L could reach $29,604,000 and $125,717,000 in the same respective years.
On 26 June, 1981, following the analysis of a variety of alternative energy
sources and oil displacement technologies including purchase of power, conver-
sion of oil-burning units to coal or coal-oil mixtures, and additional con-
servation, the FPSC certified the need for SJRPP Units 1 and 2 in the time
frame proposed in that they appeared to be the best available alternative to
displacing oil. With regard to the need for additional capacity, the FPSC
found that considering the conservation goals established for Florida by the
Florida Energy Efficiency and Conservation Act (FEECA), JEA would not need the
additional generating capacity provided by the SJRPP until 1991 and FP&L would
not need the additional capacity until 1989. Also, the FPSC determined that
from the standpoint of electrical system reliability for peninsular Florida as
a whole, the new units would not be required until 1991.
The St. Johns River Power Park site is located adjacent to the JEA North-
side Generating Station (NGS) in northern Duval County adjacent to the St.
Johns River. The present site consists of a nominal 1,656 acres of which a
portion is not considered to be suitable for development. The property is
primarily owned by the North Shore Corporation. Site boundaries include New
Berlin Road to the west, the Jacksonville North Landfill to the north, and
marshes to the east and south. Trees, shrubs, and grasses comprise the major-
ity of the site, totalling approximately 1,307 acres. Wetlands.comprise
approximately another 289 acres. The site is crossed by transmission lines
from the NGS as well as by the Seaboard Coast Line Railroad which serves
Blount Island.
The proposed plant will consist of two 600 MW (550 MW net) coal-fired
generating units and will be aligned along an axis running from northwest to
southeast. The plant rail loop will be enclosed by the service rail which
will form an oval loop around the plant structures. A common stack will be
utilized by both units. Coal handling facilities to accommodate delivery of
coal by rail and for coal- storage will be located to the south of the plant
rail loop. A proposed coal barge unloading facility will occupy approximately
55 acres of land on Blount Island. The major coal handling facilities on
Blount Island are the ocean vessel coal unloading wharf, the stacker-reclaimer
and coal storage pile, the railcar loading area, emergency coal stackout, and
a runoff sedimentation basin and percolation pond. The coal unloader and
wharf will be the only structures on or waterward of the mean high water (MHW)
line.
The SJRPP will burn approximately .3,500,000 tons of coal per year. Coal
will be delivered to the site either by 72 car unit trains or by shuttle train
from the Blount Island coal unloading facility. Particulate emissions from
ii
-------
the boilers will be controlled by the use of electrostatic precipitators (ESP)
with 99.78% efficiency. Sulfur dioxide (S02) emissions will be controlled to
a. 90% level by the use of an FGD limestone scrubber system. The formation of
nitrogen oxides and carbon monoxide during combustion would be inhibited by
the design and proper operation of the proposed boiler, furnace, and combus-
tion air control system. Emissions of fugitive dust from coal handling and
storage will be controlled by the use of enclosed conveyors, fabric filters at
transfer points, and wetting of open storage areas. Fugitive dust from cooling
tower drift will be minimized by the use of drift eliminators.
Waste heat will be dissipated by two natural draft cooling towers.
Approximately 49.5 million gallons per day (mgd) of makeup water will be
withdrawn from the NGS discharge channel and an average of 35 mgd of blowdown
will be returned to the NGS discharge channel just downstream of the SJRPP
intake. During operation all wastewater effluent and runoff from the site
also will be discharged to the NGS discharge channel. Approximately 2.1 mgd
of groundwater will be used at the plant to operate the FGD system and provide
service and process water. ' Bottom ash will be sluiced to dewatering bins;
subsequently, the dewatered waste material will be disposed of on-site. Fly
ash would be collected dry in electrostatic precipitators (ESP's) and sold or
landfilled on-site. High quality gypsum (calcium sulfate) generated as a
by-product of the FGD system would be handled and stored on-site. Revenues
from the sale of by-product gypsum would be applied as a credit against the
expense of fuel for SJRPP (Breitmoser 1981b). The on-site storage of this
by-product would be either short- or long-term depending on its marketability.
Transmission lines associated with the proposed plant will terminate at
the Normandy Substation on the west side of Jacksonville and at the Fort
Caroline and Robinwood Substations to the east of Jacksonville. Transmission
lines will be routed within the proposed preferred corridor. The majority of
preferred corridor includes an existing transmission line right-of-way (ROW).
Where it is feasible, from an engineering, environmental, and system reliabil-
ity standpoint, the final new ROW will be located parallel and adjacent to the
existing ROW. A preliminary estimate is that this should occur in over 90% of
its length. The new ROW will normally be 150 feet to 200 feet in width.
3. Major Plant Systems Alternatives
Alternative Sites
Alternatives were considered for every major aspect of the project in-
cluding sites and plant facilities. Beginning In 1977, a detailed siting
analysis was performed to identify potential sites and to assess their environ-
mental and engineering suitability for a 1,200 MW coal-fired power plant. An
initial screening yielded 20 candidate sites which were further evaluated on
more specific environmental and engineering criteria and thereby reduced to
six. During the following three years a series of sites were evaluated.
Although two sites in Clay County (Willis Point and Walkill) were judged to be
potentially more suitable, the JEA Board selected a site in Duval County known
as the Eastport Site because of the economic benefits and the potential unavail-
ability and/or political opposition faced by JEA in the selection of either of
the Clay County sites.
iii
-------
Cooling Systems
Cooling systems alternatives included the water source, the heat dissipa-
tion system, and the discharge receiving body. Natural draft and mechanical
draft cooling towers were evaluated for heat dissipation. The natural draft
towers were selected because of their energy efficiency and reduced potential
for ground fogging. Cooling water source alternatives include groundwater,
direct withdrawal from the St. Johns River, and reuse of cooling water from
the once-through cooling system serving JEA's Northside Generating Station
(NGS). Because of the reduced impingement, entrainment, and dredging effects
and reduced costs associated with construction, the NGS discharge was selected
as the makeup source for the SJRPP cooling system. Because of the reduced
costs and the reduced construction and operational environmental effects on
the River, the NGS discharge channel was also selected as the blowdown discharge
point.
Air Pollution Control Systems
Air emissions control system alternatives were evaluated considering the
state of the art of emission control technology, environmental impacts, and
economics. Major sulfur dioxide (S02) control alternatives included regenerative
reactant systems, lime spray dryer and lime/limestone scrubber systems. Based
on the current status of the technology, cost, and the availability of the raw
material, the limestone scrubber technology was selected. Major particulate
control alternatives included fabric filters and electrostatic precipitators
(ESP). Based on the lack of experience with fabric filters (as applied to
power plants) and cost factors, the ESP technology designed to meet BACT
standards was selected. Other boiler emissions (e.g., NOx, and CO) will be
controlled by boiler design.
Water/Wastewater Systems
Groundwater and surface water were considered as alternative sources of
makeup water for plant systems. Because the utilities hope to be able to
market their high volume solid wastes, groundwater was deemed preferable to
surface water as the source of makeup to the FGD and bottom ash sluicing
systems. The use of saline water from the St. Johns River would result in
excessive chloride contamination of the by-products. Wastewater systems were
designed to recirculate and reuse water throughout the plant wherever possible
and the NGS discharge channel was selected as the preferred discharge point.
Chlorine, bromine chloride, and ozone were considered for control of biolog-
ical growths in the cooling system. Although ozone and bromine chloride
exhibit promising characteristics as biocides, chlorination with very careful
control of residual oxidants was selected because of reduced cost and greater
operating experience.
Solid Waste Systems
Alternative systems for the handling and disposal of high volume solid
wastes (bottom ash, fly ash, and FGD sludge) were considered. Originally wet
sluicing to a bottom ash pond was selected as the preferred method of handling
bottom ash, but this was later changed to wet sluicing, dewatering, and dry
landfill disposal because of concerns over potential groundwater contamina-
tion. Because fly ash is collected dry in the ESP's, continued dry handling
IV
-------
and disposal was preferred to wet sluicing with- its associated wastewater
stream. Alternatives considered for management of FGD sludge included on-site
landfilling and sale as a by-product. The utilities intend to market the
sludge (gypsum) if possible, but due to uncertainties about its final quality
it may have to be landfilled on-site. It is proposed that a five-year test
program be conducted to determine how best to dispose of unmarketable FGD
sludge and other high volume wastes.
Plant Orientations
Two major alternative orientations for the plant rail loop were con-
sidered. Both were determined to impact wetlands on the site, but the north-
south orientation was selected over the east-west orientation due to its
relatively smaller degree of impact.
4. Alternatives to the Proposed Project
Section 1502.4 of the implementation regulations for NEPA require that
all reasonable alternatives to the proposed action be considered in the EIS
process. The FPSC evaluated several means of achieving oil savings in its
certification of the need for the project. Other reasonable alternatives
involving combinations of various cost-effective oil displacement technologies
also exist. Independent engineering, economic, and environmental studies were
conducted to identify, develop, and evaluate alternatives which meet the basic
economic goals on which the SJRPP was justified. A major difference between
the alternatives developed for the SAR/EIS and the proposed project is that
they do not in all cases provide additional capacity, and none of them provide
additional capacity equal to that provided by the SJRPP. The alternatives
were selected based on their ability to meet the following objectives:
• the alternative would replace or save oil equivalent to or more than
the oil saved by the proposed project;
• the alternative must replace an amount of oil for each utility (JEA
and FP&L) equivalent to the oil displaced by the proposed coal-fired
power plant;
• the alternative must not result in any loss of capacity to either
utility; and
• the alternative must be implementable within the proposed time frame
of the SJRPP project(1987).
Based on these criteria, the following four alternative power systems plus the
No Action Alternative were developed for evaluation in the SAR/EIS.
Alternative 1
Alternative 1 consists of constructing refuse-fired power plants in
Duval, Brevard, Seminole, Sarasota, and Manatee Counties, conversion of JEA's
Northside Units 1 and 3 from oil-burning to a coal-oil mixture, utility spon-
sored installation of residential solar water heaters in the JEA and FP&L
service areas, purchase by JEA and FP&L of a portion of Georgia Power's Vogtle
-------
Nuclear Plant, and construction of 150 miles of transmission lines from Georgia
to Florida. This alternative would result in oil savings of 5.4 million
barrels per year by FP&L and 5.9 million barrels per year by JEA. It would
Increase the capacity of the FP&L system by 550 MW and the JEA system by
228 MW.
Alternative 2
Alternative 2 consists of conversion of FP&L's Sanford Units 4 and 5 from
burning oil to coal-firing, purchase by JEA and FP&L of a portion of Georgia
Power's Vogtle Nuclear Plant, and construction of 150 miles of transmission
lines. In this alternative, JEA would rely solely on power purchase for oil
displacement. This alternative would result in oil savings of 7.2 million
barrels per year by FP&L and 5.9 million barrels per year by JEA. It would
also increase the capacity of the JEA system by 550 MW and would not change
the capacity of the FP&L system.
Alternative 3
Alternative 3 consists of conversion of FP&L's Sanford Units 4 and 5 from
burning oil to coal-firing, purchase of a portion of Plant Vogtle, and construc-
tion of a 280 MW coal-fired power plant by JEA at the St. Johns River Power
Park site. This alternative would result in oil savings of 7.2 million barrels
per year by FP&L and 5.9 million barrels per year by JEA. It would increase
the capacity of the JEA system by 550 MW and would not change the capacity of
the FP&L system.
Alternative 4
Alternative 4 consists of conversion of FP&L's Sanford Units 4 and 5 and
JEA's Northside Unit 3 from burning oil to coal and purchase by JEA and FP&L
of a portion of Plant Vogtle. This alternative would result in oil savings of
7.2 million barrels per year by FP&L and 5.9 million barrels per year by JEA.
It would also increase the capacity of the JEA system by 72 MW and would not
change the capacity of the FP&L system.
5. Summary and Comparison of the Major Environmental Impacts of the Proposed
Project and the Alternatives
Proposed Project
The proposed project will result both in construction and operation
impacts on the human environment. Construction of the proposed project would
result in the commitment of 1,656 acres of land at least for the 40 year life
of the project and the elimination of approximately 883 acres of terrestrial
habitat. This would include approximately 84 acres of valuable seasonally
flooded wetland. An additional 120 acres of land would be committed to the
new or expanded right-of-way (including a portion of undisturbed cypress
wetland).
vi
-------
Approximately 550,000 cubic yards of sand and silt would be dredged from
the Fulton-Dame Point Cutoff during construction of the Blount Island coal
barge unloading facility. Contaminants in this material would be released
into the River. Because ambient concentrations of several pollutants which
are also found in the dredge spoils sometimes exceed Florida Class III water
quality standards, short-term violations of water quality standards may occur
outside of the mixing zone of the dredging operation.
An archaeological district has been identified on the proposed SJRPP site
which is eligible for nomination to the National Register of Historic Places.
Portions of this district will be destroyed or otherwise adversely impacted by
construction of the proposed project.
The major operation impacts of the proposed project primarily affect air
resources, the water quality of Blount Island Channel, and groundwater re-
sources in the area. No violation of NAAQS or PSD increments is predicted
for the Jacksonville area or the Okefenokee Swamp Class I area. However, a
violation of the 24-hour S02 FAAQS was predicted to occur southwest of the JEA
Southside Plant. JEA has not yet proposed a specific plan for mitigation of
this impact.
Some drawdown of the Floridan Aquifer and increased long-term potential
for chloride intrusion in the Aquifer would result from groundwater with-
drawals at the SJRPP. Artesian and pumped wells close to the site would
experience reductions in flow or yield. The solid waste disposal areas are
not proposed to be constructed with impermeable liners. Therefore, seepage of
trace pollutants from the solid waste disposal areas could potentially con-
taminate areas of the shallow water table aquifer on the SJRPP site and sur-
face waters of Browns Creek down-gradient of the site. Discharges of waste-
water and cooling tower blowdown from the SJRPP through the NGS discharge
canal could violate State water quality standards in the Blount Island Channel
for pollutants which already occasionally exceed these standards due to ambient
conditions.
Comparison of Alternatives
An economic analysis of the alternatives was conducted to determine
whether they meet the economic objectives of the SJRPP. Based on this anal-
ysis, it was concluded that Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 are competitive with
SJRPP on an oil displacement and cost savings basis. These alternatives,
particularly Alternative 2, rely heavily on the purchase of relatively inexpen-
sive power from Georgia Power's Plant Vogtle. This plant has been steadily
escalating in cost and may not, in the long run, be as economical as currently
reported. Alternative 1 is prohibitively expensive for FP&L and for the
utilities combined. None of the alternatives provide additional capacity
equal to that provided by SJRPP. The cost of providing additional capacity at
a later date was not factored into the analysis of the alternatives.
In the SAR/EIS the proposed project and the alternatives are evaluated
and compared environmentally on a resource by resource basis. Within the
limitations of the information available, the comparison has been conducted
equally. The obvious differences in the level of detail and the broad economic
and environmental assumptions required to make comparisons among the alterna-
vn
-------
tives prevent the identification of any one overall alternative as being
clearly superior. Nonetheless, certain generalizations regarding the environ-
mental impacts of the No Action Alternative, SJRFP, and the four alternatives
can be made.
As expected the No Action Alternative results in the fewest adverse
environmental impacts. In comparing the action alternatives, it was generally
found that the greater the magnitude of the alternative, the greater the
degree of both beneficial and adverse environmental impacts. Location was
also found to be a major factor in the level of impacts. Based on its relative
size, SJRPP would generate a large overall level of beneficial economic impacts
while also generating a large level of adverse impacts (land consumption, air
quality degradation, etc.). Alternative 1, which includes small scale tech-
nologies, solar water heating systems, and refuse-fired power plants, results
in significant environmental benefits in many resource areas since these
components are more environmentally benign; that is, they encourage conserva-
tion and recycling. Similarly, Alternative 2 which includes large purchases
of power from Georgia Power Company results in reduced adverse environmental
impacts in the northeast Florida area since the resource consumption and
pollutant generation of Plant Vogtle are not considered in the analysis. The
impacts of Plant Vogtle are assumed to occur regardless of whether JEA and
FP&L purchase a portion of this plant since the plant is certified and under
construction.
Location is a major factor in determining the relative potential for
impacts of a power plant. Many of the adverse impacts of the proposed project
which cannot be completely mitigated are a function of its location. The
impact on wetlands and the exacerbation of existing water quality problems may
not have occurred at other alternative sites. Based on the site selection
study, however, the lack of availability of other sites and/or political
opposition to their selection appeared to present delays that could not be
economically tolerated in Jacksonville. Therefore, a more readily available
but more environmentally sensitive site was selected by JEA. Because of this,
JEA has expressed a willingness to exert additional effort toward mitigation
of project impacts.
6. Mitigation Measures for the Proposed Project
Several measures which would be employed to mitigate the potential impacts
of the proposed project on the surrounding environment were identified during
the environmental review process. Construction-related impacts on air resources
will be mitigated by employing suitable fugitive dust and burning emission
controls. Impacts of construction on water resources and aquatic life will be
mitigated by implementation of a comprehensive erosion and sedimentation
control plan and effective treatment of wastewater discharges. Construction
related impacts on wetlands will be mitigated by establishment of a 200-foot
buffer and a fence line around remaining wetlands on the site. (A 65-acre
stand of hardwood swamp will also be preserved.) The feasibility of a gopher
tortoise relocation program will be considered to mitigate impacts on this
protected species which inhabits the main site. Construction impacts along
the ROW will be minimized by adherence to Federal Power Commission guidelines.
Dredging effects on biota in Mill Cove and Blount Island Channel will be
reduced by limiting dredging activities to midwinter when biological activity
is reduced. Mitigation of impacts on cultural resources on the site is being
formulated in consultation with the SHPO and National Advisory Council.
viii
-------
Operation-related impacts will be controlled to the best extent practic-
able by use of state-of-the-art wastewater facilities. Air emissions will be
controlled with electrostatic precipitators, boiler design, and FGD systems.
Fugitive coal dust will be controlled with watet spray dust' suppression sys-
tems, enclosed conveyors, and fabric filters. Cooling tower drift will be
controlled to a level of 0.002% of total recirculating water volume although
controls are available to limit drift to 0.0005%. A site erosion and sedimen-
tation control plan will help to minimize degradation of surface water quality
in the vicinity of SJRPP. Solid waste landfills will be designed to reduce
but not prevent trace elements and other materials from leaching into adjacent
aquifers and surface waters.
7. Unresolved Issues
JEA has submitted a request for variance from water quality standards to
FDER for the discharge of plant wastewater and cooling tower blowdown into
Blount Island Channel. An additional variance request has also been submitted
to FDER for dredging activities associated with construction of the Blount
Island coal unloading facility. Both variance requests are currently being
reviewed. In addition, the applicant has not demonstrated the ability to meet
total residual chlorine level of 0.01 mg/1 in the effluent from the construct-
ion runoff sedimentation pond and 0.2 mg/1 of free available chlorine for no
more than two hours per unit per day in the blowdown from SJRPP and NGS. For
solid waste areas, a liner of suitable permeability (on the order of 1 x 10
cm/second) is recommended to effectively reduce seepage from the solid waste
cells. JEA and FP&L propose a five-year study program to determine the best
means of handling and disposal of high volume solid waste and a market for the
sale of gypsum must be developed. In addition, the generation and ultimate
disposal of potentially hazardous low volume waste has not been determined.
Potential effects of construction on archaeological resources must be mitigated
through pursuing an official Memorandum of Understanding with the SHPO and the
National Advisory Council. Finally, a specific alignment of the transmission
line within the existing corridor must be selected which minimizes potential
impacts on land use, terrestrial wildlife habitats, and sensitive wetland
areas.
8. USEPA's Environmentally Preferred Alternative and Recommended Action
It is anticipated that JEA and FP&L will resolve the outstanding environ-
mental issues associated with the SJRPP- Based on preliminary findings, USEPA
tentatively proposes to issue the NPDES Permit with conditions (See Appendix
B - Draft NPDES Permit). It must be noted, however, that based on the initial
findings of this SAR/EIS, various alternatives to the proposed project are
available which appear to be at least comparable to the SJRPP from an economic
and an environmental standpoint. Since these alternatives meet the oil back-
out goals of the proposed project, it can be argued that one of these alterna-
tives could be implemented. The selection of one of the alternatives would
defer a decision on the SJRPP for approximately three to four years when
possibly the need could be better predicted and mitigation of impacts might be
greater through improved technology.
Nevertheless, SJRPP has been shown to be an economically advantageous
project for Jacksonville, its citizens, and FP&L and its customers. Not only
does it displace oil, but it also provides additional generating capacity for
the utilities which would have to be constructed at a later time as system
ix
-------
demand rises and older units are phased out of use. Given the advantages
offered by SJRPP and pending resolution of the outstanding issues, USEPA finds
the proposed project, SJRPP, environmentally acceptable. Further, USEPA finds
that the environmentally preferable components of SJRPP are:
• sulfur dioxide emission control consisting of a lime spray dryer or a
lime/limestone FGD scrubbing system with by-product resource recovery;
• Particulate emission control consisting of electrostatic precipitators
designed to achieve an emissions limit of 0.03 Ib/MMBtu;
• natural draft cooling towers with a drift rate of 0.0005% and makeup
from and blowdown to the Northside Generating Station discharge channel
• Cooling system biological fouling control using chlorine with control
to assure an average cooling tower blowdown concentration of no more
than 0.2 mg/1 for two hours per day, with an ultimate chlorine residual
no more than 0.1 mg/1 in the discharge;
• bottom ash and fly ash management consisting of dry handling and sale
as a by-product;
• on-site disposal of unmarketable FGD sludge, bottom ash, and fly ash
in landfillcells lined with a material with a permeability no less
than 1 x 10 cm/sec; and
• coal delivery over land by rail rather than from the proposed Blount
Island coal barge unloading facility.
These systems are preferred but not necessarily required. JEA and FP&L have
demonstrated that other systems are environmentally compatible and can be
approved.
It should be noted that there are alternatives to the proposed project
with significatly different environmental impacts. However, the major alter-
native components, purchase of part of Plant Vogtle and conversion of oil-
fired Sanford Units 4 and 5 to coal-firing, are not necessarily precluded by
proceeding with SJRPP at this time. In fact, conversion of power plants from
oil to coal is arguably facilitated by construction of additional capacity at
SJRPP. JEA and FP&L have Indicated that careful analysis of these options is
underway and if found to be advantageous will be pursued.
9. FDER's Recommendations
If JEA and FP&L can resolve the potential ambient air quality violations,
justify variances to water quality criteria, and agree to abide by the condit-
ions of certification, the FDER would recommend certification of the SJRPP.
This recommendation is based on the following rationale:
-------
a. Full load operation of the SJRPP and the existing JEA power
plants could violate the 24 hour S02 State standard. The
violation could be avoided by shutting down Units 1 and 2
at the Southside Generating Station.
b. Installation of impermeable liners under solid waste disposal
areas could avoid violation of groundwater quality standards
and reduce an additional loading of heavy metals to the
St. Johns Estuary.
c. Discharges from the wastewater treatment system can contribute
contaminants to the St. Johns River which already contains
excessive amounts of those contaminents. Proper operation of
the wastewater treatment facility, use of mixing zones and
approval of variances for some metals would allow certification
to be granted.
d. Proper operation of the coal pile runoff sedimentation and
neutralization systems at the Blount Island coal unloading
facility can mitigate the impact of heavy metals leaching to
the St. Johns River.
e. Dredging to construct the coal unloading facility docking area
may temporarily contribute to water quality violations by
resuspending heavy metals from the sediments. Approval of
mixing zones and variances would allow construction to proceed.
f. Archaeological sites should be preserved or salvaged to avoid
loss of historically important material.
xi
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY i
TABLE OF CONTENTS xii
LIST OF TABLES xxi
LIST OF FIGURES xxvii
LIST OF ACRONYMS xxxi
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1-1
1.1 USEPA' s AND FDER' s RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE SAR/EIS 1-1
1.1.1 USEPA's Responsibility for the EIS 1-1
1.1.2 FDER's Responsibility for the SAR 1-1
1.1.3 Memorandum of Understanding for Preparation of a Joint
SAR/EIS Document . 1-1
1. 2 OTHER FEDERAL REQUIREMENTS 1-2
1. 3 COORDINATION BETWEEN USEPA AND FDER 1-2
1.4 BACKGROUND OF THE PROJECT 1-3
1.4.1 Identification of the Applicants 1-3
1.4.1.1 The Jacksonville Electric Authority(JEA) 1-3
1.4.1.2 Florida Power and Light Company (FP&L) 1-3
1.4.2 History of the Project 1-3
1.4.2.1 Pro j ect Planning 1-3
1.4.2.2 Site Selection. 1-6
1.4.2.3 Permit Applications 1-6
1. 5 NEED FOR THE PROJECT 1-7
1.5.1 Need for Additional Generating Capacity 1-7
1.5.1.1 JEA 1-8
1.5.1.2 FP&L 1-8
1.5.1.3 Peninsular Florida 1-8
1.5.2 Economic Displacement of Oil-Fired Power 1-8
1.5.2.1 JEA 1-8
1.5.2.2 FP&L 1-9
1.5.2.3 Peninsular Florida 1-9
1.5.3 Conclusion 1-9
1. 6 ISSUES TO BE ADDRESSED IN THE SAR/EIS 1-10
2.0 ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE PROPOSED PROJECT 2-1
2.1 REGULATORY ALTERNATIVES 2-1
2.1.1 Alternatives Available to USEPA 2-1
2.1.1.1 Issuance of the NPDES Permit 2-1
2.1.1.2 Denial of the NPDES Permit 2-1
2.1.1.3 PSD Permit 2-2
2.1.2 Alternatives Available to FDER 2-2
2.1.3 Alternatives Available to Other Permitting Agencies. 2-2
2.2 THE APPLICANT'S PROPOSED PROJECT 2-3
2.2.1 The Project Site 2-3
xii
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (.CONTINUED)
2.2.2 Plant Orientation and Appearance ." 2-3
2.2.2.1 Facilities Orientation 2-3
2.2.2.2 External Appearance 2-6
2.2.3 Power Generation System 2-6
2.2.4 Fuel Transportation and Handling 2-6
2.2.5 Emission Control Systems 2-12
2.2,5.1 Electrostatic Precipitators (ESP) 2-12
2.2.5.2 Flue Gas Desulfurization CFGD) 2-12
2.2.5.3 Other Boiler Emissions Controls (ESP) 2-13
2.2.5.4 Fugitive Dust 2-13
2.2.5.5 Auxiliary Boiler Emission Controls 2-14
2.2.6 Cooling System 2-14
2.2.6.1 Circulating Water System 2-14
2.2.6.2 Cooling System Intake and Slowdown Discharge 2-14
2'.2.7 Wastewater Treatment Systems 2-14
2.2.7.1 Pretreatment Facilities.. 2-16
2.2.7.2 Central Chemical Wastewater Treatment Facility 2-18
2.2.7.3 Sanitary Wastewater Treatment Facility 2-19
2.2.7.4 Construction Wastewater Treatment 2-19
2.2.7.5 Summary of Wastewater Treatment Facilities 2-19
2. 2.8 Solid Waste Handling and Disposal 2-23
2.2.9 Transmission Facilities 2-23
2.2.10 Resource- Requirements 2-23
2.3 ALTERNATIVE SITE ANALYSIS AND SELECTION 2-26
2.4 ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVE TRANSMISSION PLANS FOR THE PROPOSED
PROJECT 2-30
2.4.1 Corridor Identification and Evaluation Criteria 2-31
2.4.2 Alternative Corridor Identification 2-33
2.4.3 Corridor Evaluation and Selection 2-33
2.4.4 Transmission Line Structures 2-36
2.5 ALTERNATIVE PROCESSES AND FACILITIES FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT 2-36
2.5.1 Condenser Cooling Systems 2-37
2.5.1.1 Cooling Facilities 2-37
2.5.1.2 Cooling Water Sources 2-39
2.5.1.3 Cooling Water Discharge Alternatives 2-39
2.5.2 Air Pollution Control Systems 2-39
2.5.2.1 Particulate Control 2-41
2.5.2.2 Sulfur Dioxide Control 2-41'
2.5.2.3 Alternative Controls for Other Emissions 2-46
2.5.3 Water Systems Alternatives 2-47
2.5.3.1 FGD System " 2-47
2.5.3.2 Bottom Ash Handling 2-47
2.5.3.3 Other Water Uses 2-47
2.5.4 Wastewater Treatment Systems Alternatives 2-48
2.5.4.1 Plant Process and Chemical Wastewater 2-48
2.5.4.2 Sanitary Wastewater 2-48
2.5.4.3 Biocide Treatment of Recirculating Cooling Water 2-49
2.5.5 Solid Waste Management Alternatives 2-49
xiii
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (.CONTINUED)
2.5.5.1 Bottom Ash 2-50
2.5.5.2 Fly Ash 2~50
2.5.5.3 FGD Sludge 2-50
2.5.6 Coal Handling Systems Alternatives 2-51
2.5.7 Plant Orientation Alternatives 2-52
2.5.7.1 SJRPP Site Orientation 2-52
2.5.7.2 Coal Barge Unloading Facility 2-54
2.6 ALTERNATIVE MEANS OF SATISFYING THE NEED FOR THE PROJECT 2-54
2.6.1 Need for Analysis of Alternatives 2-54
2.6.2 Available Technologies for Oil Displacement 2-56
2.6.3 Development of Alternatives 2-59
2.6.3.1 Criteria for Alternatives Development 2-59
2.6.3.2 Alternative 1 2-60
2.6.3.3 Alternative 2 2-69
2.6.3.4 Alternative 3 2-76
2.6.3.5 Alternative 4 2-81
2.6.4 Economic Analysis of the Alternatives Including the Proposed
Proj ect 2-85
3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT.. 3-1
3.1 AIR RESOURCES 3-1
3.1.1 Climatological/Dispersion Characteristics 3-1
3.1.1.1 SJRPP/NGS 3-1
3.1.1.2 Sanf ord 3-2
3.1.2 Air Quality 3-2
3.1.2.1 SJRPP/NGS 3-1
3.1.2.2 Sanf ord 3-5
3.1.3 Existing Air Pollution Sources 3-6
3.1.4 Regulatory Framework 3-6
3.1.4.1 SJRPP 3-6
3.1.4.2 Other Alternatives 3-10
3. 2 SURFACE WATER RESOURCES 3-10
3.2.1 St. Johns River at Jacksonville 3-12
3.2.2 St. Johns River at Sanf ord 3-14
3.2.3 Local Tributaries and Site Hydrologic Characteristics
(SJRPP/NGS) 3-15
3.2.4 Surface Water Uses 3-15
3.2.4.1 Water Withdrawal 3-19
3.2.4.2 Water Discharges 3-19
3.3 GROUNDWATER RESOURCES 3-22
3.3.1 Regional Groundwater Systems 3-22
3.3.1.1 Groundwater Conditions at the SJRPP and NGS Sites 3-24
3.3.1.2 Groundwater Conditions at the Sanford Plant Site 3-25
3.3.2 Groundwater Use 3-25
3.3.2.1 Duval County and the SJRPP and NGS Sites 3-25
3.3.2.2 Volusia County and the Sanford Plant Site 3-26
xiv
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
3.3.3 Groundwater Quality 3-26
3.3.3.1 Groundwater Quality Standards .-.... 3-26
3.3.3.2 Duval County and the SJRPP/NGS Sites 3-28
3.3.3.3 Volusia County and the Sanford Site..... ,... 3-30
3.4 EARTH RESOURCES 3-30
3.4.1 Physiography and Topography 3-31
3.4.1.1 SJRPP and NGS Site 3-31
3.4.1.2 Sanford Site 3-31
3.4.2 Soils and Geotechnical Conditions 3-31
3.4.2.1 SJRPP and NGS Sites Surficial Deposits 3-31
3.4.2.2 SJRPP and NGS Sites Subsurface Soils 3-33
3.4.2.3 Sanford Plant Surficial Deposits 3-33
3.4.2.4 Sanford Site Subsurface Soils 3-33
3.4.2.5 Bedrock - SJRPP, NGS, and Sanford Sites 3-34
3.4.3 Regional Geology «.,.»" 3-34
3.4.4 Site Geology CSJRPP, NGS, and Sanford Sites) 3-34
3.4^5 Existing Solid and Hazardous Waste Generation and Disposal.... 3-34
3.4.5.1 SJRPP Site 3-34
3.4.5.2 NGS Site 3-36
3.4.5.3 Sanford Site 3-36
3.5 AQUATIC AND TERRESTRIAL ECOLOGY 3-36
3.5.1 SJRPP/NGS 3-36
3.5.1.1 Aquatic Ecology 3-36
3.5.1.2 Terrestrial Ecology 3-3.8"
3.5.2 Sanford Plant and Vicinity 3-48
3.5.2.1 Aquatic Communities 3-48
3.5.2.2 Terrestrial Communities 3-48
3.6 CULTURAL RESOURCES 3-49
3.6.1 SJRPP 3-4.9
3.6.2 NGS 3-52
3.6.3 Sanford Site 3-52
3.6.4 SHPO Comments - SJRPP 3-52
3.7 EXISTING SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS 3-55
3.7.1 Existing Social and Economic Conditions of the SJRPP/NGS
Proj ect Region 3-55
3.7.1.1 Population Levels 3-55
3.7.1.2 Economic Conditions 3-55
3.7.1.3 Community Services 3-61
3.7.2 Existing Social and Economic Conditions of the FP&L Sanford
Plant Project Region 3-62
3.7.2.1 Population Levels 3-62
3.7.2.2 Economic Conditions 3-63
3.7.2.3 Community Services 3-64
xv
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
3.8 LAND USES, RECREATIONAL RESOURCES, AND AESTHETIC CONDITIONS ... 3-66
3.8.1 SJRPP and NGS Project Area ,-... 3-66
3.8.1.1 Existing Land Cover 3-66
3.8.1.2 Existing Land Uses ^-^. '3-68
3.8.1.3 Projected Land Uses -• 3-68
3.8.1.4 Existing Zoning 3-70
3.8.1.5 Recreational Resources 3-70
3.8.1.6 Aesthetic Conditions r - 3-70
3.8.2 Sanford Plant and Vicinity 3-71
3.8.2.1 Existing Land Use Patterns in Volusia County 3-71
3.8.2.2 Projected Land Uses 3-71
3.8.2.3 Existing Zoning 3-72
3.8.2.4 Recreational Resources »•• 3-72
3.8.2.5 Aesthetic Conditions 3-73
3. 9 EXISTING TRANSPORTATION 3-73
3.9.1 Transportation Facilities Serving Jacksonville, Florida 3-73
3.9.2 Transportation Facilities Serving the Sanford Plant 3-75
3.10 SOUND QUALITY 3-75
3.10.1 SJRPP/NGS Ambient Sound Environment .... 3-77
3.10.2 Sanford Plant Ambient Sound Environment 3-77.
3.11 ENERGY RESOURCES 3-80
3.11.1 Florida 3-80
3.11.1.1 Traditional Energy Sources 3-80
3.11.1.2 Other Energy Sources 3-80
3.11.2 Peninsular Florida 3-81
3.11.2.1 FP&L 3-81
3.11.2.2 JEA 3-81
3.11.3 Natural Gas 3-82
3.11.4 Cogeneration 3-82
3.12 HUMAN HEALTH 3-82
3.12.1 Mortality and Morbidity 3-83
3.12.2 Lung Cancer in the Jacksonville Area 3-83
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE ALTERNATIVES 4-1
4.1 CRITERIA FOR EVALUATON OF IMPACTS ',',','. 4-1
4. 2 AIR QUALITY IMPACTS ',\[ 4.4
4.2.1 Construction-Related Impacts 4-4
4.2.2 Operation-Related Impacts 4-6
4.2.2.1 Operational Emissions of SJRPP 4-6
4.2.2.2 Emissions Resulting from Each Alternative 4-8
4.2.2.3 Operational Impacts of SJRPP 4-12
4.2.2.4 Air Quality Impacts of the Alternatives 4-18
4.2.3 Comparison of Impacts 4-26
4.2.4 Conclusions . 4-26
4.2.4.1 Jacksonville 4-26
4.2.4.2 Sanford 4-26
4.2.4.3 FP&L Except Sanford 4-26
4.2.4.4 JEA and FP&L Total 4-28
xvi
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (.CONTINUED)
Page
4.3 SURFACE WATER RESOURCES •. 4-28
4.3.1 Construction-Related Impacts ...... L
4.3.1.1 Proposed Project (SJRPP) 4~28
4.3.1.2 Construction-Related Impacts of the Alternatives 4-31
4.3.2 Operation-Related Impacts.T.- 4-32
4.3.2.1 No Action :., 4-32
4.3.2.2 Proposed Project (SJRPP) 4-32
4.3.2.3 Operation-Related Impacts of the Alternatives 4-41
4.3.2.4 Comparison of Impacts 4-43
4.4 GROUNDWATER IMPACTS 4-46
4.4.1 Construction-Related Impacts 4-46
4.4.1.1 Proposed Action (SJRPP) ' 4-46
4.4.1.2 Alternative 1 4-48
4.4.1.3 Alternative 2 4-48
4.4.1.4 Alternative 3 4-48
4.4;1.5 Alternative 4 4-49
4.4.1.6 Comparison of Impacts 4-49
4.4.2 Operation-Related Impacts 4~4^
4.4.2.1 Proposed Action (SJRPP) \ _._ 4~49
4.4.2.2 No Action Alternative 4~^
4.4.2.3 Alternative 1 4"55
4.4.2.4 Alternative 2 4~^
4.4.2.5 Alternative 3 4~56
4.4.2.6 Alternative 4 4~5^
4.4.2.7 Comparison of Operation-Related Impacts 4-56
4.5 EARTH RESOURCES '. A'5.7
4.5.1 Construction Impacts 4-57
4.5.1.1 Topography 4-57
4.5.1.2 Soils 4-57
4.5.1.3 Geology 4-57
4.5.2 Operation Related Impacts 4-57
4.5.3 Generation and Disposal of Solid Waste 4-57
-4.5.3.1 Construction-Related Impacts 4-57
4.5.3.2 Operation Impacts 4-58
4,6 IMPACTS ON SOUND QUALITY 4-63
4.6.1 Construction Impacts on Sound Quality 4-64
4.6.1.1 No Action 4-64
4.6.1.2 SJRPP 4-64
4.6.1.3 Alternative 1 4-64
4.6.1.4 Alternative 2... 4-67
4.6.1.5 Alternative 3 4-67
4.6.1.6 Alternative 4 4-67
4.6.2 Operational Impacts on Sound Quality 4-67
4.6.2.1 No Action 4-67
4.6.2.2 SJRPP. : ' 4-67
4.6.2.3 Alternative 1 4-69
4.6.2.4 Alternative 2 4-69
4.6.2.5 Alternative 3 4-69
4.6.2.6 Alternative 4 4- 9
4.6.3 Comparison of Impacts 4-69
xvii
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (.CONTINUED^
Page
4.7 AQUATIC AND TERRESTRIAL ECOLOGY 4-70
4.7.1 Construction Impacts 4-70
4.7.1.1 Proposed Project (SJRPP) 4-70
4.7.1.2 Construction-Related Impacts of the Alternatives 4-75
4.7.1.3 Comparison of Construction-Related Impacts... 4-76
4.7.2 Operation Impacts • 4-76
4.7.2.1 Proposed Project (SJRPP) 4-76
4.7.2.2 Operation-Related Impacts of the Alternatives. 4"83
4.7.2.3 Comparison of Impacts 4-84
4.8 IMPACTS ON CULTURAL RESOURCES 4-86
4.8.1 Construction-Related Impacts 4-86
4.8.1.1 SJRPP 4-86
4.8.1.2 No Action Alternative 4-89
4.8.1.3 Alternative 1 4-89
4.8.1.4 Alternative 2... 4-89
4.8.1.5 Alternative 3 4-89
4.8.1.6 Alternative 4 4-90
4.8.1.7 Comparative Analyses of Impacts due to Construction 4-90
4.8.2 Operation-Related Impacts 4-90
4. 9 SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACTS ._ 4-91
4.9.1 Population Impacts 4-91
4.9.1.1 Construction Impacts 4-91
4.9.1.2 Operation Impacts ^.-. . . '.... 4-94
4.9.2 Economic Impacts — .. 4-99
4.9.2.1 Construction Impacts • 4-99
4.9.2.2 Operation Impacts 4-103
4.9.3 Community Services 4-109
4.9.3.1 Construction Impacts , 4-109
4.9.3.2 Operation Impacts 4-112
4.10 IMPACTS ON LAND USE, RECREATION, AND AESTHETICS 4-114
4.10.1 Construction Impacts 4-114
4.10.1.1 No Action Alternative 4-114
4.10.1.2 SJRPP 4-114
4.10.1.3 Alternative 1 4-116
4.10.1.4 Alternative 2 4-117
4.10.1.5 Alternative 3 4-119
4.10.1.6 Alternative 4 4-120
4.10.1.7 Comparison of Impacts 4-120
4.10.2 Operation Impacts 4-121
4.10.2.1 No Action Alternative 4-121
4.10.2.2 SJRPP 4-121
4.10.2.3 Alternative 1 4-122
4.10.2.4 Alternative 2 4-122
4.10.2.5 Alternative 3 4-122
4.10.2.6 Alternative 4 4-122
4.10.2.7 Comparison of Impacts ; 4-122
4.11 IMPACTS ON TRANSPORTATION 4-123
4.11.1 Construction Impacts 4-123
4.11.1.1 No Action 4-123
4.11.1.2 SJRPP 4-123
4.11.1.3 Alternative 1 4-123
4.11.1.4 Alternative 2 4-125
4.11.1.5 Alternative 3 4-125
4.11.1.6 Alternative 4 4-125
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
4.11.2 Operation Impacts 4-125
4.11.2.1 No Action 4-125
4.11.2.2 SJRPP 4-125
4.11.2.3 Alternative 1 ; 4-125
4.11.2.4 Alternative 2 4-127
4.11.2.5 Alternative 3 4-127
4.11.2.6 Alternative 4 4-128
4.11.3 Comparison of Impacts 4-128
4.12 ENERGY IMPACTS 4-128
4.12.1 Construction Impacts 4-128
4.12.2 Operation Impacts 4-128
4.12.2.1 No Action 4-128
4.12.2.2 SJRPP 4-129
4.12.2.3 Alternative 1 4-129
4.12,2.4 Alternative 2 4-129
4.12.2.5 Alternative 3 4-130
4.12.2.6 Alternative 4 4-130
4.12.2.7 Summary of Operation-Related Impacts 4-130
4.13 HUMAN HEALTH IMPACTS 4-131
4.13.1 Proposed Project 4-131
4.13.1.1 Air Emissions .. 4-131
4.13.1.2 Wastewater Discharges. 4-136
4.13.1.3 Other Vectors.. 4-136
4.13.2 Impacts of Alternatives... 4-136
4.13.2.1 Air Emissions.. 4-137
4.13.2.2 Wastewater Discharges 4-137
4.13.2.3 Other Vectors 4-138
5.0 SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL ADVERSE IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT AND
APPLICABLE MITIGATIVE MEASURES 5-1
5.1 SUMMARY OF ADVERSE IMPACTS 5-1
5.1.1 Air Resources 5-1
5.1.2 Surface Water Resources 5-1
. 5.1.3 .Earth Resources and-.Groundwater 5-1
5.1.4 Aquatic and Terrestrial Ecology 5-2
5.1.5 Sound Quality 5-2
5.1.6 Cultural Resources .' 5-3
5.1.7 Socioeconomic Conditions 5-3
5.1.8 Land Use, Recreation, and Aesthetics 5-3
5.1.9 Transportation 5-3
5.1.10 Human Health Impacts 5-4
5.1.11 Energy Impacts 5-4
5.2 IDENTIFICATION AND EVALUATION OF AVAILABLE MITIGATIVE MEASURES 5-4
5.2.1 Mitigation of Construction-Related Impacts 5-4
5.2.1.1 Air Resources .. 5-4
5.2.1.2 Water Resources 5-5
5.2.1.3 Groundwater Resources 5-7
5.2.1.4 Biological Resources 5-7
5.2.1.5 Land Use and Socioeconomics 5-8
5.2.1.6 Cultural Resources 5-8
5.2.1.7 Noise and Transportation 5-8
5.2.2 Mitigation of Operation Related Impacts 5-9
5.2.2.1 Air Emissions 5-9
5.2.2.2 Surface Water Resources 5-10
5.2.2.3 Earth Resources ' 5-11
5.2.2.4 Human Health 5-12
xix
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS CCONCLITDET^
5.3 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS 5-12
5.3.1 Atmospheric Resources ,. 5-12
5.3.2 Land Resources 5-13
5.3.3 Water 5-13
5.3.4 Sensitive Areas 5'13
5.4 RELATIONSHIP OF SHORT-TERM USES OF MAN'S ENVIRONMENT AND
MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY 5-13
5.5 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES 5-14
6,0 SUMMARY OF EIS FINDINGS • • 6-1
6.1 SUMMARY OF ECONOMIC ANALYSIS 6-1
6.2 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS /• • 6-1
6.3 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT 6-2
6.4 RECOMMENDED COURSE OF ACTION ~ • 6-3
7 .0 LIST OF PREPARERS 7-1
7.1 US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY . 7-1
7 .2 FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION 7-1
7.3 WAPORA, INC - 7-2
7.4 ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS , INC 7-3
8.0 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND COORDINATION EFFORTS 8-1
8.1 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ". . 8-1
8.2 AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS, AND INDIVIDUALS INCLUDED IN THE
SAR/EIS REVIEW PROCESS 8-1
9.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY 9-1
APPENDIX - SAR/EIS
A PSD PRELIMINARY DETERMINATION
B NPDES PERMIT (DRAFT) (JJSEPA) INCLUDING PERMIT RATIONALE
C SECTION 10/404 PERMIT (DRAFT) (USCOE)
Not available at this time
D FDER CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION (DRAFT)
APPENDIX - TECHNICAL REFERENCE DOCUMENT
E FLORIDA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION FINAL ORDER
F FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF VETERAN AND COMMUNITY AFFAIRS, FINAL REPORT
G ST. JOHNS RIVER WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, FINAL REPORT
H FLORIDA GAME AND FRESH WATER FISH COMMISSION, FINAL REPORT
I REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL STATEMENT (None Provided)
J ST. JOHNS RIVER POWER PARK, SITE CERTIFICATION APPLICATION, ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT DOCUMENT (INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE)
K AIR RESOURCES
L SURFACE WATER RESOURCES
M GROUNDWATER RESOURCES
N EARTH RESOURCES/SOLID WASTE
0 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
P CULTURAL RESOURCES
Q SOCIOECONOMIC CONDITIONS
R LAND USE, RECREATION, AND AESTHETICS
S TRANSPORTATION
T SOUND QUALITY
U ENERGY
V HUMAN HEALTH
W SUMMARY OF SITE SELECTION PROCESS
AA SELECTION OF ALTERNATIVES TO THE ST. JOHNS RIVER POWER PARK
BB ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF ST. JOHNS RIVER POWER PARK ALTERNATIVES
CC ENGINEERING DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES TO THE ST. JOHNS RIVER POWER
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Number Page
2.2-1 Average monthly evaporation, blowdown, and blowdown
concentrations for both SJRPP units 2-15
2.2-2 Summary of SJRPP wastewater streams and their
anticipated control requirements 2-20
2.2-3 Summary of SJRPP contaminated runoff sources and
anticipated controls 2-21
2.2-4 Typical chemical characteristics of raw wastewater
streams from the SJRPP 2-22
2.2-5 Solid waste generation and disposal for the SJRPP 2-24
2.2-6 Major resource requirements of the SJRPP 2-26
2.4-1 Environmental assessment of alternative transmission
line corridors 2-35
2.5-1 Comparison of economic, engineering, and environmental
characteristics of alternative cooling systems for
the SJRPP ' 2-38
2.5-2 Environmental assessment of cooling water intake
alternatives for the SJRPP 2-40
2.5-3 Environmental assessment of cooling water discharge
alternatives for the SJRPP...'. 2-40
2.5-4 Comparison of particulate coritrol alternatives for
the SJRPP 2-42
2.5-5 Screening of sulfur dioxide emission control
technologies 2-44
2.5-6 Comparison of sulfur dioxide control alternatives for
the SJRPP , 2-45
t
2.6-1 Summary of technology screening process used to
identify alternatives to the proposed SJRPP project 2-58
2.6-2 Summary of power sources and oil displacement for
Alternative 1 2-62
2.6-3 Summary of land and water requirements, air emissions,
and wastewater and solid wante generation for refuse-
fired power plants and the COM conversion of NGS Units
1 and 3 2-65
xx i
-------
LIST OF TABLES (CONTINUED)
Number Page
2.6-4 Summary of power sources and oil displacement for
Alternative 2 2~70
2.6-5 Changes in land and water requirements, air emissions,
and wastewater and solid waste generation as a result
of converting Sanford Units 4 and 5 to burn coal 2-75
2.6-6 Summary of power sources and oil displacement for
Alternative 3 2~78
2.6-7 Summary of land and water requirements, air emissions,
wastewater and solid waste generation for a 280 MW
coal-fired power plant at the SJRPP site 2-80
2.6-8 Summary of power sources and oil displacement for
Alternative 4 . •>. 2-81
2.6-9 Land and water requirements, air emissions, and
wastewater and solid waste generation characteristics
of JEA's Northside Unit 3 after conversion to burn 2-86
coal c „
2.6-10 Summary comparison of the cost of the SJRPP and
alternatives in terms of $ per barrel of oil burned or
displaced 2-88
2.6-11 Cost in terms of $ per barrel of oil burned or displaced
for each of the technologies involved in Alternatives
1, 2, 3 and 4 2-90
2.6-12 Net increase in system capacity (HW) provided by the
proposed project and each alternative 2-91
3-1-1 Florida and National Ambient Air Quality Standards ... 3~8
3.1-2 Prevention of Significant Deterioration permitted
increments (allowed increase over baseline concen-
tration in ug/m3) 3-8
3.2-1 Florida water quality criteria for Class III pre-
dominantly marine and fresh waters 3-11
3.2-2 Water quality of the St. Johns River in the Blount
Island Channel (November 1979 - October 1980) 3-13
3.2-3 Storage and retrieval (STORET) summary for the St.
Johns River near Sanford at US Highway 17/92 (1968-1981). 3_16
xxii
-------
LIST OF TABLES (CONTINUED)
Number
3.2-4 Freshwater use and projections for the Lower St. Johns
River Basin-, 1975-2020 3-20
3.3-1 State and Federal groundwater quality criteria 3-29
3.3-2 Summary of Floridan Aquifer water quality data in the
vicinity of . the S JRPP site 3-28
3.4-1 Stratigraphy of the Cenozoic formations of Florida 3-35
3.5-1 Summary of major characteristics of each of the nine
plant communities on the SJRPP site 3-40
3.5-2 Characteristics of wildlife and wildlife habitats
observed on the proposed SJRPP site 3-44
3.5-3 Commercially or recreationally valuable species observed
on the SJRPP site 3-45
3.5-4 Rare, threatened, and endangered species which occur or
could potentially occur in the vicinity of the NGS and
SJRPP sites 3-46
3.5-5 Rare, threatened, and endangered species which could
potentially occur in the vicinity of the Sanford site 3-50
3.6-1 Archaeological site data summary for the SJRPP site 3-54
3.7-1 Population estimates and projections for the SJRPP/NGS
project region, 1970-2000. 3-57
3.7-2 Estimated and projected civilian labor force for the
SJRPP/NGS project region by place of residence, 1970-2000. 3-59
3.7-3 Regional, State, and national unemployment trends,
1973-1979 3~60
3.7-4 Jacksonville SMSA, State and national average weekly
earnings, 1970 and 1979 3~58
3.7-5 Population of communities near the FP&L Sanford Plant,
1970-1980 3~63
3.7-6 Population of the FP&L Sanford Plant project region,
1970-1980 3-64
xxiii
-------
LIST OF TABLES (.CONTINUED)
Number Page
3.8-1 Existing land use acreage - Northeast Florida region 3-67
3.8-2 Existing land use acreage within a 5-mile radius of the
SJRPP site 3-69
3.8-3 Existing recreational lands in Volusia County, 1977 (in
acres) 3-72
3.9-1 1980 average daily traffic by hour and maximum level of
service C volumes on roads providing access to the
proposed SJRPP site 3-76
3.10-1 Comparison of winter and summer equivalent (Leq) and
day/night (L
-------
LIST OF TABLES (CONTINUED)
Number Page
4.2-10 Alternative 1 oil displaced emissions for the JEA-
and FP&L systems (.tons/year) ........................ 4~21
4.2-11 Alternative 1 net emissions by area (tons/year) ..... 4-21
4.2-12 Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 FP&L oil displaced
emissions ........................................... 4-22
4.2-13 Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 oil displaced emissions
for JEA, Sanf ord, and FP&L (.tons /year) .............. 4-23
4.2-14 Alternative 2 net emissions by area (tons/year) ..... 4-23
4.2-15 Alternative 3 net emissions by area (.tons /year) ..... 4-24
4.2-16 Alternative 4 net emissions by area (.tons/year) ..... 4-25
4.2-17 Net air emissions (tons/year) by area for the
proposed pro j ect (SJBPP) and alternatives ........... 4-27
4.3-1 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency standards of
performance on new sources: ma-g-Tumm allowable
discharge concentrations by water source
(milligrams per liter) ............................ -. 4-34
4.3-2 Chemical characteristics of the SJRPP effluent for
parameters of concern ............................... 4-36
4.3-3 Assumed chemical characteristics of FGD blowdown raw
wastewater and FGD sludge leachate .................. 4-39
4.3-4 Coal pile runoff quality and estimated loadings on
the wastewater treatment system, on the percolation
pond, and on the St. Johns River .................... 4-40
4.3-5 Net change from existing conditions of annual pol-
lutant loadings to the surface waters of
Jacksonville, Sanf ord, and peninsular Florida for
the proposed project and alternatives ............... 4-45
4.4-1 Construction dewatering and treatment pond
requirements of the proposed project and the
alternatives ........................................ 4-47
4.4-2 Comparison of the net change in operational ground-
water requirements (.in gpm) of the proposed action
and the alternatives ................................ 4-40
xxv
-------
LIST OF TABLES (.CONTINUED)
Number
4.5-1 Net change in high volume solid waste generation for
the proposed project and alternatives ................... ... 4-60.
4.5-2 Comparative impact analysis of high volume solid waste
production ................................................. 4-63
4.6-1 Projected operational noise levels at the nearest
residence due to major components of 2-600 MW coal-
fired units ................................................ 4~68
4.7-1 Areal summary of vegetation community types affected by
development of the proposed plant site ....................
4.7-2 Comparison of predicted aluminum, iron, copper, cyanide,
mercury, and silver concentrations in the Blount Island
Channel during proposed plant operation to toxicity levels
reported for significant indigenous species of the Blount
Island Channel ......................................... ...
4.7-3 Indicator species and sensitivities used in computing acute
and chronic toxicity concentrations for cyanide, iron,
silver, copper, aluminum, and mercury ....................... 4-78
4.9-1 Construction phase impacts of SJRPP and the alternatives
to community populations .................................... 4-95
4.9-2 Population impacts for the operation of SJRPP and the
various alternatives ........................................ 4-98
4.9-3 Construction phase payroll income from SJRPP and the various
alternatives ......................... , ...................... 4-102
4-9-4 Economic impacts associated with the operation phase of
SJRPP and the various alternatives .......................... 4-107
4.10-1 Land requirements for refuse-powered facilities proposed in
Alternative 1 (in acres) .................................... 4-116
4.10-2 Comparative analysis of construction impacts on land
use, recreation, and aesthetics ..................... 4-118
4.11-1 Existing and projected (1985) average daily and peak
hour traffic volumes in the proposed site vicinity. . 4-124
4.11-2 Existing and projected (1985) peak hour traffic
volumes for construction of the four alternatives
in Study Area 1 ..................................... 4-124
xxv i
-------
LIST OF TABLES (CONCLUDED.)
Number Page
4.11-3 Existing and projected (1985) peak hour traffic
volumes for the alternatives affecting Study
Area 2 (the Sanford Plant) 4-126
4.12-1 Oil displacement and electrical generation capacity
additions to the JEA and FP&L systems for the
proposed project and each alternative 4-131
4.13-1 Worst case analysis of trace element emissions and
potential for adverse health effects due to SJRPP... 4-134
4.13-2 Comparison of ambient atmospheric trace pollutant
concentrations for three areas in the vicinity of
Jacksonville, Florida and human health threshold
criteria in ug/m^ 4-135
xxv ii
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Number
1 A 1
1 A_?
2.2-1
2.2-2
2 2-1}
2.2-4
2.2-5
2.2-6
2.2-7
2.2-8
2.2-9
2.3-1
2.3-2
2.4-1
2.4-2
2.5-1
2.5-2
2.6-1
Location of the SJRPP, Northside Generating Station
General layout of the proposed SJRPP. and associated
Approximate mean high water line adjacent to the proposed
S JRPP site
Surveyed mean high water (MHW) line at proposed coal
Typical r-oal— fired gf-pam f»le>f1-rlc plant prnregg design.,,..
Water and wastewater balance for SJRPP at full load
Preferred transmission line corridors of the SJRPP
An overview of the Jacksonville Electric Authority St.
Johns River Power Park site selection process
Map of study area showing location of six final preferred
sites selected in phase 2 of the JEA site selection process.
JEA's existing transmission system
Sensitive areas and alternative transmission corridors for
the SJRPP
Alternative plant locations at the SJRPP
Alternate coal unloading facility locations
Time required for implementation of various energy
technologies
Page
1-4
1-5
2-4
2-5
2-7
2-8
2-9
2-10
21 -i
— J.-L
21 7
J./
21 Q
— £.J
-27
2-28
20 f\
—$2.
2-34
2-53
2C c
-55
2-57
XXVlll
-------
LIST OF FIGURES .(CONTINUED)
Number Page
2.6-2 Geographic location of major components of Alternative 1.... 2-61
2.6-3 Existing Northside Generating Station site plan 2-66
2.6-4 Potential Northside Generating Station site plan with
COM conversion 2-68
2.6-5 Geographic location of major components of Alternative 2.... 2-71
2.6-6 Existing Sanford Plant site plan 2-72
2.6-7 Potential Sanford Plant site plan with coal conversion.*..... 2-73
2.6-8 Geographic location of major components of Alternative 3.... 2-77
2.6-9 Potential layout for small, 280 MW coal-fired power plant
• at the SJRPP site 2^79
2.6-10 Geographic location of major components of Alternative 4.... 2-82
2.6-11 Potential Northside Unit 3 site plan for coal conversion.... 2-84
3.1-1 Volume-weighted mean pH of precipitation throughout
Florida for the period May 1978 through April 1979 3-4
3.1-2 Locations of major emission sources and monitoring sites
in the Jacksonville area 3*7
3.2-1 Water quality and PCB sampling locations for waterbodies
in the SJRPP site area 3-18
3.2-2 Water resources in the vicinity of FP&L's Sanford Plant... 3-23
3.3-1 Potentiometric surface map of the Floridan Aquifer near
Jacksonville, May 1979 3-27
3.4-1 Physiographic divisions of Florida 3-32
3.5-1 Vegetation community types on the SJRPP site 3-39
3.5-2 Location of facility components on Blount Island in 3-41
relation to vegetation community types
3.5-3 Wetlands and other sensitive areas along the proposed
transmission line ROW 3-43
3.6-1 Archaeological site location map at the SJRPP site 3-53
3.6-2 Archaeological site location map at SJRPP with notations
by Florida SHPO 3-56
XXIX
-------
LIST OF FIGURES (CONCLUDED)
Number Page
3.9-1 Airports, roadways, and railroads serving the Jacksonville
area and the SJRPP site.
3-74
3.10-1 Locations of monitoring stations for the Study Area 1
noise survey ................................................ 3-79
4.4-1 Cone of depression around SJRPP for two wells discharging
3 , 600 gpm (average pumping condition) ....................... 4-52
4.4-2 Cone of depression around SJEPP .three wells discharging
5 , 400 gpm (ma-rimnm expected rate) ........................... 4-53
4.6-1 Projected construction noise levels by construction period
at one mile from . the proposed SJRPP ......................... 4-65
4.6-2 Noise survey monitoring locations in Study Area 1 ........... 4-66
4.8-1 Archaeological site location map, SJRPP ..................... 4-87
4.8-2 Location of archaeological resources which would be
adversely impacted by construction of the SJRPP ............. 4-88
XXX
-------
LIST OF ACRONYMS
BACT Best Available Control Technology
bbl Barrels
BOD Biochemical Oxygen Demand
Btu British thermal unit
CAA Clean Air Act
CAAA Clean Air Act Amendments
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
cfs Cubic feet per second
CO Carbon Monoxide
COM Coal-Oil Mixture
CWA Clean Water Act
DVCA Department of Veteran and Community Affairs
ECFRPC East Central Florida Regional Planning Commission
EID Environmental Information Document
EIS Environmental Impact Statement
ESP Electrostatic Precipitator
FAA Federal Aviation Administration
FAAQS Florida Ambient Air Quality Standards
FDAHRM Florida Division of Archives, History and Records Management
FDER Florida Department of Environmental Regulation
FECL Florida East Coast Line
FEECA Florida Energy Efficiency and Conservation Act
FGD Flue Gas Desulfurization
FPC Florida Power Corporation
FP&L Florida Power & Light
FPSC Florida Public Service Commission
g Grams
GU Government Use
gpm Gallons per minute
EC Hydrocarbons
HC1 Hydrochloric acid
IH Heavy Industrial
IW Industrial Waterfront
xxxi'
-------
TSP Total suspended particulates
UEC United Engineers and Contractors
ug Microgram
ug/m Micrograms per cubic meter
USCOE US Corps of Engineers
USEPA US Environmental Protection Agency
xxxii
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The Jacksonville Electric Authority (JEA) and Florida Power and Light
Company (FP&L) propose to jointly construct and operate a New Source 1,200
megawatt (MW) coal-fired steam electric generating station known as the
St. Johns River Power Park (SJRPP) on a 1,656-acre site in northern Duval
County, Florida. JEA (as the lead applicant) and FP&L have applied to the US
Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), the Florida Department of Environ-
mental Regulation (FDER), and other Federal agencies for the permits necessary
to construct and operate the proposed facility.
This document constitutes both the FDER State Analysis Report and the
USEPA Environmental Impact Statement (SAR/EIS) prepared jointly by USEPA and
the FDER for the proposed project. This chapter provides an introduction to
the project including: (1) a summary of USEPA's and FDER's responsibilities
for the SAR/EIS; (2) a discussion of other Federal requirements relevant to
the proposed project; (3) a summary of the coordination conducted between the
USEPA and FDER during preparation of the SAR/EIS; (4) a description of the
background and need for the proposed project; and (5) a summary of issues to
be addressed in the SAR/EIS.
1.1 USEPA's AND FDER's RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE SAR/EIS
1.1.1 USEPA's Reponsibility for the BIS
Under Section 511(c) of the Clean Water Act, USEPA must comply with the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) prior to issuance of a New Source
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. NEPA requires
Federal agencies to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on every
major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environ-
ment. In this particular case, USEPA has determined that the new 1,200 MW
coal-fired electric generating station proposed by JEA and FP&L has the poten-
tial for significant impact on the human environment and that an EIS must be
prepared.
1.1.2 FDER's Responsibility for the SAR
Under provisions of the Florida Power Plant Siting Act (Chapter 403.501,
Florida Statutes), FDER must prepare a State Analysis Report (SAR) upon which
the State's decision to license any new power plant project will be made. The
purpose of the power plant siting program is to provide an efficient, compre-
hensive, coordinated, one-stop permitting approach to the State evaluation of
electric power plant location and operation. In accordance with the Act, no
construction or expansion of a new electrical power plant may be initiated
without certification by the State. Following submittal of FDER's SAR and
recommendations regarding State certification, the final certification for all
activities requiring State permits must be issued by the Governor and his
Cabinet.
1.1.3 Memorandum of Understanding for Preparation of a Joint SAR/EIS Document
Until recently, USEPA and FDER had published separate reports to meet
their responsibilities under NEPA and the Florida Power Plant Siting Act.
1-1
-------
However, under the Memorandum of Understanding executed between USEPA and FDER
on 1 October 1980, it was agreed that a single document would be produced to
serve both as the SAR and EIS and that the two agencies would take steps to
minimize duplication of effort and maximize coordination of effort in the
licensing of new power plants in Florida. This joint document will meet the
responsibilities of both agencies and will be known as the St. Johns River
Power Park State Analysis Report/Environmental Impact Statement.
The objectives of the joint SAR/EIS are as follows:
• to describe the need for the new generating station as determined by
the Florida Public Service Commission (FPSC);
• to develop and evaluate all reasonable alternatives to the project;
• to fully describe the selected project and its resulting impacts;
and
• to investigate and describe measures that could be taken to elim-
inate or minimize identified adverse impacts.
1.2 OTHER FEDERAL REQUIREMENTS
Several other Federal requirements must also be met for the complete
licensing of the proposed SJRPP. These include Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD) permitting under the Clean Air Act; a Section 10 dredging
permit under the Rivers and Harbors Act; a Section 404 dredge and fill dis-
charge permit under the Clean Water Act; compliance with the Endangered Species
Act of 1973 (as amended); compliance with the National Historic Preservation
Act and Executive Order No. 11593; compliance with Executive Order No. 11990
for protection of wetlands and Executive Order No. 11988 concerning develop-
ment in flood prone areas; and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) approval
for emission stack heights under FAA regulations.
1.3 COORDINATION BETWEEN USEPA AND FDER
Extensive coordination between the USEPA and FDER occurred during the
preparation of this SAR/EIS. This coordination consisted primarily of several
preliminary planning sessions and formal meetings between USEPA, its consul-
tants, and FDER.' USEPA and FDER jointly sponsored the public scoping meeting
in Jacksonville on 9 April 1981 in order to obtain input on key issues for
determining the scope of the project. Both agencies will also conduct a joint
public hearing on the SAR/EIS. Additional coordination was conducted via
exchange of technical information concerning the proposed project. In general,
FDER took the responsibility of evaluating the environmental impacts of the
proposed project while USEPA was responsible for defining and evaluating the
alternatives to the proposed project and preparing the SAR/EIS. Through
mutual review of each output, FDER and USEPA satisfied the goals of the Memo-
randum of Understanding by complying with each agency's responsibilities for
permitting while avoiding duplication of effort.
1-2
-------
1.4 BACKGROUND OF THE PROJECT
This section provides an overview of the proposed St. Johns River Power
Park. Included are an identification of the applicants and a history of the
project.
1.4.1 Identification of the Applicants
The proposed project is a joint effort of the Jacksonville Electric
Authority (JEA) and Florida Power and Light Company (FP&L) although JEA is the
lead applicant for the necessary permits.
1.4.1.1 The Jacksonville Electric Authority (JEA)
The JEA is a municipally owned electric utility serving a portion of
northeast Florida (Figure 1.4-1). The JEA service area includes Duval County
and portions of St. Johns and Clay Counties, serving approximately 228,492
customers as of 31 December 1980 (JEA/FP&L 1981a). The utility currently
operates three generating facilities consisting of 11 fossil steam units and 9
gas turbines (JEA/FP&L 1981a). Power is distributed over 447 miles of over-
head and 43 miles of underground cable. The JEA is connected to other Florida
utilities through two 230 kV and one 115 kV lines.
1.4.1.2 Florida Power and Light Company (FP&L)
FP&L is an investor owned utility serving the southern and eastern por-
tions of peninsular Florida (Figure 1.4-2). The FP&L service area encompasses
a total of 2,247,688 customers in 35 counties as of 31 December 1980 (JEA/FP&L
1981a) . FP&L currently operates 12 generating plants distributed geograph-
ically around its service area. These generating facilities include 3 nuclear
steam units, 26 fossil steam units, 48 gas turbines, 2 diesel installations,
and 2 combined cycle units.
The FP&L bulk transmission system is composed of 316 miles of 500 kV and
1,950 miles of 240 kV lines. The underlying network is composed of 1,377
miles of 138 kV, 602 miles of 115 kV, and 311 miles of 69 kV transmission
lines. FP&L is also interconnected to other Florida utilities through eight
240 kV, five 138 kV, and three 115 kV ties.
1.4.2 History of the Project
The proposed project was developed as a result of a series of extensive
studies conducted by JEA since 1977 including long range generation project
planning and site selection. This section summarizes the historical events
which led to the decision by JEA to construct the SJRPP.
1.4.2.1 Project Planning
The proposed project originated initially as a result of JEA's energy
demand forecasts published in 1977 which indicated a need for additional power
generating capacity (JEA 1977). USEPA first became aware of the JEA's inten-
tion to construct a new power plant in 1976. Subsequent estimates prepared by
JEA have shown a need for additional power in the late 1980's based on a
projected decrease in the reliability of JEA's existing system (JEA/FP&L
1-3
-------
N E. Florida
Scale
1:760320
Figure 1.4-1. Jacksonville Electric Authority service area
(JEA/FP&L 1981a).
1-4
-------
GEORGIA
SUBSTATION AND
TRANSMISSION SYSTEM
Of
FLORIDA POWER A LIGHT CO.
T t T " » •* •»
Figure 1.4-2. Florida Power & Light Company service area
(JEA/FP&L 1981a).
1-5
-------
1981a). However, current estimates by the Florida Public Service Commission
(FPSC) based on achieving the goals of the Florida Energy Efficiency and
Conservation Act (FEECA) indicate that JEA and FP&L will not require addi-
tional generating capacity for reliability purposes until 1991 and 1989,
respectively (FPSC 1981).
In addition to planning for its future power generation needs, however,
JEA has been seeking means to meet the near term economic need to displace oil
as their primary boiler fuel and to reduce costs to the utility and its cus-
tomers. JEA has been a 100% oil-fired utility for some time and has experi-
enced extremely high rates through the recent period of rapidly escalating oil
prices. A goal of JEA's early studies was to seek a means of diversifying its
fuel mix. The choice of fuels was subject to the constraints of transporta-
tion, anticipated price, and availability over the life of the project. JEA
has determined that coal met these constraints as it was much less expensive
than oil, available in large quantities and from many sources, and deliverable
by many modes of transportation. There are also a number of proven, reliable
system designs for coal-fired power generation which could be brought on-line
by the time the power was needed. Thus, coal was selected as the preferred
fuel in the early stages of planning and the search for an appropriate plant
site was initiated.
1.4.2.2 Site Selection
A detailed analysis of the site selection process is presented in
Section 2.3 and in Appendix W. Following a three year study which began in
1977, the JEA Board selected a site for the new power plant referred to as the
Eastport Site in northern Duval County at their meeting on 5 February 1980.
Although this site had not been rated as one of the top preferred sites during
the earliest stages of the site selection process, it was selected for economic
reasons and because of the unavailability and/or political opposition faced by
JEA in the selection of more environmentally suitable sites in Clay County.
Prior to the selection of the Eastport Site for construction of the new
power plant, JEA authorized their engineering consultants to conduct the
necessary studies and prepare the necessary documents to apply for licensing
of the plant. The consultants studied the three final candidate sites from
August 1979 until February 1980 when the final selection of the Eastport Site
was made. From that point on, JEA restricted its investigation to the East-
port Site.
1.4.2.3 Permit Applications
On 18 February 1981, JEA and FP&L concurrently submitted an NPDES permit
application to USEPA and a Site Certification Application to FDER for the
proposed SJRPP at the Eastport Site. In response to these applications, USEPA
began cooperative efforts with FDER to prepare the SAR/EIS in order to satisfy
the legal responsibilities of both agencies for licensing of New Source power
plants. A joint public scoping meeting was held in Jacksonville on 9 April
1981 to solicit public input to the scoping of the SAR/EIS and publication of
the report was scheduled for October 1981.
1-6
-------
1.5 NEED FOR THE PROJECT
In the case of a new power plant in Florida, the determination of need
for the project is a natter for resolution by the Florida Public Service
Commission (FPSC). According to Chapter 80-65 of the Florida Statutes, a
formal Determination of Need must be made by the FPSC prior to ce-rtif ication
of a proposed power plant subject to the Power Plant Siting Act. This deter-
mination serves as the report required of the FPSC as part of the State Power
Plant Site Certification proceedings.
The FPSC received a joint petition from JEA and FP&L for the determina-
tion of need for their proposed 1,100 MW net coal-fired SJRPP Units 1 and 2
and associated transmission facilities on 4 February 1981. Briefly stated,
JEA and FP&L applied.to FPSC for two reasons: (1) the need for additional
capacity to provide reliable electric service to their customers; and (2) the
reduction of electric rates through the displacement of oil-fired generation
by the SJRPP.
This two-fold consideration of the need for the proposed action is reflec-
ted in the approach of the FPSC in analyzing this case. In the FPSC's Order
Number 10108 on Docket Number 810045-EU dated 26 June 1981 (Appendix E) which
is the final determination of need for the proposed units, the FPSC states
(FPSC 1981b):
"We construe the 'need for power' issue to encompass
several aspects of need. In our evaluation of the need
for SJRPP Units 1 and 2 and related facilities, we have
considered the principal areas of the electrical need for
additional capacity to insure an adequate supply of bulk
electrical power and energy to electric consumers and the
economic need of providing this bulk power and energy at
the lowest possible cost. In addition, the socio-economic
need of reducing the consumption of imported oil in the
State of Florida has been considered. Each of these
aspects of need for SJRPP 1 and 2 was evaluated with
respect to the electrical consumers of JEA, FPL, and
peninsular Florida as a whole."
1.5.1 Need For Additional Generating Capacity
As noted in the FPSC's order, it is the responsibility of the utilities
to provide reliable power at the lowest possible cost. Further, pursuant to
FEECA, Section 366.82 F.S., enacted by the 1980 Legislature, the FPSC has
established conservation goals for the electric utilities of Florida. Should
these goals be achieved, the average annual compound rate of peninsular Florida
energy consumption growth during the period of 1980 through 1989 would be
reduced to 2.9% (FPSC 1981a). The rate of peninsular summer and winter firm
peak load growth during this period would be limited to 2.7% and 2.8%, respec-
tively. Also, by 1990 the consumption of oil as a boiler fuel in Florida
would be reduced to a level 25% less than that estimated to be consumed in
1980 pursuant to the State of Florida, 1980 Ten Year Plan.
1-7
-------
1.5.1.1 JEA
To determine the level of generating reserve margins adequate for its
system, JEA employs the probabilistic technique of Loss of Load Hours (LOLH).
LOLH quantifies a design index which takes into consideration the uncertain-
ties under which a generation expansion plan must be made. JEA has determined
an LOLH index of 120 hours per year exclusive of any assistance from tie lines
to be adequate for its system. This index approximates reserves In the amount
of the largest unit on the JEA system, the 499 net MW Northside Unit 3.
The proposed SJRPP Units 1 and 2 are tentatively scheduled to be placed
in service in December 1985 and June 1987, respectively. JEA and FP&L will
jointly own each of the two 550 net MW coal-fired generating units. Assuming
that the FEECA goals will be met, the FPSC determined that the JEA would not
require additional generating capacity for reliability purposes until 1991
(FPSC 1981b).
1.5.1.2 FP&L
To determine the level of generating reserves adequate for its system,
FP&L employs the probabilistic technique of Loss of Load Probability (LOLP)
and consideration of percent reserve margins (FPSC 1981a). Based on its
analyses, FP&L believes that reserve margins in the order of 20 to 25% are
adequate for their system. Assuming that the FEECA Goals for FP&L are achieved,
the reserve margins for the FP&L system without the proposed SJRPP Units 1 and
2 and other noncertified generating units were determined by the FPSC to be
adequate until 1989 (FPSC 1981b) .
1.5.1.3 Peninsular Florida
In terms of electricity generation, Florida is divided into two distinct
areas: peninsular Florida east of the Appalachicola River; and the Gulf power
system serving portions of the Panhandle. The FPSC reviews the power genera-
tion needs of peninsular Florida as a whole due to the degree of interconnec-
tion among the utilities serving the area. A Loss of Load Probability (LOLP)
is used to estimate the adequacy of reserve margins for peninsular Florida.
The FPSC has determined that peninsular generating reserves on the order of
25% are adequate for planning purposes. Reserve margins below 20% are of
concern since maintenance, forced outages, and load forecast errors can easily
deplete this margin. The anticipated reserve margin for peninsular Florida,
assuming the FEECA KW conservation goals are achieved and excluding the pro-
posed SJRPP Units 1 and 2, were estimated by the FPSC to be adequate for
planning purposes until 1991. Hence, should the FEECA KW conservation goals
be achieved, it appears that the SJRPP Units 1 and 2 in the time frame pro-
posed are not needed from a peninsular reliability standpoint (FPSC 1981b).
1.5.2 Economic Displacement of Oil-Fired Power
1.5.2.1 JEA
At present, all of JEA's generating capacity is comprised of oil-fired
units. The only non-oil-fired capacity presently available is JEA's purchase
of coal-fired power from Georgia Power Company. The cost of its heavy reliance
on oil-fired power is reflected in JEA's rates, some of the highest in the
1-8
-------
country. In the absence of a need for additional capacity, the JEA could use
its share of the power from SJRPP Units 1 and 2 to displace expensive oil-
fired power at a substantial savings. Given the estimated relationship be-
tween the costs of coal and oil over the life of the project, the FPSC estim-
ated that JEA could save $95,985,000 in 1986 and $804,027,000 in 2000 (FPSC
1981b).
1.5.2.2. FP&L
At present, FP&L is a more diversified utility than is JEA, but nonethe-
less still relies on oil-fired generation for 56.4% of its net energy produc-
tion. Although FP&L has a need for additional generating capacity sooner than
does JEA, substantial economic savings may still be realized by displacing
oil-fired power on the system as soon as possible. Using the same assumptions
as applied to JEA, the FPSC estimated that FP&L could save $29,604,000 in 1986
and $654,262,000 in 2000 (FPSC 1981b).
1.5.2.3 Peninsular Florida
According to estimates by the FPSC, a total of approximately $10 billion
could be saved in peninsular Florida as a whole by displacing the amount of
oil which could be displaced by the proposed project (FPSC 1981b).
1.5.3 Conclusion
A need for oil displacement, has been clearly established within the two
utility systems and peninsular Florida. The finding of the FPSC with respect
to the need for power from SJRPP Units 1 and 2 was that JEA and FP&L would
require the additional capacity in 1991 and 1989, respectively, rather than at
the time proposed by the utilities (1985 for Unit 1 and 1987 for Unit 2).
Also, it was determined that the additional capacity would not be needed from
a peninsular reliability standpoint until 1991 (FPSC 1981b). However, the
FPSC did conclude that the SJRPP could be justified if it were shown to be an
economical method of displacing oil-fired generating capacity and issued the
following statement (FPSC 1981b):
"Should the the Commission's FEECA goals governing the
growth of seasonal kilowatt demand be achieved, additional
generating capacity for the purpose of insuring adequate
supplies of power and energy to peninsular Florida elec-
tric consumers does not appear to be required until 1991.
Similarly, JEA and FP&L do not appear to require addi-
tional generating capacity for reliability purposes until
1991 and 1989 respectively, should they achieve their
respective FEECA seasonal kilowatt demand goals. Thus,
the salient issue in the determination of the need for
SJRPP Units 1 and 2 with in-service dates of December 1985
and May 1987, respectively, is whether the construction of
these units in the time frames proposed represents the
lowest cost alternative available to the continued use of
expensive oil-fired generation in peninsular Florida, and
in the areas served by JEA and FPL."
1-9
-------
During the proceedings on the determination of need for the SJRPP, the
FPSC examined a variety of alternative means of displacing oil-fired gene-
rating capacity including the proposed project (SJRPP); additional purchase of
non oil-fired power from outside of Florida; conversion of existing oil-fired
units to burn coal, coal-water mixtures, or coal-oil mixtures (COM); purchase
of a portion of Georgia Power's Plant Vogtle nuclear units; and additional
conservation. The FPSC certified the need for the project based on the fol-
lowing determination (FPSC 1981b):
"Having considered the record in this matter, we find that
a need exists for the construction of St. Johns River
Power Park Units 1 and 2 in the time frame proposed by the
applicants, in that construction of the units appears to
be the best available alternative to the continued use of
expensive oil-fired generation, based upon the most reason-
able projections of future fuel cost and our appraisal of
possible alternatives."
Having found that a need exists to displace oil-fired power generation in the
proposed time frame-of the SJRPP Units 1 and 2, the FPSC also found that the
proposed SJRPP appeared to be the best available alternative.
USEPA is required to examine all reasonable alternatives to a proposed
action in an EIS. Based on this requirement, USEPA proceeded with its eval-
uation of alternatives utilizing relevant information from the FPSC and issues
identified during the EIS scoping process.
1.6 ISSUES TO BE ADDRESSED IN THE SAR/EIS
Several key issues concerning the proposed project were identified
through internal agency review by USEPA and FDER and as a result of the public
scoping meeting held in Jacksonville on 9 April 1981. The following is a
summary of these issues:
• The environmental impacts of alternative electrical energy sources
available to JEA and FP&L which could help reduce consumer costs
as well as the utilities' dependence on foreign oil;
• The significance of current air pollution conditions in the Jackson-
ville area and the effect of the proposed project and the available
alternatives on public health and the nearby Class I Okefenokee
Swamp;
• The alternatives for algal suppression within the cooling system of
the proposed project; potential interaction of the proposed plant
with existing Northside Units and resulting chlorine residuals;
• Compliance of the proposed project with water quality standards
especially with respect to estuarine species' tolerance to specific
parameters projected by the JEA to exceed those standards;
1-10
-------
• Potential impacts of the proposed project due to malfunctioning of
the flue gas desulfurization system and electrostatic precipitaters,
results of complete or partial malfunction of these pollution con-
trol devices, and resulting emission excursions on the air quality
of the Jacksonville area;
• Contribution of power plant emissions to sulfate formation and low
pH rainfall; potential impacts of the proposed project combined with
existing plants and those under construction on sulfate formation
and low pH rainfall;
• Potential impacts of groundwater withdrawal during construction and
operation phases; specifically, the effects on groundwater resources
from plant construction and the operation of the FGD (flue gas
desulfurization) system.
• Potential effects of salt drift from natural draft cooling towers on
surrounding vegetation and farms;
• Potential effects of dredging and filling associated with installa-
tion of transmission lines and coal unloading facilities;
• Potential effects of leachates from coal piles on Blount Island on
aquatic life in the St. Johns River;
• Potential effects on groundwater quality due to leachate from fly
ash and FGD sludge ponds on the site;
• Potential impacts of construction activities and landfill operations
on sensitive wetlands located on the site area and in the surround-
ing area; and
• Potential socioeconomic impacts of the project including local econ-
omy, secondary growth, housing availability, community services, and
land-use patterns.
Analysis of these issues will be the central focus of the SAR/EIS.
1-11
-------
2.0 ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE PROPOSED PROJECT
2.1 REGULATORY ALTERNATIVES
In order for JEA and FP&L to construct and operate a new electric gen-
erating station, the companies must comply with a number of local, State, and
Federal laws, regulations, and ordinances. The agencies primarily involved in
permitting activities are the US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and
the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation (FDER). The other major
permitting agency is the US Army Corps of Engineers (USCOE). The permitting
alternatives available to these agencies are outlined in the following sec-
tions.
2.1.1 Alternatives Available to USEPA
The alternatives available to USEPA in accordance with its regulatory and
permitting authority pursuant to Section 402 of the Clean Water Act are to
issue or to deny the New Source National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) Permit requested by JEA and FP&L for the SJRPP discharge into
the St. Johns River. USEPA also must decide whether to issue or deny a Preven-
tion of Significant Deterioration (PSD)' Permit in accordance with Part C of
the Clean Air Act (CAA). Conditional requirements or modifications to the PSD
Permit based on anticipated project impacts may be added to the Permit, if
warranted.
2.1-1.1 Issuance of the NPDES Permit
Issuance of the New Source NPDES Permit will allow the SJRPP to operate
as proposed and to discharge cooling water blowdown and treated wastewater
into the St. Johns River up to the limits set forth in the permit (Appendix B,
Draft NPDES Permit). The issuance of the permit may be modified by certain
conditions which could require that additional monitoring and reporting be
undertaken during the operation of the plant in order to evaluate the effec-
tiveness of the pollution control systems. Such conditions will be added to
the permit if the environmental impacts of the construction and/or operation
of the plant require special mitigation practices and additional monitoring
and reporting.
2.1.1.2 Denial of the NPDES Permit
If it is determined that the proposed SJRPP discharge into the St. Johns
River will violate effluent limitations and/or water quality standards, USEPA
may deny the New Source NPDES Permit. Furthermore, USEPA could deny the
permit if environmental resources such as endangered species, historic and/or
archaeological sites, wetlands, or floodplains are significantly impacted and
measures for mitigating the impacts are unacceptable. The denial of the
permit would be equivalent to the No Action Alternative and would result in
not discharging the wastewater effluent into the St. Johns River. If the
permit is denied by USEPA, JEA and FP&L would have the options of redesigning
the project, including the pollution control facilities, to meet the water
quality standards and resubmitting the application, locating and evaluating
another site, or pursuing the No Action Alternative.
2-1
-------
2.1.1.3 PSD Permit
The CAA Amendments of 1977 require that a PSD permit be secured for SJRPP
from USEPA before construction begins. New Source Performance Standards
(NSPS) and Best Available Control Technologies (BACT) must be met for the
emission of air pollutants. USEPA has given tentative approval to the PSD
permit application for the SJRPP, but has not issued the permit and maintains
the right to deny the permit based on final review. The final determination
will not be made until after the USEPA public hearing. Should the USEPA deny
the permit, the utilities would be given the opportunity to reduce facility
emissions or make efforts to reduce emissions from other facilities to reduce
projected impacts and meet the goals of the CAA Amendments which relate to
PSD. Further, the PSD permit cannot be issued if the National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS) are predicted to be exceeded within the impact area
of the project. If the NAAQS for any criteria pollutant are exceeded or if a
significant increase in the level of a pollutant in a non-attainment area
should occur as a result of the operation of the facility, the utilities would
be given the opportunity to mitigate those impacts.
2.1.2 Alternatives Available to FDER
The FDER administers a State wastewater discharge permit program under
the Florida Air and Water Pollution Control Act and also provides State certifi-
cation of all Federally issued permits in Florida. In the case of new power
generation facilities, review and permitting under these and other environ-
mental programs within Florida have been coordinated into a one-stop process
pursuant to the Florida Electrical Power Plant Siting Act (Chapter 403, Part
II, F.A.C.). Under the Power Plant Siting Act, FDER conducts a coordinated
review for each proposed New Source power plant project which incorporates all
State agency reviews. A final written report known as the State Analysis
Report (SAR) is prepared which includes FDER's recommendation regarding final
State certification of the project. This analytical report includes: (1) re-
ports from the Division of State Planning, the Public Service Commission, and
other State agencies; (2) results of studies of the project conducted by FDER;
(3) a statement of compliance with FDER rules; and (4) a recommendation for
final action.
The final State certification of a power plant is issued by the Governor
and his Cabinet. This certification represents final State approval for all
State and Federally permitted activities of the project and may mandate specif-
ic requirements pursuant to compliance with various State standards and regu-
lations. Under the certification process, the alternatives available to FDER
pursuant to the Power Plant Siting Act are to recommend certification of the
project as proposed, certification of the project with revisions, or denial of
certification. The ramifications of certification or denial of certification
would be similar to those described for issuance or denial of the NPDES permit
described in Section 2.1.1.
2.1.3 Alternatives Available to Other Permitting Agencies
Other permits required for project construction and initial operation
include the Section 10 Permit required under the River and Harbor Act of 1899
for dredging activities associated with the Blount Island coal terminal and a
Clean Water Act Section 404 Permit for the disposal of dredge material from
the barge slip construction. The USCOE is responsible for administering these
2-2
-------
permit programs and will base their approval or denial of the permits on the
environmental impacts associated with these actions. FDER has certification
authority under Section 401 of the CWA for permits issued by Federal agencies
for disposal of dredge material under Section 404. The State's certification
options for this action are covered under the comprehensive Power Plant Siting
Act described in Section 2.1.2.
2.2 THE APPLICANT'S PROPOSED PROJECT
JEA and FP&L propose to jointly construct and operate a new 1,200 mega-
watt (MW) (1,100 MW net) coal-fired steam electric generating station on a
site approximately seven miles north-northeast of downtown Jacksonville in
Duval County, Florida. The site and the proposed power project including its
associated transmission and coal barge unloadIng facilities are described in
this section. The reader is referred to the utilities' Site Certification
Application/Environmental Information Document (JEA/FP&L 1981a) for more
detailed information.
2.2.1 The Project Site
It is proposed that a new 1,200 MW class power plant to be known as the
St. Johns River Power Park-(SJRPP) be constructed on a site referred to as the
Eastport site adjacent to JEA's existing Northside Generating Station (NGS) in
northern Duval County (Figure 2.2-1). This site is primarily owned by the
North Shore Corporation and includes approximately 1,656 acres (JEA/FP&L
1981a). The NGS occupies approximately 410 acres between the Eastport site
and the St. Johns River. The boundaries of the SJRPP include New Berlin Road
on the west, the Jacksonville City Landfill on the north, and marshland on the
east and south.
Included in the proposed project is a coal barge unloading facility which
is to occupy approximately 55 acres of land on Blount Island adjacent to the
St. Johns River. The coal barge unloading facility on Blount Island is bounded
by the Fulton-Dame Point Cutoff to the south, a salt marsh and the Offshore
Power Systems Corporation to the east, Undine Steet to the north, and the
Jacksonville Port Authority to the west.
Approximately 1,307 acres of the Eastport site are comprised of trees,
shrubs, and grasses. Wetlands comprise approximately 289 acres and a sand
drag racing track with grandstands occupies approximately 60 acres within the
site boundaries at the intersection of New Berlin Road and Island Drive. The
site is crossed by transmission lines from the NGS as well as by the Seaboard
Coast Line Railroad which serves Blount Island. The Blount Island site has
been severely disturbed over the past 10 to 15 years due to industrial activ-
ity, and as a result, its land cover is mostly grasses, scrub growth, and open
land.
2.2.2 Plant Orientation and Appearance
2.2.2.1 Facilities Orientation
The proposed plant will consist of two 600 MW coal-fired units within a
±300 acre oval rail loop and is basically aligned along an axis running from
northwest to southeast (Figure 2.2-2). The surrounding land will be used as a
2-3
-------
Figure 2.2-1. Location of the SJRPP,
Northside Generating Station (NGS),
and the Blount Island Coal Terminal.
I
-P-
Proposed
Blount Island"
Coal Unloading
Facilities
CONSOLIDATED
OF
JACKSONVI
-------
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
SITE BOUNDARY
X
\
\
s
\
Solid Haste
\ Disposal Area B
j ISLAND DRIVE
^ \
' Solid Waste ^
*.»_.—• — •*. Disposal Area \
\ Solid Waste
Disposal Area A
I
Wastewater
Treatment and
Sedimentation
Ponds
TO
Figure 2.2-2. General layout of the proposed SJRPP and associated facilities
(adapted from JEA/FP&L 1981a).
2-5
-------
buffer area and for solid waste disposal. The stack (utilized by both units)
will be just south of the center of the oval (Figure 2.2-3). Cooling towers
will be located at the north end of the plant rail loop. Coal handling facil-
ities to accommodate delivery of coal by rail and for coal storage will be
located to the south of the plant rail loop. Scrubber wastes and ash disposal
areas will be located in the north and northeast sections of the site. Major
facilities within the plant rail loop include the turbine generator, boiler,
precipitators, and flue gas desulfurization facilities. As indicated in
Figure 2.2-4, none of the plant facilities will be constructed on or below the
mean high water (MHW) line.
Major coal handling facilities on Blount Island include an unloading
wharf suitable for oceangoing barges, a stacker reclaimer and coal storage
pile, a railcar loading area, emergency coal stackout, and a runoff holding
basin and percolation pond with a capacity of 2.75 million gallons (Figure
2.2-5). The coal unloader and wharf will be the only structures located on or
outside of the MHW line (Figure 2.2-6).
2.2.2.2 External Appearance
A wooded buffer strip between 100 and 200 feet deep will be maintained
between the plant and adjoining roadways. The cooling towers (425 feet high)
and the chimney (640 feet high) will be the tallest structures in the facil-
ity. These will be equipped with flashing stroboscopic lights for aircraft
warning and will dominate the surrounding landscape. The other facilities
including the boiler buildings, turbine buildings, coal pile, conveyors, and
pollution controls will be less noticeable (JEA/FP&L 1981a).
2.2.3 Power Generation System
Two 600 MW steam electric generating units will be constructed on the
site. A generalized process diagram for a typical coal-fired electric gener-
ating facility is shown in Figure 2.2-7. In general, pulverized coal is
burned in a boiler to generate high pressure steam. This steam is then used
to power a turbine which drives a generator and produces electricity. Follow-
ing use in the turbine, steam from the boiler is cooled to a liquid in the
condenser and recirculated back to the boiler feedwater system for reuse.
Simultaneously, the cooling water for the condenser is recirculated to the
cooling tower to dissipate excess heat. In addition to the main boilers, the
plant will also be equipped with two small auxiliary oil-fired steam gener-
ating boilers which will be used during start-up and low load operation periods,
2.2.4 Fuel Transportation and Handling
The SJRPP will burn approximately 3.5 million tons per year of coal,
probably from Tennessee, Kentucky, or Ohio (EBASCO 1980 _in JEA/FP&L 1981a).
The coal can be delivered to the site either by unit trains or to the Blount
Island coal terminal by oceangoing barges with shuttle train delivery to the
plant. In the former case, it is estimated that an average of one and a
maximum of three unit trains with each train consisting of 72 rail cars with
106 tons/car would arrive at the site on any given day. Coal will be unloaded
by a rotary rail car dumper and transported by the stacker/reclaimer either to
an 8 acre active coal pile or one of two 15 acre inactive coal piles at the
plant.
2-6
-------
^jaw^niR ^
•>> ^11
(*..-.n«S<»ftv^ZI±l«#Hr> La»l/.'/Jllf l *S
^iSf^^r^g^jmggl^j^H^ I)./7.^r
%tefe9kSsp4fe2S ,-^^^^=^Jfe,
Figure 2.2-3. Detail of facilities within SJRPP rail loop (JEA/FP&L 1981b).
2-7
-------
N • • . --.- • --T-
,,^«% ••-« *•* -•*•(_ ,_• •» ^~-
MEAN HIGH WATER LINE
^"^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
1 * it * Zr"*" ir"" *--l?-'-. -.." Ij ~" .
VV--"-r~ ^ -
n %Tv- -"^ •-"—'* •'- :>^
)%%;-^-,"- - -»'_-,V-T^:-
-» * ^» - 3 ' -«
\ V'^gf,'K&- 'rU^^'%:--.""€"^"r55l-> ^
Mwfa
> / r «-&^=
Vf^^
f** ^* *•
. - -f-,-/ .—_. ... -"
«- _ I— —<.:~7— 0
-^^f&^4^\
Figure 2.2-4. Approximate mean high water line adjacent to the proposed SJRPP
site (JEA/FP&L 198la).
2-8
-------
RAILCAR
LOADING
BLDG. AREA
COAL HANDLING
BUILDING
OFFSHORE
POWER
SYSTEMS
DRAINAGE EASEMENT
TRANSFER POINT
RECLAIMER
COAL
STORAGE
TREATMENT POND^J
CAPACITY*2.75
MILLION GAL.
JACKSONVILLE
PORT AUTHORITY
PROPERTY
LINE
JPERCOLATION
POND
ST. JOHNS RIVER
FULTON-DAME POINT CUTOFF
800
Figure 2.2-5. Blount Island coal unloading facility (JEA/FP&L 1981a)
2-9
-------
IN 3,202,500
12,202,000
H 2,201,500
MEAN HIGH WATER LINE •
DAME POINT CUT
< EXTENT OF MHW SURVEY
\
OFF
•^
FLORIDA STATE PLANE GRID
Figure 2.2-6. Surveyed mean high water (#HW) line at proposed coal
unloading facility on Blount Island (JEA/FP&L 1981a).
2-10
-------
CHEMH
RAH
WA1ER
CHEMICALS
BOH£RTIBE
OfANING,
AND AIR PPEHEATER
HASHINGS
EQIiER FEEDHATER
CffB'N AIR - -
BOTTOM
ASH
WATER FOR
PERIODIC
OfANING
STEAM
FLUE
GASES
TO ATMOSPHERE
STEW
GENERATING
BOILfR
FLY ASH
COUfCTICN
AND/OR S02
SCRUBBING
DEVICE
NNN\.\N\XSNN^
^CHEMICALS
L
CHEMICALS
WASTEWATER
RECIRCULATING COOLING WATER
COOLING TOWER
OJDENSATE
WATER
CHEMICALS
MAKEUP)
WATER!
CQALP1H
ASH HANDLING
SYSTEM
FLOOR AND
YARD DRAINS
MSTEWATER I'
-X^XCHEMICALS
\ \ V
-WATER
WASTE-
WATER
SAHITARY WASTES
LABORATORY & SAMPLING WASTES
INTAKE SCREEN BACKWASH, CLOSE!
COOLING WATER SYSTEMS, CON-
STRUCTION ACTIVITY
| SLOWDOWN |Q
IMISCTKASTE-
V'ATER STREAMS
LEGEND;
Figure 2.2-7. Typical coal-fired steam electric plant
process design (adapted from USEPA 1980).
LIQUID FLOW
GAS & STEAM FLOW
CHEMICALS
OPTIONAL FLOW
UASTEWATER
-------
Currently JEA and FP&L plan to line the coal storage areas with an impervious
plastic liner to prevent ground-water contamination from coal leachate. From
the coal storage areas the coal will be conveyed to a tripper floor transfer
point, and from there to the seven coal storage silos serving each of the
units. Coal from the silos will be conveyed to the pulverizer and pneumatic-
ally delivered to the furnaces.
The Blount Island coal unloading facility will be capable of unloading
the 65,000 tons of coal from a typical oceangoing barge in about 22 hours
using two bucket-type unloaders. The coal will be transported by the stacker/
reclaimer to a lined 70,000 ton coal storage area. From the storage area,
coal will be transferred to rail shuttle cars at the railcar loading building.
The facility will have an emergency stackout system as a backup for the stacker/
reclaimer and a coal handling control building with sampling and iron separ-
ating equipment (JEA/FP&L 1981a).
The auxiliary boilers will require approximately one million gallons of
No. 2 fuel oil per year. It will be delivered to the site by barge, rail, or
truck and stored on-site in a 600,000 gallon storage tank.
2.2.5 Emission Control Systems
JEA and FP&L propose to incorporate air pollution control facilities into
the plant to control emissions of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, partic-
ulates (fly ash), carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, and fugitive dust. Other
trace pollutants will also be removed from plant emissions along with these
major criteria pollutants. All of these systems are designed to meet the New
Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and the Best Available Control Technology
(BACT) requirements of USEPA's PSD regulations.
2.2.5.1 Electrostatic Precipitators (ESP)
Emissions of particulates from the boilers will be controlled to the
99.78% level by the use of electrostatic precipitators (ESP) (JEA/FP&L 1981a).
Two ESP's will be provided for each generating unit to assure reliability of
operation. Particulate removal is effected by passing the flue gas through a
high voltage field in which the particulates are given an electric charge from
ionized gases and are collected on an oppositely charged electrode. Par-
ticulates are periodically removed from the collection electrode and collected
in a hopper to await removal pneumatically and ultimate disposal. It is
estimated that fly ash will be collected at a maximum rate of about 81 tons/
hour.
2.2.5.2 Flue Gas Desulfurization (FGD)
Emissions of sulfur dioxide (S02) will be controlled to the 90% level by
the use of a limestone flue gas scrubbing system which will follow the ESP
system (JEA/FP&L 1981a). In this process, the S02 in the flue gas comes into
contact and chemically reacts with a recirculating limestone slurry in the
scrubber to form a precipitate or sludge of calcium sulfite and calcium sul-
fate (gypsum). The waste sludge will undergo forced oxidation iri a reaction
tank to convert all calcium sulfite to gypsum, and will then be removed for
disposal or sale. The SJRPP flue gas desulfurization (FGD) system is designed
to use groundwater rather than saline water from the St. Johns River to minim-
i
2-12
-------
ize the concentration of chlorides in the gypsum. It is anticipated that this
high-grade gypsum can be sold to a local wallboard manufacturer. A maximum of
134 tons/hour of gypsum is estimated to be produced by the system on a dry
weight basis. Temporary 7-day storage of by-product gypsum will be provided
in a stackout area outside of the rail loop. If the material cannot be sold,
it will be mixed with other high volume waste materials and disposed of in the
on-site landfill areas. Makeup water will be added to the process at an
average of 2,150 gpm (maximum 3,150 gpm) to compensate for evaporative losses,
water lost in the waste sludge, and the 1,000 gpm scrubber blowdown. A small
portion of the flue gas will be bypassed around the scrubbers to reheat the
cleaned gases as they emerge in order to improve the plume rise characteris-
tics of the gas and to prevent condensation in the stack.
2.2.5.3 Other Boiler Emissions Controls (ESP)
Emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx) will be controlled by the design and
control of boiler operations to levels required by NSPS (JEA/FP&L 1981a).
Carbon monoxide emissions will also be controlled by boiler design and opera-
tion. Since carbon monoxide generation varies inversely with NOx generation,
however, boiler design and operation must be optimized to minimize the genera-
tion of each of these pollutants. No specific provisions have been made to
control generation of hydrocarbons. They are expected to be relatively low,
however.
2.2.5.4 Fugitive Dust
Fugitive dust will be produced by a number of sources including the coal
handling, limestone handling, fly ash handling, and the FGD waste handling and
disposal systems. Fugitive particulates will also be generated from the
dissolved and suspended solids in the mist from the cooling towers. Controls
for these sources of particulates are planned as follows:
• Coal Handling. Fugitive dust will be controlled by different methods
at each point in the coal handling system. Wetting agents (90-99%
efficient) will be used on the various coal piles; fabric filters
(99.9% efficient) will be used to clean emissions from the unloader of
the coal barge terminal at conveyor transfer points and at the surge
bins of the coal handling building. Water spray systems (97% effi-
cient) will be used on the stacker reclaimer and rotary dump areas.
Conveying systems will be totally enclosed.
• Limestone Handling. Dust from unloading railcars of limestone will be
suppressed with water sprays. The limestone will be transported on
enclosed conveyors and hoppers will be vented to fabric filters.
Storage piles of limestone rock are not expected to require fugitive
dust controls.
• Fly Ash and FGD Sludge Handling. Fly ash will be transported in
enclosed conveyors with fabric filters at all transfer points. Fly
ash will either be sold as a by-product or mixed with wet scrubber
sludge and stored in the landfill.
2-13
-------
• Cooling Tower Drift. Fugitive particulates in the cooling tower drift
will be controlled to a level of 8.4 grams/second by the use of drift
eliminators, barriers within the cooling towers, and by limiting the
cycles of concentration in the cooling system to 1.5 or less.
2.2.5.5 Auxiliary Boiler Emission Controls
No controls are planned for the auxiliary boilers because they will be
used only infrequently (approximately 5% of the time) and will burn relatively
clean No. 2 fuel oil.
2.2.6 Cooling System
Each of the power generation condenser units will be cooled by a recir-
culating natural draft counterflow cooling tower. Each tower will have a base
diameter of 340 feet and will be approximately 425 feet high. Makeup water
will be drawn from the NGS discharge channel and blowdown water will be dis-
charged along with all plant wastewater (NPDES 001) into the NGS discharge
channel downstream from the makeup water intake.
2.2.6.1 Circulating Water System
Cooling water will be continuously recirculated from the boiler water
condensers to the cooling towers. Each of the cooling towers will contin-
uously recirculate 183,500 gallons per minute (gpm) of condenser cooling
water, 10,900 gpm of component cooling water, and 800 gpm of vacuum pump
cooling water (JEA/FP&L 1981a). Makeup water will be added at a rate of
17,200 gpm for a total flow of 212,400 gpm in each cooling tower. Chlorine
will be added to the cooling tower water system to prevent biological fouling,
and sulfuric acid will be added to prevent calcium carbonate scale formation.
A non-chemical system (Amertap) may be used to control biological fouling in
the condensers.
2.2.6.2 Cooling System Intake and Blowdown Discharge
On an average annual basis, between 9,679 and 10,920 gpm of cooling water
will be evaporated from the cooling system (Table 2.2-1). A minimum of water
(approximately 10 gpm) will also be lost as cooling tower drift. When in
operation, makeup water will be withdrawn from the NGS discharge for the two
cooling towers at a constant rate of 34,400 gpm and blowdown will vary from
24,821 to 23,580 gpm depending on the outside temperature. This will result
in approximately 1.5 cycles of concentration in the cooling system. The total
makeup requirements of the SJRPP amount to approximately 0.4% of the average
flow of the St. Johns River, but as long as the NGS remains in operation this
does not represent an increase in the total withdrawal from the River since
the makeup water is withdrawn from the discharge of the NGS once-through
cooling system.
2.2.7 Wastewater Treatment Systems
Wastewater for the SJRPP will originate from a number of sources such as
cooling tower blowdown, boiler water, bottom ash handling blowdown, metal
cleaning waste, FGD blowdown, sanitary wastes, site runoff, and various low
2-14
-------
Table 2.2-1. Average monthly evaporation, blowdown, and blowdown
concentrations for both SJRPP units (JEA/FP&L 1981a).
Dew Point
Month (°F)
J
F
M
A
M
J
J
A
S
0
N
D
estimated
47.0
43.0
52.0
56.0
63.0
69.0
71.0
72.5
71.5
64.0
50.0
48.5
Dry Bulb
(°F)
65.0
56.0
67.0
72.0
75.0
80.0
82.0
82.0
81.0
74.0
67.0
66.0
a
Evap
(gpm)
10,294
9,679
10,336
10,610
10,652
10,840
10,920
10,876
10,836
10,552
10,381
10,254
Blowdown Blowdown
(gpm) Concentrations
24,205
24,821
24,164
23,890
23,848
23,660
23,580
23,624
23,664
23,948
24,119
24,246
1.43
1.39
1.43
1.44
1.45
1.46
1.46
1.46
1.46
1.44
1.43
1.42
Calculated based on estimated evaporation rate
2-15
-------
volume sources such as demineralizer blowdown and floor drains. Plant efflu-
ents will be reused, treated and reused, or treated and discharged when reuse
is not feasible. The proposed water and wastewater treatment scheme for the
SJRPP is schematically represented in Figure 2.2-8.
The plant wastewater treatment system will consist of pretreatment facil-
ities, a central chemical waste treatment facility, and a sanitary waste
treatment facility. The pretreatment facilities include sedimentation ponds
for various wastewater flows, a retention basin for metal cleaning wastes, a
flow equalization basin, miscellaneous oil-water separators, and an oily
wastewater collection basin. For some runoff wastewaters, oil separation is
the only treatment necessary.
2.2.7.1 Pretreatment Facilities
Sedimentation Ponds
Pretreatment facilities including flow equalization, oil and grease
removal, waste stream segregation, and sedimentation will be integral parts of
the SJRPP wastewater treatment scheme. Several sedimentation ponds will be
constructed during the life of the project. Area runoff from approximately 67
acres of the site including the oil storage, coal storage, limestone storage,
and solid waste storage and handling areas will be routed to sedimentation
ponds adequate to contain runoff from the at least 10-year, 24-hour storm
(JEA/FP&L 1981b). Runoff from a storm event in excess of this design may be
discharged to Browns Creek via an emergency overflow lines (NDPES 004 and
009). The sedimentation ponds serving the main coal storage area and the
Blount Island coal terminal will be lined. The discharge from the coal pile
runoff sedimentation pond serving SJRPP will be used for coal dust suppression
or routed to the central wastewater treatment facility for treatment. Efflu-
ent from the Blount Island sedimentation pond will be used for coal dust
suppression or treated and discharged to a percolation pond. Small, unlined
sedimentation ponds will be constructed close to the landfill areas in active
use at the time. Discharges from these ponds will be routed to the central
waste treatment facility or, in the event of a rainfall in excess of the
10-year, 24-hour storm, to Browns Creek (NPDES 009). Water from the sedimen-
tation ponds will be used for coal dust suppression. Any runoff from dust
suppression will be collected and returned to the sedimentation ponds.
Oily Wastewater Pond
Oily wastewaters and oil contaminated runoff will be treated in oil/water
separators and transported to an oily wastewater collection pond. The effluent
from the oily wastewater pond will be discharged directly to the NGS discharge
channel (NPDES 008) or used as makeup to the bottom ash sluicing system or
discharged to the central wastewater treatment facility.
Metal Cleaning Waste Retention Basin
Metal cleaning wastewater will be stored in a lined, two cell retention
basin with a capacity of 1.5 to 2.0 million gallons prior to treatment in the
central wastewater treatment facility. These wastes result from scheduled
periodic maintenance cleaning of the air preheaters, boiler fireside, and
boiler waterside. Air or steam operated sootblowers will be utilized for the
2-16
-------
_L^L.
nirnsiCM I { /TA I m./^ita I
tu »m* [ ittsiv^y *| stp»»*u» I
'?t^'s'«^ [-7TO (•) H^
5**
slw'mNaMAfNt
WIlH FIRC COKIROIJ.MA11HOH FLOWS FtM
SlRVKC k*I£« CCfUNO M( «Ow»it(£)KW
/ \ I FLOOR OAU4S1 1 >s / \ lfllLA**Ft
) (l>—]t«IA MtSHIKi (iMW •]SCI^«^
-------
fireside boiler cleaning. Air preheaters are periodically washed to remove
accumulated deposits of ash. Waterside cleaning of boilers is designed to
remove scale and corrosion products that accumulate inside the boiler tubes
and other water passages. Chemicals are used for boiler cleaning due to the
inaccessibility of these waterside surfaces for mechanical cleaning. The air
preheater and the boiler waterside cleaning wastes will require treatment for
iron removal, pH adjustment, and suspended solids removal. These metal cleaning
wastes will be directed to the retention basin for equalization and storage
prior to treatment at the central treatment facility. Metal cleaning waste-
water will be segregated from all other plant wastes during the entire treat-
ment process (NDPES 008), but will be discharged with other wastes.
Flow Equalization
A lined, two cell flow equalization basin of approximately 4 million
gallons capacity will be provided to contain intermittent flows from the FGD
system, demineralizer regeneration system, and other low volume wastewaters.
The FGD system will require blowdown of approximately 1,000 gpm to remove
chlorides and dissolved solids from the system. Basically, the blowdown will
contain the same constituents as those present in the makeup water plus trace
contaminants picked up from coal combustion emissions. Demineralizer regenera-
tion waste is characterized by high concentrations of dissolved solids and
extremes of pH. These wastes will be neutralized In the equalization basin
and treated in the central chemical wastewater treatment facility. The equal-
ization basin will also have sufficient capacity to contain runoff from the
solid waste handling and storage area and effluent from the oily wastewater
collection basin if they require additional treatment prior to discharge.
Boiler blowdown is relatively uncontaminated and will be used as makeup water
for the FGD system.
2.2.7.2 Central Chemical Wastewater Treatment Facility (NPDES 006 and 007)
The dual train chemical wastewater treatment facility is designed to
treat contaminated runoff and plant wastes continuously at an average rate of
125 gpm and a maximum rate of 3,600 gpm. Treatment will consist of various
combinations of pH adjustment, aeration, flocculation, gravity separation,
media filtration, and final neutralization depending on the particular waste
being treated. The purpose of the initial pH adjustment is to raise the
combined wastewater stream pH to the optimum level for removal of iron, copper,
and other metals. The aeration process will promote oxidation of metallic
ions which will allow them to precipitate out of solution, and the reactor-
clarifier will then provide flocculation and sedimentation of metallic hydrox-
ides. Filtration will provide further removal of suspended solids, and the
neutralization process will adjust the process stream pH to a range of between
6 and 9. Except for metal cleaning wastes, all wastewaters will be routed
through a flow splitter box to either of the two treatment trains. Metal
cleaning wastes will be accumulated in the retention basin and routed to
either of the two trains through separate influent lines for completely sep-
arate treatment (NPDES 007). This separate treatment of metal cleaning wastes
will be maintained throughput the treatment system until the point of final
neutralization. Wastewater effluent which cannot be reused will be routed to
the NGS discharge channel (NPDES 001) .
2-18
-------
2.2.7.3 Sanitary Wastewater Treatment Facility (NPDES 003)
Two 15,000 gpd extended aeration type wastewater treatment plants will be
constructed on-site to provide treatment for sanitary wastes (JEA/FP&L 1981b).
Both units and additional portable toilets will be used during the construc-
tion phase when as many as 2,300 workers will be on-site. However, only one
of the units will be required to treat the waste from the normal operational
staff of 375. The other unit will be retained as a spare. During construc-
tion, effluent from the sanitary wastewater treatment facility will be dis-
charged to the construction runoff control ponds and thence to Browns Creek
(NPDES 002). Once operation begins, the effluent will be discharged to the
NGS discharge channel (NPDES 001) along with other plant effluents.
2.2.7.4 Construction Wastewater Treatment
Treatment for area runoff, concrete truck washing, sanitary waste, and
pre-operation metal cleaning waste generated during construction will be
provided (JEA/FP&L 1981b). Area runoff from within the rail loop will be
directed to several temporary sediment control ponds from which effluent will
be collected in the main sediment control pond and discharged to Browns Creek
(NPDES 002). Wastewater from concrete truck washing will be directed to a 2.2
million gallon sedimentation pond and from there to the runoff control pond.
Runoff from the heavy equipment refueling area will be treated in an oil/water
separator before going to the runoff control pond. Pre-operation boiler and
condensate systems cleaning wastes probably will be treated on-site by neutral-
ization in the metal cleaning waste retention basin, final treatment in the
chemical waste treatment facility (NDPES 007), and discharge to the NGS dis-
charge channel. Another alternative available to the utilities is to have the
pre-operational metal cleaning waste treated and disposed of by a contractor.
2.2.7.5 Summary, of Wastewater Treatment Facilities
Individual process wastewater streams contributing to the SJRPP normal
operational discharge include: cooling tower blowdown (NPDES 005); demineral-
izer regeneration wastes; flue gas desulfurization (FGD) system blowdown and
other low volume wastewater streams (NPDES 006); metal cleaning wastes (NPDES
007); coal and limestone storage area runoff (NPDES 006); ash and FGD solids
handling and temporary storage area runoff (NPDES 006); sanitary wastes NPDES
003); active solid wastes landfill runoff (NPDES 006); and miscellaneous
(mostly oil-bearing) wastes (NPDES 008). Most of these wastewater streams
with the exception of metal cleaning wastes, cooling tower blowdown, sanitary
wastes, and miscellaneous wastes, will be combined prior to treatment in the
plant's chemical wastewater treatment facility. The metal cleaning waste
stream will be treated separately from other wastes to assure it has met
applicable USEPA iron and copper limits for this wastewater stream. Cooling
tower blowdown will not be treated and will be combined with the treated
wastewater streams prior to discharge. Oil bearing wastes will be collected
and treated in oil/water separators prior to the water portion being directed
to the main pump sump after the wastewater treatment system. The flow charac-
teristics and anticipated treatment for each of the major waste streams and
contaminated runoff streams are summarized in Tables 2.2-2 and 2.2-3, respec-
tively. Raw wastewater characteristics typical of several of the major waste-
water streams are presented in Table 2.2-4.
2-19
-------
Table 2.2-2. Summary of SJRPP wastewater streams and their anticipated
control requirements (JF.A/FP&L 19'81'b).
Wastewater Source
Flow Rate
(gpm)
Avg. Max.
Discharge to
Control
Required for
Central Wastewater
Treatment Facility
Sanitary Wastewater
Boiler Slowdown
FGD Slowdown and
Cleaning
Demineralizer and
Polisher Regenerants
Boiler Metal .,
Cleaning Wastes
Pump Bearing Cooling
and Sealing Water
Bottom Ash Sluicing
System
Equipment Washing,
Floor Drains
Blount Island
Sanitary Wastewater
1,251' 3,600
11
240
91 510
1,038 3,736
27
33
715
500
50
100
25
50
100
250
NGS Discharge Channel
TSS, pH, Metals
Package Sewage Treatment BOD, Coliform,
Facility/NGS Discharge Channel. TSS, pH
FGD System Makeup
Flow Equalization Pond/
Central Wastewater
Treatment Facility
Flow Equalization Pond/
Central Wastewater
Treatment Facility
Metal Cleaning Waste
Retention Basin/Central
Wastewater Treatment
Facility
Individual Sumps or
Pump Intakes
No Discharge/Fly Ash
Wetting2
Oily Waste Collection Pond/
NGS Discharge Channel
Jacksonville Port Authority
System
TSS, pH
TSS, pH
TSS, Metals, pH
TSS, Oil and
Grease
BOD, Coliform
TSS, pH
This wastewater stream is encountered only occasionally during scheduled maintenance
of the plant.
The bottom ash sluicing system will have to be blown down occasionally during the
life of the plant. In such a case, the wastewater will be directed to the central
wastewater treatment facility.
2-20
-------
Table 2.2-3. Summary of SJRPP contaminated runoff sources and
anticipated controls (JEA/FP&L 1981b).
Area
Coal Handling
and Storage
Limestone Handling
and Storage
Landfill (Active)
Solid Waste Handling
and Temporary
Storage
Coal and Limestone
Service Area
ID and FD Trans-
former Area
Main Transformer
Area
Blount Island Coal
Storage Area
Size
6 acres
10 acres
Landfill (Test Cell) 5 acres
3 acres
Light Oil Storage
and Truck Unloading 1 acre
Average Maximum
Runoff Runoff
(gpm) (gpm)
42 acres 119 6,047
17
16,533 ft'
14,000
5,000 ft'
35 acres 100
861
140
70
70
200
150
100
100
5,070
Discharge to
Coal Pile Runoff Sedimentation
Pond/Central Wastewater
Treatment Facility
Coal Pile Runoff Sedimentation
Pond/Central Wastewater
Treatment Facility
Sedimentation Pond/Central
Wastewater Treatment Facility
Sedimentation Pond/Central
Wastewater Treatment Facility
Sedimentation Pond/Central
Wastewater Treatment Facility
Oil/Water Separator/Oily Waste
Collection Basin/Discharge
Oil/Water Separator/Oily Waste
Collection Basin/Discharge
Oil/Water Separator/Oily Waste
Collection Basin/Discharge
Oil/Water Separator/Oily Waste
Collection Basin/Discharge
Sedimentation Pond/Percolation
Pond
2-21
-------
Table 2.2-4. Typical chemical characteristics of raw wastewater streams
from the SJRPP (JEA/FP&L 1981b).
Parameter
gpm
Chlorides, mg/1
Sulfates, mg/1
Calcium, mg/1
Iron, mg/1
Magnesium, mg/1
Potassium, mg/1
Sodium, mg/1
Cyanide, mg/1
Aluminum, mg/1
Antimony, yg/1
Arsenic, yg/1
Beryllium, yg/1
Boron, mg/1
Cadmium, yg/1
Chromium, yg/1
Copper, yg/1
Lead, yg/1
t
Manganese, yg/1
Mercury, yg/1
Nickel, yg/1
Selenium, yg/1
Silver, yg/1
Zinc, yg/1
Barium, yg/1
Cooling Tower
Slowdown
23,900
Avg.
18,740
2,500
391
1.1
1,215
385
10,300
0.01
0.703
0.27
0.99
0.13
4.5
0.42
2.3
100
0.5
39.3
0.35
4.8
0.72
0.23
66.6
— — —
FGD
Slowdown
1,000
Avg.
6,905
10,000
3,000
8.1
2.750
32
2,400
0.3
2,300
300
140
46
110
500
200
400
2,500
70
1,500
2,200
60
350
___
Demineralizer
Slowdown
15
Avg.
149
8,000
394
0.178
162
8. .17
2,200
0.131
7.1
2.91
5.68
28.4
149
14.2
0.71
24.9
35.5
2.84
49.7
— —
Landfill
Area Runoff
6
Avg.
59
766
130
1.2
4.3
<0.01
0.9
15
<7
1.8
<10
23
12
0.46
64
<10
10
50
_M_
Coal Pile 1
Area Runoff
119
Avg.
10
5,000
300
200
150
1
5
900
10
30,000
0.5
5
6,500
170
Coal pile runoff characteristics for typical eastern Kentucky and eastern Tennessee
coal such as that being considered for use at SJRPP.
2-22
-------
2.2.8 Solid Waste Handling and Disposal
Large volumes of solid wastes will be generated at the proposed SJRPP
facility by the FGD system and the fly ash and bottom ash collection systems.
Smaller volumes of semi-solid sludges will be generated by the cooling towers
and the various wastewater treatment systems. All of the high volume residues
will be commingled and disposed of on-site if they cannot be sold as market-
able by-products. A summary of solid waste generation and disposal at the
SJRPP is presented in Table 2.2-5 (JEA/FP&L 1981b).
JEA and FP&L propose a five-year testing program to determine the most
acceptable means of solid waste disposal. The test program will be carried
out using a 5 acre test cell with a plastic liner and monitoring wells.
However, current plans call for developing more than 551 acres of available
landfill area in 10-acre cells. Sludge and ash waste not involved in the test
cell program will be disposed of in the main landfill cells. This area will
be sufficient to dispose of all solid waste generated at the SJRPP over its
projected 40-year life. Cells will be constructed above the water table and
the bottom material as well as the waste will be compacted In layers to minim-
ize leachate. Berms and ditches will be constructed around the cells to
divert site runoff away from the landfill area. Runoff from the cells them-
selves will be collected and treated in sedimentation ponds and routed to the
chemical wastewater treatment system. When the layers of waste material and
cover soil have reached a height of about 60 feet, the cells will be capped
off with gravel and then soil, sloped, and seeded. A groundwater monitoring
program will be initiated prior to construction and continued over the life of
the landfill to determine if any contamination of the groundwater by leachate
is occuring. Construction trash will be disposed in the City landfill adjacent
to the plant site.
2.2.9 Transmission Facilities
Two 230 kV transmission lines will be constructed from the SJRPP site to
the Normandy Substation on the west side of Jacksonville and two other 230 kV
lines will be constructed from the SJRPP to the Fort Caroline and Robinwood
Substations on the east side of Jacksonville. The preferred corridor follows
existing transmission line rights of way (ROW) over more than 90% of its
length (Figure 2.2-9). Where the new lines follow existing ROW, it is antici-
pated that the existing ROW will be expanded by 150 feet in width to accom-
modate the new lines. Where new ROW is required, its width will be approx-
imately 200 feet.
2.2.10 Resource Requirements
The major resource requirements of the SJRPP on a yearly and lifetime
basis are summarized in Table 2.2-6. Coal will be burned in the main boilers,
fuel oil will be burned in the auxiliary boilers, and limestone will be used
in the FGD system. Consumptive uses of groundwater include boiler makeup, fly
ash handling, FGD system evaporation and sludge generation, and a small amount
for plant personnel. Evaporation from the main condenser cooling towers will
be the only consumptive use of surface water.
2-23
-------
Table 2.2-5. Solid waste generation and disposal
for the SJRPP (JEA/FP&L 1981b).
Solid
Waste
Bottom
Ash
Maximum
Production
Rate
(tons /hour)
20
Total
Mass ,
(tons x 10 )
1.99
Total
Volume
(acre-feet)
1,140
Fly Ash 81
FGD Sludge 134
(gypsum)
Equilization NS3
Basin and
Sediment
Pond Solids
Domestic NS2
Wastewater
Treatment
Sludges
Oil and
Grease NS2
Metal NS2
Cleaning
Sludges
Construction NS2
Trash
7.95
17.2
NS'
NS'
NS'
NS'
6,080
12,400
NS'
NS:
NS-
NS'
Disposal
Sold as construction aggre-
gate or landfilled on-site
Sold as a by-product or
landfilled on-site
Sold as wallboard grade
gypsum or landfilled on-site
Landfilled on-site
Landfilled off-site
NS2
NS'
Sold to oil recovery
vendors or disposed of
off-site
Disposed of off-site by RCRA
approved disposal service or
codisposed with high volume
waste on-site
Duval County landfill
Estimates based on a 40-year plant life and an estimated capacity factor
of 0.60.
"The volumes of these wastes are unknown at this time but are considered to
be relatively insignificant compared to the volume of the high volume wastes.
2-24
-------
Figure 2.2-9. Preferred transmission line corridors of the SJRPP (JEA/FP&L 1981a).
I
hO
Ui
—••• Exlatlng TranB«lBfilon LI
n Pr«ferr«d Corridor
Open Space/Recreation
Highly Senaltlve Areaa
Highly Senaltlve Wetland
Salt Harahea
H/C Heron Colony
A/ll Archaeological Sire
PSA Population Sennlllve Ar<
X or X' Dirrldor
S S . * ~\/N»5«lB«SBMT«Tln*.o-« A(\\J ; I_)
< v ' '-^yyXX r v v -f'vTvftA s
-------
Table 2.2-6. Major resource requirements of the SJRPP (JEA/FPL 1981a,b)
1 2
Resource Consumption Per Year Total Consumption '
Coal 3,500,000 tons 95,700,000 tons
Fuel Oil 4,255 barrels 169,000 barrels
Limestone 214,000 tons 8,600,000 tons
Surface Water 3.3 billion gallons 132.7 billion gallons
Groundwater 0.8 billion gallons 33.4 billion gallons
Assumes a 60% capacity factor over the life of the plant.
Assumes a 40-year plant life.
2.3 ALTERNATIVE SITE ANALYSIS AND SELECTION
In Florida, the selection of potential power plant sites by a utility
with subsequent critique by the State commences several years before the
filing of a Site Certification Application as required by the Florida Power
Plant Siting Act. Each utility has its own methods for developing energy
forecasting requirements and the means to fulfill its service area's energy
demands including the development of power generation stations. Utility
planning methods for both energy forecasting and plant site requirements are
disclosed in Ten-Year Site Plans which must be submitted to the State each
year. When a utility feels that new generation is necessary, it begins a site
evaluation process for both existing stations (if the utility has existing
generation capabilities) and potential new sites. Basic environmental and
socioeconomic information about the sites are initially provided to the State
in the Site Plans, with more specific data given as the site analysis process
continues. The State provides comments to the Department of Veteran and
Community Affairs (DVCA) to be included in DVCA's formal review of each plan.
This review is then sent back to the utility for integration with its planning
effort. Eventually, the utility designates one site as the preferred site for
certification efforts.
JEA's site selection process for the SJRPP has gone through three major
stages (Figure 2.3-1). Plans for a new coal-fired power plant have been
included in JEA's plans since 1978. Initially, JEA hired the consulting firm
of United Engineers and Constructors (UEC) in 1977 to perform site selection
studies for the proposed coal-fired power plant. From 20 candidate areas
within Duval County and its contiguous counties, UEC selected six preferred
sites (Figure 2.3-2). The selection of these six sites was based on a pre-
liminary evaluation of environmental and societal compatibility and costs.
The next stage in UEC's study was to select the preferred and alternate sites.
2-26
-------
Figure 2.3-1. An overview of the Jacksonville Electric Authority St. Johns River
Power Park site selection process (JEA 1977a).
REGION OF INTEREST
6 COUNTY
AREA
Stage 1
r
Selection Criterjg
air quality
construction limitation*
demography
fuel delivery & site access
hydrology
land use
power network
site selection guidelines
site size
Identify
Candidate
Areas
Select
20 Candidate
Sites
Stage 2
Environmental/Societal
air quality/meteorology
aquatic ecology /water quality
land use/aesthetics
offsite routing
(pipeline, railroad,
transmission line)
socio-economics
terrestrial ecology
6 PREFERRED
SITES
Stage 3
I
Engineering/Economic
fuel transportation/site access
geology/foundations
hydrology - piping /pumping
land rights & costs
transmission
2 RECOMMENDED
SITES
I
Site Optimization & Stage 2 Refinement
boundries
noise
solid waste disposal
-------
o
o
o
m
NASSAU
pr^aaaar^s-tmyy-stt
Bayard
m }
riiJ
Switzerland
Fleming
j C LAY
(UNION
Green Cove
:Springs
r~"—t->iiRADFORD !
Willis Pointy.
FLAGLE R
I J
Preferred Sites
Figure 2.3-2. Map of study area showing location of six final preferred
sites selected in phase 2 of the JEA site selection process.
2-28
-------
UEC made the selection by analyzing the environmental, social, engineering, and
economic considerations in greater detail and on a site specific basis. From
this evaluation, UEC ranked the sites as follows and recommended the Willis
Point Site as the most preferable:
1. Willis Point
2. Green Cove Springs
3. Switzerland
4. Fleming Island
5. Eastport
6. Bayard
Subsequent to this report, additional investigations by JEA and FP&L were
made which resulted in revised cost and environmental impact estimates for the
various sites. Because of this new information, UEC conducted additional
investigations of other alternative sites in Clay and Duval Counties. One of
these was the Walkill site, located adjacent to Willis Point. As a result of
UEC's investigation, the Willis Point site was reconfirmed as the preferred
site. The Walkill and Green Cove Springs sites were considered as alternatives
although the Green Cove Springs site was later eliminated due to local pre-
ference for its use as an industrial site. The Walkill site was eliminated
because it was not available from the owner.
The JEA authorized UEC to perform an additional study on 4 June 1979.
This study was to consider changes that might have occurred with regard to
economic, environmental, and engineering factors since completion of the pre-
vious two studies and to evaluate the effect these changes would have on the
suitability of the Duval County sites in relation to the Clay County sites.
The results did not change the ranking of the recommended sites.
On 9 August 1979, JEA signed a contract with EBASCO Services Inc. to
license, design, and manage the construction of the two 600 MW coal-fired
electric power units. The firm agreed to conduct field investigations on
three sites until the JEA made its site selection. It was determined the
three sites for investigation would be the Willis Point, Walkill, and Eastport
sites. The Willis Point and Walkill sites were selected as two of the three
final sites based on the UEC recommendation. The Eastport site was selected
because JEA believed that site to be the most suitable Duval County site even
though UEC had ranked it second among the Duval County sites. JEA also be-
lieved it to be important to further study the Duval County site because of
the possibility of being restricted from Clay County. In particular, the JEA
faced strong public opposition from the Clay County Citizens Coalition. The
Coalition presented a letter to the JEA Site Selection Committee on 17 January
1980 stating that they would strongly oppose siting the plant in Clay County
and that they were backed by powerful grass roots support. The Clay County
sites were also zoned agricultural and rezoning could have caused an indef-
inite delay in the construction of the proposed plant.
In October 1979, the JEA Board formed a committee of three members to
evaluate the three sites and recommend a preferred site to the Board in early
2-29
-------
February 1980. Their evaluation was based on the results of the site selec-
tion studies completed by UEC and a series of Site Selection Committee meetings
held between 2 November 1979 and 29 January 1980. The primary reasons pre-
sented by JEA for choosing the Eastport site as the final preferred site were
as follows:
• Consideration of additional payments in lieu of taxes to Clay County
made the Eastport site less costly over the life of the plant.
• The Eastport site was zoned for heavy industrial development which was
compatible with power plant development.
• The potential for delays with rezoning the Clay County sites was
greater than for the Eastport site.
• The Clay County Board of County Commissioners was on record as op-
posing the plant.
• The air quality problems associated with the Eastport site were
determined not to be a major obstacle to licensing.
• Accessibility by oceangoing barges made the Eastport site more
attractive from strategic and economic standpoints.
At the final meeting on 29 January 1980, the Committee unanimously selected
the Eastport site for the proposed JEA coal-fired power plant. The JEA Board
then accepted the Committee recommendation at the 5 February 1980 meeting.
In summary, the JEA conducted a reasonably thorough study of a large
number of alternative sites within the Authority's service area. Even though
the two Clay County sites were rated above Eastport from an environmental
standpoint, the JEA faced strong political opposition to building the plant in
Clay County. In addition, one of the Clay County sites was determined to be
unavailable from the owner. Throughout the site selection process, it was
recognized that the Eastport site contains sensitive features and is proximal
to other environmentally sensitive area. It was also recognized throughout
the process that a higher degree of environmental control and more careful
development would be required if the Eastport site were selected rather than
one of the more environmentally preferrable sites.
2.4 ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVE TRANSMISSION PLANS FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT
Through an analysis of transmission system stability, JEA and FP&L deter-
mined that the electric power generated by the SJRPP should be tied into the
existing JEA power grid with the following combination of lines, voltages, and
tie-in points (JEA/FP&L 1981a):
• Two 230 kV lines to the Normandy Substation
• One 230 kV line to the Robinwood Substation
• One 230 kV line to the Fort Caroline Substation
2-30
-------
These tie-in points are shown in the existing transmission system grid map
(Figure 2.4-1). A number of alternative corridors for constructing the re-
quired transmission lines have been identified for study. Because determina-
tion of a specific right-of-way (ROW) depends on a number of-site-specific
factors including obtaining easements, foundation engineering considerations,
and costs, only generalized transmission corridors have been identified at
this time. The actual transmission line ROW will eventually be identified
within these corridors.
2.4.1 Corridor Identification and Evaluation Criteria
The Florida Transmission Line Siting Act (Section 403.52-536, Florida
Statutes) and its companion rule, Chapter 17-17, Part II, F.A.C., identifies
the minimum criteria which must be studied in the review of a proposed trans-
mission corridor. Although the Transmission Line Siting Act is not directly
applicable to SJRPP and its associated transmission lines, its criteria provide
a helpful guide in corridor selection. These include:
• impacts of line crossings of navigable waters and transportation
systems;
• impacts on land use and neighboring populations;
• impacts on public lands, submerged lands, and wetlands;
• impacts on terrestrial and aquatic ecology;
• impacts on threatened and endangered species;
• impacts on known or potential archaeological and historic resources;
• impacts on previously undisturbed lands;
• potential electromagnetic effects;
• impacts on air quality;
• impacts on water quality;
• impacts of construction;
• methods of ROW maintenance; and
• mitigative measures.
Other local,-State, and Federal agencies have similar evaluation criteria
which must be taken into account in the evaluation of alternative transmission
corridors and the selection of a final ROW through the selected corridor.
Based on these evaluation criteria as well as system stability studies and
cost and engineering studies, a set of guidelines was established by JEA for
2-31
-------
?laat
O Truiaiiiiaa Sub*tatioa
• Trraniuin Substation with TriufoxvatlM of Tr«n»«i»«t
-------
identification and review of potential alternative transmission corridors
(JEA/FP&L 1981a). These guidelines include: following existing transmission
line ROW where possible; avoidance of wetlands (particularly wooded wetlands),
floodplain areas, endangered species, and important habitats^ and avoidance of
sensitive land use areas (airports, property ownership, public lands), his-
torical and archaeological sites, and important aesthetic areas.
2.4.2 Alternative Corridor Identification
Based on the criteria identified and inputs from the literature and
various agencies, the Jacksonville area was mapped to identify areas of high
sensitivity, moderate sensitivity, and low sensitivity (JEA/FP&L 1981a).
Based on this analysis, alternative corridor routings were identified between
the SJRPP and the appropriate substations with emphasis on avoiding sensitive
areas (Figure 2.4-2). In general, highly sensitive areas were identified as
zones of high to medium existing or proposed population density, public lands,
wooded wetlands, airports, and important cultural resources. Moderately
sensitive areas were identified as zones of low population density, salt
marshes, non-wooded wetlands, open water areas, and recreational lands. Other
areas were considered to be of relatively low sensitivity for ROW location.
Highly sensitive zones represent areas which should be avoided entirely
or traversed by a transmission line only with utmost care (JEA/FP&L 1981a).
If these areas must be crossed, additional mitigation, engineering design, and
land acquisition costs should be expected. Moderately sensitive zones rep-
resent areas which should be avoided if practical alternatives are available.
Zones of low sensitivity do not warrant special avoidance procedures. The
Latter areas may include small sensitive components such as stream crossings,
but it was assumed these areas could be spanned without measurable impact. A
detailed description of the application of these zone restrictions to the
selection of alternative corridors is presented in the BID, Section 9.6
(JEA/FP&L 1981a).
2.4.3 Corridor Evaluation and Selection
Prior to selection, all corridors were inspected by airplane and on-site
surveys were made in sensitive locations (JEA/FP&L 1981a). Comparative find-
ings for each segment (designated A, A', B, B1, etc.) are presented in Table
2.4-1 which identifies the advantages and disadvantages of each corridor
routing.
In general, for the SJRPP to Fort Caroline corridors (A and A'), A' was
judged superior because it parallels the existing transmission ROW, would cost
less, and would have less impact on wetlands and open aquatic habitats. The
SJRPP to Robinwood Substation corridors (B, B1, C, C', D, E and E') also
include the Fort Caroline corridors (A and A1). Of these, B' and C'D were
selected over B and CD because they contained slightly less wetlands, fewer
areas of high population density, and C' contains the existing ROW. Corridor E
is preferred to E1 because it would involve less clearing of wooded wetlands.
2-33
-------
s
Mi (D
O
H N>
rt -P-
tr I
(D N>
Q ID
NJ O
M
*^^. I"1*
(-1 rt
(D
CO
M
P>
rt
ro
H-
xV X \ W V Vs, X S ^. v
— •— Existing Transmission Line
— — — Corridor
11 I I I Open Space/Recreation
Highly Seniltlve Aree>
Highly Sensitive Wetland Arete
Salt Harshei
H/C Heron Colony
A/ll Archaeological Site
PSA Population Sensitive Areai
X or X1 Corridor Segment
Open area• Indicate areaa of
low aeneltlvlty
012
Miles
012
Kilometer*
-------
Corridor
Segment*
Table 2.4-1. Environmental assessment of alternative transmission line corridors.
Advantages Disadvantages
I. Roblnwood Substation fro* Plant
A
1. Crosses large amount of disturbed' (low
sensitivity) land.
2. Includes existing right-of-way (ROM).
1. Spoil areas are nesting areas for least
terns, which nay be temporarily disturbed
during construction phase (moderate sensi-
tivity).
1. Over 90Z wetland, including large expanses
of salt marshes, and estuarine biological
communities (moderate sensitivity).
2. Long river crossing.
3. Much nore costly due to cower and foundation
conditions and corridor length.
4. Aesthetic impacts to Ft. Caroline National
Monument.
B'
1. Large amount of pine flatwoods (low
sensitivity area).
2. Existing ROW present.
1. Relatively large hardwood swamp component
(high sensitivity).
1. Large amount of pine flatvoods.
1. Large amount of salt marsh (moderate sensi-
tivity), higher cost.
2. Large amount of residential area (moderate
sensitivity).
£'t> 1. Contains large amounts of pine flatwoods.
2. ROW presesc.
CD 1. Large amounts of pine flatwooda and
sandhill communitiea (low sensitivity).
1. Contains large amount of hardwood swamp.
1. Large amounts of hardwood swamp and salt marshe:
2. Higher coat.
E'
E
1. Large amount of pine flatwooda.
1. Large amount of pine flatwoods.
2. ROW present.
1. Over 7SZ hardwood swamp.
2. Higher cost.
1.
Approximately S5Z hardwood swamp; some fresh-
water marsh and hammock (moderate sensitivity).
II. Plant to Normandy Substation
1. Large amounts of agricultural and upland
biological communities.
2. Small overall amount of wetlands and
estuaries.
3. ROW present.
1.
2.
Area is approximately 10Z hardwood swamp.
Higher population density.
C1
1. Larger acreages of upland biological
conmunltlea.
2.
3.
Wetlands total 20Z of area, including areas
of hardwood swamp, swamp hammock, cypress pond,
freshwater marsh, rivers, streams, and salt
marshes.
Wetland areas Include more estuary crossings.
Higher cost.
(Northern
Half)
1. More wooded wetland crossings.
H
(Southern
Half)
1. ROW present.
1. Small area zoned medium population denslcy
(very low current density).
I. Large areas of low sensitivity agricultural
and upland hablcats.
2. Shorter.
1. ROW and aesthetic impacts present.
2. Large areas of low sensicivlcy upland and
agricultural Lands.
1. ROW present.
2. Large areas of low sensitivicy upland
acreage (pine flacwoods).
1. More wetlands In corridor.
2. Local high population densities.
Th* preferred corridor segment Is underscored.
2-35
-------
Corridor G is preferred over Gr as the first segment of the Normandy
Substation route because it Includes the existing ROW, is less costly for
tower construction, and crosses fewer estuarine and wetland areas. Corridor
G, however, would cross a major population center near Pulaski Road. The
southern half of the corridor segment appears to be more promising than the
northern half because it includes the existing ROW and includes less wetland
acreage. This route, however, does involve an Interstate Highway crossing and
crosses an area planned for future medium to high density development. Cor-
ridors I1 and J are preferred over their alternatives primarily because they
contain existing ROW.
The preferred corridor includes the existing ROW and alternate Segments
A', B', C1, D, and E from the site to Robinwood Substation and Segments G, H
(southern half), I1, and J to the Normandy Substation (Figure 2.2-10). In
addition, aerial photographs of the preferred corridor including identification
of nearby sensitive areas are provided in the EID, Appendix K (JEA/FP&L 1981a).
The new ROW through the selected corridor will normally be 150 feet to 200
feet in width. As the ROW approaches sensitive areas, it may be constricted
to minimize impact. New maintenance roads will generally be required only
where the new ROW will not be adjacent to the existing ROW. All transmission
line ROW will be cleared and maintained in accordance with the National
Electrical Safety Code (JEA/FP&L 1981a).
Four relatively sensitive areas exist within the preferred corridor. The
area near Pulaski Road (Segment H) has a medium to high population density.
The ROW through this corridor will closely parallel the existing ROW and
transmission towers will be modified to minimize impacts on this area
(JEA/FP&L 1981a). The area near Interstate 295 which is zoned for future
medium high density development will be protected by maintaining close ROW
alignment with 1-295. Similar measures will be used to minimize impacts on
the golf course north of Craig Field in Segment A' and at Sandalwood High
School near the Robinwood Substation.
2.4.4 Transmission Line Structures
Transmission line structures will differ little from those currently in
use by JEA (JEA/FP&L 1981a). Single steel pole transmission towers may be
used where narrow ROW, resistance to differential settling, or resistance to
high winds is required. Steel or concrete H-frame structures may be used
where differential settling is not a problem. Lattice-type steel towers will
be used at river crossings due to the increased tower height requirements in
these locations. Substations will not change in size or appearance as a re-
sult of constructing the new lines.
2.5 ALTERNATIVE PROCESSES AND FACILITIES FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT
Within the framework of the standard 600 MW power plant being proposed
for the SJRPP, alternatives were developed and evaluated critically for every
major aspect of plant design for which some flexibility existed (EBASCO 1978
_in_ JEA/FP&L 1981a). The alternative processes considered in this section are
limited to the environmental controls which are required to meet standards or
the design of those plant units which are of environmental concern. For each
2-36
-------
system, an attempt has been made to describe alternatives which deserve serious
consideration and to describe the advantages and disadvantages of each. In
each case the applicant's preferred alternative has been identified and rea-
sons for the preference stated.
2.5.1 Condenser Cooling Systems
2.5.1.1 Cooling Facilities
A wide range of alternative cooling systems was initially considered for
potential use at the SJRPP. Based on the initial screening, it was concluded
that once-through cooling and closed cycle evaporative cooling would be most
applicable for use at the proposed site (JEA/FP&L 1981a). Other cooling
systems including dry cooling towers, wet-dry combination cooling towers,
cooling ponds, and spray ponds were eliminated in the initial analysis for a
number of reasons. Dry cooling towers are approximately an order of magnitude
more expensive than wet towers and are generally used only where cooling water
is in short supply. Wet-dry towers are more expensive than evaporative cooling
towers and offer little advantage with respect to water use or ground fogging.
Cooling ponds and spray ponds require larger land areas than are available in
the vicinity of the SJRPP. Following the initial screening, a more detailed
analysis was performed on once-through cooling and several closed cycle evapor-
ative cooling systems.
Upon further analysis, once-through cooling was eliminated because of
potential conflicts with the NPDES permit for the NGS once-through cooling
system and the costs associated with avoiding such conflicts. To avoid
adverse impacts in the St. Johns River from two thermal discharges in close
proximity to each other, it was estimated that the intake and discharge lines
for the SJRPP would have to be 10,500 feet and 19,500 feet in length, respec-
tively (JEA/FP&L 1981a). It was also estimated that over the life of the
plant, construction and operation of a-once-through system of this size would
cost $35 to $40 million more than a comparable closed cycle evaporative cooling
system. Because of its higher cost and greater impact on the St. Johns River,
the once-through option was eliminated from further consideration.
A comparison of three types of closed cycle, counterflow evaporative
cooling towers was conducted to select a preferred cooling system. The find-
ings of the comparison are summarized in Table 2.5-1. Natural draft cooling
towers generally are higher in capital cost but lower in operating cost and
energy consumption than rectangular and round mechanical draft cooling towers.
Consequently, the natural draft towers are slightly less expensive on an
annualized equivalent cost basis.
There are also environmental differences among the various designs.
Natural draft towers exhibit a higher vapor plume rise and a longer drift.
Because of their greater height, however, the vapor plume reaches the ground
at a distance and the potential for ground fogging as compared to mechanical
draft towers is reduced. Drift deposition of dissolved solids from the use of
salt water would be low in all three cases since drift eliminators would be
used. However, the use of a natural draft tower would result in a lower
concentration of drift deposition over a somewhat larger area than for the
2-37
-------
Table 2.5-1. Comparison of economic, engineering, and
environmental characteristics of alternative cooling
systems for the SJRPP (JEA/FP&L 1981a).
Characteristic
Capital Cost
($ x 1Q6)
Annualized Cost
($ x 106)
Energy Consumption
(Net MW-hours/yr)
Natural Draft
Cooling Towers
Vapor Plume
Ground Fog
Potential
Drift
Structural
Aesthetics
46.178
10.660
base
higher rise,
longer drift
moderate to low
longer drift
lower concentration
tall
(360-550 ft)
Rectangular
Mechanical Draft
Cooling Towers
36.703
12.163
+12,145
moderate rise
and drift
higher
shorter drift
higher
concentration
moderate
(60-100 ft)
Round
Mechanical Draft
Cooling Towers
37.155
11.857
+14,035
moderate rise
and drift
higher
shorter drift
higher
concentration
moderate
(60-100 ft)
2-38
-------
other cooling systems. Overall, the natural draft towers are considered more
desirable because of their reduced cost, energy consumption, and the reduced
potential for ground fogging (JEA/FP&L 1981a).
2.5.1.2 Cooling Water Sources
The maximum makeup flow rate required for the natural draft evaporative
cooling towers is estimated to be approximately 34,400 gpm (JEA/FP&L 1981a).
Cooling water is potentially available from groundwater and the St. Johns
River. Groundwater was eliminated as a possible source early in the evaluation
because of the potential increase of salt water intrusion into the Floridan
Aquifer that .could result from such a large withdrawal. This use also would
be inappropriate for such a high quality source of water which could be better
used for potable water or manufacturing and other sensitive processes.
Two possible means of obtaining cooling water from the St. Johns River
were examined: direct withdrawal from the Blount Island Channel; and with-
drawal from the existing once-through cooling system serving the NGS. With-
drawal from the NGS canal would eliminate the impacts associated with con-
struction of new intake facilities in the River and would reduce or eliminate
additional impingement and entrainment of organisms from the St. Johns River
(Table 2.5-2). Because of reduced environmental effects and reduced costs
associated with construction, the option of withdrawing cooling water from the
NGS discharge canal was selected (JEA/FP&L 1981a).
2.5.1.3 Cooling Water Discharge Alternatives
Including the 34,400 gpm cooling water discharge and the various plant
wastes, a maximum of 36,700 gpm would be discharged from the SJRPP. The
St. Johns River is the only body of water of sufficient size in the vicinity
of the SJRPP to receive this flow rate. The proposed discharge could be
routed there either by a new pipeline and discharge structure or by utilizing
the existing NGS discharge canal and Y-nozzle diffuser. As in the case of the
cooling water source, use of the NGS discharge canal presents several distinct
advantages as compared to construction and operation of a new discharge struc-
ture (JEA/FP&L 1981a). Based on the minimization of thermal plume entrain-
ment, thermal plume attraction, cold shock, salinity, and biocidal and chemical
effects offered by use of the NGS discharge canal (Table 2.5-3), the canal has
been selected as the discharge point for the SJRPP.
2.5.2 Air Pollution Control Systems
The air pollution control systems are designed to reduce air pollution
emissions from the project as well as minimizing energy requirements, capital
costs, and the generation of water pollutants and solid wastes (JEA/FP&L 1981a).
The evaluation of emission control alternatives with regard to energy, environ-
mental, engineering, and economic objectives is a requirement of the BACT
portions of the applicable Federal PSD Regulations [(43 FR 118:26379-26410,
19 June 1978], and their counterparts in the rules of the FDER, Chapter 17-2,
Florida Administrative Code. The revised Federal PSD regulations [(45 FR
154:52675-52748, August 7, 1980)] are not entirely applicable to this project
since a complete PSD application (Envirosphere 1980) was filed with USEPA
2-39
-------
Table 2.5-2. Environmental assessment of cooling water intake
alternatives for the SJRPP (JEA/FF&L 1981a).
Options
0-A Closed Cycle Cooling-
Intake from NGS (Northside
Generating Station) cooling
water discharge canal during
NGS operation
0-B Closed Cycle Cooling-
Intake directly from
St. Johns River
Advantages
Disadvantages
A-l Eliminates impingement at the
proposed plant's intake
A-2 Of those organisms entrained,
30X to 100Z will be already
stressed beyond recovery from
passage through NGS
A-3 Construction impact on the
aquatic environment limited to
NGS discharge canal
D-l Construction impact on
aquatic environment moved
to Blount Island Channel
D-2 Chance for impingement of
aquatic organisms
D-3 More viable organisms
would be entrained
Table 2.5-3. Environmental assessment of cooling water discharge
alternatives for the SJRPP (JEA/FP&L 1981a).
Options
Closed Cycle Cooling-
Discharge to NGS (Northside
Generating Station) cooling
water intake flume
Advantages
A-l Thermal, saline, and chemical
discharges from SJRPP will be
diluted by the NGS discharge,
thereby reducing the potential
impacts on aquatic biota and
water quality of Blount Island
Channel
A-2 Construction Impact on the
aquatic ecosystem limited to
NGS intake flume
Disadvantages
D-l
Small increase in thermal
attraction at Northside's
discharge in Blount Island
Channel
0-B Closed Cycle Cooling—
Discharge to Blount Island
Channel
D-l
D-2
D-3
Construction impact on
aquatic ecosystem moved
to Blount Island Channel
Increased temperature,
salinity, and chemical
concentrations from blow-
down will be discharged
directly into the Blount
Island Channel resulting
in a greater potential
Impact on the aquatic
ecosystem
Greater potential for
thermal attraction by
placing an additional point
of discharge in Blount
Island Channel
2-40
-------
before the new rules were promulgated. Alternative air quality control systems
were evaluated for particulate matter, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, carbon
monoxide, hydrocarbons, and fugitive dust.
2.5.2.1 Particulate Control
Both electrostatic precipitators (ESP) and fabric filters have been
demonstrated to be effective in reducing particulate emissions from power
plants to the 0.03 Ib/MMBtu level required by NSPS. High energy scrubbers
have been considered in some cases, but generally have not been found to be
suitable by USEPA [(44 FR 113:33579-33624, 11 June 1979]. Therefore, only ESP
and fabric filters were considered for particulate control at the SJRPP.
Energy, economic, and environmental comparisons were made among; (1) fabric
filters at an emission level of 0.02 Ib/MMBtu; (2) ESP at an emission level of
0.03 Ib/MMBtu (the applicable NSPS); and (3) ESP at a lower emission level of
0.02 Ib/MMBtu to match that provided by the filter (JEA/FP&L 1981a). These
comparisons are summarized in Table 2.5-4. Fabric filters tend to require
approximately the same amount of electric energy as ESP's, but the exhaust
flue gas must be maintained at a higher temperature for proper operation. To
maintain this temperature, additional fuel must be burned resulting in net
higher energy requirements for fabric filters.
*
An economic comparison was made among the previously described alterna-
tives using conservative design assumptions for both the ESP's and fabric
filters (JEA/FP&L 1981a). While the ESP's tend to be higher in capital cost
than fabric filters, this difference is compensated for by somewhat lower
operation and maintenance costs. When combined with the filter replacement
costs and the extra fuel costs required for operating filters, both ESP options
appear to be less costly for particulate control than fabric filters.
Because of design factors, fabric filters for this application would be
expected to produce one-third lower emissions than the ESP designed to meet
the BACT limit of 0.03 Ib/MMBtu. Regardless of the alternative selected,
however, modeling done for the SJRPP PSD permit indicated that ambient air
quality standards would not be exceeded, PSD increments would not be violated,
and there would be no significant impact (less than 5 ug/m3) on the Jackson-
ville non-attainment area (JEA/FP&L 1981a). Given the previous analyses, the
fact that the use of fabric filters may not allow the flexibility of oil-firing
the SJRPP boilers, if necessary, and the lack of experience in the application
of fabric filters to power plants, an ESP designed to meet the BACT limit of
0.03 Ib/MMBtu was selected.
2.5.2.2 Sulfur Dioxide Control
A large number of sulfur dioxide emission control technologies are currently
in use or are at various stages of development. These are generally classified
in a three-level system according to whether the technology produces a solid
waste or a recoverable by-product; whether the process is operated in a wet,
semi-wet, or dry mode; and, in the case of wet scrubbing technologies, whether
the absorbent liquid is a slurry or a clear liquid. Initially, 25 sulfur
dioxide control technologies were screened according to criteria of process
2-41
-------
Table 2.5-4. Comparison of particulate control alternatives
for the SJRPP (JEA/FP&L 1981a).
I
-P^-
N>
System/Control Level
1. Electrostatic
Precipitator
(0.03 Ib/MMBtu)
2. Electrostatic
Precipitator
(0.02 Ib/MMBtu)
3. Fabric Filter
(0.02 Ib/MMBtu)
Cost ($ x l.OOQ)
Annual Equiv.
Capital O&M Annual
174,121 24,631 221,701
184,031 25,964 233,699
143,859 28,929 260,387
Equivalent
Energy
Consumption
(kw-yr)
5,462
5,707
9,798
Advantages
1. Lowest cost
2. Energy consumption
lower than for
System 2 or 3
1. One-third lower
emission rate
2. Energy consumption
lower than for
System 3
3. Equivalent annual
cost lower than
System 3 by $688,000
1. One-third lower
emission rate
Disadvantages
1. Higher emission levels,
but ground level con-
centrations not signif-
icantly higher
1. Equivalent cost higher than
System 1 by $11,998,000
2. Energy consumption higher
than for System 1
Equivalent cost higher than
System 1 by $38,086,000
and System 2 by
$26,688,000
Energy consumption higher
than for System 1 or 2
Might not allow oil-
firing
Less extensive operating
experience than for
electrostatic precipita-
tors
-------
development status, process performance capabilities, and resource requirements
(Table 2.5-5) (JEA/FP&L 1981a). An alternative process was generally considered
to be acceptable from a development status standpoint if it were on order or
in use for at least 2,500 MW's of electric utility generating capacity and if
at least 100 MW's of this capacity were in operation by the end of 1980. The
performance of each technology was judged by its ability to meet NSPS, feasi-
bility of waste and by-product disposal, and the need for special fuels and
reagents that might not be available over the life of the plant. As a result
of this initial screening, the lime/limestone wet scrubbing technology and the
lime spray dryer technology were selected for more detailed analysis.
Lime Spray Dryer
In the lime spray dryer system, hot flue gas comes directly from the
boiler into a contacting chamber where an atomizer introduces an aqueous
lime solution into the flue gas stream. The S02 is absorbed by the lime
and the thermal energy of the flue gas evaporates the water carrier to
produce a dry powder mixture of sulfites and sulfates with some residual
unreacted lime. This dry waste product is removed from the flue gas
downstream of the spray dryer along with the fly ash in a fabric filter.
A regenerative variation of this process using sodium carbonate is also
available.
Lime/Limestone Scrubber
Lime and limestone slurry scrubbing systems are the most prevalent FGD
processes used for utility boilers in the United States. The lime/limestone wet
scrubbing process uses a slurry of calcium oxide or calcium carbonate to absorb
S02 in a wet scrubber. Some oxygen also is absorbed and causes oxidation of
absorbed S02 and formation of calcium sulfate. The calcium sulfite and sulfate
crystals are precipitated in a holding tank. If process conditions are con-
trolled, as proposed for the SJRPP, the calcium sulfate can be of sufficiently
high quality to be sold as commercial grade gypsum.
Comparison of FGD Processes
Energy, economic, and environmental comparisons were made among the
lime/limestone scrubber system at both 90% and 95% removal efficiencies and a
lime spray dryer system at a 90% removal efficiency (Table 2.5-6). The systems
compared in this case were designed on the basis of a "worst case" coal (4%
sulfur, 10,500 BTU/lb heating value) (JEA/FP&L 1981a).
Although it has not been as thoroughly tested and developed as the
lime/limestone scrubber process, the lime spray dryer offers certain potential
advantages. It requires less electric energy to operate and the flue gas does
not have to be reheated to effect proper plume rise characteristics from the
stacks. Also, with its integral particulate control system (assumed to be a
fabric filter in this case) the overall capital cost for particulate and S02
control would be lower than the total control package for particulates and S02
using ESP's and lime/limestone wet slurry scrubbing. However, operating costs
and the overall capitalized annual cost for this system would be higher. The
2-43
-------
Table 2.5-5. Screening of sulfur dioxide emission control technologies (JEA/FP&L 1981a).
Process
£> Lime/Limestone
£ Alkaline Fly Ash
J7J Limestone Boiler Injection
u |— Sea Water
>> ;s n Sodium Carbonate
§ 3 Dual Alkali
< o Lime/Chloride
V o L Dilute Acid
*- ,£ Semi-Dry Spray Dryer - Lime
H - Sodium
Dry Nahcolite
Dry Furnace Injection - Calcium
- - - Sodium
1 Magnesia Slurry
2,500 MW's in
Operation
and /or
on Order
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
1 S.team Stripping X
L Id Wellman Lord Sodium Sulfite X
0) 0) . -,
^ js r-\ Ammonia X
^ Copper Oxide
o Catalytic Oxidation
1 Molten Carbonate
X
X
X
X
X
X
Existence of
3 or More
Qualified
Domestic
Suppliers
X
X
X
X
x(?)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Waste
Inherent Disposal/
Performance By-product
Capability Acceptability
X
X
X
X
X X
X
X
Special Fuels/
Reagents/
Reprocessing
Facilities
X
—
X
X
X(?)
X
X
X
X
Note: "X" denotes unacceptability.
-------
Table 2.5-6. Comparison of sulfur dioxide control alternatives
for the SJRPP (JEA/FP&L 1981a).
ho
t
Ln
1. Lime/Limestone
Scrubber
(0.76 Ib/MMBtu)
2. Lime/Limestone
Scrubber
(0.4 Ib/MMBtu)
3. Lime Spray, Dryer
(0.. 76 Ib/MMBtu)
Cost ($ x 1000)
System/Control Level Capital
Annual
O&M
Equiv.
Annual
283,523 99,997 900,063
286,267 102,954 926,679
Equivalent
Energy
Consumption
(kw-yr)
24,982
26,047
415,487 151,342 1,362,214 15,106
Advantages
1. Energy consumption
lower than System 2
2. Lowest equivalent
cost
1. Lowest emission rate
2. Equivalent cost
lower than System
3 by $213,834,000
1. Low energy consump-
tion
2. No wet sludge
handling
3. Low water usage
Disadvantages
1. Energy consumption
higher than System 3
2. Water consumption
higher than System 3
1. Highest energy con-
sumption
2. Sludge generation
higher
3. Equivalent cost,higher
than System 1 by
$26,616,000
4. Higher water consumption
than System 3
1. Cost higher than
System 1 by $240,450,000
and System 2 by
$213,834,000
2. Not as much operating
experience as for lime/
limestone scrubber
3. Will not allow produc-
tion of a usable by-
product (gypsum)
-------
other advantages of the lime spray dryer process in this case are that it
requires low water usage and that it produces a dry waste product.
The disadvantages of a sodium based throwaway spray dryer system focus
upon the generally high operation cost, the high cost of the lime, and the
lack of operating experience with this system. The first two problems would
be mitigated somewhat by using the regenerative sodium alkali process varia-
tion, although process complexity and capital costs increase dramatically.
Furthermore, the regeneration step using carbon has not been demonstrated at a
full scale installation. For these reasons the lime dryer was rejected.
Lime/Limes tone
The lime/limestone processes are favored by utilities because they use
naturally occurring materials, and because their operating costs are not as
high as for many other processes. In this case, the option also exists for
production of the salable gypsum by-product.
The major advantages of limestone wet scrubbing systems over lime systems
include a lower reactant cost and the general availability of limestone in the
quantities required. Although a limestone system consumes more auxiliary
electrical power than a lime system, it is less energy intensive overall since
substantial fuel is required to produce lime. For these reasons a limestone
wet scrubbing technology was selected over lime scrubbing.
If a limestone scrubber system were to be constructed to remove 95% of
the S02, the resulting reduction in emissions would decrease increment con-
sumption by nearly 50%. JEA contended that in either case, allowable PSD
increments would not be exceeded (JEA/FP&L 1981a), however, FDER has modeled a
violation of the short-term, 24-hour S02 State standard which may have been
mitigated by the use of a more efficient scrubber. Resolution of this issue
is still in negotiation. The net benefit from the increased removal effi-
ciency would be a 20% reduction in maximum short-term concentrations of S02 in
the immediate vicinity of the plant and a 5% reduction in average annual
maximum concentrations.
Based on energy, economic, and environmental factors, a limestone wet
scrubber system designed to meet the BACT emission level of 0.76 Ib/MMBtu and
to produce a marketable gypsum by-product was selected by JEA and FP&L for use
at the SJRPP-
2.5.2.3 Alternative- Controls for Other Emissions
Other emissions of concern include nitrogen oxide (NOx), carbon monoxide
(CO), hydrocarbons (HC), and fugitive dust. The proposed BACT emission levels
are 0.6 Ib/MMBtu for NOx and CO will be determined during performance testing
for compliance with NSPS. Emissions of NOx and CO are a function of boiler
design and operating characteristics and are inversely related to each other.
In practice, manufacturers optimize their designs in order to optimize the
reduction of NOx and CO emissions. Because these levels are fixed by boiler
design, no alternatives were examined.
2-46
-------
Fugitive particulates will be generated by fuel handling, waste handling,
and salt drift from the cooling towers. Control measures for these sources
described in Section 2.2 included coal pile wetting, enclosed conveyors,
fabric filters at transfer .points, and mist eliminators on the cooling towers.
These controls constitute BACT and no others were examined.
2.5.3 Water Systems Alternatives
During the design of the SJRPP, studies were conducted to minimize water
use through reuse and recycle of water and wastewater to the greatest extent
possible. The water requirements of the SJRPP were described in Section 2.2
and the water system alternatives for the condenser cooling system were des-
cribed in Section 2.5.1. This section analyzes the other alternative water
systems proposed for the SJRPP.
2.5.3.1 FGD System
The selected sulfur dioxide control system will require an average of
2,640 gpm (3,150 gpm maximum) for makeup. In order to be able to produce a
commercial grade gypsum by-product as proposed, the makeup water must be of
relatively high quality, containing a low dissolved solids concentration.
Surface water from the St. Johns River and wastewater from the plant are high
in dissolved solids and would require expensive treatment to be made suitable.
Also, preliminary estimates indicate that chloride levels in the makeup water
must be between 4,000 to 8,000 mg/1 to avoid corrosion of sensitive components
scrubber. Consequently, groundwater was found to be preferable as the source
of FGD system makeup (JEA/FP&L 1981a). The use of surface water could be
considered if noncommercial grade gypsum were to be produced.
2.5.3.2 Bottom Ash Handling
The proposed bottom ash sluicing system would require an average of 2,250
gpm of recirculating water and 200 gpm of makeup water (JEA/FP&L 1981b).
Bottom ash would be dewatered in bins and the ash would be sold or disposed of
dry. Surface water from the St. Johns River would not be suitable for makeup
because of its high dissolved solids content. Fresh water is required for
makeup to this system in order to prevent excessive corrosion and to avoid
high chloride levels in the dry bottom ash. High levels of chloride in the
bottom ash make it undesirable from a marketing standpoint and would reduce
the chances for resource recovery (Moehle 1981b). The estimated 100 gpm of
blowdown will be used for fly ash wetting to reduce fugitive dust.
2.5.3.3 Other Water Uses
Approximately 125 gpm of plant service water and 600,000 gallons of
stored fire protection water will be needed. Groundwater will be used for
plant service water due to the quality requirements for potable water and also
for fire protection due to the need to prevent corrosion and scaling in the
storage and distribution systems (JEA/FP&L 1981a). An average of 18 gpm of
low quality water will be required for dust suppression on the coal piles.
Due to the lack of specific water quality requirements, reclaimed water from
sedimentation ponds will be used for coal dust suppression.
2-47
-------
2.5.4 Wastewater Treatment Systems Alternatives
The SJBPP will be subject to the USEPA Effluent Guidelines and Standards
for Steam Electric Power Generating, Standards of Performance for New Sources
(40 CFR, Part 423.15, 8 October 1974, as amended) (Table 4.3-1) and State water
quality standards set forth in Chapters 17-3 and 17-4, Florida Administrative
Code (Table 3.3-1). The design objectives of the SJRPP wastewater treatment
system are to comply with these effluent guidelines and standards, to optimize
the use of the plant's water resources by minimizing plant water makeup and
discharges, to maximize water reuse, and to minimize costs (JEA/FP&L 1981a).
The sources of wastewater from the SJRPP were described in Section 2.2.
The principal wastewaters generated at the plant are plant process wastewater,
sanitary wastewater, and cooling tower blowdown containing biocides.
2.5.4.1 Plant Process and Chemical Wastewater
Two alternative state-of-the-art approaches to treatment of plant process
and chemical wastewater were considered: (1) treatment and partial reuse; and
(2) complete treatment and reuse. The complete treatment and reuse option
would require that the wastewater treatment facility be designed to soften (i.e.
remove) calcium, magnesium, and silica in addition to removing other pollutants
so that the wastewater can be reused as makeup for the bottom ash transport
system and the condenser cooling system (JEA/FP&L 1981a). This option is
possible, but the cost of constructing and operating such a system would be
very high for the 1,291 gpm (1.86 million gallons per day) of wastewater
generated on-site.
A partial recycle system was selected because it would provide substan-
tial reuse of plant wastewater but at a lower cost (JEA/FP&L 1981a). In this
case wastewater would be used where possible within the plant. The waste-
water would be high in dissolved solids, however, and would be treated prior
to discharge in order to reduce regulated pollutants to within standards.
Both integrated and segregated systems were examined for this option. Segre-
gated treatment would provide individual treatment facilities for each waste-
water stream. Integrated treatment involves the use of one facility which is
designed with sufficient flexibility to provide treatment for each waste
stream according to its intended use, reuse, or discharge. The integrated
system was chosen due to cost and operational considerations (JEA/FP&L 1981a).
2.5.4.2 Sanitary Wastewater
Both on-site treatment and discharge and transportation of sanitary
wastewater to the City of Jacksonville municipal wastewater treatment system
were considered. Transportation and treatment in the Jacksonville system was
rejected due to the fact that it would be very expensive to build the five
miles of connecting sewers necessary to reach the nearest manhole in the
municipal system (JEA/FP&L 1981a). A relatively simple extended aeration type
package wastewater treatment plant could be installed on-site. It would easily
accommodate fluctuations in flow and yet provide very efficient, dependable
treatment at a modest cost. Therefore, on-site treatment using a package
wastewater treatment plant was selected for management of sanitary wastewater.
2-48
-------
2.5.4.3 Biocide Treatment of Recirculating Cooling Water
Treatment of the recirculating cooling water is required to control
biological fouling of the cooling towers and the associated- piping and struc-
tures. An Amertap, nonchemical system is being considered to control fouling
of the condenser. Three alternative biocide treatments were considered for
control of fouling in the cooling towers: chlorination, bromochlorination,
and ozonation.
Chlorination is the industry standard for control of biological fouling
in cooling towers. Chlorine is an inexpensive and effective biocide. It can
be added to the recirculating cooling water either as gaseous,chlorine, solid
calcium hypochlorite, or liquid sodium hypochlorite to form hypochlorous acid
and hypochlorite ions which are the effective biocides. In order to control
biological fouling, a sufficient concentration of residual chlorine biocides
must be maintained in the system for a long enough period of time (typically 2
hours) to destroy microorganisms in the system. Chlorine residuals (TRC) in
the form of free available chlorine and other residual oxidants remaining in
the system are discharged in the system blowdown. The toxic effects of chlor-
ine residuals (TRC) and other residual oxidants (TRO) on the aquatic environment
are of concern and must be minimized by careful management of chlorine dosing.
The use of bromine chloride as a cooling system biocide is relatively new
and is under study. The bromine chloride hydrolyzes in water to hypobromous
acid (an effective biocide) and hydrochloric acid. This hydrolosis results in
a lower level of residual chlorine and chloramines than does the hydrolosis of
chlorine and thereby reduces the toxic effects of residual chlorine from the
cooling system blowdown. In addition, although bromine chloride is more
effective than chlorine as a biocide for microorganisms, it exhibits a lower
toxicity effect on fish. The major drawback in the use of bromine chloride as
a biocide is that it has not been demonstrated for use in cooling towers.
Ozone (03) is one of the most powerful biocides known. It is very effective
and-decomposes to oxygen after a short time in the water, thereby improving
water quality. However, ozonation has several drawbacks including the need
for expensive on-site production facilities (it cannot be stored), corro-
siveness to iron alloys and slightly less effectiveness than chlorine on some
biological slimes which foul cooling towers. There is no operating experience
with ozone for this purpose and the capital and O&M costs are approximately
twice those for an equivalent chlorination system (JEA/FP&L 1981a). Although
ozonation or bromochlorination would be preferable from an environmental
standpoint, chlorination was selected because of its proven effectiveness,
cost, and proven operating experience (JEA/FP&L 1981a).
2.5.5 Solid Waste Management Alternatives
Solid waste including bottom ash, fly ash, and FGD sludge will be gener-
ated in large quantities by the power plant and emission control systems. If
no market can be found for these materials, provisions will have to be made to
dispose of them on-site. Alternative disposal plans were examined with the
objective being to minimize leachate from the solid wastes into the ground-
water and surface water.
2-49
-------
2.5.5.1 Bottom Ash
Three bottom ash disposal alternatives were considered: (1) wet sluicing
to a lined ash pond for disposal; (2) wet sluicing to dewatering bins and
landfill disposal; and (3) mechanical ash removal with landfill disposal
(JEA/FP&L 1981a). The first alternative, wet sluicing to a lined ash pond, is
the Industry standard. In this system, ash laden sluicing water is routed
from the ash hoppers to the pond where the ash settles out and the water is
recirculated back to the plant. The second alternative is similar except that
the ash is separated from the sluicing water in bins and then trucked to a
landfill for disposal. The third alternative accomplishes simultaneous ash
removal and dewatering by means of a conveyor system. The ash is trucked from
the conveyor discharge point to a landfill. This alternative requires less
water and power than the other systems but is relatively new and untested in
the United States. Because JEA and FP&L hope to be able to market the bottom
ash, the second alternative involving direct dewatering of the ash was selected.
This proven technology involves relatively small land requirements and allows
for easy disposal of dry ash if it cannot be marketed (JEA/FP&L 1981b).
2.5.5.2 Fly Ash
Three fly ash disposal alteratives were considered: (1) wet sluicing to
an ash pond for disposal; (2) pneumatic conveyance with on-^site disposal; and
(3) pneumatic conveyance with off-site disposal (JEA /FP&L 1981a). Since the
fly ash will be collected dry in the ESP's and sold by the utilities if possible,
it appears that the first alternative would create an unnecessary wastewater
stream. Further, a complete recycle system would be required for the fly ash
transport water because proposed USEPA regulations prohibit any discharge of
TSS and oil and grease from the system. Because of dissolved solids buildup
in the transport water and associated scaling problems, a complete recycle
system, would be expensive and difficult to operate.
The difference between the second and third alternatives is the disposal
site. In both alternatives, the fly ash would be temporarily stored in silos
at the plant. If it could not be sold, it would be disposed in a landfill.
Because adequate land exists on-site to accommodate the expected quantity of
fly ash, it would not be necessary to haul the fly ash off-site for disposal
(JEA/FP&L 1981a). Therefore, the second alternative is preferred. Proposed
disposal practices are discussed in the following section.
2.5.5.3 FGD Sludge
Three FGD sludge disposal alternatives were considered: (1) on-site
disposal in ponds; (2) on-site disposal in a landfill; and (3) recovery and
reuse (JEA/FP&L 1981a). Recovery and reuse of waste materials was one of the
basic design goals of the SJRPP wherever possible and the selected FGD system
was designed to produce a salable quality calcium sulfate (gypsum) by-product
(Sections 2.5.2.2 and 2.5.3.1). Because of uncertainties regarding the actual
marketability of the FGD sludge and the potential for temporary market inter-
ruptions, however, provisions for on-site storage will be necessary. In order
to determine the best handling practices for fly ash and FGD sludge, the
utilities propose a five-year test program (JEA/FP&L 1981a). All solid waste
not associated with the test program will be landfilled in unlined landfill
2-50
-------
areas with monitoring wells to detect any leachate problems. Due to the
unknown leachate characteristics of the fly ash and FGD sludge, the potential
for contamination of the groundwater cannot be discounted.
2.5.6 Coal Handling Systems Alternatives
Coal handling systems are designed to remove coal from the rail or barge
coal delivery system and convey it to the proper place on the site for use or
storage. Other coal handling systems are used within the plant for reclaiming
from active or inactive storage piles and to convey the coal to the in-plant
silos. Design considerations include the mode of delivery, economics, fugitive
dust control, coal characteristics, coal pile runoff, and dredge and fill
restrictions for the barge unloading facility.
On-site storage facilities designed to accommodate a 120-day inactive
coal reserve of 1.15 million tons and a three-day active coal reserve of approxi-
mately 39,000 tons will be required. Six primary options for rail-borne
transport and handling of coal at the SJRPP site were considered as follows
(JEA/FP&L 1981a):
Option Unloading Stackout Reclaim
Number Method Method Method
I Rotary Dumper Stacker-Reclaimer Stacker-Reclaimer
II Dump Pit Stacker-Reclaimer Stacker-Reclaimer
III Rotary Dumper Boom Stacker Rotary Plow
IV Dump Pit Boom Stacker Rotary Plow
V Trestle Trestle Rotary Plow
VI Trestle Trestle Stacker-Reclaimer
Since coal is also potentially available to the SJRPP site by barge, four
secondary options involving coal barges and transporting the coal from Blount
Island to the site were also considered as follows:
Option Number Description of System
VII Continuous bucket ladder barge unloader/overland
conveyor to plant
VIII Receiving bin for self-unloading barge or ship/
overland conveyor to plant
DC Barge/ship unloader/overland conveyor to plant
X Barge/ship unloader/shuttle train to plant
using existing tracks
It was assumed that all of the primary options for delivery of coal would
be essentially the same from an environmental point of view and that cost and
operability should be the distinguishing factor. For details on the cost,
refer to Section 9.8.4 of the EID (JEA/FP&L 1981a). Based on the fact that
2-51
-------
roughly one quarter of the coal delivered to the site each year would be
purchased on the spot market, there is uncertainty about the type and opera-
bility of all rail cars arriving at the site. Therefore, despite the estimate
that Option II would be slightly less expensive, Option I with its rotary car
dumper was selected for reasons of flexibility in handling''all types of coal
cars (JEA/FP&L 1981a). Also, because of cost and potential right-of-way
problems associated with the conveyors in three of the four barge unloading
facilities, Option X with its shuttle train delivery to the plant was selected
(JEA/FP&L 1981a).
It should be noted that during the certification hearings on the SJRPP
before the Florida Public Service Commission (FPSC), the cost effectiveness of
the Blount Island coal terminal was questioned and the FPSC retained the right
to review the prudency of the facility during rate-setting hearings (FPSC
1981).
2.5.7 Plant Orientation Alternatives
Within the confines of the SJRPP site, alternatives were considered
regarding the orientation of the proposed facilities and waste disposal areas
in order to realize the least potential impact on the facilities and the
environment (JEA/FP&L 1981a). The design objectives were to maximize use of
facilities at the adjacent NGS, minimize earthwork, avoid deposition of cool-
ing tower drift on critical project components and sensitive areas adjacent to
the plant, avoid wetlands, and comply with applicable local, State, and Federal
regulations regarding air quality, water quality, wetlands, floodplains, and
dredge and fill activities.
2.5.7.1 SJRPP Site Orientation
The proposed 1,200 MW power plant is designed on the basis of a standard
plant concept which limits the flexibility for revision to the layout within
the plant rail loop (JEA/FP&L 1981a). Therefore, the alternatives available
for modification of the plant site are limited to the reorientation of the
rail loop. The two major alternative orientations which were considered are
depicted in Figure 2.5-1. Based on assessments of siting and environmental
factors, Scheme A was the preferred alternative (JEA/FP&L 1981a). The primary
reason for this selection was that the disruption of the small stream crossing
the eastern end of the rail loop under Scheme B would constitute a greater
impact on its associated wetlands than the destruction of the bayhead wetland
in Scheme A. It appears that alternatives involving location of the rail loop
above Island Drive would offer no improvement with respect to impacts on
wetlands. Also, the need for large waste disposal areas on the site limits
the number of orientations that may be considered. Due to the limitations of
the site, it does not appear that the rail loop can be reoriented to avoid
impacts on wetlands without acquiring more land further inland away from the
sensitive wetlands. Acquisition of additional lands has been suggested as an
alternative by the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission (Appendix H).
JEA contends, however, that relocation of the rail loop to any other area near
the present site would result in severe adverse effects on the schedule and
cost of the project. It was estimated that additional engineering investiga-
tion and evaluation of the site would result in a 18-month delay in the schedule
and that the cost of this delay would be approximately $115 million plus
2-52
-------
U Island Drive \
Northside Power Plant
NOTE: Plant Area Within Rail Loop is 300 + ac.
Figure 2.5-1. Alternative plant locations at the SJRPP (adapted
from JEA/FP&L 1981a).
2-53
-------
additional engineering costs (Moehle 1981d). In addition, the area described
has been permitted for use as a municipal landfill for Jacksonville. If this
site were used for the power plant, the City may have difficulty finding a
suitable replacement site for the landfill.
2.5.7.2 Coal Barge Unloading Facility
Alternate locations were a,lso considered for the ship coal unloading
facility at the proposed site (JEA/FP&L 1981a). These include Dunn's Terminal,
Dame Point, and Blount Island (Figure 2.5-2). Based on the reduced amount of
dredging as compared to other sites, the proximity to approved spoil areas,
and cost considerations (including estimates for land acquisition, construct^
ion, cost of railroad or conveyor, operation and*maintenance), the Blount
Island unloading option is the preferred alternative.
2.6 ALTEBNATIVE MEANS OF SATISFYING THE NEED FOR THE PROJECT
2.6.1 Need for Analysis of Alternatives
The Florida Public Service Commission (FPSC) from its evaluation of the
need for the proposed project (SJRPP) has determined that additional capacity
for the purpose of ensuring adequate supplies of power would not be required
in the proposed project's initial time frame (Appendix E). JEA .and FP&L will
require additional generating capacity for reliability purposes in 1991 and
1989, respectively. However, the main justification for SJRPP Units 1 and 2
to begin operation in December 1985 and May 1987, respectively, was to dis-
place expensive oil-fired generation during the period between plant startup
and the time that the additional power is needed, thus lowering the cost of
power to the JEA and FP&L customers. The FPSC's subsequent determination and
final order on SJRPP was based on the premise that ". . . the salient issue
in the determination of need for SJRPP Units 1 and 2 with in-service dates of
December 1985 and May 1987, respectively, is whether the construction of these
units in the time frames proposed represents the lowest cost alternative
available to the continued use of expensive oil-fired generation in peninsular
Florida, and in the areas served by JEA and FP&L" (FPSC 1981b). The FPSC
considered several alternatives to the continued use of oil to generate elec-
tricity. These included the proposed project; increased purchase of power
from other non-oil-fired utilities; conversion of existing oil units to coal,
coal-oil mix, or coal-water mix; purchase of a portion of Georgia Power's
Plant Vogtle nuclear units; and additional conservation in excess of FEECA
goals (Section 1.5). Based on the information and data provided at the Public
Hearings of 22 and 23 May 1981, FPSC reached the final decision as quoted in
Section 1.5.
The economic and environmental evaluation of alternatives to the SJRPP
was identified at the public scoping meeting as a major issue for considerat-
ion in the SAR/EIS. In addition, USEPA is required by the regulations of NEPA
to identify and assess reasonable alternatives to the proposed action that
could potentially avoid or minimize adverse effects on the quality of the
human environment. In this case, alternatives for consideration should meet
the need for the project identified by the FPSC. Although a variety of oil
displacement technologies were considered and subsequently eliminated by the
FPSC when compared individually to the SJRPP, it is possible that combinations
2-54
-------
V^—
0
0
i
MILES
1 2
KILOMETERS
2
••••§«••
Figure 2.5-2. Alternate coal unloading facility locations (JEA/
FP&L 1981a).
2-55
-------
of several technologies could provide a cost-effective means of displacing
costly oil-fired generating capacity with less adverse environmental impacts
than the proposed project. Based on this an investigation of alternatives to
the proposed SJRPP was undertaken for the SAR/EIS.
The purpose of the EIS alternatives analysis is to consider the potential
options including those identified by the FPSC to the continued use of oil and
also to consider other feasible alternatives which would meet the primary
objective of the project, i.e., the displacement of oil-fired generating
capacity with a less expensive supply of electricity to JEA and FP&L customers.
The economic and environmental ramifications of these alternatives were examin-
ed. In recognizing the importance of also providing an adequate, reliable
source of electric power to meet future demands, evaluation of other alterna-
tives which would provide near-term economic relief by displacing oil-fired
generation does not preclude construction of SJRPP or other generating facili-
ties when needed to provide additional capacity and displace additional oil-gen-
erating capacity. Thus the alternatives considered in the EIS which would
meet the near-term objective of displacing oil and lowering 'electric rates
could also complement the long-term objective of providing adequate power
supply.
2.6.2 Available Technologies for Oil Displacement
In order to develop alternatives, the technologies appropriate for use in
Florida during the current time frame had to be identified. The identifica-
tion of these technologies was accomplished by feasibility screening. A more
detailed discussion of the screening process and the power technologies con-
sidered is included in Appendix AA.
The analysis included a systematic review of a wide variety of conven-
tional and nonconventional energy technologies which could be considered as
alternatives to oil-generated power. These technologies were screened on the
basis of the following criteria:
• Technology must be implementable by 1987;
• Technology must be technically and commercially proven;
• Technology should reduce the use of oil as a boiler fuel; and
• Needed fuel resource must be available in Florida or a transportation
network must exist to bring in the fuel.
The current estimate of research and development and planning lead time for
each of the technologies considered is presented in Figure 2.6-1. Table 2.6-1
summarizes the results of the screening of each of the alternative techno-
logies and identifies those which were selected for further evaluation.
Many of the alternative technologies were eliminated from further considera-
tion based on extensive lead time requirements, regulatory and/or environ-
mental constraints, high operation and/or construction costs, or the unproven
nature of the technology. Those technologies which were considered as viable
2-56
-------
Figure 2.6-1. Time required for implementation of various energy technologies.
Ni
i
Ln
IMS 1987*
-I 1 1 1 1 L-
1890
1995
2000
ZOOS
2010
2015
2020
2025
Pioposed
Coal-Fired Planl
Fuel Cells
Geollieimal
Biomass
Solar Central
Direct Healing
Solar Residential
Electricity Generation
Photovoltaic Solar
Residential Application
OTEC
Ocean Currents
Tidal Power
Wind
Hydroelectric Power
Refuse Power
Natural Gas Conversion
Nuclear
Coal Liquefaction
Coal Gasification
COM
Coal Conversion
Wheeling
Cageneialion
PLANNING LEAD TIME
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
• Dottles Luul ol Conaucillly Viible Entity Alleiubvti
-------
Table 2.6-1. Summary of technology screening proceaa used to Identify alternatives to the proposed SJRPP project.
Nuclear
Coal Gasification
Coal Liquefaction
Natural Gas
Refuse Power
Solar Hot Water
Solar Central Power
Photovoltaic Conversion
Ocean Thermal. Conversion
l^3 Wind Power
Q£ Hydroelectric Power
Biomass Power (Wood)
Ceo thermal
Magneto Hydrodynamic Power
Fuel Cells
Tidal Power
Ocean Currents
Coal/Oil Mixture Conversion
Coal Conversion
Purchase of Power
Cogeneration
Lead Time Regulatory
Requirements Constraints
Long
Long
Long
X
-
-
Long
Long
Long
Moderate -
-
Moderate
Long
Long
Moderate
Long
-
-
-
Yes
Technological Resource Cost Environmental
Constraints Constraints Requirements Constraints
-
-
X
-
-
X . -
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
-
-
-
Reliability
High Capital
High
High
Increasing
-
-
High
High
High
High X
-
-
-
-
X
-
-
-
-
High
Viable Alternative
to SJRPF
No
lio
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
Ho
No
No
No
Ho
No
Ho
No
Ho
Yes
Yes
Yes
Ho
1. Although natural gas is currently low in cost, Its cost is expected to increase dramatically after deregulation. Also, there Is no additional pipe-
line capacity in Florida and no expansion of capacity Is being planned.
2. "X" indicates the presence of a significant constraint.
-------
alternatives to SJRPP were not subject to these regulatory, environmental, or
technological constraints; were relatively cost-effective; and could be brought
on-line within the required time frame.
In summary, the technologies which met the screening criteria and were
retained for further evaluation as alternatives to oil-fired power operation
included the following:
• generation of electricity from refuse (refuse-fired power plant);
• conversion of existing oil-fired boilers to burn coal or a coal-oil
mixture;
• reduction in electrical demand by installing residential solar hot
water heaters;
• construction of a small coal-fired power plant; and
• purchase of power.
2.6.3 Development of Alternatives
Based on the previous analysis of technologies for displacement of
oil-fired electric power generation and the analysis of alternatives conducted
by the FPSC during the need hearing on the SJRPP, it was concluded that a
number of alternative power systems could be developed which could satisfy the
oil displacement goals of the utilities and their customers. The viable
technologies were combined to form several alternatives which would match
the oil displacement achieved by the SJRPP. These alternatives could not
be developed to the level of detail provided by JEA and FP&L for the pro-
posed project, but they were developed to a level of detail sufficient to
determine the basic engineering and economic factors required to make a
meaningful comparison of their relative environmental impacts. A detailed
discussion of the development of alternatives for consideration in the EIS
is presented in Appendix AA and detailed discussions of the economic
and engineering analyses of the selected alternatives may be found in
Appendices BB and CC, respectively.
2.6.3.1 Criteria for Alternatives Development
The feasible technologies were combined into alternatives which met the
following criteria:
• the alternative would replace or save oil equivalent to or greater than
the oil saved by the proposed project;
• the alternative must replace an amount of oil for each utility (JEA
and FP&L) equivalent to the oil displaced by the proposed coal-fired
power plant;
• the alternative must not result in any loss of capacity to either
utility; and
2-59
-------
• the alternative must be implementable within the proposed time frame
of the SJRPP project (1987).
Large-scale technologies such as coal conversion were tied to specific
units within each utility system being considered. In this way, the environ-
mental impacts of the alternatives could be evaluated for a particular site.
Small-scale technologies (i.e., installation of residential solar hot water
heaters) could not reasonably be tied to a particular site or even a parti-
cular area within the service area of each utility because their application
would be so widely dispersed. Therefore, assessment of the alternatives
involving small-scale alternatives was treated generally.
The feasible technologies available for FP&L include conversion of Sanford
Units 4 and 5 to burn coal, purchase of a share of Georgia Power's Vogtle
Nuclear Power Plant, installation of solar hot water heaters, and construction
of refuse-fired power plants. For JEA, feasible technologies include coal
conversion, coal-oil conversion, residential solar hot water heaters, refuse-
fired power, purchase of a share of Plant Vogtle, and construction of a new
small coal-fired power plant. These feasible technologies were combined into
four different alternatives. This SAR/EIS examines these four alternatives,
the proposed action (Section 2.2), and the No Action Alternative.
2.6.3.2 Alternative 1
Alternative 1 consists of construction of refuse-powered facilities in
the JEA and FP&L service areas, conversion of JEA's Northside Units 1 and 3
from oil firing to burn a coal-oil mixture, installation of residential solar
hot water heaters in the JEA and FP&L service areas, purchase by JEA and FP&L
of a portion of Georgia Power's Plant Vogtle, and construction of 150 miles of
transmission lines. The geographic locations of the major components of
Alternative 1 are indicated in Figure 2.6-2 and its major power sources and
oil displacement characteristics are summarized in Table 2.6-2. Alternative 1
would result in oil savings of 5.4 million barrels per year by FP&L and 5.9
million barrels per year by JEA. It would also increase the capacity of the
FP&L system by 550 MW and the JEA system by 228 MW.
Residential Solar Hot Water Heaters
Under this alternative, it is assumed that FP&L and JEA would sponsor the
retrofitting of solar water heaters for 25% of all new and 10% of all existing
residential customers in their respective service areas. In case of a retrofit
unit, the utility is assumed to pay for the manufacture and installation of
the flat-plate collector, the additional piping, the pump, and the storage
tank. New units would be very similar, although the additional storage tank
is not absolutely necessary.
By 1988, this program would result in the installation of 23,817 solar
water heating units in the JEA service area and 338,734 units in the FP&L
service area. The construction of the solar units is assumed to occur evenly
throughout a-six-year period (1982-1987) and would require JEA to build about
3,970 units/year and FP&L to build about 56,456 units/year. Each solar water
heater unit is expected to replace the use of approximately 2,100 kwh of
2-60
-------
New
Transmission
Line
UUtE POIWETT
*™«^^^
Brevaij
County
Refuse
Facility
Manatee County
Refuse Facility
SITES FOR ALTERNATIVE #1
1980 TEN-YEAR PLAN
STATE OF FLORIDA
ttWHO
_«_Mmeo mounts .
• raaorr jrrtl
lira
— TRANSMISSION LINCS-
DKCTU iima un-
1. Refuse-Powered
Facilities: JEA and FPL
2. Conversion of Northside
Units #1 and #3 to Bum a
Coal-Oil Mixture (JEA)
3. Purchased Power from Vogtie
Nuclear (JEA & FPL)
4. Residential Solar Power
(not sited) (JEA & FPL)
I980-I989
' STATE OF FLORIDA
ELECTRIC SYSTEM MAP
ntCPMCD BT
FLORIDA COORDINATING GROUP
Figure 2.6-2. Geographic location of major components of Alternative 1,
2-61
-------
Table 2.6-2. Summary of power sources and oil displacement
for Alternative 1.*
Capacity ' Barrels of Oil
kwh/yr Displaced/yr
Source of Power (MW) x 1Q (x 10 barrels)
FP&L
Residential Solar 116.0 711.3 1,147
Seminole County Refuse 9.5 58.2 94
Manatee County Refuse 11.9 73.0 118
Sarasota County Refuse 14.6 89.5 144
Brevard County Refuse 22.3 136.7 221
Purchased Power * 376.0 2,303.8 3,716
Total 550.3 3,372.6 5,440
Net increase in capacity of 550 MW
JEA
Residential Solar 8.2 50.0 87
Duval County Refuse 56.2 344.6 600
Coal-o£l Mixture
(Northside #1 &.#3) 178.0 1,091.5 1,901
Purchased Power * 307.6 1,886.5 3,287
Total 550.0 3,372.6 5,875
Net increase in capacity - 228.4 MW
*For assumptions and details of the power generation data, see Appendix CC.
This alternative includes construction of new transmission lines as follows:
Tifton, Georgia to Ft. White (50 miles)
Ft. White to the Central Florida substation (100 miles)
figures indicated are net purchases. Actual amount purchased is 3% higher
to account for transmission losses.
2-62
-------
electricity per year. This replacement would save FP&L approximately 1.1
million barrels of oil per year and JEA approximately 0.087 million barrels
per year. The solar water heaters would displace oil—fired generating capa-
city on both systems, would generate no pollutants, and would reduce water
requirements, air emissions, wastewater discharges, and solid waste generation
from the JEA and FP&L power generation systems as well. In addition, the
implementation of the solar water heater program would entail a great deal of
labor in the manufacture and installation of these units. JEA's solar program
would create jobs for about 81 persons and FP&L's program would increase
employment by about 1,148 for each year of the program.
The use of these units, however, would require provisions for backup
power in case weather conditions rendered them ineffective for an extended
period of time. These backup systems would still have to provide peak cap-
acity sufficient to meet demand.
Refuse-fired Power Plants
Four counties in FP&L's service area and Duval County in the JEA service
area are potential sites for refuse recovery electrical generation systems.
These sites do not include the existing Bade and Broward Counties systems
already in existence. The four counties in the FP&L service area could generate
a total of 58.3 MW of electricity which would result in oil savings of 0.58
million barrels per year (Moreau 1981) while Duval County could generate 56.2
MW of electricity and replace about 0.6 million barrels of oil per year. The
annual refuse and electricity generated by each county is as follows:
Refuse Electricity Oil Displaced
County Generated (tons) Generated (MW) (millions of barrels)
Seminole 117,000 9.5 0.095
Sarasota 180,000 14.6 0.145
Brevard 276,000 22.3 0.222
Manatee 146,250 11.9 0.118
Duval 693,000 56.2 0.600
For the FP&L locations, it is assumed that the refuse-fired generating fac-
ilities would be located near one of the county landfills, but no specific
locations are implied. The resource recovery facility in Duval County could
be located next to the North Sanitary Landfill adjacent to the SJRPP.
Refuse generating facilities would require land for the plant and ash
disposal as well as water for cooling, boiler feedwater, and washwater. The
facilities would generate air emissions, wastewater, and solid waste. The
land required for the power plants would be for the truck unloading facility,
refuse storage pits, boiler and turbine, stack, electrostatic precipitator
(ESP), switchyard, administration building, and miscellaneous facilities such
as employee parking. The bottom ash and fly ash removed by the ESP would be
landfilled. The total land requirement, however, would be less than the land
required to landfill the refuse. Thus, use of these facilities would result
in a ne t land s aving.
2-63
-------
No attempt has been made to identify site-specific factors for refuse-fired
plants (e.g., potential cooling water sources) because of uncertainties
regarding their actual location. Consequently, these plants are addressed on
a generic basis only. All of the refuse facilities are assumed, however, to
use mechanical-draft cooling towers. The four facilities within the FP&L
service area are also assumed to use fresh water and the Duval County facility
would use saline water for cooling. The effluents from the units would be
cooling tower blowdown, water treatment wastewater, boiler blowdown, and
runoff from the refuse storage and ash landfill. Refuse-power generation
would displace oil-fired generation and thus reduce water requirements, air
emissions, and wastewater and solid waste generation in comparison to oil-
fired power plants (Table 2.6-3).
Conversion to Coal-Oil Mixture
Because the JEA system is rather small and has a limited potential for
development of solar and refuse power, other non-oil-fired power sources would
be required to equal the oil-fired power displacement provided by the SJRPP-
A portion of this non-oil-fired power would be purchased and the rest provided
by converting one of JEA's existing plants to burn an alternate fuel. JEA's
Northside Units 1 and 3 (Figure 2.6-3) are currently under study for con-
version to burn a coal-oil mixture (COM) and are considered the most likely
candidates in the JEA system.
The conversion of existing oil-fired boilers to COM combustion would
include installation of new burners, modifications to the furnace bottoms to
handle the increased amount of bottom ash, addition of retractable sootblowers
to the furnace and convective section, and the addition of an electrostatic
precipitator to control particulate emissions. Major modifications of the
superheater, reheater, and economizer section are not expected to be required.
Conversion would also require about 6.3 million barrels per year of coal-oil
mixture estimated to be about 40% coal and 60% oil by weight. For this analysis
it was assumed that the COM would be purchased from independent suppliers.
Two private COM ventures are currently planned to be located on Blount Island
close to the NGS and could produce the required quantity of COM. The COM
would be trucked or pumped by pipeline from Blount Island to storage tanks
located at the NGS. Because this fuel would have a lower heat output than
that of 100% oil, the conversion of Northside Units 1 and 3 is estimated to
result in a 20% derating of the units. This derating would result in the loss
of 152 MW of generating capacity at the NGS which would be replaced by pur-
chased power.
The conversion will require land for COM storage, ash ponds, ash landfill,
and electrostatic precipitaters. Land requirements plus changes in waste
generation are summarized in Table 2.6-3. Due to derating of the units, the
water requirement for the boiler makeup and cooling system would decrease.
Similarly all wastewater discharges except the bottom ash wastewater blowdown
will decrease. Bottom ash and fly ash generated at the NGS would Increase
after conversion due to the use of coal. A wet sluicing system would be used
to remove the bottom ash. The ash would be settled in a lined pond and 95% of
the supernatent would be recycled back to the ash sluicing system and 5% of it
would be treated and discharged to the existing percolation pond. The fly ash
2-64
-------
Table 2.6-3. Summary of land and water requirements, air
emissions, and wastewater and solid waste generation
for refuse-fired power plants and the COM conversion.
of NGS Units 1 and 3.
Power Megawatts
Land Requirements, acres
Ash Landfill
Plant
Total
Water Requirement, gpm
Surface
Groundwater
Wastewater, gpm
Cooling Tower Slowdown
Wastewater Treatment
Boiler Slowdown
Fireside Washwater
Demineralizer Water
Bottom Ash Sluicing
Heat Discharge to,
Surface Water
Btu/min (x 103)
Solid Waste,
tpy (x 10 d)
Bottom Ash
Fly Ash
Air Emissions, tpy
Participates
so
CO
HC
NO
HC?
Seminole
County
9.5
4.7
2.3
7.0
83.0
0
8.0
1.6
1.1
0.02
0.03
-
1.6
12.3
1.7
57.0
147.0
2,052.0
87.0
176.0
252.0
Brevard
County
22.2
11.1
5.4
16.5
194.0
0
19.0
3.7
2.7
0.04
0.07
-
3.6
28.9
4.0
134.0
344.0
4,823.0
207.0
413.0
592.0
Manatee
County
11.9
5.9
2.9
8.8
103.0
0
10.0
2.0
1.4
0.02
0.04
-
1.9
15.4
2.1
72.0
183.0
2,559.0
110.0
219.0
316.0
Sarasota
County
14.6
7.2
3.5
10.7
126.0
0
12.0
2.4
1.8
0.03
0.04
-
2.3
18.9
2.6
88.0
224.0
3,143.0
135.0
269.0
388.0
Duval
County
56.2
28.0
13.5
14.5
1,840.0
7.0
1,262.0
0
6.7
0.11
0.17
-
242.2
72.8
10.1
338.0
867.0
12,136.0
520.0
1,040.0
1,493.0
NGS
COM
8712
*»A ~ *5
+38. 72
+6.72
+45. 42
-55.7502
-682
-55,7502
-
-56. 52
-
-10. 52
+15. 32
-9,760.72
+8,0212
+32,0822
1,708
33,807
9,392
5-81
116
Note: For assumptions and details, see Appendix CC.
Total output of NGS after conversion of Units #1 and #3 with 20%
derating. Based on heat content of coal, the net non oil-fired
power output would be 178 MW.
2
Indicates net increase or decrease from existing NGS operating conditions,
2-65
-------
Figure 2.6-3. Existing Northside Generating Station
site plan.
KEY
2-66
-------
would be collected dry and landfilled in a lined disposal area. Presented in
Figure 2.6-4 is an illustration of changes in the NGS site which would poten-
tially be made in order to convert Units 1 and 3 to burn COM. Note that the
layout is intended only to illustrate the facilities required for COM conver-
sion and the approximate land area required for the facilities. The actual
layout of the NGS after COM conversion could be very different from that
illustrated and would be based on detailed studies of the actual suitability
of the site or other nearby sites for the proposed use.
Purchased Power
Under this option, FP&L and JEA would purchase a total of 704.4 MW of
capacity from Georgia Power Company. The net available capacity after
accounting for transmission losses (3%) would be 683.3 MW which is divided
into 375.7 MW for FP&L and 307.6 MW for JEA. The proposed power purchase
would be as a share of Georgia Power's Vogtle Nuclear Power Plant. The Vogtle
Station consists of two 1,150 MW units due on line in March 1987 and September
1988. Additional coal-fired power could be purchased from Georgia Power
during 1986 and 1987 to make this power purchase alternative equivalent to the
on-line dates for SJRPP Units 1 and 2. Georgia Power has indicated that up to
705 MW of capacity in Plant Vogtle are available for purchase. The purchase
of power would result in displacement of oil-fired power generating capacity
and a saving of 3,716 million barrels of oil by FP&L and 3,287 million barrels
by JEA per year.
The purchase of approximately 705 MW of the Vogtle Plant would exceed
the existing capacity of transmission lines from Georgia to Florida. The
existing transmission lines between Georgia and Florida, the two additional
500 kV lines scheduled for completion in 1982, and the final link of the two
500 kV lines from Duval to Poinsett and Poinsett to Midway scheduled for
completion in 1987 will have a transfer capability of 1,500 MW by 1983 and
2,000 MW by 1988. The transmission lines are scheduled to carry 1,500 MW from
1983 to 1986, 1,150 MW in 1987, and 1,400 MW from 1988 to 1991. The probable
unallocated transmission capability is estimated to be 350 MW in 1987 and 600
MW in 1988 through 1991, although it could be less if two other utilities
renew their current contracts for purchase of 250 MW after 1986. Purchase of
the proposed 705 MW would thus require construction of a third 500 kV line.
Florida Power Corporation (FPC) is soliciting other Florida utilities to
assist in the construction of another 500 kV line from the State line to
Ft. White in 1985 and Ft. White to central Florida in 1987. If this line is
completed, the transmission capability would increase by an additional
500 MW in 1986 and 1,000 MW in 1988.
The proposed power purchase would displace 683 MW of oil-fired capacity
between JEA and FP&L and would thus reduce the water requirements, air emis-
sions, and wastewater and solid waste generation of the oil-fired units whose
generation is reduced. The area-specific decrease will depend on the oil-fired
units at which the reduction in operation occurs. The construction of the
third transmission line, which extends 150 miles, would be an additional
impact of this project and would result in disruption of wildlife habitats and
land use changes due to construction.
2-67
-------
Figure 2.6-4. Potential Northside Generating Station site plan with COM
conversion.
KCT
2-68
-------
2.6.3.3 Alternative 2
Alternative 2 consists of converting of FP&L's Sanford. Units 4 and 5
from burning oil to coal, power purchase by JEA and FP&L from Georgia Power
Company, and construction of 150 miles of transmission lines. JEA would
purchase 550 MW (net) and FP&L 73 MW (net) to make up for the derating of the
Sanford Plant after coal conversion. This alternative would result in an oil
savings of 7.2 million barrels per year by FP&L and 5.9 million barrels per
year by JEA. It would increase the capacity of the JEA system by 550 MW and
would not change the capacity of the FP&L system. The proposed facilities and
their associated oil savings are summarized in Table 2.6-4 and their locations
are indicated in Figure 2.6-5. Due to uncertainties about the degree of
emission control that may be required of oil-fired power plants which are
voluntarily converted to burn coal, two cases have been examined under Alterna-
tive 2 to show the differences in cost, engineering, and environmental effects
of designing the coal-fired Sanford Units 4 and 5 to meet the FDER State
Implementation Plan (SIP) limitations or USEPA's NSPS.
Conversion to Coal
FP&L's Sanford Units 4 and 5 (Figure 2.6-6) would be converted to burn
coal instead of oil while Sanford Unit 3 would continue to burn oil. FP&L
has identified these units as the most likely to be converted to coal (Moehle
1981c). It is estimated that Units 4 and 5 could be converted and be on
line by 1984 and 1985, respectively. These units are assumed to undergo a 10%
derating after conversion (Bivans 1981). The present average net capacity of
the two units is 728 MW. After conversion, the units would be derated to a
capacity of 655.2 MW. The loss in capacity of 72.8 MW would be replaced by
purchased power.
The coal conversion would require coal handling facilities, boiler modi-
fications, air pollution control systems, and ash handling and disposal facil-
ities. Units 4 and 5 would continue to use the cooling lake north of the site
to dissipate waste heat and the once-through cooling system serving Unit 3
would continue to be used for wastewater discharges from the entire plant.
For coal delivery, the plant will require a new rail spur of 2 to 3 miles from
the nearby Seaboard Coast Line Railroad. Coal handling facilities would
include unloading facilities, a lined coal pile area, coal conveyors, and
pulverizers. A potential site layout for the Sanford Plant site after conver-
sion of Units 4 and 5 to coal-firing is illustrated in Figure 2.6-7. Note
that this layout is intended only to illustrate the facilities required and
the approximate land area required for the various facilities. The actual
layout of a converted coal-fired Sanford Plant could be very different and
would be based on detailed studies of the actual suitability of particular
areas of the site or other nearby sites for the proposed use.
In the absence of any available boiler design data and on the basis of
the derating estimated by FP&L, it is probable that the boilers would not
need major modifications. The burners and wind boxes would need to be changed
to accommodate coal firing. Retractable sootblowers would need to be added to
clean the surface of the boiler tubes in the furnace and superheater. Some
modifications may be needed to the superheater and bottom ash sluicing system.
The economizer may also need to be changed completely.
2-69
-------
Table 2.6-4. Summary of power sources and oil
displacement for Alternative 2.*
Capacity
Source of Power
(MW)
FP&L
Coal Conversion
Sanford Units #4 and #5
»^
655.2
Purchased Power4"'" 72.8
Total 728.0
No change in generating capacity.
JEA
1.2
Purchased Power''" 555.0
Net increase in capacity - 550 MW
kwh/yr
x 106
4,017.1
446.4
4,464.1
3,372.6
Barrels of
Oil Displaced
(x 10 Barrels)
6,480.0
720.0
7,200.0
5,875.0
*For assumptions and details of power generation data computation,
see Appendix CC.
This alternative includes construction of new transmission lines as
follows:
Tifton, Georgia to Ft. White (50 miles)
Ft. White to central Florida (100 miles)
2
Figures indicated are net purchases. Actual amount purchased is 3% higher
to account for transmission losses.
2-70
-------
Sanford
=. ^J Uoits
N0.4&5
New
Transmission
Line
ro< w-
I ' _a.tP)f***M*m
SITES FOR ALTERNATIVE #2
1980 TEN-YEAR PLAN
STATE OF FLORIDA
A NCV SITU
—nUNSUISS'ON LINES-
KJIWCI
utcn> tmtct aitt- •«*
— «JTUBE-
1. Convert Sanford
Units #4 and #5 to
Burn Coal (FPL)
2. Purchase Power from
Vogtle Nuclear Units
(JEA & FPL)
I98O-I989
STATE OF FLORIDA
ELECTRIC SYSTEM MAP
FUJRIDA COORDINATING GROUP
Figure 2.6-5. Geographic location of major components of Alternative 2.
2-71
-------
Figure 2.6-6. Existing Sanford Plant site plan.
'2-72
-------
Figure 2.6-7. Potential Sanford Plant site plan with coal conversion.
* FGO M MMct«M racHllm «• only r«wtt«a »n am «sPS C
-------
The air pollution control system required for the Sanford conversion is
dependent upon the regulations enforced by USEPA and FDER. The converted
units would have to comply with NSPS if USEPA determines that these units are
not currently coal capable. Alternatively, the units would'have to comply
with the Florida SIP standards if the units are determined to be coal capable
or if the amendment to the Clean Air Act which exempts voluntary conversion to
coal from the NSPS is adopted. Because of this uncertainty, the analysis of
this alternative examines both the NSPS and SIP cases. For the SIP case, S02
limits (2.75 Ibs/MMBtu) can be met by purchasing intermediate sulfur content
(1.6%) coal and would not require a flue gas desulfurization (FGD) system.
To meet the particulate standard, electrostatic precipitators (ESP) and in-
duced draft fans to overcome the additional pressure drop would be required.
Compliance with the NSPS limitations would require larger ESP's and fans to
meet more stringent particulate standards and a flue gas desulfurization (FGD)
system to meet the 90% reduction S02 limits. The FGD system is assumed to be
a limestone wet scrubber with forced oxidation to produce non-commercial grade
gypsum. The FGD system consists of the absorber module and all the accessory
facilities. The gypsum sludge will be thickened, dewatered, and landfilled
on-site.
Coal conversion will result in a significant increase in land require-
ments for coal storage and handling and ash and FGD sludge disposal. The fly
ash will be handled dry and mixed with dewatered FGD sludge for disposal in a
lined on-site landfill. The large increase in bottom ash resulting from coal
conversion will increase the effluents from the ash system blowdown. The only
other significant increases in wastewater would be from coal pile and'landfill
runoff and wastewater from the air preheater. The estimated changes in land
and water requirements, wastewater and solid waste generation, and air emis-
sions due to conversion are shown in Table 2.6-5.
The estimated changes in resource requirements and waste generation at
the Sanford Plant reflect several changes in operational factors. Due to the
change in fuel, Sanford Units 4 and 5 would be very economical to operate
compared to existing oil-fired plants and it is estimated that its capacity
factor or time of operation would increase from the 1980 level of less than
50% to 70% after conversion. Thus, although Alternative 2 would result in no
additional capacity for FP&L, the change in operation time at Sanford would
displace resource requirements and waste generation at other FP&L power plants
which would be used less of the time.
purchased Power
This alternative requires purchase of 550 MW by JEA and 72.8 MW by FP&L.
Similar to Alternative 1, the purchase would be a share of the capacity avail-
able from Georgia Power's Vogtle Nuclear Power Plant. This alternative will
also require construction of 150 miles of 500 kV transmission line to increase
the transfer capability into Florida as described in Alternative 1. The
purchase of 72.8 MW by FP&L would make up the capacity loss due to derating of
Sanford Units 4 and 5. The purchase by JEA would displace 550 MW of oil-fired
capacity in the JEA system and would thus reduce the water requirements, air
emissions, and wastewater and solid waste generation within the system.
2-74
-------
Table 2.6-5. Changes in land and water requirements, air emissions,
and wastewater and solid waste generation as a result of converting
Sanford Units 4 and 5 to burn coal.
SIP
NSPS
Land Requirements, acres
Coal Pile +24.0
Ash Pond +32.2
Ash Landfill +57.3
FGD System 0
Total +113.5
Water Requirements, gpm
Surface +55.0
Wastewater Generation, gpm
Bottom Ash +55.0
Coal Pile Runoff +59.0
Solid Waste Generation, tpy
Bottom Ash +31,137.0
.ly Ash +122,925.0
FGD Sludge 0
Air Emissions, tpy
Participates +1,623.0
S02 +21,850.0
NOx +4,647.0
CO +341.0
HC +152.0
+24.0
+32.2
+57.9
+106.0
+220.1
+976.0
+55.0
+59.0
+31,137.0
+124,331.0
+241,061.0
+217.0
-21,340.0
+1,634.0
+341.0
+152.0
Note:
1
For assumptions and details of computations, see Appendix CC.
Total yearly solid waste generation and air emission generation represents
the difference between Units #4 and #5 burning coal a at 70% capacity
factor (equivalent to 7,200,000 barrels of oil) and burning oil at
the 1980 consumption level of 4,725,000 barrels.
2-75
-------
2.6.3.4 Alternative 3
Alternative 3 consists of conversion of FP&L's Sanford Units 4 and 5
boilers from burning oil to coal, power purchase by JEA and. FP&L from Georgia
Power, and construction of a 280 MW coal-fired power plant by JEA at the SJRPP
site. The major components of Alternative 3 are geographically located as
indicated in Figure 2.6-8. Its major power sources and oil displacement
characteristics are summarized in Table 2.6-6. This alternative would result
in an oil savings of 7.2 million barrels per year by FP&L and 5.9 million
barrels per year by JEA. It would increase the capacity of the JEA system by
550 MW and would not change the capacity of the FP&L system.
Conversion to Coal
As in Alternative 2, FP&L's Sanford Units 4 and 5 would be converted to
burn coal instead of oil. This would result in an oil savings of 6.5 million
barrels per year at the Plant. The loss of 72.8 MW of capacity due to derat-
ing of the units would be made up by power purchase. The modifications of the
existing facilities and additional facilities required for conversion, and
changes in land and water requirements, air emissions, and wastewater and
solid waste generation are the same as those discussed under Alternative 2.
Purchased Power
FP&L and JEA would purchase 72.8 MW and 270 MW respectively, or a total
of 342.8 MW (net) from Georgia Power. As in Alternative 1, the purchase would
be in the form of a share of Georgia Power's Vogtle Nuclear Power Plant. The
proposed purchase does not exceed the unallocated transmission capability of
the transmission facilities (existing and under construction) and thus would
not require any additional transmission lines. The 72.8 MW purchased by FP&L
would make up the capacity lost due to derating from the conversion of Sanford
Units 4 and 5 and the 270 MW purchase by JEA would replace the oil-fired
capacity. This would result in a decrease in water requirements, air emis-
sions, and wastewater and solid waste generation at the oil-fired units.
New Coal-fired Power Plant
JEA would build a smaller coal-fired power plant with a capacity of 280
MW at the same site as the proposed project. It was assumed that this would
be a viable option for JEA because a reduced size plant might be more easily
financed. However, JEA contends that because of the advantages of the joint
venture with FP&L, this might not be the case (Breitmoser 1981).
The new unit is assumed to have the same general design as the SJRPP
(Figure 2.6-9). This smaller plant would include coal handling and storage
facilities, electrostatic precipitators, FGD, wet bottom ash handling, dry fly
ash handling, and a saltwater natural draft cooling tower. The water require-
ments, air emissions, and wastewater and solid waste generation are assumed to
be scaled down from those from the SJRPP (Table 2.6-7). Land requirements are
assumed to be about 75% less for solid waste disposal, but the rail loop could
not be scaled down by this much and is assumed to be closer to 50% of the size
of the SJRPP-
2-76
-------
Figure 2.6-8. Geographic location of major components of Alternative 3
SITES FOR ALTERNATIVE # 3
1980 TEN-YEAR PLAN
STATE OF FLORIDA
Lcamo
— njMHfD HkCIUTlES -
• nciorr SITU
Anew srrn
—T*USI«»ION unes-
•M^^B MO XV
D UlTICt UTl- '1*
— RJTURE-
1. Build a small
coal-fired plant at
St. John's River (JEA)
2. Convert Sanford Units #4
and #5 to burn coal (FPL)
3. Purchase power from Vogtle
nuclear units (JEA & FPL)
198O-I989
STATE OF FLORIDA
«** ELECTRIC SYSTEM MAP
FLORIDA COORDINATING GROUP
*» • « I* M .» H
•UM * M4J
«*ooo*oiMreB
2-77
-------
Table 2.6-6. Summary of power sources and oil
displacement for Alternative 3.*
Barrels of
Capacity kwh/yr Oil Displaced
Source of Power
FP&L
Coal Conversion
Sanford Units 4 and
5 Purchased Power
Total
No change in generating
JEA
New Coal Plant
Purchased Power
Total
Net increase in capacity
(MW)
655.2
72.8
728.0
capacity.
280.0
270.0
550.0
- 550 MW.
x 106
4,017.7
446.4
4,464.1
2,727.0
1,655.6
3,372.6
(x 103 Barrels)
6,480.0
720.0
7,000.0
2,991.0
2,884.0
5,875.0-
*For assumptions and details of power generations data, see Appendix CC.
2-78
-------
3
C
•H
Disposal Area
\
\
\
/
SITE BOUNDARY
Island Drive
Access Rd
RAIL LOOP
Switch Yard
Cooling Tower..
Turbine Building
Pr^cipitators/SOy Removal
Chimney
Coal Storage/Reclaimer
Sedimentation Pond
Scale: 0
1000
2000
3000
Feet
Figure 2.6-9. Potential layout for small, 280 MW coal-fired power plant at
the SJRPP site.
-------
Table 2.6-7. Summary of land and water requirements, air emissions, waste-
water and solid waste generation, for a 280 MW coal-fired power plant
at the SJRPP site.
Land Requirements, Acres
Landfill
Plant (rail loop)
Buffer (remainder of SJRPP)
Total
Average Water Requirements, gpm
Surface 10,320
Groundwater 922
Average Wastewater, gpm
Cooling Tower Slowdown 7,170
Demineralizer 7
Boiler Slowdown 27
Sanitary Waste 4
FGD Slowdown 308
Runoff 41
Heat Discharge BTU x 10 /hr to
Surface Water 3.19
Solid Waste, tpy (x 103)
Bottom Ash 12.5
Fly Ash 50.6
FGD Sludge 109.5
Air Emissions, tpy
Particulate 287
S02 7,288
NO 5,754
COX 479
HC 5
2-80
-------
2.6.3.5 Alternative 4
Alternative 4 consists of converting FP&L's Sanford Units 4 and 5 and
JEA's Northside Unit 3 boilers from burning oil to coal and power purchases by
JEA and FP&L. Figure 2.6-10 indicates the geographic locations of the major
components of Alternative 4. Its major power sources and oil displacement
characteristics are summarized in Table 2.6-8. This alternative would result
in an oil savings of 7.2 million barrels per year by FP&L and 5.9 million
barrels per year by JEA. It would also increase the capacity of the JEA
system by 72.8 MW and would not change the capacity of the FP&L system.
Table 2.6-8. Summary of power sources and oil
displacement for Alternative 4*.
Capacity Barrels of
kwh/yr oil displaced
Source of Power (MW) x 10 (x 10 barrels)
FP&L
Coal Conversion 655.2 4,017.7 6,480.0
Sanford Units 4 and 5
Purchased Power 72.8 446.4 720.0
Total 728.0 4,464.1 7,200.0
No change in generating capacity.
JEA
Coal Conversion
Northside Unit 3 231.0 1,416.5 2,467.0
Purchased Power 319.0 1,956.1 3,408.0
Total 550.0 3,372.6 5,875.0
Net increase in generating capacity of 72 MW.
*For assumptions and details of power generation data,
see Appendix CC.
2-81
-------
Figure 2.6-10. Geographic location of major components of Alternative 4.
IUI
mo ru« nn TU
SITES FOR ALTERNATIVE #4
1980 TEN-YEAR PLAN
STATE OF FLORIDA
• PRESENT 3ITQ
A NN UTC3
— TB1NSMIS510N LIHC5-
t» *» MUSI
uncTte utvict ain. ••»
1. Convert Northside Unit #3
to Burn Coal (JEA)
2. Convert Sanford Units #4
and #5 to Burn Coal (FPL)
3. Purchase Power from Vogtle
Nuclear Plant (JEA & FPL)
1980 - 1989
STATE OF FLORIDA
aECTRIC SYSTEM MAP
CITY W «fT WtlT
FLORIDA COORDINATING GROUP
4*000-01 M 7 C8
2-82
-------
Conversion to Coal
"As in Alternative 2', FP&L's Sanford Units 4 and 5 would be converted to
burn coal instead of oil. This would result in an oil savings of 6.5 million
barrels per year. The loss of capacity of 72.8 MW due to derating of the
units would be made up by power purchases. The modifications of the existing
facilities and additional facilities required for conversion and changes in
land and water requirements, air emissions, and wastewater and solid waste
generation are the same as those discussed under Alternative 2.
Under this alternative, JEA's Northside Unit 3 would also be converted to
burn coal instead of oil. This conversion would result in an oil savings of
2.5 million barrels per year. The conversion would result in a significant
derating of the unit (46%) and thus, the net. capacity of Northside Unit 3 when
firing coal would be 54% of its current maximum continuous rating or 231 MW.
The modifications to convert Unit 3 to burn coal would include coal
storage and handling facilities, furnace alteration, air pollution control
equipment, and solid waste handling and disposal facilities. The coal hand-
ling system will consist of a rail spur from the nearby Seaboard Coast Line
Railroad, a coal unloading system, a lined coal pile, coal conveyors, and coal
pulverizers. A potential site layout for the NGS site after conversion of
Unit 3 to coal-firing is illustrated in Figure 2.6-11. It should be noted
that this layout is intended only to illustrate the facilities required and
the approximate land area required for the various facilities, coal pile, and
waste disposal areas. The actual layout of a coal converted NGS could be very
different from that illustrated in Figure 2.6-11 and would be based on de-
tailed studies of the actual suitability of the particular area of the site or
other nearby sites for the proposed use.
The conversion of NGS Unit 3 to coal-firing would also require extensive
boiler modifications (Sherlock 1981). The modifications would include primary
air fans, new burners and windboxes, sootblowers, a new' economizer, new air
heater surfaces, modified gas recirculation, bottom ash, economizer ash, and
air heater ash removal system as well as possible changes in the superheater
and reheater surfaces.
The air pollution control system required for the conversion is dependent
upon the regulations enforced by USEPA and the FDER. If the converted unit is
required to comply with SIP standards, only electrostatic precipitators would
be required. If it is required to comply with NSPS, however, then an FGD
system in addition to a larger ESP would be required. Because of the uncer-
tainty of the applicable regulations, the analysis of this alternative will
examine both the NSPS and SIP cases. The FGD system for NSPS compliance will
be similar to that proposed for SJRPP, that is, wet limestone scrubbing with
forced oxidation, thickening, and dewatering as well as an open-cycle system
to produce commercial grade gypsum. If the FGD by-product gypsum cannot be
sold, it will be landfilled separately from the fly ash. Both the gypsum and
the ash landfills will be lined to prevent leaching.
The NGS Unit 3 conversion would require additional land for coal and
limestone storage and handling facilities, ash ponds, an ash landfill, air
pollution control equipment, and in the NSPS case an FGD by-product landfill.
2-83
-------
Figure 2.6-11. Potential Northside Unit 3 site plan for coal conversion.
KEY
2-84
-------
The conversion would result in an increase in runoff from the coal pile and
ash landfill and blowdown streams from the bottom ash and FGD systems. There
would be a decrease in the discharge from the once-through cooling system, the
boiler blowdown, and the demineralizer wastewater due to the derating of the
boilers. However, the use of a by-product grade gypsum producing FGD system
such as that proposed for the SJRPP would result in a net increase of ground-
water use for the NSPS case. The estimated changes in resource requirements
and waste generation characteristics for NGS Unit 3 after coal conversion are
indicated in Table 2.6-9.
Purchased Power
FP&L and JEA would purchase 72.8 MW and 319 MW, respectively, or a total
of 391.8 MW (net) of power from Georgia Power. As in Alternative 1, the
purchase would be in the form of a share of Georgia Power's Vogtle Nuclear
Power Plant. Although this quantity exceeds the remaining unallocated trans-
mission capability of 350 MW in 1987 by 41.8 mi, it is improbable that a new
500 kV line would be constructed for this small amount. It is more likely
that JEA and FP&L would arrange to use a small amount of capacity allocated to
FPC and the City of Tallahassee. Therefore, no construction of a new trans-
mission line is associated with this alternative.
The 72.8 MW purchased by FP&L will make up the capacity lost from derating
during the conversion of the Sanford Units 4 and 5. The 319 MW purchased by
JEA would compensate for the 247 MW lost due to derating or conversion of the
Northside Unit 3, and 72 MW would displace the oil-fired capacity.
2.6.4 Economic Analysis of the Alternatives Including the Proposed Project
Because the main justification for building the SJRPP in the proposed
time frame is the cost savings that could be realized by displacing expensive
oil-fired generation, an economic analysis was conducted to demonstrate whether
or not the alternatives satisfy this goal also. It should be noted that this'
economic analysis focuses solely on the capital and operating costs of each
alternative for displacing oil-fired generation and does not attempt to
quantify the value of the differing levels of additional generating capacity
provided by each. The analysis also does not attempt to weigh other economic
and non-economic factors which must be considered by utility management in
selecting and implementing a long-range generation plan. Accordingly, the
relative economics of the alternatives were assessed as follows:
• The costs of continuing to burn oil (No Action Alternative) were
estimated along with the number of barrels of oil which would be
consumed. Costs were estimated in constant 1981 dollars for a period
up to the year 2000, then reduced to a present worth.
• The costs in 1981 dollars associated with the SJRPP and the four
alternatives were calculated up to the year 2000 and reduced to pre-
sent worth terms. A check was run to verify that these independently
estimated costs did not conflict with those estimated by JEA and FP&L
for the SJRPP. The costs of the alternatives were also computed
assuming high, medium, and low costs for oil and coal to show how the
economics of the alternatives would vary according to the price of
fuel.
2-85
-------
Table 2.6-9.
Land and water requirements, air emissions, and
wastewater and solid waste generation characteristics
of JEA's Northside Unit 3 after conversion to burn
coal*
SIP
NSPS
Land Requirements, acres
Coal Pile
Ash Pond
Ash Landfill
FGD System
Total
+9.1
+ 21.0
+37.8
0
+67.9
+9.1
+ 21.0
+38.2
+68.6
+136.9
Water Requirements, gpm
Surface Water
Groundwater
-121,363.0
-205.0
-121,363.0
+393.0
Wastewater Generation, gpm
Cooling System -121,363.0 -121,363.0
Coal Pile Runoff +23.0 +23.0
Demineralizer -13.0 -13.0
Boiler Slowdown -173.0 -173.0
Bottom Ash Slowdown +23.0 +23.0
FGD Slowdown 0 +226.0
Solid Waste Generation, tpy
Bottom Ash +12,066.0 +12,066.0
Fly Ash +48,032.0 +48,032.0
FGD Sludge 0.0 +91,636.0
Air Emissions, tpy
Participates +76.4 +229.0
SO +15,120.0 +4,582.0
NO +5,727.0 +4,582.0
COX +319.0 +319.0
HC +95.0 +95.0
* For assumptions and details of computations, see Appendix CC.
Note: Water requirements, wastewater and solid waste generation, and
air emissions represent the difference between Unit 3 burning
coal at a 70% capacity factor and oil-generating capacity
displaced due to conversion.
2-86
-------
• The costs of the No Action, proposed action, and the four alternatives
were then converted into a common quantifiable expression — present
worth dollars per barrel of oil saved or burned. In the case of the
No Action Alternative, it is the cost per barrel of oil burned; for
the other cases, it is the cost per barrel of oil saved.
The above approach provides a means of comparing alternatives on a common
and easily understood basis, that is, the relative cost of burning or dis-
placing a barrel of oil. The relative cost of the No Action Alternative, the
SJRPP, and the four new alternatives are described in this section in terms of
total present worth cost and cost per barrel of oil burned or saved. As
suggested previously, due to the great difference in the level of detail in
design and costing between the SJRPP and the other alternatives, the costs
presented can only be considered as indicators of oil savings, not absolute
indicators of the relative expense of implementing one of the alternatives as
opposed to the SJRPP.
The comparative cost of each of the alternatives per barrel of oil burned
or displaced is shown in Table 2.6-10. A number of special case studies and
underlying assumptions regarding the figures presented in Table 2.6-10 must be
understood in order to fully appreciate the costs. The special cases were
analyzed to attempt to make the economic analysis reflect as many of the real
world variations in the costs of fuel and construction as possible. These
factors are explained in detail in Appendix BB and are briefly summarized as
follows:
• Three variations in the cost of fuel (oil and/or coal) are presented
for each alternative as indicated under the heading "Price Track."
The low price case generally assumes no increase above base inflation
over the period between 1981 and 2000. The medium case is based on
the latest DOE crude oil price forecast (2-4% annual growth) and the
high case is based on a more rapid increase in prices through the
1980's followed by a leveling off in the 1990's. Medium prices should
be used for comparison.
• The cost-effectiveness of the Blount Island coal unloading facility
was questioned by the FPSC during the need certification hearing and
in the FPSC's final order. Therefore, the costs of the proposed
project are shown both with and without the Blount Island coal
terminal.
• As indicated previously, in each case involving the coal conversion of
FP&L's Sanford Units 4 and 5 or JEA's Northside Unit 3, there is
uncertainty about the level of control of S02 that will be required by
USEPA and FDER. The cost of each alternative involving a coal conver-
sion (Alternatives 2, 3, and 4) is first shown in Table 2.6-10 as
required to meet SIP limitations. The cost of each alternative involv-
ing coal conversion is then shown as it would be with the scrubbers
and larger ESP's required to meet NSPS, a higher level of emission
control.
2-87
-------
Table 2.6-10. Summary comparison of Che cost of the SJRPP and alternatives in terms of $ per barrel of oil burned or displaced.
Price SJRPP plus Alternative Alternative With
Utility Track No-Action SJRPP Blount Is. 1 2 Scrubber A
Alternative With Alternative With
B 3 Scrubber 4 Scrubber
00
00
JEA
FPL
Combined
High
Medium
Low
High
Medium
Low
High
Medium
Low
40.67
32.95
23.13
40.39
32.67
22.85
40.53
32.81
23.00
20.74
17.83
14.13
26.95
23.80
19.81
23.72
20.70
16.66
21.17
18.26
14.57
27.78
24.64
20.64
24.35
21.33
17.49
18.01 16.99 n/a 21.94 23.13 18.71 n/a 19.07 19.69
39.77 20.49 23.39 24.32 24.43 20.11 23.01 20.11 23.01
28.31 19.03 20.72 23.32 23.89 19.53 21.22 19.67 21.61
Key: A * Alternative 2/acrubber, plus SO percent overrun on Vogtle costs.
B « A plus nuclear fuel escalating at the medium oil price rate.
-------
• Large cost overruns have not been uncommon for new nuclear generating
facilities over the last few years. Even including the recently
announced (23 September 1981) overrun and schedule delay, the estimated
costs of Plant Vogtle supplied by Georgia Power could be low. To test
the effect that additional cost overruns would have on the cost of the
alternatives, two test cases were run for Alternative 2 in which a 50%
construction cost overrun (2A) and a 50% construction cost overrun plus
an escalation of nuclear fuel costs (2B) were considered.
Based on the cost analysis described above, the following conclusions
were drawn:
• For JEA, the proposed project and all of the alternatives are far less
expensive than continuing to burn oil. However, the low cost of the
alternatives to JEA is closely linked to purchases of power from Plant
Vogtle and not to the various fuel conversion and small scale power
options. The relationship of the cost per barrel of oil displaced by
each of the technologies used in the alternatives is shown in Table
2.6-11. As shown in Table 2.6-11, the elements of the alternatives
for JEA including NGS coal conversion, small coal plant, and small
scale options are actually relatively expensive. However, when these
components are included in an alternative their costs are masked by
the very low estimated cost of purchasing power from Plant Vogtle.
In spite of this, coal-oil mixture conversion and the purchase of
power do appear to be inexpensive enough to make the alternatives
economically attractive for JEA.
• The savings to FP&L from displacing oil are less than for JEA. This
is because of FP&L's higher cost of capital and the fact that FP&L
currently uses oil more efficiently than JEA (and so has less to
gain). Nevertheless, SJKPP is clearly less expensive than continuing
to burn oil. Note that savings for FP&L associated with Alternatives 2,
3, and 4 rely heavily on coal conversion of Sanford Units 4 and 5.
This appears to be an economically attractive option for FP&L (Table
2.6-11). FP&L has indicated its intention to pursue coal conversion
in addition to and independent of SJRPP if conversion is shown to be
technically and economically feasible. Alternative 1 is prohibitively
expensive for FP&L; more expensive than continuing to burn oil. This
reflects the very high capital cost of refuse and solar power.
• The combined results show that all of the alternatives except Alterna-
tive 1 are less expensive than continuing to burn oil and that Alterna-
tives 2, 3, and 4 are comparable or greater in savings than SJRPP. In
summary, it appears that three of the four alternatives can also meet
the economic criteria used to justify construction of SJRPP at this
time, that is, they displace oil-fired generation at a low cost.
The final economic consideration in the analysis of the alternatives is
the long-term effect of the differing levels of new capacity provided by each.
2-89
-------
Table 2.6-11. Cost in terms of $ per barrel of oil burned or displaced
for each of the technologies involved in Alternatives
1, 2, 3 and 4.
$ per Bbl. of Oil Saved or Consumed
JEA FPL
System H M L H M L
No action 40.67 32.95 23.13 40.39 32.67 22.85
Proposed action (SJRPP) 20.74 17.83 14.13 26.95 23.80 19.81
Vogtle (without transmission costs
or interim purchase of power) 15.19 29.08
Coal conversion:
Sanford without scrubber 19.27
Sanford with scrubber — 22.45
Northside without scrubber 23.11
Northside with scrubber 24.54
Coal-oil mixture (Northside) 17.62
Small coal plant 21.37
Solar domestic hot water 37.91 62.28
Refuse-fired generation 21.77 37.21
Key: H = high oil and coal prices
M = medium oil and coal prices
L = low oil and coal prices
2-90
-------
As shown in Table 2.6-12, the SJRPP provides the largest increase in capacity
followed by Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 4.
Table 2.6-12. Net increase in system capacity (MW) provided
by the ^proposed project and each alternative,
No Action
JEA 0
FPL 0
TOTAL 0
SJRPP
550
550
1,100
Alterna-
tive 1
288.4
550.4
778.4
Alterna-
tive 2
550
0
550
Alterna-
tive 3
550
0
550
Alterna-
tive 4
72
0
72
In order to make the alternatives truly comparable in terms of projected power
needs, additional capacity would have to be added to Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and
4. This implies future costs which have not been factored into -this analysis.
2-91
-------
3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
This chapter describes the existing environment at those locations which
could potentially be affected by the proposed project or the other alternatives
under evaluation. Due to the complexity of the alternatives analysis which
includes alternatives located outside of the impact area of the proposed
project, it was necessary to characterize the baseline environment at several
different locations in Florida. These locations include the impact areas
encompassing Jacksonville and Sanford, Florida, as well as the site specific
existing environments at the proposed St. Johns River Power Park (SJRPP), the
Northside Generating Station (NGS), Blount Island, and the Sanford Plant.
Although several of the alternatives include components which are located in
other portions of Florida (Brevard, Manatee, Seminole, and Sarasota Counties
as well as the transmission line corridor), no specific sites have been
identified for these components and consequently no baseline environment could
be characterized. In addition, no existing environment has been characterized
for Georgia Power's Plant Vogtle since this project is already certified and
under construction. For purposes of analysis it is assumed that the impacts
of Plant Vogtle construction and operation will occur regardless of whether
JEA and FP&L purchase power from Georgia Power or not.
3.1 AIR RESOURCES
This section provides a summary of the existing air resources in the
vicinity of the SJRPP/NGS and Sanford Plant. A detailed analysis of existing
air resources is presented in Appendix K.
3.1.1 Climatological/Dispersion Characteristics
3.1.1.1 SJRPP/NGS
The terrain surrounding the SJRPP/NGS sites is level. Easterly maritime
winds blow about 40% of the time which produces a more moderate climate.
Summers are long, warm, and relatively humid; winters are mild, but occasion-
ally interrupted by invasions of cool to occasionally cold air from the north.
The following summary of existing climatological conditions at the SJRPP/NGS
sites is based on data for the period 1941 to 1970 (USDOC 1978)(Appendix K).
The annual mean temperature at Jacksonville is 68.4°F. June, July, and
August are the hottest months, with temperatures averaging near 80°F. December,
January, and February are the coolest months with mean temperatures near 55°F.
In winter, temperatures fall to freezing or lower about 12 times per year.
Annual rainfall averages 54.5 inches. Rainfall averages over 7 inches per
month during the summer. Very infrequently, heavy rains associated with
tropical storms reach amounts of several inches. The driest months are November
December, and January when precipitation averages less than three inches per
month. The highest annual average 10-year, 24-hour rainfall is about 7.5
inches. The 100-year, 24-hour rainfall is about 11 inches (USDOC 1961).
The average relative humidity is about 75%. In the early morning relative
humidities average about 90% while afternoon relative humidities average 55%.
Daily sunshine in December averages 5.5 hours; in May the average daily sun-
shine is 9.0 hours.
3-1
-------
Prevailing winds are northeasterly in autumn and winter and southwesterly
in spring and summer. Wind speeds average slightly less than 9 miles per hour
overall. Wind speeds are slightly higher during spring than in other seasons.
The mean annual morning mixing height at Jacksonville is 1,600 feet (500 m).
Afternoon mixing heights average about 4,600 feet (1,400 m) annually (USEPA
1972).
The Jacksonville area has escaped most hurricane force winds. Hurricanes
tend to move parallel to the coast and keep well out to sea or lose much of
their force by moving over land before reaching the area.
3.1.1.2 Sanford
The climate in the Sanford area is modified greatly by the numerous lakes
in the region and by the Atlantic Ocean. These maritime influences produce
moderate winters and summers (USDOC 1978). The following information summarizes
the climatological/dispersion characteristics for Sanford. A detail discussion
of this subject can be found in Appendix K.
The normal average daily temperature in the Sanford area is 71.8°F. In
the summer months, the average high temperature is 90°F and the average low is
73°F. Winter temperatures average 71°F with average high and low temperatures
of 71°F and 51°F respectively. The normal annual precipitation in the Sanford
area is 51.21 inches. During June to September, the rainy season, monthly
rainfall averages between 6.73 inches and 8.29 inches. The dry season occurs
during November, December, and January when monthly rainfalls of less than 2.5
inches occur. The average 10-year, 24-hour rainfall is 7.4 inches. The
100-year, 24-hour rainfall is about 11 inches (USDOC 1961).
Nighttime relative humidities average 90% during the summer and
annually. Afternoon relative humidities average between 40% and 50% in April
and May and 60% in the summer months. The mean cloud cover is greatest during
the summer months (65% average cloud cover). In November and April average
cloud cover is lowest (49% and 51%, respectively). There are 93 clear days
and 148 partly cloudy days annually on the average.
Prevailing winds are from the north and northeast during the autumn and
winter, and from the south in the spring and summer. Wind speed averages are
slightly higher in winter and early spring (9.0 to 10.0 mph) than in summer
(7.3 to 7.8 mph). The mean annual morning mixing height at Sanford is approxi-
mately 2,000 feet (600 m). Average mixing heights are about 4,600 (1,400 m)
on an annual basis (USEPA 1972). Hurricanes are not a great threat to the
Sanford area since they must pass over a substantial stretch of land and
thereby lose much of their energy.
3.1.2 Air Quality
3.1.2.1 SJRPP/NGS
Regional 'Air Quality Data
The area of Jacksonville bounded by the St. Johns River on the east and
south, Trout River on the north, and 1-95 on the west is a designated non-
3-2
-------
attainment area for TSP. Violations of both the annual standard (60 ug/m )
and the 24-hour standard (150 ug/m3) are indicated. Average TSP annual values
of less than 40 ug/m3 and average 24-hour values less than 90 ug/m3 are indica-
tive of the outlying areas of Jacksonville.
Annual values of S02 in the outlying areas of Jacksonville are 5 to 15
ug/m3. However, annual values of 20 ug/m3 have been reported close to major
emissions sources. Highest 24-hour averages in the 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. Most of the monitors are significantly
influenced by the existing major S02 sources. All of the Jacksonville area is
in attainment of the NAAQS for S02.
Annual N02 concentrations in outlying areas average less than 20 ug/m3,
whereas downtown values are about 40 ug/m3. Some monitors are affected by
major point sources and others are presumably influenced by transportation
sources. Maximum CO levels are about 8,000 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). The 1-hour
average State standard for ozone of 160 ug/m3 is often exceeded in the warm
summer months; however, maximum values reported have been nearly 300 ug/m3.
The entire Jacksonville area is designated as non-attainment of the NAAQS for
ozone.
Sulfates are associated with acidic precipitation and therefore have
received much attention recently even though there are no ambient standards
for sulfates. FDER sampled sulfate levels in the Jacksonville area during
1979. A mean concentration of 9.06 ug/m3 and high and low values of 18.20
ug/m3 and 2.90 ug/m3, respectively, were observed. As part of a statewide
study, Brezonik, et al. (1980) investigated the precipitation chemistry at a
monitoring station near the Jacksonville International Airport. A mean volume-
weighted precipitation pH of 4.69 was recorded for the Jacksonville Station
for the 1979 calendar year (total rainfall was 157 cm.). For the period from
1 May 1978 to 30 April 1979, the volume-weighted pH was 4.74 with a total
rainfall of 122 cm. Other values observed in the State are shown in Figure
3.1-1. It should be recognized, however, that there is great variability
within the data on a seasonal basis and even within rainfall events.
SJRPP Project Site Air Quality Data
An on-site baseline air quality and meteorology monitoring program was
conducted from December 1979 to December 1980 (JEA/FP&L 1981a). The results
of this program served as the basis for the air quality modeling and impact
assessment. Data were collected for sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, carbon
monoxide, ozone, total suspended particulates, lead, and a number of trace
elements. Two air quality baseline scenarios were generated as part of the
monitoring program. Scenario 1 considers ground level concentrations with
respect to all wind angles. Scenario 2 considers monitoring data gathered in
conjunction with winds from 290 degrees clockwise through 160 degrees (corres-
ponding roughly with the northwest, northeast, and southeast quadrants).
Ground level concentrations measured when wind blew from these directions are
considered to represent background levels since there are no major pollutant
sources upwind in those directions (JEA/FP&L 1981a).
3-3
-------
.7)
APPROXIMATE SCALE
100
•Miles
100
1Kilometers
Figure 3.1-1. Volume-weighted mean pH of precipitation throughout Florida
for the period May 1978 through April 1979 (Brezonik et al. 1980).
3-4
-------
For Scenario 1, the S02 annual arithmetic mean concentration was 7 ug/m3,
which is well within the allowable annual level of 60 ug/m3 in Florida.
Second-highest 24- and 3-hour averages were 116 ug/m3 and 289 ug/m3, respec-
tively, both of which are well below the Florida standards of 260 ug/m3 and
1,300 ug/m3. For winds other than from the southwest quadrant (Scenario 2),
background values measured were 4 ug/m3, 21 ug/m3, and 90 ug/m3 for the annual,
second-highest 24-hour, and second-highest 3-hour periods, respectively.
The annual arithmetic mean N02 concentration recorded was 12 ug/m3, which
is well below the standard of 100 ug/m3. By eliminating values associated
with the winds from the southwest quadrant, an annual background value of 10
ug/m3 was computed. The second-highest 8-hour and 1-hour averages for CO were
4,500 ug/m3 and 5,200 ug/m3, respectively. These values are well below the
8-hour and 1-hour standards of 10,000 ug/m3 and 40,000 ug/m3, respectively.
The annual arithmetic mean carbon monoxide concentration was 600 ug/m3.
Ozone monitoring was conducted during the "warm season" only (that is,
from April through October) since the highest concentrations normally occur
during this period. The results indicate a second-highest measured 1-hour
average of 210 ug/m3 versus the Federal standard of 235 ug/m3.
A TSP annual geometric mean concentration of 29 ug/m3 was observed. This
is much lower than the State and Federal annual secondary standard of 60
ug/m3. The second-highest 24-hour average value recorded was 57 ug/m3 compared
to the Florida and Federal secondary standard of 150 ug/m3. Considering days
when at least two-thirds of the winds were from other than the southwest
quadrant, the annual and short-term background levels were 27 ug/m3 and 50
ug/m3, respectively.
An analysis for several trace elements also was conducted on twelve of
the particulate filters (one per month selected at random). The highest and
lowest values as well as the mean concentrations for sulfate, nitrate, chlo-
ride, fluoride, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, mercury, selenium, and asbestos
were determined (Appendix K).
3.1.2.2 Sanford
Ambient monitoring data are available for several sites in the Sanford
project site area. The first monitoring site is located in Benson Junction
approximately two miles north of the proposed project site. Monitoring site 2
is located in Sanford approximately 4 miles southeast of the project site.
Monitoring site 3 is located west of Sanford approximately'2 miles south of
the Sanford Plant. The S02 and TSP monitoring data for the three monitoring
sites is presented in Appendix K.
The maximum second-highest 24-hour S02 concentration recorded (60 ug/m3)
was at monitoring site 1 and represents only about 16% of the NAAQS of 365
ug/m3 or approximately 23% of the State standard of 260 ug/m3. The maximum
second-highest 24-hour TSP concentration (90 ug/m3) occurred at monitoring
site 3 and represents 60% of the secondary NAAQS and State standard of 150
ug/m3. The maximum annual TSP concentration (49 ug/m3) also occurred at
3-5
-------
monitoring site 3 and represents approximately 65% of the NAAQS and approxi-
mately 82% of the Florida standard.
3.1.3 Existing Air Pollution Sources
The locations of the major pollutant sources in the area are depicted in
Figure 3.1-2. In addition to these major sources, there are a large number of
minor sources in the area which also contribute to air pollution. The emission
characteristics, stack parameters, and locations of the significant existing
sources in the area for S02 and TSP in addition to those for the proposed
plant are presented in Appendix K. It should be noted that the JEA Southside
and Kennedy emission and stack height data presented in Appendix K are likely
to change due to a modeled violation by FDER of the 24-hour S02 Florida Ambient
Air Quality Standard (FAAQS). The actions necessary to eliminate the violation
are currently being negotiated between FDER and JEA (Moehle 1981e).
3.1.4 Regulatory Framework
This section summarizes the Federal and State regulatory requirements for
air emissions that the SJRPP must meet. Also included is a summary of air
emission regulations which would have to be met for Alternatives 1 through 4.
3.1.4.1 SJRPP
Federal Regulatory Requirements
The SJRPP facility will have to meet two major Federal requirements:
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD). The NAAQS establishes a limit for air quality degrada-
tion in 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.
The 1970 Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) required the Federal government
to set standards for ambient air quality for the principal types of pollutants
(criteria pollutants) and the levels of each that should not be exceeded for
the protection of public health and welfare (Table 3.1-1). In areas where the
air quality does not meet these standards (non-attainment), new pollution
sources are restricted through the requirements of emission offsets. Prior to
development of a significant contributor of the non-attainment pollutant in or
near a non-attainment area, an equal or greater reduction of that pollutant
from another source in the area must be secured. This generally precludes the
development of major industries in a non-attainment area due to the expense of
obtaining the required emissions offset.
In areas with air quality cleaner than the NAAQS, PSD applies. PSD
restricts the amount of air quality degradation in an area to a specific
amount (increment). PSD applies to sulfur dioxide (S02) and particulates
(TSP). The amount of incremental increase in S02 or TSP levels depends on the
type of area affected (Table 3.1-2). In Class I areas, which are predominately
large national parks, the increment is very small. A moderate increase is
allowed in Class II areas, while the greatest amount of increase is allowed in
Class III areas. Presently there are no designated Class III areas.
3-6
-------
JACKSONVILLE
INTERNATIONAL
AIRPORT
SHEFFIELD (P)
EASTPORT (S,N)
HECKSCHEP-J?
NEW.SERLIN (P.S.N)
SHELL
miii
JEA. KENNEDY
OOKER PARK0
(S,K)
2800 UNIVERSITY (P.S.N)
D JEA PROPOSED 1 & 2
• JEA NORTHSIDE
BLOUXT
ISLAND (S,N)
• BEAVER (P)
Ji.sixm ST. /&•
?-X>K///fe- -^
?. MONROE /V. •'»
' »(P,S,K) /(sARLINGTOS^RIVER^ (P,S,N)
V<._,T*r-r/./'«E: ADAMS ;7
/SiATiON^.(S)^p
SOUTHS ID £"•**
SOUTHSIDE LIBRARY (S)
SPRING PARK (P,S)
CRAIG TIELD
SANDALWOOP
N
MAJOR EMISSION SOURCE
MONITORING SITE
P • PARTICULARS
S - SULFUR DIOXIDE
N - NITROGEN DIOXIDE
SP NONATTAINMEOT AREA
Figure 3.1-2. Locations of major emission sources and monitoring sites in
the Jacksonville area (JEA/FP&L 1981a).
3-7
-------
Table 3.1-1. Florida and National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(JEA/FP&L 1981a).
NAAQS
Pollutant
Particulates
Sulfur dioxide
Carbon monoxide
Hydrocarbons
(nonmethane)
Nitrogen dioxide
Ozone
Lead
Averaging
Time
Annual
24-hour
24-hour
24-hour
3-hour
Annual
8-hour
1-hour
3-hour
(6-9 am)
annual
1-hour
3-month
Primary Standard
(Health)
75 ug/m3
260 ug/m3
80 ug/m3
10 mg/m3
40 mg/m3
160 ug/m3
100 ug/m3
240 ug/m3
1.5 ug/m3
Secondary Stardards
(Welfare, Materials)
60 ug/m3
150 ug/m3
1,300 ug/m3 1
same as Primary
same as Primary
same as Primary
same as Primary
FAAQS
60 ug/m3
150 ug/m3
260 ug/m3
365 ug/m3
,300 ug/m3
60 ug/m3
10 mg/m3
40 mg/m3
160 ug/m3
100 ug/m3
-
1.5 ug/i
Table 3.1-2. Prevention of Significant Deterioration permitted
increments (Allowed increase over baseline concentration is
ug/m3) (USEPA 1979).
S02
TSpb
Annual
a
24-hour
3-hour
Annual
24-hour
Class I
2
8
25
5
10
Class II
20
91
512
19
37
Class III
40
182
700
37
75
All 24-hour and 3-hour values may be exceeded once per year.
TSP is total suspended particulate.
3-8
-------
Two additional Federal regulations associated with PSD include the New
Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and Best Available Control Technology
(BACT). Fossil fuel-fired steam generating units of more than 250 MMBtu/hr of
heat input produce three types of emissions for which the USEPA has estab-
lished NSPS [44 FR (113) 3357933624, June 11, 1979]. The applicable NSPS for
these pollutants from coal-fired units are as follows:
• Participate Matter - 0.03 Ib/MMBtu heat input and 20% opacity based
upon a six minute average.
• Sulfur Dioxide
• Nitrogen Oxides
1.2 Ib/MMBtu heat input and a 90% reduction in
potential sulfur dioxide emissions is required
at all times except when atmospheric emissions
are less than 0.60 Ib/MMBtu heat input. When
sulfur dioxide emissions are less than 0.60
Ib/MMBtu heat input, a 70% reduction in poten-
tial emissions is required. Compliance with the
emission limit and percent reduction requirements
is determined by continuous monitoring to obtain
a 30-day rolling average.
0.6 Ib/MMBtu heat input for bituminous coal and
a 65% reduction in potential nitrogen oxide
emissions based upon a 30-day rolling average
expressed as nitrogen dioxide. The percent
reduction is not controlling as USEPA has
determined that compliance with the emission
limitation will assure compliance with the
percent reduction requirement.
In addition to these requirements, the Clean Air Act as amended in 1977
and the implementing PSD regulations require a case-by-case evaluation of BACT
for projects the size of SJRPP. BACT is defined as follows in the Federal
regulations :
"Best available control technology means an emission limitation
(including a viable emission standard) based on the maximum
degree of reduction for each pollutant subject to regulation
under the Act which would be emitted from any proposed major
stationary source or major modification, which the Adminis-
trator, on a case-by-case basis, taking into account energy,
environmental, and economic impacts and other costs, determines
is achievable for such source or modification through application
of production processes or available methods, systems, and
techniques, including fuel cleaning or treatment or innovative
fuel combustion techniques, for control of such .pollutant. In
no event shall application of best available control technology
result in emissions of any pollutant which would exceed the
emissions allowed by any applicable standard under 40 CFR Part
60 and Part 61"
3-9
-------
State Regulatory Requirement
The Florida rules and regulations pertaining to air quality are similar
to the Federal regulations. The Florida Air Quality Regulations are defined
in the Florida Administrative Code, Chapter 17-2, and administered by the
FDER. The primary difference between the Federal requirements and Florida's
requirements is in the NSPS. Florida's NSPS are as follows:
• Particulate Matter 0.1 Ib/MMBtu, two-hour average and 20% opacity.
• Sulfur Dioxide 1.2 Ib/MMBtu, with no percent reduction require-
ment, maximum two-hour average.
• Nitrogen Oxides 0.7 Ib/MMBtu, maximum two-hour average.
3.1.4.2 Other Alternatives
The refuse-fired boilers, COM conversions, and coal conversions included
in Alternatives 1 through 4 will either be regulated by the requirements under
provisions of PSD, the Florida State Implementation Plan (SIP), or the NAAQS.
Refuse-fired plants with S02 or TSP emissions greater than 250 tons/year and
COM conversions with emissions of S02 or TSP greater than 100 tons/year will
be subject to the PSD requirements discussed in Section 3.1.4.1. Refuse-fired
plants and COM conversions with emissions lower than the above limits will be
subject to the Florida SIP. Coal conversions are now exempt from PSD and NSPS
if the existing facility is deemed currently capable of converting to coal and
would therefore be controlled by the Florida SIP. Facilities which are not
currently coal capable would be deemed major modifications and subject to PSD
if converted to coal and the conversion resulted in an increase in S02 or TSP
emissions of 100 tons/year or more. A provision now being considered for
enactment as part of the 1981 Clean Air Act Amendments would exempt -all coal
conversions, from the provisions of PSD. Under no circumstances would an
alternative be allowed which would cause a violation of the NAAQS.
3.2 SURFACE WATER RESOURCES
This section describes the existing surface water resources which may be
affected by the proposed SJRPP and the proposed alternatives. Detailed infor-
mation regarding surface water resources is presented in Appendix L. The waters
of concern include the St. Johns River near the proposed SJRPP site which is
adjacent to the Northside Generating Station (NGS) in Jacksonville, Florida;
the tributaries to the St. Johns River local to the SJRPP site; and the
St. Johns River near the FP&L Sanford Plant near Sanford, Florida. All of
these waters have been classified by the State of Florida as Class III waters
designated for fish and wildlife propagation (Florida Administrative Code,
Chapter 17-3.161). The St. Johns River at the SJRPP/NGS sites is marine in
character and the Class III marine water quality criteria apply (Table 3.2-1).
The other waters under study are fresh waters and Class III freshwater quality
criteria apply (Table 3.2-1). Where a discharge into these waters occurs, the
water quality criteria apply beyond a designated mixing zone. In addition,
at the point of discharge (POD) the concentration of any toxic pollutant must
be less than to the 96-hour LC for a species significant to the indigenous
3-10
-------
Table 3.2-1. Florida water quality criteria for Class III
predominantly marine and fresh waters (Florida Administra-
tive Code, Chapter 17-3, 1979).
Parameter
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Beryllium
Bromates
Bromine (molecular)
Cadmium
Chlorides
Chlorine (total residual)
Chromium, hexavalent
total
total
Copper
Cyanide
Fluorides
Iron
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Phosphorus (elemental)
Polychlorinated Biphenyls
Selenium
Silver
Zinc
BOD
Detergents
Dissolved gases
Dissolved oxygen
Oil & Grease (dissolved and emulsified)
Turbidity
Fecal coliform
Total coliform
PH
Allowable Level
1.5 mg/1 (no standard)
0.2 mg/1 (no standard)
0.05 mg/1 (no standard)
1.10 mg/1
100 mg/1 (no standard)
0.1 mg/1 (no standard)
5.0 ug/1 (no standard)
5.0 ug/1 (0.8 ug/1)
10% increase above ground
background levels
0.01 mg/1
0.50 mg/1 (in effluent)
1.0 mg/1 (in effluent)
0.05 mg/1 (after mixing)
0.015 mg/1 (0.03 mg/1)
5.0 ug/1
5.0 mg/1 (no standard)
0.3 mg/1 (1.0 mg/1)
0.05 mg/1 (0.03 mg/1)
0.1 ug/1 (0.2 ug/1)
0.1 mg/1
0.1 ug/1 (no standard)
0.001 ug/1
0.025 mg/1
0.05 ug/1 (0.07 ug/1)
1 mg/1 (0.03 mg/1)
Appropriate D.O must be
maintained
0.5 mg/1
110% of saturation value at
the existing atmospheric and
hydrostatic pressures
Minimum 4 mg/1;
24 hr. avg. 5 mg/1
5.0 mg/1
50 Jackson units above
background levels
200/100 ml (monthly avg)
800/100 ml (daily max.)
1000/100 ml (monthly avg.)
2400/100 ml (maximum)
6.5 - 8.5 (also the discharge
may not cause the ambient pH to
vary by more than one pH unit)
1
Where a freshwater criterion differs from a marine criterion, the freshwater
criterion is given in parentheses.
3-11
-------
aquatic community. Florida statutes allow variances or other relief from water
quality criteria if ambient levels of constituents in State waters exceed speci-
fied water quality standards (FAC Chapter 17-3.031). This allowance is of
significance because JEA and FP&L have applied to FDER for a variance for the
discharge from the SJRPP for several parameters (JEA/FP&L 1981c).
3.2.1 St. Johns River at Jacksonville
At the SJRPP/NGS sites, the St. Johns River is divided into two segments
by Blount Island. The old natural channel curves north of the Island while
the Fulton-Dame Point Cutoff, dredged to straighten this section of the
St. Johns River, flows south of Blount Island and contains the main naviga-
tional channel of the River. The proposed coal unloading facility is to be
located on the south end of Blount Island on the Fulton-Dame Point Cutoff.
The St. Johns River in the vicinity of the proposed project is greatly
influenced by the Atlantic Ocean. Due to the tidal influence, currents are
highly varied and flow in the St. Johns River at Blount Island changes direc-
tion on an average of four times per day (USCOE 1980b). Current profiles were
measured in the area of the NGS discharge in the old natural channel and in
the Fulton-Dame Point Cutoff on 16-17 October 1980. These measurements in-
dicated a fairly uniform current velocity across the River in both channels
(JEA/FP&L 1981a). Approximately 50% of the total flow of the St. Johns River
passes through the Fulton-Dame Point Cutoff during flood tide and about 66%
passes during ebb tide. The remainder passes through the old natural channel
north of Blount Island (JEA/FP&L 1981a). The estimated freshwater flow in the
St. Johns River at Blount Island is approximately 9,300 cubic feet per second
(cfs).
Data collected during the pre-application water quality monitoring program
from November 1979 to October 1980 (Table 3.2-2) showed that for ambient
conditions, concentrations of the following pollutants were found to exceed
the State water quality standards for Class III marine waters (JEA/FP&L 1981a) :
Aluminum
Total residual chlorine
Copper
Total coliform
Cyanide
Iron
Mercury
Oil and grease
Silver
Based on tests performed on the surface waters of the Fulton-Dame Point Cutoff
as part of the pre-application monitoring, water quality met Class III marine
water quality standards for all parameters except the following (JEA/FP&L
1981a):
• Cadmium
• Lead
• Mercury
3-12
-------
Table 3.2-2. Water quality of the St, Johns River in the
Blount Island Channel (November 1979-October 1980)
(JEA/FP&L 1981b).
Concentration
Parameter Mean Maximum
Chlorides, mg/1 13,000 20,400
Sulfates, mg/1 1,740 2,600
Calcium, mg/1 272 395
Iron, mg/1 0.801 2.7
Magnesium, mg/1 843 1,200
Potassium, mg/1 267 365
Sodium, mg/1 7,150 9,150
Cyanide, ug/1 10 90
Aluminum, ug/1 488 3,630
Antinrmy, ug/1 0.19 0.95
Arsenic, ug/1 0.69 1.0
Beryllium, ug/1 0.09 0.19
Boron, ug/1 3.11 4.7
Cadmium, ug/1 0.29 2.2
Chromium, ug/1 1.59 5.0
Copper, ug/1 ' 69.5 275
Lead, ug/1 0.37 10
Manganese, ug/1 27.3 90
Mercury, ug/1 0.24 0.6
Nickel, ug/1 3.34 16.5
Selenium, ug/1 0.5 0.75
Silver, ug/1 0.16 0.35
Zinc, ug/1 46.2 149
3-13
-------
• Silver
• Total residual chlorine
• Copper (equal to standard)
Elutriate tests were performed on four sediment core samples taken in the
proposed dredge area for the ocean vessel coal unloading facility. The fol-
lowing water quality parameters were at levels in the elutriate which exceeded
Class III marine water quality standards (JEA/FP&L 1981a):
Antimony
Cadmium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Oil and grease
Silver
The analytical method used to measure the level of cyanide present in the
elutriate had a detection limit (0.010 mg/1) which was above the allowable
level (0.005 mg/1) of cyanide. In addition, since the cyanide concentration
violates the allowable level in the Blount Island Channel, a similar concentra-
tion in the elutriate of the Fulton-Dame Point Cutoff must be considered highly
probable.
3.2.2 St. Johns River at Sanford
Several of the proposed alternatives involve changes in the operation at
the FP&L plant near Sanford, Florida. The Sanford Plant is located on the
St. Johns River just downstream (west) of Lake Monroe. The Lake is formed by
a wide area in the St. Johns River and covers 9,406 acres. The Lake is re-
latively shallow (4 to 7 feet deep) except for a 12 foot deep channel which is
maintained by the USCOE. The St. Johns River is affected tidally up to Lake
George, and during drought and high tide conditions the tidal effects occur as
far upstream as Lake Monroe (FDER 1979).
The St. Johns River drains an area of approximately 2,500 mi2 above
Sanford. Throughout much of its upper reaches it is flat, marshy, and
meandering with a low, marshy floodplain. The River is fed by a number of
tributaries upstream of the Sanford area, from springs along its length, and
from large volumes of water discharged from the Floridan Aquifer (Clark, Dietz
and Associates, Inc. 1977). The estimated 7-day, 10-year low flow is
approximately 220 cfs at Sanford.
The St. Johns River at Sanford is a moderately polluted area with total
phosphorus concentrations above natural levels and BOD above State standards
(FDER 1980). Wastewater discharges reach the St. Johns River via the
Econlockhatchee River (from east Orlando), via Lake Jessup (from Winter Park,
Maitland, and Castelberry), and directly to Lake Monroe (from Sanford). Lake
Monroe is a highly eutrophic lake. Nonpoint sources from urban areas increase
nutrient concentrations, decrease water clarity, and increase phytoplankton
activity and coliform bacteria levels (FDER 1979). Metals concentrations in
3-14
-------
the St. Johns River near Sanford are within State water quality standards in
general (Table 3.2-3). Frequent violations have occurred, however, with
respect to cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, and zinc.
3.2.3 Local Tributaries and Site Hydrologic Characteristics (SJRPP/NGS)
The proposed SJRPP site is located immediately north and northeast of the
NGS. Southeast of the site is Browns Creek, and east and northeast of the
site is Clapboard Creek. Southwest of the site and passing through the NGS
site is San Carlos Creek. Nicholas Creek joins San Carlos Creek at the con-
fluence with the St. Johns River approximately 460 m (1,500 ft) upstream from
the NGS discharge. These four creeks drain the Clapboard Creek watershed
(USCOE 1980). To the west of the SJRPP site is the Dunn Creek watershed.
Small tributaries to Dunn Creek include Caney Branch and Rushing Branch which
are northwest of the site and Terrapin Creek which drains the area immediately
to the west of the site.
On the SJRPP site (Figure 3.2-1) there are three unnamed tributaries to
Browns Creek. One tributary (B, Figure 3.2-1) drains an old bayhead swamp
which covers approximately 20 acres in the southern portion of the site. The
other two tributaries (C and D, Figure 3.2-1) drain the eastern and northern
portions of the site. The City of Jacksonville's North Landfill drains to
Tributary C. A saltwater marsh exists at the outlet to tributaries C and D
and in the northeast portion of the site a swamp drains into Clapboard Creek.
North of Island Drive, which runs east and west through the site, at the
headwaters to Tributary C is a large freshwater swamp and a series of cypress
dome swamps.
As part of the pre-application monitoring program, six locations
(Figure 3.2-1) within and adjacent to the SJRPP site were sampled for water
quality. Violations of water quality criteria for Class III freshwaters were
observed at one or more locations for fecal and total coliform bacteria and
alkalinity. No other violations of water quality criteria were observed.
3.2.4 Surface Water Uses
The St. Johns River is under the jurisdiction of the St. Johns River
Water Management District (SJRWMD), The SJRWMD has formulated policies to
ensure the continued adequate supply of surface water for various uses in-
cluding public, industrial and power generation, irrigation, rural, and re-
creational (SJRWMD 1977 in_ JEA/FP&L 1981a) .
Primary surface water uses in the site vicinity include recreation and
navigation. 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
maintained for commercial navigation serving domestic and foreign cargo lines
at the Port of Jacksonville including Blount Island, the Port of Sanford, and
other ports between.
3-15
-------
Table 3.2-3. Storage and retrieval (STORE!) summary for the
St. Johns River near Sanford at US Highway 17/92 (1968-1981)
(US EPA 1981).
Number of
Parameter
Temperature
Turbidity
Transparency
(Secchi)
Conductance
at 25° C
Dissolved
Oxygen
BOD (5 day)
pH
Alkalinity
Acidity
Organic
Nitrogen
Nitrate
Nitrogen
Kjeldahl
Nitrogen
Phosphate
Orthophosphate
Organic Carbon
Chloride
Sulfate
Fluoride
Arsenic
Units Observations Mean
Degrees C
JTU
Meters
Micromhos
Mg/1
mg/1
Standard units
mg/1 as CaC03
mg/1 as CaC03
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
116
113
54
105
88
69
123
122
77
89
55
37
34
37
75
112
88
23
1
23.3
31.7
0.57
1,190
7.25
4.10
7.97
57.2
2.47
1.56
2.41
1.53
0.77
9.53
21.9
288
64
0.14
0.15
Maximum
33.0
105.0
0.90
3,400
16.5
16.00
9.90
126.0
18.00
3.52
50.00
2.37
2.40
340.00
38.0
726
194
0.26
-
Minimum Standards
9.8
3.0
0.30
417
2.1
0.30
6.89 6.5-8.5
22.0 20.0
0.00
0.30
0.00
0.54
0.04
0.01
2.0
69
18
0.02 10.00
0.05
3-16
-------
Table 3.2-3. Storage and retrieval (STORE!) summary for the
St. Johns River near Sanford at US Highway 17/92 (1968-1981)
(USEPA 1981)(concluded).
Number of
Parameter
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Iron
Lead
Manganese
ZJjic
Mercury
Nickel
Units
ug/1
ug/1
ug/1
ug/1
ug/1
ug/1
ug/1
ug/1
ug/1
Observations
14
6
14
50
39
1
39
3
0
Mean
2.7 .
60
38.2
250
16.4
46.0
107.0
0.13
—
Maximum
10.0
100
140.0
500
60.0
-
500.0
0.20
—
Minimum
0.5
10
0.0
50
5.0
-
10.0
0.10
_
Standards
0,8
50
30.0
1,000
30.0
-
30.0
0.20
100
3-17
-------
NORTH LANDFILL
D-6/3S
"tJ^^SteiiUc^j -^5!?^'-* '•-'?•
;. M^. ~:Zs-trjaht--..-r^—^, . »> -«-,x. - _ ^ i~ —
\ ' Sr^'O^FWp
• } .. ±j \_,«~« ^\ •-:.>*»
Figure 3.2-1. Water quality and PCS sampling locations for waterbodies in the
SJRPP site area (JEA/FP&L 1981a).
3-18
-------
3.2.4.1 Water Withdrawal
St. Johns River at Jacksonville
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 mgd (SJRWMD
1977 _in JEA/FP&L 1981a). Of this total, groundwater use was estimated to be
213.2~~mgd and surface water use was estimated to be 185.6 mgd (Table 3.2-4).
In 1975, nearly all freshwater consumption for rural water use, irrigation,
and public drinking water supply was developed from groundwater resources,
principally the Floridan Aquifer. A significant portion of water use for
industry and power generation was developed from surface water sources,
principally the St. Johns River.
The NGS and St. Regis Paper Company's Eastport plant are the major
users of surface water from the St. Johns River in the area. The NGS with-
draws approximately 216 mgd and St. Regis uses approximately 60 mgd. Ground-
water uses are substantially less than surface water uses within the five mile
radius, although groundwater consumption represents a significant portion of
total, water use at the St. Regis plant (JEA/FP&L 1981a).
St. Johns River at Sanford
The waters of the St. Johns River at Sanford are not suitable as a
drinking water supply because of their high chloride content. This portion of
the River has a brownish color due to extensive draining of swampy areas
containing tannic acid. Silt and turbidity also contribute to coloration.
Agricultural runoff contributes silt, nutrients, and pesticides to the River.
The River provides recreational opportunities for fishing, hunting, and boat-
ing, but is little used for body contact activities (Clark, Dietz and
Associates, Inc. 1977). Unit 3 of the Sanford Plant makes use of water from
the St. Johns River for cooling. Cooling pond makeup water for Units 4 and 5
also comes from the St. Johns River.
3.2.4.2 Water Discharges
Existing wastewater discharges of interest include the cooling water
discharges of FP&L's Sanford Plant and JEA's Northside Generating Station
(NGS).
NGS
The Blount Island Channel is presently affected by the once-through
cooling system serving the three generating units at NGS. The design condi-
tions for cooling these units operating at full load are as follows (JEA/FP&L
1981a):
Temperature Heat Rejection
Unit Flow (gpm) Rise (°F) Rate - 10 Btu/hr
1 140,000 19 1.3
2 140,000 19 1.3
3 280,000 19 2.7
All 560,000 19 5.3
3-19
-------
a
Table 3.2-4. Freshwater use and projections for the Lower St. Johns River Basin ,
1975-2020 (SJRWMD 1977 Jin JEA/FP&L 1981a).
Groundwater Withdrawn(mgd) Surface Water (mgd)
Water Use Category
Public
Industrial
Irrigation
Power Generation
Rural
Basin Total
1975
65.9
62.1
49.3
2.3
33.6
213.2
1980
82
64
54
2
35
237
2000
145
77
68
2
38
330
2020
214
92
74
2
35
417
1975
25.3
—
160.0
0.3
185.6
1980
26
—
160.0
0.3
186.3
2000
„
31
—
160.0
0.3
191.3
2020
JT1I _
38
—
160.0
0.3
198.3
River mouth to Lake St. George
Note that this does not include salt water use
-------
Circulating water enters the NGS intake flume between elevations (-)9.3 and
(-)20.0 feet MSL and is conveyed by the 25 foot wide and approximately 16 foot
deep flume to the intake basin. The circulating water pumps for each unit
take suction from this basin, pump the water through each unit's condenser,
and discharge it to the discharge channel. The heated water flows from the
discharge channel by gravity through the 196-inch diameter discharge pipe,
from which it branches to the two 120-inch diameter discharge openings in the
Blount Island Channel (JEA/FP&L 1981a).
The JEA was issued a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permit for Units 1, 2, and 3 of the NGS on 17 February 1977 (Permit
No. FL0001031). Effluent limitations and monitoring requirements were establ-
ished for once-through cooling water, low volume waste sources, boiler blow-
down from the generating units, and point source runoff from construction.
Once-through cooling water is limited to a 24-hour maximum average tem-
perature of 40° C (104° F) and a 10.6° C (19° F) temperature rise above
ambient conditions. Minimum temperature rises of 8.3° C (15° F) are pre-
dicted. The NGS NPDES permit limits both the maximum centerline length and
area enclosed within the 2° F (above ambient) isotherm of the thermal plume at
a depth of one meter. These limits are 5,400 feet and 102 acres, re-
spectively. The extent of" the thermal plume, as defined by the 2° F (above
ambient) isotherm, is much smaller than allowed by the NPDES permit under both
average and extreme conditions. The thermal plume does not significantly
influence water temperatures at locations outside the initial mixing area
(JEA/FP&L 1981a).
Free available chlorine in the once-through cooling water discharge must
not exceed an average concentration of 0.2 mg/1 and a maximum instantaneous
concentration of 0.5 mg/1 at the outlet corresponding to an individual unit.
Neither free available chlorine nor total residual chlorine may be discharged
from any unit for more than two hours in any one day and then not more than
one unit may discharge free available or total residual chlorine at any one
time.
When all units are functioning, the NGS discharges approximately 560,000
gallons per minute (gpm) of once-through cooling water to the St. Johns River.
Chlorine is added to the cooling water to prevent biological fouling. The
existing NPDES Permit for NGS limits the concentration of free available
chlorine (FAC) in the cooling water discharge to 0.2 mg/1 on the average and
0.5 mg/1 as an instantaneous maximum. All plant wastewater discharges
from plant operations are directed through treatment plants to percolation
ponds. An unquantified amount of pollutants seeps from the percolation ponds
to Browns Creek and the St. Johns River.
Sanford Plant
The FP&L Sanford Plant is located on the north bank of the St. Johns
River west of Lake Monroe. The Plant's three steam electric generating units
have the following characteristics (FP&L 1976):
3-21
-------
Unit New Summer Peak Flow Rate per Minute
Number Capability (MW) Gallons Liters
3 154 116,000 440,000
4 382 256,000 969,000
5 382 256,000 969,000
Units 1 and 2 were retired from service in 1964. Unit 3 draws condenser
cooling water from the St. Johns River through an intake canal. Debris is
removed from the intake water by a set of traveling screens. After passage
through the condenser system, water is released into a discharge canal which
empties into the St. Johns River. The maximum recorded temperature rise in
the water across the condensers at peak operating load was 8.3° C (15° F)
(FP&L 1976). Units 4 and 5 use a 1,100 acre reservoir for off-stream cooling
(Figure 3.2-2). Makeup water for this reservoir is pumped from the intake
canal. No cooling water discharge to the St. Johns River has occured from
these two units. The alternatives under consideration involve changes to
Units 4 and 5 with no changes to Unit 3.
Wastewater which could potentially be discharged to the St. Johns River
included boiler blowdown (100'gpm), low volume waste sources (194 gpm), storm
water discharged from non-equipment drains (variable flows), and cooling pond
discharge (emergency use). The effluent limits for these wastewaters establ-
ished in the Sanford Plant NPDES permit issued in 1976 are as follows
(USEPA 1976):
Low
Boiler Storm 'Volume
Parameter Blowdown Drains Sources
Oil and Grease 15 N/A 15
Total Suspended Solids 30 N/A 30
Total Copper 1.0
Total Iron 1.0
pH (Standard Units)
N/A - not applicable
No other discharge quality data were available for the Sanford Plant.
3.3 GROUNDWATER RESOURCES
This section summarizes the groundwater resources in the Jacksonville
and Sanford, Florida areas. Detailed information on groundwater resources
can be found in Appendix M.
3.3.1 Regional Groundwater Systems
Peninsular Florida's sedimentary rock sequences consist of about 8,000
feet of marine, littoral, and terrestrial deposits. The Paleozoic and Meso-
zoic sequences comprise about 5,000 feet while Cenozoic strata extend from the
3-22
-------
Figure 3.2-2. Water resources In the vicinity of FP&L'a Sanford Plant.
-------
ground surface to a depth of approximately 3,000 feet. The Cenozoic sedi-
ments include the following geologic and hydrologic formations pertinent to
this project (JEA/FP&L 1981a):
• 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.
The post-Miocene sediments in peninsular Florida are characterized by a.
complex series of unconsolidated sands, clays, and shell. Where present, un-
dif ferentiated upper Miocene and Pliocene sediments consist of poorly sorted
sands, gray clays, and shell beds with abundant mollusks (JEA/FP&L 1981a).
Pleistocene and Holocene sediments comprise the upper 20 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 which lies between the ground
surface and a depth of approximately 100 feet.
"3.3.1.1 Groundwatef Conditions at the SJRPP and NGS Sites
The proposed SJRPP site is adjacent to the existing NGS site in Duval
County, Florida. Both sites are underlain by the shallow aquifer system and
the deeper Floridan Aquifer. The Floridan Aquifer lies at a depth of between
460 and 600 feet and consists of two distinctly separate zones referred to as
the upper and lower permeable zones (Franks and Phelps 1979). The upper
permeable zone is the principal source of fresh water in Duval County. Wells
penetrating the full thickness of this zone typically yield 1,000 to 2,000 gpm
by artesian flow (Leve 1966 _in_ JEA/FP&L 1981a). Development of the lower
permeable zone has been limited since adequate yields of fresh water are
obtained from the upper permeable zone. Recharge to the Floridan Aquifer
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 overlying aquicludes (Leve 1966 in JEA/FP&L
1981a). Groundwater movement is from these recharge areas to discharge areas
to the north and east.
Two shallow aquifers underlie the SJRPP/NGS site, the water table aquifer
(-20 to -30 feet) and the shallow rock aquifer (-60 to -90 feet). They are
collectively referred to as the shallow aquifer system. The shallow 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 gpm although yields of up to 200 gpm have been reported (Causey and
Phelps 1978 in JEA/FP&L 1981a). Water wells completed in surficial sands
(water table aquifer) generally yield less than 10 gpm. One well completed in
a shell bed yielded in excess of 40 gpm (Causey and Phelps 1978 in JEA/FP&L
3-24
-------
1981a). Recharge to the shallow aquifer system occurs from rainfall and
surface water. Movement of groundwater at the SJRPP/NGS sites is typically
down gradient toward the marshes on the southeast (Moehle 1981d). The water
table aquifer lies from -16 feet to -4 feet below the land surface in these
areas.
3.3.1.2 Groundwater Conditions at the Sanford Plant Site
The Sanford Plant site in Volusia County, Florida is also underlain by
the Floridan Aquifer and the shallow aquifer system. The Floridan Aquifer in
Volusia County consists of limestone the top of which ranges in depth from 40
to 100 feet. Its vertical thickness extends to several thousand feet. It is
the principal source of fresh water for Volusia County and is used for irriga-
tion, public water supply, and commercial and industrial purposes. The Floridan
Aquifer consists of two zones of fresh water. Recharge occurs principally in
the central part of Volusia County and to a lesser degree elsewhere in the
County. Recharge occurs whenever the water table stands at a higher elevation
than the piezometric surface (Knochenmus and Beard 1971). Groundwater flow is
from the recharge areas in the central part of Volusia County to the east,
west, and north. The Sanford Plant site is not in the main recharge area of
Volusia County.
The shallow aquifer system ranges in thickness from about 25 feet near
the Halifax and St. Johns Rivers (Sanford Plant site) to 80 feet in the central
part of Volusia county. Recharge is chiefly by rainfall, although a small
amount occurs as a result of upward seepage of artesian water from the Floridan
Aquifer (Wyrick 1960). The shallow aquifer system serves principally as a
recharge zone to the Floridan Aquifer and is rarely used for domestic, commercial,
or industrial purposes (Knochenmus and Beard 1971). The water from this
aquifer generally has a low mineral content (25 to 50 mg/1) due to the low
solubility of the sand. Mineralization is higher in shell beds due to the
higher solubility of the shells (Knochenmus and Beard 1971).
3.3.2 Groundwater Use
3.3.2.1 Duval County and the SJRPP and NGS Sites
The Floridan Aquifer is the principal source of fresh water for the
Jacksonville area. Users include utilities, private domestic systems, the
military, commercial businesses, and industries. A breakdown of groundwater
use in 1966 includes the following (Leve and Goolsby 1969 in_ JEA/FP&L 1981a):
User Amount (mgd)
Jacksonville municipal water utility 36
Other municipal utilities 3
Non-municipal utilities 22
Private domestic systems 5
Military water systems 6
Industrial and commercial systems 72
Supplemental supplies for surface
lakes and ponds 8
Wild wells (uncontrolled discharge) 10
3-25
-------
In 1966, an estimated total of 162 million gallons per day (mgd) was being
withdrawn from the aquifer (Leve and Goolsby 1969 in JEA/FP&L 1981a). By 1982
groundwater use at the NGS is expected to average approximately 1.1 mgd from
four Floridan Aquifer wells completed at approximately 1,100 feet in depth
(JEA/FP&L 1981a).
The potentiometrie surface for the Floridan Aquifer in Jacksonville
(Figure 3.3-1) 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 (Leve 1966 in_ JEA/
FP&L 1981a). Localized depressions have been observed in the vicinity of
Eastport and Jacksonville where heavy pumping occurs. The potentiometrie
surface in the vicinity of the SJRPP appears to be declining at a rate of 0.4
to 0.5 feet per year (JEA/FP&L 1981a). Static water levels at the site were
approximately 20 feet above land surface (36 feet above mean sea level).
The shallow aquifer system is an important secondary source of fresh
water in Duval County. Approximately 15 of the wells in the vicinity of the
SJRPP site are completed in this aquifer (Appendix M, Table 3.1-2). Most
wells in the Jacksonville area producing water from the shallow aquifer system
have been completed in the "shallow rock zone" located between a 40 and 100
foot depth. Recharge is principally by infiltration of rainfall and percola-
tion from surface water bodies (Snell and Anderson 1970 in_ JEA/FP&L 1981b).
Annual water level fluctuations range from 5 to 20 feet in topographically
high regions. Water level extremes over a longer period of record may be con-
siderably greater (Snell and Anderson 1970 in JEA/FP&L 1981a).
3.3.2.2 Volusia County and the Sanford Plant Site
The Floridan Aquifer is also the principal source of fresh water for
domestic, commercial, and industrial use in Volusia County. An inventory of
groundwater wells in Volusia County bounded by latitudes 28° 50' 50" to 28°
56' 57" and longitudes 81° 15' 42" to 81° 19' 49" indicated that approximately
364 wells have been completed in the Floridan Aquifer (Rutledge 1981). Kno-
chenmus and Beard (1971) indicated that Volusia County water use in 1967
averaged about 25.9 mgd of which the major use (15.8 mgd) was for public
supply. During the twenty-year interval between 1950 and 1970, Volusia
County's public use of groundwater more than doubled. It has been estimated
that 300 mgd were available for public use and that 95% came from the Floridan
Aqui f er.
Data for the Sanford Plant indicate that 116.8 million gallons of ground-
water were used in 1979 and 116.2 million gallons were used in 1980 (SJRWMD
1980). This fresh water was obtained from the Floridan Aquifer and was used
for boiler makeup and potable supplies. Most of the cooling water and process
water for this plant is obtained from the St. Johns River (FP&L 1976).
3.3.3 Groundwater Quality
3.3.3.1 Groundwater Quality Standards
State water quality standards for groundwater are contained in Florida
Rules of the Department of Environmental Regulation, Chapter 17-3.071 and
3.101 which were adopted on 28 October 1970, amended, and approved by the
3-26
-------
SOURCE: U.S.GEOLOGICAL SURVEY, OPEN-FILE REPORT 80-69, ISSO .
POT£NTIOMETRIC CONTOUR - Sbovi altitude at which-.at «r It.tl would ha»« flood in lightly coitd ••lit
Hachurn indicali diprtttiont. Contour int «rvalt ! , 2 0 , and 40 f»»t. Datum It National G«od«ll c Vertical
Oat.» of I9Z9(NGVO).
SCALE
10 WILES 0
1 t t • . I
IOMILEB
_J
Figure 3.3-1. Potentiooetric surface map of the Floridan Aquifer
near Jacksonville, Hay 1979 (JEA/FP&L 1981a).
3-27
-------
USEPA on 1 March 1979. These standards state that "all groundwater with total
dissolved solids levels of less than 10,000 mg/1 are classified as Class 1-B."
The water quality criteria (Table 3.3-1) for Class 1-B are to be applied
except within zones of discharge.
3.3.3.2 Duval County and the SJRPP/NGS Sites
Groundwater from the Floridan Aquifer is Duval County's principal fresh-
water source and is suitable for domestic and most industrial uses (Leve 1966
_in JEA/FP&L 1981a). The quality of water from the Floridan Aquifer is variable
depending on the sampling location, sampling depth, and date of sampling.
Average concentrations are listed in Table 3.3-2.
Contaminants including hydrogen sulfide gas (1-3 mg/1) and chlorides
(10-30 mg/1) have been reported from wells in the Floridan Aquifer in Duval
County (Leve and Goolsby 1969; Leve 1966 _in_ JEA/FP&L 1981a). 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 de-
pression and lower the potentiometrie surface. Chloride concentrations in-
creased during the twenty-two year period from 1940 to 1962 due to heavy
pumping (JEA/FP&L 1981a). 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
Keys Limestone and underlying formations (Leve 1966 _in_ JEA/FP&L 1981a) . In
some areas, however, confining beds may retard movement between the zones of
high and low saline water.
Testing of water samples obtained from Floridan Aquifer wells selected in
the vicinity of the SJRPP site indicate that the water is of the calcium
bicarbonate type. With the exception of high chloride concentrations of 210
mg/1 in one well near SJRPP, there is no indication of chloride contamination
in the area. Detailed groundwater quality data for the Floridan Aquifer in
the area of the SJRPP/NGS sites are contained in Appendix M, Tables 4.3-3 and
4.2-4, and are summarized in Table 3.3-2.
Table 3.3-2. Summary of Floridan Aquifer water quality data
in the vicinity of the SJRPP site (JEA/FP&L 1981a).
Concentration
Parameter
.Specific Conductance (umhos/cm)
Hardness (as CaC03)
Calcium (mg/1)
Magnesium (mg/1)
Sodium (mg/1)
Bicarbonate (mg/1)
Sulfate (mg/1)
Chloride (mg/1)
Minimum
58
45
11
4
13
54
0
13
Mean
528
248
60
26
19
186
88
28
Maximum
1,187
435
96
43
90
309
130
210
3-28
-------
Table 3.3-1. State and Federal groundwater quality criteria0
Constituent
State of Florida
Class I-B Waters
USEPA Drinking Water Standards
Primary Secondary
Inorganic :
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Chloride
Chr omium
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
1.5d
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
250
15
1
0.5
0.3
0.05
3
6.5-8.5
250
500
5
Radioactive Substances:
Radium (226 +
Gross Alpha
228)
Organic Chemicals:
Endrin
Lindane
Methoxychlor
Toxaphene
2,3,-D
2,4,5-TP
5
15
0.0002
0.004
0.1
0.005
0.1
0.01
5
15
0.0002
0.004
0.1
0.005
0.1
0.01
^
All values in milligrams per liter (mg/1) except color which is in color
units, odor which is in odor units, pH which is in Standard Units, and
.radioactive substances which are in picocuries per liter (pCi/1)
cFlorida Administrative Code, Chapter 17-3, March 1, 1979
Environmental Protection Agency, National Intermim Primary and Secondary
dDrinking Water Regulations; 40 CFR Parts 141 and 143, as amended.
1.5 rag/1 or background levels, whichever is greater
^Specific limit depends upon average maximum daily temperature
Including radium 226; excluding radon and uranium
3-29
-------
Water in the "shallow-rock" aquifer and the intermediate sand zone at
SJRPP 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 inter-
mediate sands. Water in the water table aquifer differs from that of other
shallow aquifers by having a lower concentration of total dissolved solids.
The principal ions in solution are sodium and chloride with some calcium
sulfate and magnesium ions also present (JEA/FP&L 1981a).
Water produced from the water table and the shallow rock aquifer is of
acceptable quality for domestic supply, heat exchange, and agricultural uses
(Fairchild 1971 in_ JEA/FP&L 1981a). In general the water quality from these
aquifers compares favorably with both State criteria for Class 1-B waters and
with USEPA Primary and Secondary Drinking Water Standards. Water quality data
for shallow aquifers in Duval County and at the SJRPP/NGS sites are summarized
in Appendix M, Tables 4.2-4. Data for the North Landfill monitoring wells are
presented in Appendix M, Tables 4.2-5, 4.2-6, and 4.2-7.
3.3.3.3 Volusia County arid the Sanford Site
Knochenmus and Beard (1971) indicated that the mineral content of water
from the Floridan Aquifer in Volusia County ranges from 100 to 400 mg/1 except
in the highly mineralized areas along the St. Johns River (Sanford Plant site)
and the Atlantic Coast. Groundwater quality is highly variable with dissolved
solids ranging from less than 100 mg/1 to several thousand mg/1 (JEA/FP&L
1981a). These values represent water ranging from a calcium bicarbonate type
to waters of the sodium chloride type. The distribution of total hardness
values is similar to that of dissolved solids, with low values in the interior
of the County and high hardness and sodium chloride values in water discharged
along the coast and the St. Johns River (Knochenmus and Beard 1971). Chloride
in the groundwater is derived from rainfall and from the saline water that is
present at depth in the Aquifer. A deep well drilled in 1969 showed that the
depth to saline water was 1,450 feet. This zone can shift up and down as a
result of changes in hydraulic head in the upper and lower parts of the Aquifer
(Knochenmus and Beard 1971). Increased chloride concentrations occur where
heavy pumping or leakage along faults lowers the artesian pressure in the
freshwater portion of the Aquifer causing upward movement of underlying salt
water zones (Wyrick 1960). Water quality data for the City of Deland, a
private Deland area well, and for Orange City are presented in Appendix M,
Table 4.2-8 (Knochenmus and Beard 1971).
Groundwater in the shallow aquifer system is less mineralized than that
in the Floridan Aquifer'because of the lower solubility of the sand. The
mineral content of water from shallow wells completed in sand ranges from 25
to 50 mg/1, while the mineral content of groundwater in shell beds is higher
due to solubility of the shells. The principal dissolved minerals in this
groundwater are sodium, chloride, calcium, and bicarbonate (Knochenmus and
Beard 1971).
3.4 EARTH RESOURCES
This section includes descriptions of the existing local and regional
physiography, topography, soils, and geology of the proposed SJRPP site, the
3-30
-------
NGS, and FP&L's Sanford Plant. These three sites lie in the St. Johns River
Basin, an elongated area of approximately 11,200 square miles in northeast
Florida (Snell and Anderson 1970). 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.
The SJRPP site and the NGS site are adjacent to each other and the
geology, soils, and topography for the two sites are essentially identical.
The Sanford Plant exists on a site that is similar in these respects to the
other two even though the sites are approximately 100 miles apart. The
regional geology for both areas is the same.
3.4.1 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 (JEA/FP&L 1981a). The SJRPP and NGS sites
are in the Northern Zone while the Sanford Plant site lies within the Central
Zone (Figure 3.4-1).
3.4.1.1 SJRPP and NGS Sites
The SJRPP and NGS sites lie in the Northern Zone and are characterized by
highlands bordered by tidal marshes and estuaries of the St. Johns River. The
topography is controlled by Pleistocene marine terraces and beach ridges.
Elevations range from 5 to 28 feet above sea level. Most areas on the site
with elevations of greater than 10 feet are highlands and lie in the northern
portion while most areas of less than 10 foot elevation are wetlands along the
southern portion of the site.
3.4.1.2 Sanford Site
The Sanford Plant lies within the Central Zone physiographic region and
is situated in the St. Johns River Valley portion of that region. The topo-
graphy consists of nearly level, poorly drained terraces and sloughs. The
Sanford Plant site is nearly level to flat with an elevation of approximately
5 feet above sea level.
3.4.2 Soils and Geotechnical Conditions
3.4.2.1 SJRPP and NGS Sites Surficial Deposits
The soils found on the SJRPP and NGS sites including Blount Island con-
sist of two general soil associations, the Kershaw-Ortega Association and
Tisonia Association. These associations are described by the Soil Conserva-
tion Service (USDA 1978) as:
• Kershaw-Ortega. Nearly level to sloping, excessively drained to
moderately well drained soils that are sands.
• Tisonia. Level and nearly level, very poorly drained, saline, organic
soils found in marshes.
3-31
-------
1
Proposed Site
NORTHERN OR
PROXIMAL ZONE
Match Line
NORTHERN OR
PROXIMAL ZONE
CENTRAL OR 0
MID-PEN INSULAR
SOUTHERN
OR DISTAL
ZONE
0 20 40 60
SCALE IN MILES
SANFOKD PLANT
Figure 3.4-1. Physiographic divisions of Florida (White 1970)
3-32
-------
From the ground surface to approximately 15 feet, these soils are very loose
to loose fine sands except in the marsh areas. They have been classified by
the SCS according to their suitabilities and limitations regarding special
engineering and land use capabilities. The soils in the Kershaw-Ortega Associ-
ation found on the SJRPP and NGS sites all have a severe or poor potential
rating for use as landfills or sewage lagoons. They are excessively wet,
highly permeable, and too sandy for these uses. The clay content of these
soils is not high enough to minimize seepage; thus the possibility of ground-
water contamination from landfills and lagoons is high. These soils will
require special construction techniques and designs to overcome their undesir-
ability. High water tables and high permeabilities can cause problems in
construction on these soils.
3.4.2.2 SJRPP and NGS Sites Subsurface Soils
The soils below the surface soils consist of 40 to 50 feet of unconsol-
idated sediments of Pleistocene to Holocene age that overlie Mio-Pliocene
sands and limestone. The unconsolidated sediments are fine to very fine sands
of marine terrace and beach ridge origin. The sands are of a medium dense to
dense consistency. These sediments are a source of groundwater.
The Mio-Pliocene sediments are sandy limestones, partially cemented shell
and sand layers, and partially cemented fine sands. These sediments are 30 to
45 feet thick and overlie the Hawthorne Formation of Miocene age. The Haw-
thorn consists of sandy silty clays and clayey sands. The Hawthorne Formation
overlies the Ocala Group.
3.4.2.3 Sanford Site Surficial Deposits
The soils found in the Sanford Plant area are sandy soils of the St.
Johns River Valley and marine terraces. These sands are classified by the SCS
as SP-SC sands that are generally highly permeable and susceptible to flooding.
The soils found on the plant area have very poor potential for landfill and
waste disposal applications and very poor potential for use in ponds, embank-
ments, or diversion structures. The soils are excessively wet, too permeable,
and too sandy for these uses. The clay content is too low to prevent seepage
of leachate into shallow aquifers or surface waters. Special construction
designs and techniques will be necessary to overcome these limitations in
construction and operation of waste disposal areas on the existing soil types.
3.4.2.4 Sanford Site Subsurface Soils
Strata directly beneath the surface soils consist of Recent and Pleis-
tocene deposits of sands, shells, and clay. These deposits are chiefly fine
to medium grained quartz sands intermixed with shells. In parts of areas the
sands may exhibit a yellow or orange iron oxide staining. The Pleistocene
deposits are a major source of groundwater in the area (Wyrick 1960). The
thickness of these sediments is from 10 feet to approximately 70 feet.
Mio-Pliocene clastic sediments are directly beneath the Pleistocene
strata. These clastic sediments consist of fine sands, shells, and silty
clays. They reach a maximum thickness of approximately 75 feet and directly
overly the upper units of the Floridan Aquifer.
3-33
-------
3.4.2.5 Bedrock - SJRPP, NGS, and Sanford Sites
All sites are underlain by geologic formations that correlate from site
to site. That is, the general geology is essentially the same for the NGS,
SJRPP, and Sanford sites. The first consolidated strata at both sites is the
Ocala Group which consists of the Crystal River Formation, the Williston
Formation, and the Inglis Formation. The Ocala Group overlies, in descending
order, the Avon Park Limestone, the Lake City Limestone, and the Oldsmar
Limestone, all of Eocene age.
3.4.3 Regional Geology
Peninsular Florida is part of the Eastern Gulf Coast Sedimentary Basin
with a sedimentary sequence of limestones, dolomites, evaporites, and uncon-
solidated sands, gravels, and clays that ranges in depth from 8,000 feet in
northern Florida to 18,000 feet in southern Florida. 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 this area are of Eocene
or younger age.
3.4.4 Site Geology (SJRPP, NGS, and Sanford Sites)
Geologically, the SJRPP site and the NGS site are virtually the same.
The proximity of the two sites precludes any major differences between them.
The Sanford site and the SJRPP and NGS sites are also very similar geologic-
ally. The two areas lie in the same geologic region and the rock units are
correlative from one area to the other.
Both areas are covered with unconsolidated sediments of Pleistocene to
Recent age that are primarily marine terrace and beach ridge deposits. These
sands and gravels overlie Mio-Pliocene deposits and the Hawthorn Formation.
The Mio-Pliocene strata consist of semi-consolidated sands, gravels, shells,
and clay materials. The Hawthorn Formation is the upper confining layer for
the Floridan Aquifer in most areas and consists of clays, sands, and some
limestone.
Unconformably beneath the Hawthorn Formation lies the Ocala Group. At
the SJRPP and NGS sites it is approximately 450 feet deep and at the Sanford
Plant approximately 100 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 all of Eocene Age and comprise the Floridan
Aquifer. They are limestones and dolomites, generally very permeable, and
yield high quantities of groundwater. Table 3.4-1 indicates the general
stratigraphy of the Eocene and younger rocks found in Florida.
3.4.5 Existing Solid and Hazardous Waste Generation and Disposal
3.4.5.1 SJRPP Site
Presently no solid or hazardous wastes are generated or disposed of on
the SJRPP site. Plans for the SJRPP include waste disposal areas of 551 acres
3-34
-------
Table 3.4-1. Stratigraphy of the Cenozoic
formations of Florida (JEA/FP&L 1981a)»
Geologic Age
Recent and
Pleistocene
Stratigraphic Unit
Recent and
Pleistocene deposits
Lithologic Character
Soil, raick, coarse to fine sand,
shell, and some clayey
sand
Pliocene?
Pliocene and Upper
Miocene deposits
Gray-green calcareous, silty
clay and clayey sand; contains
shell beds and white soft, fri-
able limestone beds
Miocene
Hawthorn Formation
Gray to blue-green calcareous
phosphatic, sandy clays and
clayey sands; contains fine to
medium phosphatic sand lenses
and limestone and dolomite beds,
particularly near the base of
the formation.
Eocene
Crystal River
Formation
Williston
Formation
Inglis Formation
Avon Park
Limestone
Lake City
Limestone
Oldsmar Limestone
White to cream chalk, massive
fossiliferous marine limestone
Tan to buff granular, marine
limes tone
Tan to buff granular, calcitic
marine limestone; contains thin
dolomite lenses and zones of
Miliolidate foraminiferal coquina
Alternating beds of brown to tan
hard, massive dolomite, brown
finely crystalline dolomite,
and granular calcitic limestone
White to Brown, purple-tinted
lignitic, granular limestone and
gray hard, massive dolomite;
contains lignite beds and zones
of Valvulinidae foraminiferal
coquina
Cream to brown massive to chalky
granular limestone and tan to
brown massive to finely crystal-
line dolomite
3-35
-------
at three locations. Two of the solid waste disposal facilities will be located
adjacent to and south of Island Drive. The largest solid waste disposal area
will be located adjacent to and north of Island Drive. These areas are presently
classified as grassy scrub/pine flatwood, pine flatwood, hardwood hammock, and
bottomland hardwood. Fine sandy soils are dominant in these areas. Presently
the Jacksonville municipal landfill is operating adjacent to and north of the
SJRPP boundary. This landfill has 17 years of capacity at 550 tons per day.
3.4.5.2 NGS Site
Contacts with the City of Jacksonville Bioenvironmental Services Group
(Bailey 1981) indicated that very little solid waste is generated by the NGS
Units 1, 2, and 3. No inventory is presently kept by the Bioenvironmental
Services Group. Based on maximum continuous ratings for these units, it is
estimated that 392.2 tons of bottom ash were generated in 1980. Solid waste
generated at the existing NGS is disposed of on-site.
3.4.5.3 Sanford Plant
In 1980 the Sanford Plant produced 586 tons per year of bottom ash and
1,969 tons per year of fly ash from Units 1, 2, and 3. Ash disposal is to
landfills and/or sluiced to lined sediment ponds.
3.5 AQUATIC AND TERRESTRIAL ECOLOGY
This section provides a summary of the existing biological resources in
the vicinity of the St. Johns River Power Park (SJRPP), Northside Generating
Station (NGS), and Sanford sites. A detailed discussion of the existing
biological environment is provided in Appendix 0.
3.5.1 SJRPP/NGS
3.5.1.1 Aquatic Ecology
The proposed SJRPP site and NGS site are adjacent to the extreme northern
portion of the St. Johns River. Aquatic communities are typical of south-
eastern 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. Although stressed by poor water quality, the St. Johns River
in the vicinity of the SJRPP and NGS is nevertheless a highly productive
estuarine area.
Since the SJRPP will utilize the NGS discharges as a source of cooling
makeup water, the NGS discharge must be considered as part of the existing
environment. A summary of the results of the NGS 316 demonstration is pro-
vided in Section 1.1.1.3 of Appendix 0. The 316 demonstration considered
effects of thermal discharge, impingement of organisms on intake screens, and
entrainment of plankton. This study showed that the NGS had no significant
effect on the indigenous populations of shellfish, fish, and wildlife in the
3-36
-------
St. Johns River in the vicinity of the plant. However, several fishkills in
the vicinity of NGS have been attributed by FDER to the NGS discharge (Ryan
1981).
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 River is subject
to excessive nutrient and pollutant loadings. The USCOE (1976) reported that
diatoms were the most abundant phytoplankton in waters of Duval County.
Studies at the NGS 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/ml during a
one-year study period. Periphyton populations in the upper St. Johns River
are composed primarily of diatoms (Weston, Inc. 1978). Periphyton are impor-
tant primary producers in area salt marshes (JEA/FP&L 1981a).
Extensive tidal salt marshes border the SJRPP 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 Blount Island Channel in the vicinity of the SJRPP site are
bordered by narrow marshy areas with growths of black needlerush and cordgrass.
Extensive undisturbed tidal salt marshes also border San Carlos Creek in the
vicinity of the NGS. Submerged aquatic vascular plants occur in seasonally
flooded wetlands on the SJRPP site, but do not occur in the Channel. 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 supports 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.
Fauna
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/FP&L 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). Section
1.1.1.2 of Appendix 0 summarizes information on seasonal abundance, species
composition, and other aspects of the ecology of zooplankton in the study
area.
Macroinvertebrates. Benthic macroinvertebrate populations in the study
area are dominated by polychaetes, oligochaetes, and small crustaceans (JEA/FP&L
1981a). Benthic population densities in the vicinity of the NGS and SJRPP are
generally low with scattered, high density patches of several opportunistic
3-37
-------
species. Benthic invertebrates are consumed by redfish, sea trout, croakers,
and many other predators. A more detailed description of the ecology of this
group of organisms is provided in Section 1.1.1.2 of Appendix 0.
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. Johns River near the NGS where they grow and
mature. Commercially important species include white shrimp (Penaeus setiferus),
brown shrimp (P. aztecus), pink shrimp (P. duorarum), and blue crab (Calliaectes
sapidus). A limited amount of oysters are commercially harvested from a small
area in northeast Duval County (USCOE 1980). The FDER has not approved the
St. Johns River in Duval County for shellfish harvesting, however (JEA/FP&L
1981a).
Fish and Ichthyoplankton. The St. Johns River estuary supports an abundant
and varied fish community including both seasonal and permanent residents of
the estuary (mummichog, menhaden, weakfish, perch, spot, spotted seatrout),
anadromous species (shad, striped bass), occassional 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 NGS (JEA/FP&L 1981a). This study lists 113 fish species
of fish from the estuarine portion of the St. Johns River. Many of these spe-
cies a^e commercially important and use the area near the NGS 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.
I
3.5.1.2 Terrestrial Ecology
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 following discus-
sion deals primarily with ecology of the SJRPP site. Communities on the NGS
site were assumed to be either highly disturbed or previously eliminated.
Main Site Area Vegetation
Nine major vegetation communities were identified within the boundaries
of the SJRPP, including pine flatwoods (504 acres), grassy scrub (25 acres),
grassy scrub pine flatwoods (363 acres), hardwood swamp (100 acres), hardwood
hammock (415 acres), bottomland hardwood (80 acres), bayhead (23 acres),
cypress swamp (40 acres), and salt marsh (41 acres) (JEA/FP&L 1981a). The
distribution of the nine communities is illustrated in Figure 3.5-1 and their
major characteristics are summarized on Table 3.5-1. Detailed descriptions of
each of the types of plant communities are provided in Appendix 0.
Blount Island Vegetation
Much of the vegetation on Blount Island has been disturbed. Six major
vegetation types have been identified on the Island (Figure 3.5-2). These
communities are restricted to the periphery of the Island, primarily along the
old river channel and along the remnants of Alligator Creek. They include
3-38
-------
"^wVWYi
' 1 » * i
i 1 1 l
14444
* » t *
r"~ -* "*•
ffi&fii
0
Bayhead
Cypress Swamp
Pine Flatwood
Hardwood Swamp
Grassy Scrub f
Bottomland Hardwood
Salt Marsh
Hardwood Hammock
Open Water
Grassy Scrub /Pine Flat wood
1000 2000 3000
'
J
f.
Figure 3.5-1. Vegetation community types on the SJRPP site (-JEA/FP&L 1981a).
3-39
-------
Table 3.5-1. Summary of major characteristics of each of the nine plant communities on the SJRPP site (JEA/FP&L 1981a).
Community Type
Pine Flatwoods
Percent of A
Site Covered
30
Approximate Degree
of Disturbance
75% timbered north of Island
Drive
Common Dominant
Canopy Plants
General Characteristics
Slash pine; long leaf pine Common upland community throughout area.
LO
o
Grassy Scrub/Pine
Flatwoods
Grassy Scrub
Hardwood Swamp
22
1.5
Disturbed by fire in past
Unknown
Undisturbed
Turkey oak or slash pine
(where canopy present)
No canopy present; dominant
are saw palmetto, ink berry,
southern bayberry
Red maple, buttonbush, black
gum, bayberry
Poorly developed canopy; common community
in area.
Common in area.
Seasonally flooded forested wetland; com-
plex canopy structure; located next to
salt marsh and connected via channels.
Hardwood Hammock
Bottomland Hardwood
Bayhead
Cypress Swamp
Salt Marsh
25
4.8
1.7
2.4
2.5
Undisturbed
Undisturbed
Undisturbed
Undisturbed
Undisturbed
Live oak, water oak, scrub-
hickory
Red maple, American elm,
water oak, black gum
Loblolly bay, red bay,
sweet gum, southern bayberry
Cypress or cypress/blackgum
Juncus or Spartina
Located next to salt marshes; complex
canopy structure.
Seasonally flooded forested wetland
located in lower areas.
Seasonally flooded forested wetland lo-
cated adjacent to hardwood and cypress
swamps.
Seasonally flooded forested wetland;
tidally flooded.
Highly valuable emergent wetland.
Based on a total of approximately 1656 acres on the site (JEA/FP&L 1981a).
-------
Figure 3.5-2. Location of facility components on Blount Island in
relation to vegetation community types (JEA/FP&L 1981a).
TO PLANT
SITE ••.',':
Y////\ Industrial
1
[^'"••.4 Salt Harsh 1
(
[ | Open Water |
pcV^S-J Hyrlca Shrub
I ^ ~_ " | Baccharla Shrub
[.'•';' .'•'l-'.'-'l Graaay Scrub
[4%*4^ Mixed Hardwood
I
«-
o 1000 aooo MOO
RAIL
UNLOADING
AREA
COAL HANDLING & STORAGE AREA
-------
Baccharis shrub, grassy scrub, Myrica shrub, water/beach, and salt marsh.
Mixed hardwoods also exist on the Island, but are not within the proposed
facility boundaries (JEA/FP&L 1981a). Descriptions of these communities are
found in Section 1.1.2 of Appendix 0.
Transmission Corridor Vegetation
The region through which the preferred corridor passes is characterized
by abundant and diverse wetland types, large farm and agricultural acreage,
and extensive natural plant communities (JEA/FP&L 1981a). The first segment
of the corridor from the proposed plant to the Robinwood Substation is pre-
dominantly wetland and open water (Figure 3.5-3). The upland area is primarily
on Blount Island. The remainder of the corridor to the Robinwood Substation
contains a large amount of wetlands (Jacksonville Area Planning Board 1975)-
The corridor from the SJRPP to the Normandy Substation initially passes pri-
marily through upland areas. The next segment is primarily upland and agricul-
tural. More wetlands occur in the northern half of this mile-wide corridor
than in its southern half. The final segments are largely upland and agricul-
tural lands. Approximately 20% of these corridor segments are made up of
several wetland types (JEA/FP&L 1981a). However, most of the wooded wetlands
in the entire corridor have been drained.
Wildlife of Main Site and Blount Island
Mammals, birds, reptiles, and amphibians are important ecological compo-
nents of the modified and natural communities of the SJRPP site and vicinity.
Table 3.5-2 identifies the relative abundance and diversity of wildlife
observed on the site. Species having a commercial or recreational value are
described in Table 3.5-3. The SJRPP site supports a wide variety of wildlife.
Seasonally flooded and tidally flooded wetlands on the site are the most
important wildlife areas since they provide the most plentiful food and shelter.
Appendix 0 provides a detailed description of wildlife characteristics of each
habitat on the SJRPP site.
Biologically Sensitive Areas and Resources
Biologically sensitive areas on the SJRPP site and coal unloading facility
area include wetlands and habitats for rare, threatened, or endangered species.
A full description of both types of sensitive areas is provided in Appendix 0.
The wetlands on the site including bottomland hardwood, cypress swamp,
bayhead, hardwood swamp, and salt marsh are highly valuable ecosystems. These
communities encompass approximately 290 acres of the proposed site. They
provide food and shelter for a wide variety of animal life and are also an
important link between upland and estuarine environments.
Table 3.5-4 summarizes the information concerning rare, threatened or
endangered species which occur or could potentially occur in the vicinity of
the NGS or SJRPP sites. Included in the table is a description of the habitat
or area in which each could occur. It is significant that several of these
species either occur on the SJRPP site itself or occur in the wetland areas
immediately to the south or east of the site. The gopher tortoise (listed as
threatened by the State) occurs on the SJRPP site. The gopher tortoise harbors
3-42
-------
Figure 3.5-3. Wetlands and other sensitive areas along the proposed transmission line ROW (JEA/FP&L 1981a)
OJ
I
V'CM*-' / /-.'< A
^^W',,VyV
-------
Table 3.5.-2. Characteristics of wildlife and wildlife habitats observed on the
proposed SJRPP site (JEA/FF&L 1981a).
Total
Number of
Habitat Type Acres On-site
Pine Flatwoods
Grassy Scrub/
Pine Flatwoods
Grassy Scrub
Hardwood Swamp
Hardwood Hammock
Bottomland Hardwood
Bayhead
Cypress Swamp
Salt Marsh
Open
Riparian (Blount
Island)
Borrow Pit
Rookery
504
363
24.5
100
415
79.9
28.3
40.1
41
58.7
84
Numbe r
of Common Number of Different
Relative Mammalian Number of Species Observed
% of Plant , Species Bird Species Common Common
Total Acres3 Diversity Observed Observed Reptiles Amphibians
30 66 4C 7C ' 3°
22 129 30°
1.5 99
6 56 5d 12d 3d 9d
25 57 4 31 4 2
.4.8 32
1.7 33
2.4 45
2.5 13 2 30
3.5
58 61
11
31e
Out of a total of 1,655.9 acres on site.
Based on woody and herbaceous species observed.
.Includes grassy scrub, scrub flatwood, and pine flatwoods.
Includes hardwood swamp, cypress swamp, and bottomland hardwood including creeks and bayhead.
Observations made during spring and summer only.
-------
Table 3.5-3. Commercially or recreationally valuable species
observed on the SJRPP site (JEA/FP&L 1981a).
Common Name
Whitetail Deer
Scientific Name
Odocoileus virgin!anus
Eastern gray squirrel Sciurus carolinensis
Marsh rabbit
Raccoon
Opossums
River Otter
Bobwhite Quail
Sylvilagus palustris
Procyon lotor
Didelphis marsupialis
Lutra canadensis
Colinus Virginianus
Value/Habitat
Big game animal not
observed on site
Small game animal absent
from hardwood hammock
habitat
Small game animal evident
in the less mature of the
two bayhead areas and
on Blount Island
Furbearer which occurs
in the salt marsh and
bayhead habitats
Furbearer commonly found
in pine flatwoods
Furbearer observed
on site, common in
hardwood swamp areas
Game animal which thrives
in open fields and
pine flatwoods
3-45
-------
Table 3.5-4. Rare, threatened, and endangered species which occur or could potentially occur In the vicinity of the HGS and SJRPP
sites (Hendry et al. 1981, Shapiro 1981, and Duval Audubon Society, Inc. 1981).
Status
Common Name
American alligator
Gopher tortoise
Florida gopher frog
Eastern indigo snake
West Indian manatee
Shortnose sturgeon
Eastern brown pelican
Bald eagle
Wood stork
Southeastern kestrel
Scientific Name
Alligator mississippiensis
Gopherus polyphemus
Rana aerolata
Drymarchon coraius couperi
Trichechus manatus latlrostris
Acipenser brevlrostrum
Pelecanus occidentalis
carolinensis
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Mycterla americana
Falco sparverlus paulus
State
Arctic peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus tundrius
Burrowing owl
Athene cunicularia
Species of Special Concern
Threatened
Threatened
Species of Special Concern
Threatened
Endangered
Threatened
Threatened
Endangered
Threatened
Endangered
Species of Special Concern
Federal
Threatened
Threatened
Endangered
Endangered
Endangered
Endangered
Endangered
Potential or Actual Occurrence
in Study Area (Appendix 0)
One observed near coal unloading facility;
commonly-occurs in wetland'areas.
Burrows observed in pine flatuoods on
SJRPP site.
Could occur in gopher tortoise burrows.
Could occur in gopher tortoise burrows.
St. Johns River in vicinity of site is
within critical habitat.
Found in Doctors Lake, South of SJRPP.
Several thousand observed at Little Marsh
Island in last 28 years by Duval Audubon
Society; occurs in marshes next to SJRPP
site.
Could nest in slash pines on east side of
SJRPP; nests located in Duval, Clay, and St.
Johns Counties.
Feed in marshes next to SJRPP; rookery located
20 km southeast of plant on St. Johns River.
Prefers open pine forest; 1,660 sightings at
Little Marsh Island since 1948.
Migrates through area; may over winter; would
occur in marshes next to SJRPP and NGS.
This diurnal owl burrows into the ground, in-
habiting pocket gopher burrows, or dig their
own.
-------
Table 3.5-4. Rare, threatened, and endangered species which occur or could potentially occur in the vicinity of the NGS and SJRPP
sites (Hendry et al.- 1981, Shapiro 1981, and Duval Audubon Society, Inc. 1981) (concluded).
Status
Common Name
Scientific Name
State
Federal
.o
I
American oystercatcher
Little blue heron
Snouy egret
Reddish egret
Louisiana heron
Least tern
Red-cockaded woodpecker
Florida scrub jay
Osprey
Southern lip fern
Spoon flower
Jackson-vine
Bar tram's ixia
Haematopus palliatus
Florida caerulea
Dichromanassa rufescens
Hydranassa tricolor
Sterna albifrons
Ficoides borealis
Aphelocoma coerulescens
coerulescens
Pandion hallaetus
Cheilanthes microphylla
Peltandra sagltifolia
Smllax smallii
Sphenostigma coelestinum
Species of Special Concern
Species of Special Concern
Species of Special Concern
Species of Special Concern
Species of Special Concern
Threatened
Endangered
Threatened
Threatened
Rare
Rare
Threatened
Threatened
Endangered
Further
Research
Required
Potential or Actual Occurrence
in Study Area (Appendix 0)
Shore bird, would occur in all salt marsh wet-
land areas adjacent to SJRPP.
Rookery next to SJRPP; wetland areas.
Rookery next to SJRPP; wetland areas.
Rookery next to SJRPP; wetland areas.
Rookery next to SJRPP; wetland areas.
Nests in three areas on Blount Island.
13 different sightings in Little Harsh Island
area in last 28 years; could forage on site at
SJRPP.
2 isolated sightings in last 28 years near
Little Marsh Island by Duval Audubon Society
presence on site at SJRPP unlikely.
Feeds in open water areas near site; nests
exist on Blount Island transmission towers.
Potential to occur in area.
One found in bayhead community on SJRPP site.
Potential to occur in area.
Potential to occur in area.
-------
at least 30 types of commensal animals, including the indigo snake and gopher
frog. The southern bald eagle could nest in the slash pines on the edge of
the site. The wood stork (listed as threatened by the State) feeds in the
salt marshes next to and on the site and several birds classified as species
of special concern by the State occur in the rookery immediately to the east
of the'site. The red-cockaded woodpecker (listed as endangered by State and
Federal governments) could forage on the SJRPP site but would not be expected
to nest there. The least tern and osprey both nest on Blount Island and feed
in adjacent waters. Many other protected animal species either occur in the
area, migrate through it, or overwinter near the site. One specimen of the
spoon flower (listed as rare by the State) was found in the bayhead wetland on
the site, and three other protected plants could occur there.
3.5.2 Sanford Plant and Vicinity
3.5.2.1 Aquatic Communities
The aquatic ecology of the Sanford Plant area was surveyed by FP&L during
1974 and 1975 (FP&L 1976). The aquatic life forms studied include phytoplankton,
periphyton, zooplankton, macroinvertebrates, fish, and shellfish. The study
concluded that the operation of the Sanford Plant did not adversely affect the
aquatic life in its vicinity.
Green and bluegreen algae were the most abundant phytoplankton. Peri-
phyton were dominated by chrysophyta (diatoms) in March and September 1975,
with a seasonal shift to cyanophyta (bluegreen algae) in July. The dominant
and co-dominant zooplankters were identified as crustacean nauplii, copepods
and rotifers. The area is characterized by sluggish water movements, relatively
low water quality, and plankton typically found in eutrophic areas.
The density and diversity of benthic macroinvertebrates were reduced in
the immediate area of the discharge plume (FP&L 1976). Benthic populations in
the River were typical of areas subject to high organic loading, low oxygen
levels, and eutrophic conditions. Population densities were typically low in
comparison with less eutrophic areas of Florida.
Statistical analyses of the 1975 sampling data revealed that density,
biomass, equitability, conductivity, and dissolved oxygen concentration of the
discharge area were not significantly different from that of the intake and
River areas. Significant correlations of decreased benthic invertebrate
density and decreased diversity and equitability existed with increased tempera-
ture in the discharge canal.
The FP&L (1976) report demonstrated that the effects of entrainment and
thermal discharges on the local fish and shellfish populations were minimal.
Fish populations in the vicinity of the Plant were characterized by a large
number of marine and freshwater species representing all trophic levels.
3.5.2.2 Terrestrial Communities
The most common plant communities that could potentially occur in the
Sanford vicinity include an open forest of longleaf or slash pine, an under-
story of fetterbush, saw palmetto, runner oak, gallberry, and wax myrtle, and
3-48
-------
native grasses such as pineland three awn, different varieties of bluestem,
mainden cane, St. John's wort and lopsided indiangrass (USDA 1980).
Based on observations of aerial photographs (USDA 1980), most of the area
between the cooling pond and main plant site is open pasture or farmland
interspersed with pine flatwoods. Nine small wetlands of unknown type also
occur in the area. A relatively continuous area of pine flatwoods also occurs
on the east side of this same area (USDA 1980). This area would have the
greatest potential to support populations of the gopher tortoise, indigo
snake, gopher frog, and associated protected species. Several other protected
species could occur in the vicinity of the site (Table 3.5-5).
3.6 CULTURAL RESOURCES
A summary of the available cultural resources in the vicinity of the
SJRPP, NGS, and Sanford sites is presented in this section and in Appendix P.
Cultural resource data including comments from the State Historic Preservation
Officer (SHPO) are available to describe the existing environment at the pro-
posed SJRPP site. Only limited data are available for the NGS and Sanford
Plant locations.
3.6.1 SJRPP
The SJRPP project area is located within the Northern St. Johns Archaeo-
logical Area. This region between the mouths of the St. Johns and St. Marys
Rivers is referred to as a transition zone between the Georgia Coastal tradi-
tion 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' EID (JEA/FP&L 1981a). These
sources indicate the presence of an archaeological district within the project
area which has been determined to be eligible for nomination to the National
Register of Historic Places (Schull 1981).
A two-phase cultural resource identification program was performed by
Southeastern Wildlife Services, Inc. within the proposed SJRPP site
boundaries. During Phase 1, a cultural resource reconnaissance survey was
conducted to locate and identify potential National Register properties. Ten
new archaeological sites and one previously recorded site (8Du634) were
located. In consultation with the Florida SHPO, the investigating archaeo-
logists then implemented Phase 2 of the study, the testing of these eleven
archaeological sites.
The sites were investigated to gather information necessary to support a
request for a determination of eligibility to the National Register. A sum-
mary of the results indicates that the sites consist of Orange Period (2000-
1000 B.C.) and Savannah Period (700-1500 A.D.) shell and non-shell middens
with a mid- to late nineteenth century component. The prehistoric aboriginal
occupation sites appear to be specialized shell-fish gathering camps of limited
duration. The historic component consists of two domestic structures.
3-49
-------
Table 3.5-5. Rare, threatened, and endangered species which could potentially occur In the vicinity of the Sanford site (Shapiro 1931).
Species
Status
Common Name
Scientific Name
American alligator
Gopher tortoise
Florida gopher frog
Alligator mlssisslpplensls
Gopherus polyphemua
Rana areolata
Eastern Indigo snake Urymarchon coralus couperl
West Indian manatee Trlchechus manatus
Sherman's-fox squirrel Sclurus nlger sherroani
Florida mouse
Florida black bear
Bald eagle
Wood stork
Peromyscus florldanus
Ursus amerlcanus florldanus
Haliaeecus 1. leucocephalus
Mycteria americana
State
Threatened
Threatened
Threatened
Threatened
Threatened
Endangered
Federal
Species of Special Concern Threatened
Threatened
Threatened
Species of Special Concern Threatened
Endangered
Endangered
Habitat
Distributed In various wetland types through-
out Florida,
Dry, well-drained soils (In pine flatwoods<
especially) seem to be a prime requisite.
In sandhill communities on Bluejack, Turkey
Oak ridges and In sand pine scrub.
Pine flatwoods, moist tropical hamr.iocks
(S. Fla.), gopher tortols burrows.
Sluggish rivers, shallow estuarleti, salt-
water bays. St. Johns River.
Long leaf pine-turkey oak association.
-------
Table 3.5-5. Rare, threatened, and endangered species which could potentially occur in the vicinity of the Sanford site (Sharpiro 1981)
(concluded).
Species
Status
U)
I
Ul
Common Name
Scientific Name
Southeastern kestrel Falco sparverious paulus
Florida sandhill crane Cyrus canadensis pratensis
Limpkln
Little blue heron
Snowy egret
Louisiana heron
Least tern
Aramus guarauna
Florida caerulea
Eeretta thula
Hydranassa tricolor
Sterna albifrons
Red-cockaded woodpecker Picoides borealis
Florida scrub jay
Aphelocoma coerulescens
coerulescens
State
Threatened
Threatened
Species of Special Concern
Species of Special Concern
Species of Special Concern
Species of Special Concern
Threatened
Endangered
Threatened
Federal
Endangered
Habitat
Open pine forests and clearings, open-edges
of river bottoms, coastal regions, suburban
areas.
Prefers wet prairies, marshy lake margins,
sparsely vegetated marshes, shallow footed
open areas. Nests In shallow water that
contains plckerelweed, maidencane, and
saglttaria.
Associated with slow-moving freshwater rivers
and streams, marshes and lake shores.
Shallow freshwater, brackish, and saltwater
habitats.
Coastal estuarine, nests in mangroves, willow,
buttonbush, wax myrtle, etc.
Estuarine, nests on Islands In mangroves,
willow, buttonbush, wax myrtle, and pond
apple.
Open, flat beach with coarse sand or shell.
Associated with stands of mature to overmature
southern pines.
Oak scrub consisting of shrubs of live oak,
myrtle oak, and chapman oak along with saw
palmetto, sand palmetto, and scattered sand
pine and rosemary.
-------
The sandy ridges adjacent to the marsh contain Orange and Savannah Period
occupations (Figure 3.6-1). Savannah Period occupations also were found on
level ridges by a tidal creek, 400 meters from the marsh. The historic occupa-
tion centers on two small ridges overlooking the marsh. Site 8Du634 has been
severely disturbed. Sites 8Du669, 8Du670, 8Du673, and 8Du674 contain intact
cultural levels and/or features. Sites 8Du671, 8Du672, 8Du675, 8Du676, 8Du677,
and 8Du678 are small single-component sites of limited horizon and vertical
extent (Wood and Rudolph 1980b). In the opinion of the Florida SHPO, eight of
the eleven archaeological sites are deemed eligible for the National Register
because they contain information important to the knowledge of the prehistoric
human occupation and cultural evolution of the region. On 30 September 1981
the Secretary of the Interior concurred that the St. Johns River Power Park
Archaeological District is eligible for listing on the National Register of
Historic Places (Schull 1981).
The sizes of the sites range from 0.01 to 12.5 ha. (Table 3.6-1) and are
located on sandy ridges along the marsh edge. A tidal creek which flows into
Browns Creek borders the southeastern edge of the archaeological district.
The JEA borrow pit site, 8Du634, is the largest site, but has been subjected
to severe disturbances. Site 8Du669 is the second largest site consisting of
three identified components: Savannah Period, Deptford Period, and Orange
Period. The intact cultural remains and shell middens are indicative of
sedentary settlement patterns and exploitation of the coastal lagoons along
the St. Johns River. Archaeologically sensitive areas also have been iden-
tified in the proposed transmission line corridor (JEA/FP&L 1981a).
3.6.2 NGS
Several important archaeological sites are known in the vicinity of
the NGS/SJRPP sites including sites on Pelotes Island, San Carlos Creek West,
Browns Island, and Clapboard Creek. Site 8Du91, San Carlos Creek A, was
destroyed by the construction of the NGS (FDAHR 1980). Additional site-
specific cultural resources information for NGS has been requested from the
Florida SHPO.
3.6.3 Sanford Site
Cultural resource data for the existing Sanford Plant were supplied by
the Florida SHPO. One site, 8Vol66, is recorded within this tract. This site
was severely disturbed during plant construction. Five other sites are re-
corded within a three mile radius of the Plant. None of the six sites is
deemed eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (Percy
1981b).
3.6.4 SHPQ Comments - SJRPP
The SHPO reports that the proposed SJRPP site has undergone a systematic
professional archaeological site assessment survey with limited testing to
record data to permit an evaluation of the significance of the cultural re-
sources present in terms of National Register criteria. The SHPO deemed eight
of the sites eligible for the National Register as the St. Johns River Power
Park Archaeological District and recommended their preservation or, if this is
not possible, mitigation of impacts. The Secretary of the Interior determined
3-52
-------
'=•= . =.T
\
V^';-t
i- ^.
8 Du 670 (/ / '/ ^X 8 Ou67S
' "
8 Du 673. \ a Du 675_l>-^.r;
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SHE
LOCATION MAP '
TESTING OF ELEVEN
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES IN
THE VICINITY OF A PROPOSED
POWER PLANT
V , 8Du 669 (,.
\\ * T~
DUVAU COUNTY, FLORIDA
SOUTHEASTERN WILDLIFE SERVICES. INC.
,'^-7^~^\^
Figure 3.6-1. Archaeological site location map at the SJRPP site
(Rudolph and Wood 1980b).
3-53
-------
Site
Size (ha) Shell Occupation
Vegetation
Soil Series
8Du634
8Du669
8Du670
8Du671
8Du672
8Du673
8Du674
8Du675
8Du676
8Du677
8Du678
12.5
3.8
. 94
.02
unit*
1.3
1.2
.01
unlc.
.02
.03
yes
yes
yes
yes
DO
yes
yes
no
no
yes
no
700-1500 AD
2000-1000 BC
700-1300 AD
700-1500 AD
mid 19th century
700-1300 AD
unknown
prehistoric
2000-1000 BC
700-1500 AD
unknown
historic
700-1300 AD
700-1500 AD
unknown
prehistoric
unknown
unknovm
prehistoric
mixed hardwoods
mixed hardwoods
mixed hardwoods
mixed hardwoods
mixed hardwoods
mixed hardwoods
mixed hardwoods
nixed hardwoods
mixed hardwoods
mixed hardwoods
mixed hardwoods
Ortega
Ortega
Kershaw
Ortega
Ortega
Kershaw
Ortega
Kershaw
Ortega
Ortega
Kershaw
Table 3.6-1. Archaeological site data summary for the
SJRPP site (Wood and Rudolph 1980b).
-------
on 30 September 1981 that the archaeological district on the SJRPP site is
eligible for listing on the National Register. Additional recommendations from
the SriPO include a systematic archaeological site assessment of the final right-
of-way for the transmission line corridor. Figure 3.6-2 shows the locations
of the SJRPP archaeological sites with notations by the SHPO regarding site
preservation and the potential archaeological district. Additional SHPO
comments concerning the SJRPP site are included in Section 4.8 and SHPO corres-
pondence is included in Appendix P as Exhibits P-l and P-2.
3.7 EXISTING SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS
The analysis of existing socioeconomic conditions focuses primarily on
two areas: the SJRPP/NGS project region and the FP&L Sanford Plant project region,
Because the locations associated with the other alternatives are not limited
to specific sites or communities, the socioeconomic anaylsis of existing
conditions is restricted to these two regions. A detailed discussion of socio-
economic conditions is presented in Appendix Q.
3.7.1 Existing Social and Economic Conditions of the SJRPP/NGS Project Region
The primary impact area of the SJRPP/NGS projects is considered to be the
City of Jacksonville and Duval County. This area will be referred to as the
project area. The six surrounding 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 proposed SJRPP/NGS
projects.
3.7.1.1 Population Levels
The population of the seven counties of the SJRPP/NGS project region grew
from approximately 662,705 in 1970 to 798,981 in 1980, an increase of about
20.5%. The population of this region is expected to reach 1,116,684 by the
year 2000 with Duval County continuing to be the most densely populated county
throughout the time period. Duval County is not expected to experience the
greatest rate of growth, however; instead, Flagler County is expected to in-
crease in population by 300% and Clay County is projected to increase over
250% by 2000 (Table 3.7-1).
The most densely populated areas within a five mile radius of the pro-
posed site are located south of the St. Johns River. The majority of the area
within five miles of the proposed project is rather sparsely populated and
lies north of the St. Johns River. The 1980 population within this five-mile
radius was estimated by the Jacksonville Area Planning Board to be 20,800 with
a projected growth to 33,120 by the year 2000 (JEA/FP&L 1981a).
3.7.1.2 Economic Conditions
Employment in the project region from 1970 to 1978 increased at a rate
slightly greater than the nation. The growth of employment for the State,
however, occurred at a rate slightly higher than that of the project region.
The growth of the civilian labor force of each county in the project region
3-55
-------
A.<:!U iAEOLC' :iCAL 'Si TE
ULAI'ION MAP
ThSTING OF Elf.VCN
V&fCOAwife^p
. i _ ;_-* i «
AhCHAroLCGlCAU SITES IN
"CiniVY OK A PRCroSED
PLANT
::: i.'fiTY, CLCniDA
Figure 3.6-2. Archaeological site location map at SJRPP with
notations by Florida SHPO (Percy 1981a).
3-56
-------
OJ
I
01
Table 3.7-1. Population estimates and projections for the SJRPP/NGS project region,
1970-2000 (USDOC 1981 and JEA/FP&L 1981a).
1970a
Baker
Clay
Duval
Flagler
Nassau
Putnam
St. Johns
Total
9
32
528
4
20
36
31
622
,242
,059
,865
,454
,626
,424
,035
,705
1980a
15
67
570
10
32
50
51
798
,289
,052
,981
,913
,894
,549
,303
,981
1990b +
20
95
657
15
45
64
69
968
,564
,415
,199
,911
,558
,501
,413
,561
34
42
15
45
38
27
35
.5
.3
.1
.8
.5
.6
.3
2000b +
24
115
739
19
55
78
83
1,116
,965
,738
,349
,316
,216
,110
,990
,684
21.4
21.3
12.5
21.4
21.2
21.1
21.0
3 Years 1970 and 1980: Data from the 1980 US Census for Florida.
Years 1990 thru 2000: Determined by applying the projected percentage increase
of the Northeast Florida Regional Planning Council (NEFRPC)
to the updated 1980 Census figures.
-------
varied greatly with the labor force of Duval County increasing 20% (232,630)
by 1978 while Flagler's more than doubled (3,450). Overall, Flagler and Clay
counties showed the greatest rate of growth for this time period although
Flagler was the lowest in terms of absolute numbers of individuals (Table
3.7-2).
The rate of unemployment for the project region from 1973 to 1979 has not
changed as drastically as for the State or nation as a whole (Table 3.7-3).
Over the time period, the national rate increased from 4.9% in 1973 to 8.5% in
1975 and then dropped steadily to 5.8% in 1979. The unemployment rate in
Flordia varied even greater than the nation between 1973 and 1975, rising from
4.3% to 10.7%, and then declining to 6.0% by 1979. The rate for the project
region also showed significant fluctuation. The rate increased from 4.8% to
only 6.7% in 1975, dropped to 6.3% in 1976, increased again to 6.8% in 1977,
and then declined to 5.7% by 1979.
The average gross weekly earnings for production and/or nonsupervisory
workers from 1970 to 1978 were higher for the project region than for either
the State or the nation (Table 3.7-4). The average weekly earnings in the
Table 3.7-4. Jacksonville SMSA, State, and national average
weekly earnings, 1970 and 1979 (US Dept. of Labor 1980
in JEA/FP&L 1981a).*
Area
Jacksonville SMSAa
Florida
National
1970
$122.36
$118.78
$119.83
1978
$243.36
$207.46
$203.70
% Increase
98.9
74.6
58.8
Earnings are for production and/or nonsupervisory workers.
Jacksonville SMSA is the Jacksonville Standard Metropolitan Statistical
Area and includes Baker, Clay, Duval, Nassau, and St. Johns Counties.
Jacksonville SMSA rose from $122.36 in 1970 to $243.36 in 1978 (98% increase).
In contrast, the State average rose from $118.78 in 1970 to $207.36 in 1978
(75% increase), while the national average rose from $119.83 to $203.70 (59%
increase). The 1970 per capita income of each county in the region, however,
was below the national and State averages. Duval County is expected to main-
tain the highest per capita Income while Baker is expected to continue having
the lowest per capita income. Similarly, Duval County has accounted for over
86% of the total personal income of the seven county region since 1970.
3-58
-------
Table 3.7-2. Estimated and projected civilian labor force for the SJRPP/NGS project
region by place of residence, 1970-2000 (NEFRPC 1979 in JEA/FP&L 1981a).
U)
I
Year
1970
1978
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
Baker
3,092
5,220
5,950
7,590
9,050
10,300
11,630
Clay
9,531
21,540
25,520
34,030
39,700
44,750
49,740
Duval
220,070
232,630
254,060
275,910
296,250
316,880
336,530
County
Flagler
1,470
3,450
4,290
6,020
7,010
7,910
8,840
Nassau
7,143
12,500
14,050
17,640
20,550
22,770
25,150
Putnam
13,091
16,590
17,260
19,930
23,130
25,955
28,820
St. Johns
11,058
15,620
18,120
22,450
26,390
29,310
32,490
Total
265,455
307,550
339,250
383,570
422,080
457,875
493,200
-------
Table 3.7-3. Regional, State, and national unemployment trends
1973-1979 (US Dept. of Labor 1980 ±a JEA/FP&L 1981a).
Percent Unemployment
Area
National
Florida
SJRPP Region - 7 Counties
Baker
Clay
Duval
Flagler
Nassau
Putnam
St. Johns
1973
4.9
4.3
4.8
3.0
3.7
4.9
2.0
3.9
3.3
6.9
1974
5.6
6.2
5.1
3.9
3.6
5.0
5.9
3.6
6.2
8.1
1975
8.5
10.7
6.7
6.3
5.1
6.6
8.8
5.9
8.1
9.6
1976
7.7
9.0
6.3
5.7
4.4
6.4
9.1
5.4
6.7
7.0
1977
7.0
8.2
6.8
5.4
4.2
6.9
7.9
6.0
8.4
8.8
1978
6.0
6.6
6.1
5.1
4.7
6.1
5.8
5.6
7.1
7.7
1979
5.8
6.0
5.7
3.7
4.3
5.6
5.5
5.3
7.6
7.4
3-60
-------
3.7.1.3 Community Services
Major project-related impacts on community services and facilities are
expected to occur in Jacksonville/Duval County. While there may be some
secondary impacts realized in other counties of the project region, it is not
expected that their public or private services and community infrastructure
will be directly affected by the SJRPP/NGS projects. Consequently, this
analysis only addresses the community services of Jacksonville/Duval County.
Water Supply and Wastewater Treatment
The Jacksonville/Duval County public works service function includes
sewage, water, and sanitation services. At present, each component is operating
with excess capacity. The sewage component has a current service level capacity
of approximately 71.1 million gallons per day (mgd) while the current demand
is about 50.7 mgd or an excess of approximately 21 mgd. The current service
level capacity of the water component is about 178.3 mgd while the current
resident demand is approximately 57.1 mgd or an excess of over 121 mgd. The
current service level capacity of the sanitation component is 1,112,800 total
pounds per day. Resident demand for this public service function is about
863,920 total pounds per day, resulting in an excess capacity of approximately
248,880 total pounds per day (Duval County Public Works Department 1979 in
JEA/FP&L 1981a).
Public Safety
The public safety service function includes law enforcement and fire
protection. Based on US Department of Commerce standards, the law enforcement
component for 1979-80 has 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/FP&L 1981a) .
The fire protection component is also currently operating well within
protection standards for a city of this size. The Jacksonvi11/Duval County
Fire Department has a first due response radius of 2 miles or less for engine
companies and 3 miles or less for ladder companies with each having a pumping
capacity of 500 to 1,500 gallons per minutes (Duval County Fire Department
1980 in JEA/FP&L 1981a).
Education
The public school system of Jacksonville/Duval County currently has the
physical capacity to accommodate the projected total enrollment of approx-
imately 102,600 students for the 1980-1981 school year. The current physical
capacity of the school system in pupil stations is slightly more than 107,000,
resulting in an excess of approximately 4,400 pupil stations (Duval County
Public School System 1980 J£_ JEA/FP&L 1981a). 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/FP&L 1981a). The Jacksonville
area also has several postsecondary educational institutions.
3-61
-------
Health Care
Based on US Department of Commerce standards, a city of Jacksonville's
size should maintain a public health staff of approximately 750 personnel. At
present, the public health service function of Jacksonville/Duval County has a
staff of only 165, resulting in a deficiency of approximately 590 personnel
(JEA/FP&L 1981a). 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/FP&L
1981a).
Housing
At present, there are approximately 223,000 total available housing units
in Jacksonville/Duval County (JEA/FP&L 1981a). The types of housing units
considered in this analysis are single family homes (owned or rented), apart-
ments, and mobile homes. The resident demand for housing in Jacksonville/Duval
County is approximately 211,800 which results in a current housing surplus of
over 11,000 units (Jacksonville Area Planning Board 1978 in JEA/FP&L 1981a).
The predominant type of residence in Duval County is single-family units,
comprising 64.3% of the total housing stock (JEA/FP&L 1981a). Mobile homes
account for 6.7% of the total stock while multi-family dwellings make up the
remaining 20%. Of 211,506 units surveyed in 1976, 94.4% were determined to be
in standard condition, 3.9% were substandard but suitable for rehabilitation,
and the remaining 1.7% were substandard beyond repair (JEA/FP&L 1981a). The
apartment boom of the early seventies created a larger supply of multi-family
units than demand could support, resulting in a high vacancy rate. This rate
has lessened somewhat over the past few years, but is still quite high compared
to single family units. Data for October 1979 reveal a vacancy rate of 1.9%
for single family homes while multi-family units exhibit a vacancy rate of
5.0% (Jacksonville Area Planning Board 1980a in JEA/FP&L 1981a) .
3.7.2 Existing Social and Economic Conditions of the FP&L Sanford
Plant Project Region
FP&L's Sanford Plant is located in southwestern Volusia County near Lake
Monroe. Because the power station is located near the borders of Lake County,
Seminole County, and Orange County, all four counties are considered to be
part of the Sanford project region. Cities near the plant include Sanford,
Orlando, Orange City, and Eustis. Table 3.7-5 presents the population of
these cities in the project region for h970 and 1980 and their relative rates
of growth.
3-62
-------
Table 3.7-5. Population of communities near the
FP&L Sanford Plant, 1970-1980 (USDOC 1980).
Locale
Sanford
Orlando
Orange City
Eustis
1970
17,393
99,006
1,777
6,772
1980
23,176
127,725
2,795
9,202
% Increase
33.2
29.0
57.3
36.9
Because of the size of these cities, their projected growth, and the
anticipated project population influx for each city, only the cities of San-
ford and Orlando are expected to experience any sizable influx in population
from conversion of the Sanford Plant. Consequently, the social and economic
analysis of the Sanford alternatives will be limited primarily to these two
areas. While Orlando could well receive the greatest influx of immigrant
workers, this influx is not expected to exceed 560 people. Such an influx
would consititute a very slight increase in Orlando's population and is not
expected to greatly affect the community. The influx of immigrant workers to
Sanford, however, is proportionately larger and could have impacts upon the
c ommu ni ty.
3.7.2.1 Population Levels
From 1970 to 1980, the population of Sanford grew from 17,393 to 23,176,
an increase of about 33%. The population is expected to continue to increase
through the year 2000 although at a lesser rate. By 2000, the City should
have a population of at least 28,000. Like Sanford, Seminole County is expected
to increase in population. The County grew from 83,692 in 1970 to 179,752 in
1980. This growth is expected to continue through 2000 when the County popula-
tion should be about 310,000. The City of Orlando grew 29% over the ten-year
period from 99,066 in 1970 to 127,725 in 1980 (USDOC 1981). This growth
should continue until 2000 when the population is expected to be about 148,000.
The populations of surrounding counties also grew from 1970 to 1980 although
Seminole County's growth rate was the greatest. Table 3.7-6 identifies the
population growth of the four county project region during this ten-year
period.
3.7.2.2 Economic Conditions
The labor force in Sanford was estimated to be 6,786 in 1970 and was
expected to grow to 8,867 by 1980. The growth in baseline employment should
continue until it reaches 10,306 by 1990 and over 11,000 by the year 2000
(ECFRPC 1977). While Sanford's employment is expected to continue increasing,
the expansion is not projected to be as great as that for the whole County.
3-63
-------
Table 3.7-6. Population of the FP&L Sanford Plant
project region, 1970-1980 (USDOC 1981).
Volusia County
Seminole County
Orange County
Lake County
1970
169,487
83,692
344,311
69,305
1980
258,762
179,752
471,660
104,870
% Increase
52.7%
114.8%
37.0%
51.3%
Total 669,795 1,015,044 52.2%
While all areas show employment growth through 2000, Seminole County's growth
rate is expected to be higher than the Orange County rate. Orange County,
however, will continue to have a greater absolute number of people employed.
The median family income for the City of Sanford is generally lower than
that for Seminole County or for the City of Orlando and Orange County. While
the level of Sanford's median family income is not as high as that of the
County, its rate of growth has been greater. Sanford's median family income
is estimated to have grown from $6,687 in 1969 to approximately $8,458 in
1979, an increase of 26.5% over the ten-year period (ECFRPC 1977). In com-
parison, however, the rate of increase for all of 'Seminole County was only
22.4% while Orlando's ten-year growth rate was only 20.7%. According to 1970
Census data, the median income for families in the State of Florida was only
$8,267. The percentage of families with incomes less than the poverty level
for the State was 12.7% while the percentage for Seminole County was 11.8%.
From such statistics it appears that the existing economic conditions for
Sanford and Seminole County are similar to that of the State, with slightly
higher incomes than the State median (Clark, Dietz, and Associates, Inc.
1977).
3.7.2.3 Community Services
The influx of construction and operation workers associated with the
Sanford Plant conversion may cause impacts to surrounding communities and may
affect their ability to provide adequate public services. The two com-
munities expected to receive the most significant influx of people are Orlando
and Sanford. Because the influx is expected to represent such a small percen-
tage of Orlando's population, community services in Orlando are not expected
to be greatly affected. The major areas of Sanford's services which may be
subject to changes include water supply and wastewater treatment, education,
public safety, health care, and housing.
3-64
-------
Water Supply and Wastewater Treatment
According to the 1977 201 Facility Plan for Sanford, Lake Mary, and North
Seminole County, the total water use from all these areas including commercial,
institutional, industrial, and residential areas is about 89.56 gallons per
capita per day. The Floridan Aquifer is the principal source of fresh water for
domestic, commercial, and industrial use in this area. It has been estimated
that 300 mgd are available for human use (Knochenmus and Beard 1971). The
amount of per capita sewage flow plus non-correctable infiltration/inflow is
estimated to be about 130.50 gallons per day. Thus, for purposes of planning,
the overall total sewage flow has been estimated at 105 gallons per capita per
day. The secondary treatment process for the Sanford wastewater treatment
plant was designed to handle a maximum flow of 8 mgd and to treat an influent
for a population equivalent of 30,000.
Public Safety
Sanford is served by the Sanford City Police Department which currently
has a total of 51 officers. The outlying areas of unincorporated Seminole
County are served by the County Police Department which has a force of 113
officers (Rice 1981). Fire protection services are provided by the Sanford
City Fire Department. The Department currently has two stations and a fire
fighting force of 39 with four engine companies, one ladder company, and
two rescue vehicles. The Department has an insurance rating of 5 (Harrison
1981). If requested by the City of Sanford, the Seminole County Fire Depart-
ment will assist in providing fire protection services. The County fire
fighting force totals 84 and has an insurance rating of 7 (Poole 1981).
Education
Over the next twenty years Sanford is expected to experience a decline in
the number of children enrolled in its public school system. As estimated by
the East Central Florida Regional Planning Council, Sanford's 1970 school
enrollment was 4,832 for grades 1-12. Enrollment projections indicate, how-
ever, that such a level will not be attained again through the year 2000. By
2000, Sanford's enrollment is projected to be only about 4,793. While the
Sanford area is expected to experience a decline in school enrollment, Seminole
County as a whole is projected to undergo an increase in school enrollment. By
the year 2000, Seminole County should have approximately 64,400 students enrolled,
an overall increase of almost 200% from 1970. Likewise, Orange County is expected
to increase in enrollment although the City of Orlando should experience a relatively
constant enrollment from 1985 through 2000.
Health Care
Health care services for Sanford and the surrounding area are provided
by local physicians, public and private health care clinics, and two hospitals.
Facilities offering health care services include the Central Florida Migrant
and Community Health Center, the Seminole Mental Health Center, and the Seminole
County Health Department. Located directly in Sanford is Seminole Memorial
Hospital which has 196 beds with an occupancy rate of approximately 75%. A
total of 55 physicians actively serve the hospital. Construction for expanding
the hospital is currently in progress. Also located nearby in Altamonte is a
branch of Florida Hospital known as the Florida-Altamonte Hospital.
3-65
-------
Housing
According to 1980 Census data for Florida, Sanford is estimated
to have a total of 9,035 housing units by 1980, an increase of 47.4% from
1970. The total number of units for all of Seminole County in 1980 is reported
to be 68,154, an increase of about 140% for the whole County over the ten-year
period. The County's growth in housing was even greater than the growth rate
for the State as a whole which had a relatively high increase of 73%. Orange
County and Orlando likewise experienced increases in housing units although
neither growth rate was as high as Seminole County's or the State's. According
to the preliminary count for the 1980 Census, the housing vacancy rate was 7%
for Seminole County and 7.5% for the City of Sanford (Beamer 1971).
3.8 LAND USES, RECREATIONAL RESOURCES, AND AESTHETIC CONDITIONS
This section addresses the existing land uses, recreational resources,
and aesthetic conditions of the areas surrounding the SJRPP and NGS sites
and the Sanford Plant. Because the other alternatives considered are not
restricted to specific sites and communities, a detailed analysis of existing
conditions for any other affected areas is not presented. A detailed analysis
of land use, recreational, and aesthetic resources is presented in Appendix R.
3.8.1 SJRPP and NGS Project Area
The primary impact area of the SJRPP is considered to be Jacksonville/Duval
County. This area is referred to as the project area. The six surrounding
counties which include Baker, Clay, Flagler, Nassau, Putnam, and St. Johns
Counties are considered to be secondary impact areas and are referred to as
the project region. Land use in the seven county SJRPP project region is
predominantly agricultural with approximately 233,650 acres (82%) devoted to
this use. Other land uses in the region include residential; commercial;
industrial; transportation; communication and utilities; institutional;
recreational; and extractive (Table 3.8-1). The greatest urban-related use in
the Northeast Region is residential land use (approximately 102,930 acres or
4%). Low density developments are 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 land use in Duval County is resi-
dential comprising 58,247 acres (11.8%) while industrial, institutional, and
commercial uses constitute 36,950 acres or approximately 9% of the total land
area (Jacksonville Area Planning Board 1977a jLn_ JEA/FP&L 1981a).
3.8.1.1 Existing Land Cover
The land cover within the five mile radius of the proposed SJRPP and NGS
sites is predominantly forest. A total of 16,686 acres (33%) is made up of
woodlands and hardwood swamps. Of this total, 13,582 acres are woodlands
suitable as commercial forest while the remaining acreage is considered
natural woodlands. The second largest land cover is open water with 10,570
acres (21%) included in this category. The St. Johns River and Mill Cove
3-66
-------
Table 3.8-1. Existing land use acreage - Northeast Florida region (Jacksonville area
Planning Board 1977a in JEA/FP&L 1981a).
Land Use
Classification
Residential*
Commercial &
Services
Industrial
Transportation''
Communication
& Utilities
Institutional
U)
o\ Recreational0
Mixed
Extractive
Total Developed
Total Land Area
Developed as X of
Total Land
Baker
2,678
84
83
3,849
321
315
161
-
182
7,674
374,144
2.1
Clay
11,382
845.
674
4,284
175
67,991
1,884.
-
3,891
91,126
379,520
24.0
Duval
58,247
5,754
4,819
20,677
843
26,378
6,660
318
2,214
125,909
490,048
25.7
Flagler
1,774
244
110
3,296
39
188
264
-
-
5,916
311,872
1.9
Nassau
7,316
416
300
5,167
42
255
1,861
63
76
15,495
416,000
3.7
Putnam
10,304
534
545
4,288
1,145
729
525
430
666
19,166
498,368
3.8
St. Johns
11,234
740
446
54,564
176
673
791
11
-
19,637
387,008
5.1
Total N.E.
Region
102,934
8,617
6,978
47,125
2,741
96,530
12,146
822
7,029
284,922
2,856,960
10.0
Agriculture 357,562 346,971 288,240 282,378 348,452 379,452 333,306 233,652
Agriculture as Z
of Total Land 05.6 91.4 53.8 90.5 83.8 76.2 86.1 81.8
* Includes local streets right-of-way.
Includes an estimated 11,316 acres of rights-of-way.
c Excludes national forest and/or swamp lands and game management areas or refuge.
Note: Columns may not total exactly due to rounding.
-------
constitute the majority of this land classification. Coastal lands comprise
the third largest land cover category incorporating 6,780 acres (13.5%) of
which marshes constitute the majority.
3.8.1.2 Existing Land Uses
The land use within a five mile radius of the proposed plant is concen-
trated primarily in the northern half of Duval County located near the St.
Johns River and Blount Island. Land use in the vicinity of the proposed plant
is highly related to uses of the St. Johns River and is expected to continue
in such related uses (Table 3.8-2). 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.
The proposed site is currently zoned for heavy industrial use which may
include, by exception, power plant siting. The land contiguous to the north,
west, and south of the proposed site is zoned industrial as well. Marsh land
to the east of the site is preserved and protected as hurricane buffers,
wildlife refuges, runoff retention areas, propagation ground for marine life,
and scenic resources and recreational areas. Approximately 1,880 acres of
the total land in the five mile radius is currently identified as industrial
use. Industries are locating in this area not only because of the St. Johns
River, but also because of the proximity to interstate highways and the
Jacksonville International Airport.
Residential land use constitutes 11.2% of the total land in the five mile
radius. Various residential districts have.developed in this area, one a
residential community along Heckscher Drive, another located between 2 and 4
miles northwest of the SJRPP site, and another located south of the River
about 4 miles from the site. The closer residential areas are a mixture of
house trailers and single-family dwellings of varying conditions and ages.
The area farther from the site is separated by commercial districts and con-
sists primarily of well-maintained, middle to upper income dwellings.
The land on Blount Island is currently developing in water-related
industries. The land on this island offers industries accessibility to the
St. Johns River and the Atlantic Ocean and thus has become a center of
industrial development for which a waterfront is an essential feature.
3.8.1.3 Projected Land Uses
The Northeast Region is expected to experience an increase in
urban-related land uses as the decline in agricultural uses continues. How-
ever, 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. The 2005 Comprehensive Plan by the Jacksonville Area
Planning Board calls for port- and water-related industry as well as protected
wetland areas in the vicinity of the proposed SJRPP project (JEA/FP&L 1981a).
The area along Heckscher Drive from Interstate 95 east to just north of Blount
Island is expected to continue developing as industrial and storage facilities.
3-68
-------
Table 3.8-2. Existing land use acreage within a 5-mile radius
of the SJRPP site (JEA/FP&L 1981a) .
Land Usage
Approximate
Number of Acres
Percentage
of Total Land Area
Cropland
Pasture
Agricultural Subtotal
Wooded Lands
Commercial
Industry
Institutional
Single Family
Multi-Family Residential
Residential Subtotal
Utility
Trans poration
Wetlands
Open Water
Coastal
Marine
Recreation
Historical Sites
Wet Wooded
Other
Total
170
1,270
1,440
13,580
70
1,880
40
5,530
120
5,650
210
130
2,860
10,570
6,780
610
260
120
3,100
2,960
50,260 ac.
0.3
2.5
2.8
27.0
0.1
3.7
0.1
11.0
0.2
11.2
0.4
0.3
5.7
21.0
13.5
1.2
0.5
0.2
6.2
5.9
99. 8a
Due to rounding, percentages do not total to 100 percent.
3-69
-------
By the year 2005, the area of the proposed plant should have experienced
major industrial development even without the proposed project. Blount Island
is expected to continue developing as a center for water-related industries.
3.8.1.4 Existing Zoning
Land in the primary project area is zoned for industrial and commercial
uses. The proposed SJRPP plant site has been zoned for heavy industrial use
(IH). Power plants are permissible uses in IH zones if allowed by exception.
The Jacksonville City Council enacted Ordinance 80-1290-700 on 24 February 1981
which officially rezones the lands of the proposed SJRPP site to government
use (GU) at such time as the JEA acquires the fee simple title to the prop-
erty. Blount Island is presently zoned for industrial waterfront (IW) for
which a coal unloading facility is a permitted use. The Governor and Cabinet
of Florida have found that SJRPP is consistent and in compliance with existing
land use plans and zoning ordinances.
3.8.1.5 Recreational Resources
Recreational areas in the region center around the coast and the River.
Within the five mile radius of the proposed plant is the Fort Caroline
National Memorial, a 120-acre reconstruction of a French fort built in 1564.
The Jacksonville Area Planning Board estimates that visitation to the Fort
averages around 400,000 persons per year (JEA/FP&L 1981a). Also within this
radius is Yellow Bluff Fort, an undeveloped State park at the site of Con-
federate Army gun placements which were used in 1862 to protect Jacksonville
from Union gunboats. A number of areas also exist that are not officially
designated as parks. These areas are normally used for fishing, sunbathing,
and picnicking.
Between 7 and 8 miles from the proposed site are two regional parks. 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 estimates that over 35,000 people visit the plantation each
year (JEA/FP&L 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/FP&L 1981a).
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, hiking, swimming, and fishing in a natural wildlife setting.
3.8.1.6 Aesthetic Conditions
The site of the proposed SJRPP project is a relatively flat area on the
eastern boundary of an industrial area and on the western boundary of tidal
marshes. The general vista is open to the east due to the marshes. The
western vista is comprised of industrial development with forest vegetation
located between the developments. Adjacent to the proposed site is the NGS
3-70
-------
which has three stacks of varying heights. The existing view toward the
proposed site is dominated by the buildings, water tower, and stacks of the
NGS; the transmission towers and lines associated with NGS; the Offshore Power
Systems Crane and shipping cranes on Blount Island; and structures of the St.
Regis paper 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 southern shore of
the St. Johns River are most affected by the view of industrial structures in
the area, but tree cover usually blocks the view of these structures. The
only major road south of the River that offers a view of the industrial struc-
tures close to the proposed site is Fort Caroline Road which runs contiguous
up to the marshes and Mill Cove. On the north side of the River approximately
0.5 miles south of the proposed site, a view of the proposed SJRPP plant will
be possible from Heckscher Drive. This view is presently dominated by the NGS
in the foreground and is typical of the industrialized section of Heckscher
Drive. West of the site, the tree cover allows only a limited view of the
structures. To the east, the openness of the marsh allows a significant
exposure of the NGS from Heckscher Drive.
3.8.2 Sanford Plant and Vicinity
The primary impact area of the proposed alternatives for the FP&L Sanford
Plant is the southwestern section of Volusia County near the St. Johns River
and Lake Monroe. This area is considered to be subject to the greatest land
use changes and will be referred to as the project area. The counties sur-
rounding the project area are considered to be subject to secondary impacts
and will be referred to as the project region. These counties include the
remainder of Volusia County, Seminole County, Lake County, and Orange County.
3.8.2.1 Existing Land Use Patterns in Volusia County
The area surrounding FP&L's Sanford Plant is predominantly agricultural.
Farmland, some of which is prime farmland, exists to the east and west of the
Plant. The surrounding area also includes industrial, commercial, residential,
recreational, and utility land uses. Approximately 1.5 to 2.0 miles south of
the Plant is a development known as the St. Johns River Estates. This develop-
ment is a residential subdivision and constitutes one of the more concentrated
residential areas in the region. Other residential areas such as Meadowlea
Estates to the west also exist in the vicinity of the Plant. Along US Highway
17/92, commercial and industrial uses have developed. The area between US
Highway 17/92 and the Seaboard Coast Line (SCL) Railroad as well as the east
side of US Highway 17/92 is experiencing increased industrial development.
Across from the Plant is a County park used primarily for picnicking and
overnight camping. A marina and boat access are also located nearby for
public recreational use.
3.8.2.2 Projected Land Uses
While the area surrounding the FP&L Sanford Plant is predominantly agri-
cultural, industrial and commercial uses are developing in the area. Particu-
larly along the SCL Railroad and US Highway 17/92, industrial developments are
increasing. According to the Volusia County Comprehensive Plan, the County
3-71
-------
intends to maintain and preserve prime agricultural lands where possible
(Volusia County 1980). Consequently, certain lands in the area surrounding
the Sanford Plant may be reserved in the future for agricultural uses. Not
all land within the region, however, is considered to be prime farmland.
Therefore a mixture of industrial, commercial, residential, and recreational
uses is likely to develop.
3.8.2.3 Existing Zoning
The existing Sanford Power Plant'is located on land zoned for agricul-
tural purposes. In order for FP&L to locate a power plant on this site, a
Special Exception was required by Volusia County. In 1979, FP&L also was
required to obtain a Special Exception to initiate the experimental coal and
oil mixture technology. The Special Exception was granted for one year or 120
burn days. At the present time, this Special Exception'has expired and no
extension has yet been granted by Volusia County. Any expansion of the exist-
ing plant would also require a Special Exception from Volusia County.
Much of the land surrounding the Sanford Plant is also zoned A-l (prime
farmland) or A-2 (agricultural). These agricultural classifications extend
east and west from the Plant. Within the five mile radius of the Plant,
however, there also exist residential, industrial, commercial, and recrea-
tional zones.
3.8.2.4 Recreational Resources
Recreational resources in Volusia County include three major types of
areas: (1) high density recreation areas (playgrounds, marina, parking
areas); (2) general outdoor recreation areas (campgrounds, nature walks,
picnic areas); and (3) natural environment areas (resource areas left in their
natural state, historic and cultural sites). Volusia County has a total of
50,000 acres of such recreational resources, 88% of which are owned by the
Federal government (Table 3.8-3). It is estimated that approximately 3,400
additional acres of high density recreation areas should be added by 1990
(Volusia County 1980).
Table 3.8.3. Existing recreational lands in Volusia County,
1977 (in acres) (Volusia County 1980).
Ownership
Federal
State
County
City
Recreation Class
I
137
156.8
458.2
II III
44,375
3,531 17
594
731
Total Acreage
44,375
3,685
750.8
1,189.2
Total 752 4,856 44,392 50,000
3-72
-------
3.8.2.5 Aesthetic Conditions
The existing Sanford Plant is located in a predominately rural area with
some industrial and commercial development located along US Highway 17/92 and
the SCL railway line. To the south of the plant is the St. Johns River with a
buffer of trees situated between the Plant and the River. South of the River
is the St. Johns River Estates residential area. The southern viewshed of the
Sanford Plant which affects this residential development is limited primarily
to the taller structures of the Plant including the water tower, stacks, and
fuel tanks.
The eastern vista is comprised of industrial and commercial development
with mixed vegetation located among the developments. The major road from
which a view of the Plant occurs is US Highway 17/92. Because the rail line,
vegetation, and developments exist between the Plant and the Highway, most of
the view of the Plant is limited to the stacks, water system, and fuel tanks.
At the junction of Barwick Road and US Highway 17/92, however, there is rather
sparse vegetation which allows a more complete angular view of the Plant from
this Highway.
The western vista includes trees, mixed vegetation, and open fields. The
view of the plant from Meadowlea Estates to the west is restricted to the
taller structures because of the vegetation and open fields. From various
parts of Fort Florida Road north of the Plant, the taller structures of the
Plant can been seen to the south while Konomac Lake (the cooling pond of the
Sanford Plant) can be seen to the north.
3.9 EXISTING TRANSPORTATION
Two study areas were considered in order to determine the existing trans-
portation facilities available to the proposed SJRPP and its alternatives.
The first includes the transportation facilities northeast of Jacksonville,
Florida which serve or will serve the proposed SJRPP, Blount Island, and the
existing NGS. The second area includes the transportation facilities northwest
of Sanford, Florida which serve the Sanford Plant. A detailed discussion of
both study areas is presented in Appendix S.
3.9.1 Transportation Facilities Serving Jacksonville, Florida
Transportation systems of importance to the Jacksonville area are high-
ways, railroads, airports, and ship facilities (Figure 3.9-1). Major highways
include Interstate Highways 10 and 95 and US Highways 1, 17, 23, and 90.
Three rail systems serve the area: the Southern Railway; the Atlantic Coast
Line Railroad; and the Seaboard Coast Line Railroad. Only the Seaboard Coast
Line (SCL) serves the SJRPP area. Major airports include Jacksonville Inter-
national 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 SJRPP site are Heckscher
Drive, New Berlin Road, Eastport Road, and Main Street (Figure 3.9-1). Traffic
counts indicate that (under existing conditions) all signalized locations and
roadways in the area operate at level of service C or better with
3-73
-------
Figure 3.9-1. Airports., roadways, and
railroads serving the Jacksonville
area and the SJRPP site.
CONSOLIDATED CITY
OF
JACKSONVILLE
-------
additional capacity available (Table 3.9-1). Level of service C is defined as
stable traffic flow where most drivers are restricted in selecting their
speed, but where all stopped traffic will clear a signalized intersection.
The intersection of 1-95 to Heckscher Road and its intersection with Heckscher
Drive going toward Main Street, however, is congested during peak periods
(JEA/FP&L 1981a) .
Jacksonville International Airport is a major asset to the region. This
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/FP&L 1981a).
Jacksonville functions as a major port facility serving the southeastern
United States. Port facilities include Blount Island and the Talleyrand Docks
and Terminals. Many Jacksonville industries are dependent upon 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 adjacent
to the SJRPP project area (Moulding 1981).
3.9.2 Transportation Facilities Serving the Sanford Plant
Transportation systems of importance to the Sanford area include highways,
railroads, airports, and barge facilities. Major highways are Interstate
Highway 4 and US Highway 17/92 (see Figure 3.2-2). Information obtained from
the Florida Department of Transportation indicates that these roadways are
operating at level of service C with additional capacity available on both
(Powers 1981). The major railroads include the SCL and the Florida East Coast
Line (FECL) Railroads. SCL tracks pass immediately adjacent to the Sanford
Plant with the FECL joining SCL at Benson Junction approximately two miles
north of the Sanford Plant.
There are five airports in the vicinity of the Sanford Plant. The Or-
lando International Airport and the Daytona Regional Airport serve commercial
aircraft; the Deland Airport, the Herndon Airport, and the Sanford Airport are
general aviation facilities (Ellis 1981).
The major waterway serving Sanford is the St. Johns River. The USCOE
maintains a design depth of 12 feet in the St. Johns River to Lake Monroe
(Moulding 1981). This depth gives the Sanford Plant access to Jacksonville,
the Intercoastal Waterway, and the Atlantic Ocean by barge.
3.10 SOUND QUALITY
This section describes the existing ambient sound environment for the two
main study areas involved with the SJRPP and the alternatives. Study Area 1
includes noise receptors that could possibly be affected by noise emitted by
the proposed SJRPP and its associated coal unloading facility on Blount Island
and the alternatives possibly affecting this area. The NGS is included in
this study area because of its proximity to SJRPP and Blount Island. Study
Area 2 includes noise receptors that could possibly be affected by noise from
3-75
-------
Table 3.9-1. 1980 average daily traffic by hour and maximum level
of service C volumes on roads providing access to the proposed
SJRPP site (Harland'Bartholomew and Associates 1980).
Heckscher Drive New Berlin Road Eastport Road Main Street
6-7 a.m.
7-8
8-9
9-10
10-11
11-12
12-1 p.m.
1-2
2-3
3-4
4-5
5-6
6-7
7-8
8-9
9-10
10-11
11-12
12-1 a.m.
1-2
2-3
3-4
4-5
5-6
TOTAL (ADT)
602
825
544
591
665
642
633
626
791
741
810
708
451
271
267
243
278
168
120
60
44
55
46
84
10,265
LEVEL OF SERVICE
C DAILY VOLUMES 28,889
61
119
63
85
127
112
91
100
102
120
159
130
89
69
51
47
38
15
16
4
7
6
10
15
1,636
18,521
615
567
405
403
369
412
394
416
495
528
565
515
400
282
266
216
228
136
115
63
36
41
47
77
7,591
24,390
1,041
1,386
839
813
856
827
909
950
1,059
1,261
1,292
1,228
868
696
542
519
244
318
234
99
98
59
81
227
16,446
61,905
3-76
-------
the Sanford Plant. Since the exact location of other alternatives is not
specified at this time, no existing conditions will be presented for them. A
detailed discussion of sound quality can be found in Appendix T.
3.10.1 SJRPP/NGS Ambient Sound Environment
Noise sources in Study Area 1 include roadways, railroads, industrial
plants, and airports (Figure 3.9-1). Heckscher Drive is the major noise
producing roadway in the vicinity of SJRPP because of the heavy truck traffic
serving industries in the area. Heckscher Drive is also the main road north
of the St. Johns River to provide Jacksonville with access to the Atlantic
Coast. The Seaboard Coast Line (SCL) Railroad is the only rail line serving
the SJRPP directly although two other rail lines serve the Jacksonville area.
Study Area 1 has been zoned industrial by the Jacksonville Area Planning
Board (JEA/FP&L 1981a). Several industries which contribute noise to the area
are located along the north side of Heckscher Drive from Interstate Highway 95
to the NGS and on Blount Island. The Jacksonville City Landfill is adjacent
to the northwest property line of the proposed SJRPP site. The Jacksonville
International Airport located several miles northwest contributes aircraft
noise to the area.
Noise receptors in the vicinity of Study Area 1 include farms and resi-
dences. There are scattered residences along New Berlin Road north of Heck-
scher Drive, along Cedar Point Road, and along Heckscher Drive east of the
NGS. Residential concentrations occur at the Dames Point and New Berlin communi-
ties located west of Blount Island and at the Beacon Hills subdivision located
across the St. Johns River from the proposed Blount Island coal unloading
facility. There is also a small concentration of residences adjacent to New
Berlin Road just north of Heckscher Drive. Farms in Study Area 1 are located
west of New Berlin Road north of the proposed SJRPP and along Oak Grove Road.
Residences that would be affected by increased train traffic to the proposed
'SJRPP are located near the SCL tracks at Eastport Road.
A noise survey was performed in the winter of 1978 and summer of 1980 to
determine the ambient sound environment for the area surrounding the SJRPP/NGS
sites and Blount Island. Ambient noise levels are listed in Table 3.10-1 and
monitoring stations are indicated in Figure 3.10-1. The noise receptor most
likely to be affected by the proposed SJRPP (Station 3) presently receives a
noise level of 55 dBA. This noise level is primarily due to garbage trucks on
New Berlin Road and heavy equipment operating at the Jacksonville Landfill
across New Berlin Road from the residences. The trend toward industrial
development will increase noise levels in the area. This trend will also
reduce the number of noise sensitive receptors, however.
3.10.2 Sanford Plant Ambient Sound Environment
Major noise sources in the Study Area 2 vicinity include railroads, high-
ways, and dock facilities. The SCL tracks run adjacent to the Sanford Plant.
US Highway 17/92 parallels the SCL tracks at the Sanford Plant while Inter-
state Highway 4 passes the plant approximately one mile to the southeast (see
Figure 3.2-2). The Sanford Municipal Docks are located approximately one-half
mile south of the Sanford Plant on the south bank of the St. Johns River.
3-77
-------
Table 3.10-1. Comparison of winter and summer
equivalent (Lea) and day/night (L^) sound
levels in Study Area 1 (JEA/FP&L 1981a).
Station
Number*
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Location
New Berlin
North Site Boundary
Nearest Residence (NW)
Nearest Residence (ME)
Browns Creek
Northside Station
Blount Island
Dames Point
Beacon Hills
Leq (24) dB(A)
Winter Summer
56 58
53 48
55 54
50 51
64 61
69 64
60
62
52
LDN dB(A)
Winter Summer
59 62
54 56
57 56
52 53
65 65
71 71
65
63
56
aRefer to Figure 3.10-1.
3-78
-------
~^ -/-—-X' \
NORTHSIDE
STATION
(•) Noise Survey Monitoring Locations
tot
Figure 3.10-1. Locations of monitoring stations for the Study Area 1 noise survey
(JEA/FP&-L 1981a) .
3-79
-------
Sensitive noise receptors in Study Area 2 include residences located
approximately 2,200 feet northwest of the Sanford Plant, residences located
approximately 2,000 feet east of the Sanford Plant between the SCL tracks and
U.S. Highway 17/92, and the St. Johns River Estates located approximately
4,300 feet across the River southwest of the plant.
3.11 ENERGY RESOURCES
This section summarizes the existing energy resources in Florida. A more
detailed discussion can be found in Appendix U.
3.11.1 Florida
3.11.1.1 Traditional Energy Sources
In 1979, the State of Florida relied on petroleum and natural gas for
84.2% of its energy needs. Petroleum constituted 68.6% and natural gas con-
stituted 15.6% of the total consumption of primary energy. Petroleum consump-
tion is 21.1% higher and natural gas consumption is 19.9% lower as a percent-
age of total consumption in Florida than in the United States overall. Nu-
clear energy supplies 7.2% of Florida's needs (Florida Governor's Energy
Office 1981).
Transportation accounted for 37.3% of the energy use in Florida in 1979.
Only 15.8% of Florida's energy use was by industry. The residential sector
accounted for 22.8% of the State's energy use. The total fuel consumption by
Florida's electric utilities represented 43.6% of the total energy consumption
in the State in 1979 (Florida Governor's Energy Office 1981).
Residential electrical consumption in Florida is 48.4% of the total
electrical consumption compared with 33.0% nationally. 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 for heating (Florida Governors Energy Office 1981).
Within Florida there is a heavier reliance on petroleum in the production
of electrical energy than in the nation as a whole. Conversely, coal utiliza-
tion 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 5% (119 trillion
Btu's) of the total energy consumption in Florida in 1979. Total energy from
direct solar (0.7 trillion Btu's), alcohol (0.2 million Btu's), crop residues
(12.6 trillion Btu's), and hydropower (2.5 trillion Btu's) accounts for only
14% of the energy from other sources. The remaining 86% is attributable to
3-80
-------
wood burning (indirect solar), most of which is done by the pulp and paper
industry (Florida Governor's Energy Office 1981).
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; 17 utility systems provide nearly 100% of the electric energy
generated in the region. In 1980, the net electrical energy capacity in
peninsular Florida was 24,457 MW in winter and 23,339 MW in summer. Petroleum
and natural gas are used to produce about 56% of this net capability while
coal is used to produce about 10% of this net capability- Reserves are pro-
jected to be in excess of 25% from 1983 through 1989 without the addition of
any additional generating units (FPSC 1981b). In order to allow for scheduled
and unscheduled interruptions in output from one or sore units, reserve mar-
gins naist be at least between 20% and 25%. Higher reserve margins are sug-
gestive of excess capacity.
3.11.2.1 FP&L
FP&L is an investor owned utility serving retail customers in 35 counties
in southern and eastern portions of Florida. As of 31 December 1980, FP&L
served a total of 2,247,688 customers. During 1980, the net energy for load
generated by FP&L was used as follows (FPSC 1981b):
Residential 46.1%
Commercial 31.8%
Industrial 6.8%
Street and Highway Lighting 0.8%
Sales and Resale 5.6%
Utility Use and Losses 7.8%
Existing generating capacity and planned additions through 1983 consist
of 11 active plants comprised of the following types and numbers of units:
Nuclear steam 4
Fossil steam 27
Solid Waste steam 2
Gas Turbines 48
Diesel 2
Combined cycle 2
Within the FP&L system there are no coal-fired fossil steam plants. Fuels
used to produce a total of 45,000 gigawatt hours (GWH) of electricity in 1979
included 54.0% residual oil, 25.6% nuclear, and 18.5% natural gas (FP&L 1980a).
As discussed in Section 1.4, FP&L will be in need of additional generating
capacity by 1989 (FPSC 1981b).
3.11.2.2 JEA
JEA is a ntunicipally-owned electric utility serving retail customers in
Duval County and parts of St. Johns and Clay Counties. As of 31 December
3-81
-------
1980, JEA served a total of 224,980 customers. During 1980, the net energy
for load generated by JEA was used as follows:
Residential - 37,3%
Commercial - 14.1%
Industrial - 32.9%
Street and Highway Lighting - 1.2%
Sales and Resale - 7.7%
Utility Use and Losses - 6.8%
Existing generating capacity in the JEA system consists of three power plants
comprised of 11 oil-fired steam-generating units and 9 gas turbines.
In 1980, 9.4 million barrels of oil were consumed. Total energy production
from oil. amounted to 5,349 GWH. As discussed in Section 1.4, JEA will be in
need of additional generating capacity by 1991 (FPSC 1981b).
3.11.3 Natural Gas
Natural gas is provided to the State for residential, commercial, and
industrial use by Florida Gas Company. Florida Gas Company controls reserves
of 820 billion cubic feet and delivered an estimated 107.9 billion cubic feet
of gas to the State in 1979 (Florida Gas Company 1981). At present, the
Company's pipeline facilities are running at or near their maximum capacity
and the Company has not taken on a major new customer since 1974. Due to the
currently low marginal cost of natural gas, JEA is considering converting one
of the small units at NGS to burn gas. Due to limitations on pipeline capacity,
however,'JEA is the only major new gas customer that could be accommodated in
the Jacksonville area at this time (Lyles 1981). Unless gas transmission
facilities are expanded or gas is discovered in the areas being explored off
the northeast Florida coast, gas will not increase in use significantly. This
low supply situation may change if natural.gas prices are deregulated as
currently proposed, but the price Increases anticipated with deregulation
could dampen demand.
3.11.4 Cogeneration
A small power producing facility which generates its own energy will sell
its excess capacity to a utility. A maximum of 226 MW per year is available
from cogeneration according to FP&L and JEA (Appendix U). Cogeneration cannot-
be considered a viable obtain for replacing electricity generated from the
proposed project because the costs of cogeneration are as high as costs for
oil-generated electricity.
3.12 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 baseline health section. A more
detailed discussion of human health is presented in Appendix V.
3-82
-------
3.12.1 Mortality and Morbidity
The mortality data for Duval, Volusia, and Seminole Counties, State of
Florida, and the United States are presented in Table 3.12-1. The data indi-
cate 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 cirrohsis 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. 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.
3.12.2 Lung Cancer in the Jacksonville Area
A county-by-county survey of mortality in the United States (1950-1969)
revealed that Duval County has 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 3.12-2). 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 wood dust. Excess risks were also linked to fishing
and forestry occupations, although the number of cases involved was small. 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
and the nation.
3-83
-------
Table 3.12-1. Death rates per 100,000 population for selected
causes during 1978 (National Center for Health
Statistics 1978 and State of Florida Department
of Health 1978).
Cause
Heart Disease
Cancer
Stroke
Accidents
Chronic Obstructive
Lung Disease
Influenza
Cirrohsis of Liver
Arteriosclerosis
Diabetes
Suicide
Homicide
Prenatal Condition
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
Volus ia/S eminole
Counties
550.8
239.1
110.5
44.6
31.4
27.9
16.5
11.7
16.9
18.0
9.6
5.6
Florida
530.4
241.3
99.1
47.8
32.4
27.1
18.5
13.4
17.2
17.1
11.4
7.6
U.S.A.
334.3
181.9
80.5
48.4
23.1
26.7
13.8
13.3
15.5
12.5
9.4
10.1
All Causes
840.0
1,075.0
1,103.7
883.4
3-84
-------
Table 3.12-2. Listing of the 10 metropolitan3 counties in the
United States with the highest age-adjusted rates of lung cancer
mortality among white males, 1970-75 (Blot et al. 1981).
Mortality Rate
(deaths/yr/10 )
93.2
90.9
88.4
87.2
86.1
83.8
82.8
80.4
79.3
77.6
3.
Includes all counties with at least 500,000 person-years of observation
among white males during 1970-75
b
Deaths for 1972 are excluded since not all were ascertained for this year
Q
Includes the independent cities of Norfolk and Portsmouth
Includes the independent city of Newport News
Q
Includes the independent city of Richmond
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
County
Duval, El.
St. Louis City,
Baltimore City,
Q
Chesapeake, Va
Orleans , La .
Mobile, Al.
Jefferson, Ky.
James City, Va
Chesterfield,8
Marion, In.
Mo
Md
•
•
Va.
3-85
-------
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE ALTERNATIVES
This section summarizes the potential impacts of the No Action Alternative,
the proposed project (SJRPP), and the four alternatives on the natural and
man-made environment. Section 4.1 defines the criteria used to analyze the
impacts of all alternatives (including the proposed project) and summarizes
the criteria applied to each resource area. The remaining sections summarize
potential impacts for each resource area.
4.1 CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION OF IMPACTS
This section describes the criteria and general approach used to evaluate
the potential impacts of the proposed project (SJRPP) and the alternatives on
the natural and man-made environment. The potential impacts of all alter-
natives are discussed in Sections 4.2 through 4.13 on a resource by resource
basis.
The potential impacts of the SJRPP are analyzed in detail using information
presented by the applicant (JEA/FP&L 1981a,b) and large amounts of information
and other analyses gathered and performed during the course of the preparation
of the SAR/EIS. The large amount of information about the site and details of
the proposed project allowed a detailed, relatively quantative assessment of
impacts to be performed for the SJRPP including estimates of potential changes
in the concentration of air and water pollutants in the environment based on
modeling. Using this approach, impacts were estimated by comparing the potential
changes in the air quality, water quality, and other resource categories to
applicable government standards or to known toxicity thresholds. Due to
limitations on the amount of information that could reasonably be gathered,
however, this type of approach could not be used to identify the impacts of
the-alternatives. Instead, the relative impacts of the alternatives were
identified by comparing their resource requirements and general waste generation
characteristics to provide indicators of the level of potential effects on
each resource category. The general types of criteria used in this analysis
are identified in Table 4.1-1 and their application is explained in each of
the impact analysis sections.
In order to understand the use of the criteria in the assessment of
impacts, it is necessary to understand several basic assumptions and under-
lying methodologies. The alternatives to SJRPP were developed for comparison
based on their ability to displace oil in the JEA and FP&L systems. Because
the alternatives displace oil use, they not only have direct impacts within
the area where involved facilities are located (except the No Action Alterna-
tive), but also displace impacts in other areas as a direct result of oil
usage reduction. This is because the utilities would preferentially use the
more economical non-oil-fired sources of electricity, if available, and reduce
the time of operation for the more costly oil plants. Therefore, in order to
determine the true effect of the various units considered in the alternatives,
it is necessary to also take into account the pollutants not generated and
resources not consumed at the various oil-fired plants. A similar method was
used to determine the net effect or impact of the alternatives on many of the
resource areas such as air, water, and solid wastes for which quantified
changes in pollutant generation consumption were used as a basis for assessing
impa ct s.
4-1
-------
Table 4.1-1. Criteria employed to estimate potential impacts
of the four alternatives on each resource area.
Resource Category
Air Resources
Surface Water Resources
Earth Resources
Biological Resources
Sound Quality
Cultural Resources
Socioeconomic Conditions
Criteria Employed
• Net change in emissions
of S02, NOx, CO, HC, and
particulates.
• Net change in discharge of
chloride, heat, trace metals,
oil and grease.
• Net changes in total amounts of
groundwater used.
• Net changes in total amount of
solid waste generated.
• Changes in topography.
• Net change in landfill area.
• Number of acres of habitat
required for plant sites and
solid waste disposal areas.
• Net changes in air emissions
and wastewater discharges.
• Potential occurrence of rare,
threatened, or endangered species.
• Potential occurrence of wetlands.
• Predicted increases in equipment
noise levels.
• Predicted traffic noise levels.
• Potential for occurrence of
archaeological, historic, or
cultural resources based upon
criteria of effect defined in
36 CFR 800.
• Changes in influx of population
in relation to housing availability
and capacity of community services.
• Changes in employment (number of
permanent and temporary jobs)
• Amount of property tax paid by
the utilities and employees.
• Amount of State educational aid.
• Service demands.
4-2
-------
Table 4.1-1. Criteria employed to estimate potential impacts
of the four alternatives on each resources area (concluded) .
Resource Category
Land Use, Recreation and
Aesthetics
Transportation
Human Health
Criteria Employed
• Degree of changes of existing
land use patterns.
• Changes in zoning required.
• Consistency with comprehensive
land use plans.
• Total land required.
• Changes in recreational uses.
• Changes in aesthetic environment.
• Changes in coal train traffic
• Changes in amount of highway traffic
• Changes in barge traffic.
• Net changes in air emissions
of criteria pollutants
In order to understand the use of the criteria in the assessment of
impacts, it is necessary to understand several basic assumptions and under-
lying methodologies. The alternatives to SJRPP were developed for comparison
based on their ability to displace oil in the JEA and FP&L systems. Because
the alternatives displace oil use, they not only have direct impacts within
the area where involved facilities are located (except the No Action Alternative),
but also displace impacts in other areas as a direct result of oil usage
reduction. This is because the utilities would preferentially use the more
economical non-oil-fired sources of electricity, if available, and reduce the
time of operation for the more costly oil plants. Therefore, in order to
determine the true effect of the various units considered in the alternatives,
it is necessary to also take into account the pollutants not generated and
resources not consumed at the various oil-fired plants. A similar method was
used to determine the net effect or impact of the alternatives on many of the
resource areas such as air, water, and solid wastes for which quantified
changes in pollutant generation consumption were used as a basis for assessing
impacts.
Because it was found that an increase in emissions or water requirements
at one known location such as NGS might cause reductions in power generation,
and thereby pollutant generation at several other locations, it was decided to
evaluate changes or impacts on an area or regional basis. This allowed changes
in several different locations to be viewed as a whole so that impacts could
be better understood and compared. Consequently, scenarios for four areas
were developed for comparison: (1) the JEA system; (2) the Sanford facility;
(3) the FP&L system minus the Sanford facility; and (4) Florida as a whole.
The JEA system was considered as a whole because of the close geographical
location of its three existing generating facilities (Kennedy, Southside, and
Northside). Since all JEA facilities are located in Duval County, the inter-
action of effects from changes in waste generation and emissions throughout
4-3
-------
the system would be significant to the Jacksonville area. The Sanford fa-
cility was isolated from the FP&L system because the conversion of Sanford
Units 4 and 5 from oil to coal is a significant aspect of Alternatives 2, 3,
and 4 Additionally, the specific changes in the Sanford Plant area could be
predicted and assessed. The FP&L system except Sanford was assessed to show
changes throughout the FP&L system associated with refuse plants and oil
displacement at unknown facilities in the FP&L system. The total Florida
category is presented in order to depict the absolute effect of each alterna-
tive overall. The displaced pollutant generation for each alternative is
directly related to the oil displaced and the operational characteristics of
the system. The background information on oil displacement, distribution of
the oil displacement, and operational characteristics of the JEA and FP&L
systems are presented in Appendix CC.
It is recognized that the generation of power for purchase at Georgia
Power's Plant Vogtle would consume resources and generate pollutants. At the
outset of this analysis it was assumed that these impacts would not be con-
sidered because they are fixed; that is, the plant has already been permitted
for construction and the impacts would occur regardless of JEA's purchase of
power. It must be recognized, however, that there is no assurance that Plant
Vogtle will be completed and licensed to operate. In contrast, the impacts of
the SJRPP and the alternatives potentially could occur, but do not at present.
Because the impacts of generating the purchased power are not taken into
account, it must be realized that in some cases they would tend to mask the
effects of the alternatives by making it appear that there is no pollution
associated with the generation of the rather sizeable amounts of purchased
power.
The net changes in the use of a resource or the generation of a pollutant
used in this analysis cannot be construed in all cases to indicate an impact
in themselves. The true test of an impact is its effect on the human environ-
ment and, as explained previously, this could not be fully determined in many
cases due to a lack of information or the limitations of the analysis. Rather,
the net changes employed in this analysis indicated changes which, when com-
pared to the criteria and the relative sensitivity of each resource, could be
used as an approximate measure of potential impacts.
4.2 AIR QUALITY IMPACTS
This section considers the potential air impacts due to the construction
and operation of the SJRPP and each of the four alternatives. Included are
discussions of impacts of construction-related emissions, uncontrolled opera-
tion emissions, and controlled operation emissions. The No Action Alternative
is not discussed since it would cause no net change in emissions in the Jackson-
ville or Sanford areas.
4.2.1 Construction-Related Impacts
This section summarizes the emissions due to construction activities,
mitigative measures, and resulting impacts. The analysis primarily considers
the emissions of fugitive dust.
Emissions of air pollutants associated with the construction of a power
generating station result from clearing and grubbing, excavation, material
4-4
-------
haulage and handling, and open burning. These activities are common to most
major construction projects. The SJRPP project and its alternatives are
therefore assumed to have similar construction-related emissions. Because air
emissions from construction activities are difficult to quantify and vary
significantly depending on the control measures implemented. No attempt has
been made to quantify these emissions. The production of actual emissions is
not critical since control measures for construction-related air emissions
have been shown to be highly effective.
The primary air pollutant emitted during each phase of construction is
fugitive dust. Control of fugitive dust is primarily accomplished by watering
and soil stabilization. Stabilization includes paving or laying down a sur-
face (such as rock or shell) which will reduce the opportunity for particles
to become airborne. Other measures for fugitive dust control include careful
operation of on-site equipment, reduction of vehicle speeds on unpaved areas,
and rapid revegetation of cleared areas after construction.
Open burning is another source of air emissions during construction.
Typical emissions from burning activities include particulate matter, carbon
monoxide, hydrocarbons, sulfur oxides, and nitrogen oxides. The quantity of
these emissions depends largely on the amount and moisture content of the
material burned. There are no specific control measures for open burning,
although to reduce impacts burning should be conducted during periods of good
atmospheric dispersion.
Exhausts of heavy machine and truck traffic also are a source of air
pollutants. These consist mainly of carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, nitrogen
oxides, sulfur oxides, and particulate matter. These emissions would be minor
due the small number of pieces of equipment and their wide distribution over
the project site.
Construction-related air quality impacts are expected to be minimal and
of short duration if standard mitgative measures are implemented. Fugitive
dust production should be minimized through the use of watering, stabiliza-
tion, good equipment operational practices, and rapid revegetation of cleared
areas. In addition, fugitive emissions from construction activities generally
consist of large particles which rapidly settle rather than remain suspended
for long distances. This rapid settling will keep fugitive dust impacts
restricted to the project site in most instances.
Only minor short-term air quality impacts are expected to result from
burning since these operations will be conducted only during periods of good
atmospheric dispersion. Burning should be conducted in compliance with local
and State regulations, however (Section 5.2 outlines appropriate mitigative
measures). Because of the mitigative measures which will be employed, it is
not expected that vehicular emissions, fugitive dust, or smoke from burning
operations will present any significant air quality problems.
The relative level of construction-related emissions can be correlated
with the total amount of land disturbed and the length of time that construc-
tion takes place. Although Alternatives 1 and 2 involve a larger amount of
total land due to the construction of transmission corridors, the proposed
project probably would have a greater potential for impacts due to the large
amount of land disturbed at the SJRPP site, Blount Island, and the 5 to 6 year
construction period involved.
4-5
-------
4.2.2 Operation-Related Impacts
This section summarizes the operation-related impacts of the SJRPP and
each of the four alternatives. The analysis includes consideration of effects
of S02, NOx, TSP, CO, and non-methane hydrocarbons.
4.2.2.1 Operational Emissions of SJRPP
Uncontrolled Emissions
The primary sources of air emissions from SJRPP would be the two main
steam generating units. Other sources of emissions would include the auxil-
iary boiler, cooling tower, and fugitive emissions from the coal, limestone,
and fly ash handling systems and the FGD system.
The steam generating units (boilers) will have a heat input capacity of
6,144 MMBtu/hr and a maximum coal consumption of 292.6 tons per hour each.
The emissions from each of these boilers were calculated assuming worst-case
conditions (i.e., coal with maximum sulfur (4%) and ash (9.5%) contents and
minimum heating value (10,500 Btu)) (JEA/FP&L 1981a).
Two auxiliary boilers will be used at SJRPP to provide start-up and
shutdown capabilities for the main units. Each auxiliary boiler will be fired
with No. 2 fuel oil and have a maximum heat input of 127 MMBtu/hr. The emis-
sions from the auxiliary boilers would be small compared to those from the
main boilers. The auxiliary boilers will also be operated only on an inter-
mittent basis (annual capacity factor of 5%) and probably not during periods
when the two main units are operating. The S02 emission rate is predicted to
be 203 pounds per hour while the NOx and particulate emission rates are pre-
dicted to be 76 and 2.5 pounds per hour respectively (Moehle 1981d).
Fugitive emissions will occur from the coal, limestone, and solid waste
handling and storage facilities. The total uncontrolled fugitive emissions
from these activities are predicted to be 250 grams per second or approxi-
mately 8,682 tons per year. Fugitive particulates (less than 50 microns) from
the cooling towers are predicted to be emitted at a rate of 8.4 grams per
second (JEA/FP&L 1981a) or 204 tons per year assuming a 70% capacity factor.
Air Pollution Control Systems
The NSPS and Best Available Control Technology (BACT) emission controls
proposed for the SJRPP are identified in Section 2.2.5 and are discussed
below. Alternative control measures are discussed in Section 2.5.2 and in
Appendix K.
Sulfur dioxide emissions from the main boilers for the proposed facil-
ities will be controlled through the use of a limestone flue gas desulfuri-
zation (FGD) system. The proposed scrubbing system will have the following
characteristics (based on worst-case coal):
• Design removal efficiency - 90%
• Average emission rate (30day) - 0.76 Ib/MMBtu
• Maximum emission rate (2 hr) - 1.2 Ib/MMBtu
4-6
-------
• Number of operating modules
per unit at full load - Three
• Type of absorber - Spray Tower
• Type of absorber reactant - Limestone
The FGD system will be designed for 100% availability (including use of the
spare module) and will be furnished with a flue gas reheating system. The
increased flue gas temperature will increase the plume rise characteristics of
the flue gas, as well as help prevent condensation of flue moisture within the
stack (JEA/FP&L 1981a).
The particulate emissions from the main boilers will be controlled through
the use of an electrostatic precipitator. The characteristics of the eletro-
static precipitator are presented below (assuming worst-case coal):
Design removal efficiency 99.78%
Average emission rate 0.03 Ib/MMBtu
Maximum opacity 20%
Number of precipitaters per unit Two
Number of electrical fields in
direction of gas flow Six
• Number of electrical bus sections
per unit 72
The control technology for nitrogen oxides (NOx) and carbon monoxide (CO)
consists of design parameters and operating practices for the steam generator
rather than a distinct process or system. In practice, boiler manufacturers
optimize their designs to minimize production of NOx and CO. The fuel burning
characteristics of the boilers for this project will be designed to limit the
NOx emission rate to a maximum of 0.6 Ib/MMBtu as required by NSPS and con-
tinuous monitoring equipment will be installed to control the boiler air/fuel
ratio and to detect the NOx emission levels (JEA/FP&L 1981a). The CO emis-
sions will be determined during performance testing for compliance with NSPS.
Non-methane hydrocarbon emissions are estimated to be on the order of
0.0005 Ibs/MMBtu (JEA/FP&L 1981a). No specific control measures are proposed
to control emissions of non-methane hydrocarbons due to their anticipated low
levels.
Emission controls for fugitive particulates are identified in Section
2.2.5.4. In general, cooling tower drift will be controlled to a level of
0.002% of the recirculated cooling water volume by the use of high efficiency
drift eliminators and by controlling the cycles of concentration to 1.5 times.
The ship unloading facility will have dry dust collection systems capable of
99.9% control efficiency at the unloader hoppers. All conveyors will be
totally enclosed and each transfer point fitted with dry dust collection
systems, with the exception of the stacker-reclaimer which will be fitted with
a water spray dust suppression system capable of 97% efficiency. The rail car
loading facility will be enclosed in a building and fitted with a dry dust
collection system. The coal surge pile in the ship unloading area will be
treated by wetting agents to acheive a 90% control efficiency.
4-7
-------
Control and collection of fugitive dust particulates from the limestone
and/or lime addition system for the FGD equipment and fly ash handling system
will be accomplished by use of appropriate types of fabric filter dust collec-
tors. Because of their intermittent use and low expected emissions, no con-
trol measures are proposed for the auxiliary boilers.
Controlled Emissions
The controlled emissions from the SJRPP will be the uncontrolled emis-
sions with the pertinent control efficiencies applied as previously discussed.
Table 4.2-1 depicts the controlled and uncontrolled criteria pollutant emis-
sions from the main boilers. Because no control measures are planned for the
auxiliary boilers, the expected emissions are identical to those previously
presented (203 Ib/hr for S02, 76 Ib/hr for NOx, and 2.5 Ib/hr for particulates).
The 21% control of fine particulate emissions from the cooling towers will
result in a controlled emissions rate of 8.4 grams per second or 292 tons per
year (JEA/FP&L 1981a). The uncontrolled and controlled fugitive emissions
from SJRPP are detailed in Table 4.2-2. The emissions presented represent
the emissions from the coal, limestone, fly ash, and FGD waste handling systems.
Table 4.2-1. Uncontrolled and controlled emissions from
each boiler at the SJRPpa (adapted from Moehle 1981d).
Sulfur Dioxide
Particulates
Nitrogen Oxides
Carbon Monoxide
Hydrocarbons
Uncontrolled
Emissions
(Ibs/hr)
46,690
84,234
3,686
307
3
Removal
Efficiency
(%)
90
99.78
—
—
-
Controlled
Emissions
(Ibs/hr)
4,669
185
b
3,686
307b
b
3
c
Controlled
Emissions
(tons/year)
20,630
1,134
22,603
1,883
18
Emissions are per unit at 100% load and assuming worst-case fuel characteris-
, tics (maximum sulfur and ash contents and minimum heating value).
Controlled and uncontrolled emission rates are the same a since controls
for these pollutants are by boiler design and firing practices rather than
by a pollutant removal system.
Annual emissions computed using 100% load and 70% capacity factor and
represent the total emissions from both boilers.
4.2.2.2 Emissions Resulting from Each Alternative
The alternatives to SJRPP were developed for comparison based on their
ability to displace oil in the JEA and FP&L systems. Although the alterna-
tives themselves produce air emissions, each alternative (except the No Action
-------
Table 4.2-2. Uncontrolled and controlled fugitive emissions from
SJRPP (Adapted from JEA/FP&L 198la)
Process
Ship Unloading
Ship Unloading
Transfer Points
Ship Unloading
Transfer Points
Ship Unloading
Facility Train
Ship Unloading
Facility Coal
Surge Pile
Rail Car Unloading
Coal Handling
Transfer Points
Coal Handling
Transfer Points
Coal Handling
Transfer Points
Coal Handling
Transfer Points
Coal Storage
at Plant
Coal Storage
at Plant
Limestone Unloading
Limestone Transfer
Solid Waste
Disposal Area
FCD Waste
Type
Grab Bucket
6 Points
3 Points
Loading Shed
Active
Rotary Dumper
2 Points
2 Points
6 Points
7 Points
Active
2 Inactive Piles
Rail Dumper
1 Point
Active
Landfill
Throughput
10,000 Tons/Day
10,000 Tons /Day
10,000 Tons/Day
10.000 Tons/Day
30 Acres
10,000 Tons/Day
10,000 Tons/Day
3,300 Tons/Day
3,300 Tons/Day
5,000 Tons/Day
8 Acres
15 Acres
750 Tons/Day
750 Tons/Day
25 Acres
10 Acres
Factor
0.4 lb/Tona
0.2 lb/Tonc
0.2 lb/Tonc
0.4- lb/Tona
13 lb/Acre/Daya
0.4 lb/Tona
0.2 lb/Tonc
0.2 lb/Tonc
0.2 lb/Tonc
0.2 lb/Tonc
13 lb/Acre/Daya
3.5 lb/Acre/Daya
0.4 lb/Tona
0.2 lb/Tona
13 lb/Acre/Daya
13 lb/Acre/Daya
Total
Uncontrolled
Emissions
(K/sec)
21.019
63.056
31.528
21.019
2.049
21.019
21.019
6.936
20.808
36.782
0.546
0.552
1.576
0.788
1.708
0.683
251.088
Control
(99.9Z)b
(99.9Z)b
(97Z)b
(99.9%)b
(90Z)a
(97Z)b
(99.2Z)b
(99.9Z)b
(97Z)b
(99.9Z)b
(90Z)a
(97%)b
(99.9%)b
(99.9*)b
<90*)a
(90Z)a
Control Technique
Dry Collection on Hoppers
Dry Collection
Wet Suppression
Dry Collection
Wetting Agent
Wet Suppression
Dry Collection
Dry Collection
Wet Suppression
Dry Collection
Wetting Agent
Wetting Agent
Wet Suppression
Dry Collection
Wetting Agent
Wetting Agent
Total
Controlled
Emissions
(g/sec)
0.021
0.063
0.946
0.021
0.205
0.631
0.021
0.007
0.624
0.037
0.055
0.055
0.047
0.001
0.171
0.068
2.973
aPEUCo 1977
bStoughton 1980
CUSEPA 1979
-------
Alternative) also displaces air emissions as a direct result of oil usage
reduction. Due to the geographical dispersion of the various sources of the
generated and displaced emissions, it is necessary to discuss the emissions
from the standpoint of the net gain or loss within a particular area in order
to relate them to air quality impacts. As described in Section 4.1, net
emissions will be identified for each of the major impact areas: Jackson-
ville, Sanford, and other parts of the FP&L system.
The net emissions for each alternative are directly related to the amount
and type of fuel burned and the total amount of oil-fired generation that is
displaced. Background information on oil displacement, the distribution of
the oil displacement, and operational characteristics of the JEA and FP&L
systems are presented in Appendix K and Appendix CC.
Alternative 1
Alternative 1 would use a combination of residential solar water heaters,
municipal refuse-fired power plants, conversion of NGS Units 1 and 3 to coal-
oil mixtures (COM), and purchase of power from Georgia Power's Vogtle Nuclear
Power Plant (Section 2.6) to displace an equivalent amount of oil as SJRPP-
It is assumed that use of residential solar heaters and purchase of power
would result in no emissions.
Emissions from refuse-fired power plants are similar to those from fossil-
fuel power plants. One exception is that refuse-fired power plants produce
substantial amounts of hydrochloric acid not common to fossil-fueled fired
power plants. The predicted emissions from each of the refuse-fired power
plants for this alternative are presented in Appendix K and in Table 2.6-3.
Alternative 1 also entails the conversion of NGS Units 1 and 3 from oil
to COM. This conversion would result in a 20% derating of these boilers. The
net emissions which would result from burning COM in NGS Units 1 and 3 are
presented in Appendix K and in Table 2.6-3.
Alternative 2
This alternative entails the purchase of 550 MW from Georgia Power's
Plant Vogtle by JEA and the coal conversion of Sanford Units 4 and 5 by FP&L.
Because these units would be derated by 10%, FP&L is also assumed to purchase
72.8 MW from Plant Vogtle in order to avoid any loss of total generating
capacity- Purchase of power is assumed to generate no emissions; therefore
the only consideration for Alternative 2 emissions is the conversion of Sanford
Units 4 and 5 to coal.
The air pollution control system and resulting emissions required for the
conversion of Sanford Units 4 and 5 are dependent upon the regulations enforced
by USEPA and FDER. The major issue is whether the converted units will be
subject to the current New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for this indus-
trial catagory. By law, if USEPA determines that these units are not currently
coal capable, the converted units would have to meet NSPS. USEPA has not yet
made such a determination, however. Moreover, an amendment to the Clean Air
Act has been proposed to exempt voluntary conversions to coal from the NSPS.
If the units are not covered under NSPS, they will be regulated by the Florida
State Implementation Plan (SIP) emissions limits set by the FDER and approved
by USEPA. Because of this uncertainity, the following analysis examines both
the NSPS and the SIP cases.
4-10
-------
In the SIP case, the units will probably be subject to the current oil
SIP. These regulations limit S02 emissions to 2.75 Ibs/MMBtu and particulate
emissions to 0.1 Ibs/MMBtu. The S02 limits can be met by purchasing low-sulfur
coal (approximately 1.65% sulfur). In order to meet the particulate standards,
electrostatic precipitators (ESP) will need to be installed. The ESP's will
have to remove about 98.42% of the fly ash given a coal with an approximate
9.5% ash content. In addition to the ESP's, FP&L will have to install induced
draft fans to overcome the additional pressure drop. A large amount of ductwork
will also be needed to connect the ESP's and fans to the air preheater outlet
and to the existing stack.
The NSPS limitations will require a more stringent particulate standard
(0.03 Ibs/MMBtu) and a flue gas desulfurization system to meet the S02 limits.
The S02 limits require 70% removal for coals less than 2.0 Ibs/MMBtu, 90%
removal for coals above 6.0 Ibs/MMBtu, and a 0.60 Ibs/MMBtu standard for coals
with 2.0-6.0 Ibs/MMBtu original S02 content. The particulate standard will
require larger ESP's and fans to achieve about 99.53% removal. The FGD system
is designed based upon a coal with an average sulfur content of 2.76% (4.6 Ibs
S02/MMBtu). The system selected is a limestone wet scrubber with forced
oxidation to produce non-commercial grade gypsum.
The net emissions from the combustion of coal at Sanford Units 4 and 5
are presented in Table 2.6-5 and in Appendix K. These rates are used for
Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 since the coal conversion of Sanford Units 4 and 5 is
considered for each of these alternatives.
Alternative 3
Alternative 3 includes the purchase of 270 MW of power from Plant Vogtle
and construction of a new 280 MW coal-fired power plant for JEA, coal con-
version of Sanford Units 4 and 5, and purchase of 72.8 MW of Plant Vogtle
Power for FP&L. The new 280 MW unit is assumed to have the same general
design characteristics as the SJRPP- The plant would also be subject to NSPS.
Design characteristics would include construction of an ESP, an open-cycle wet
limestone scrubber, similar coal specifications, and a salt water natural
draft cooling tower as proposed for SJRPP- The emissions predicted from this
facility are approximately 25% of those predicted for the SJRPP and are described
in Appendix K and presented in Table 2.6-7.
Alternative 4
Alternative 4 includes the conversion of the Northside Unit 3 from oil to
coal, purchase of 319 MW of power from Plant Vogtle for JEA, conversion of
Sanford Units 4 and 5 from oil to coal, and purchase of 72.8 MW from Plant
Vogtle for FP&L.
For the NGS Unit 3 coal conversion, the required air pollution control
equipment is dependent upon the emissions regulations applied to the converted
unit (NSPS or SIP as explained under Alternative 2). Under SIP conditions, an
ESP will be required along with the associated ductwork, induced draft fan,
and ash collection system. The NSPS regulations will require an FGD system in
addition to a larger ESP. The FGD system will have the same design as SJRPP's.
4-11
-------
The projected emission rates from NGS Unit 3 with coal conversion are pre-
sented in Table 2.6-9 and are described in more detail in Appendix K.
J.2.2.3 Operational Impacts of SJRPP
Effects on NAAQS and FAAQS
The possible air quality effects of the operation of the SJRPP on the
NAAQS were assessed through computer modeling by JEA and presented in the
SJRPP SCA/EID (JEA/FP&L 1981a). This was accomplished by modeling the major
pollutant sources in the project area simultaneously with the proposed project
and adding values for background to the computer predicted concentrations.
This modeling was performed for the criteria pollutants (except lead) for the
pertinent time frames for each pollutant (see Table 4.2-3). The short-term
(1-hour, 3-hour, and 24-hour) concentrations were predicted using the maximum
emissions of each pollutant (maximum load, maximum capacity) from each facil-
ity while the annual average concentrations were predicted using the average
annual emissions (maximum load, 70% capacity). The results of the modeling
showed that there would be no violations of the NAAQS or FAAQS for any of the
criteria pollutants. Subsequent to the JEA analysis, FDER conducted an indepen-
dent modeling analysis of each pollutant which indicated a potential violation
of the 24-hour S02 FAAQS. The violation of the State S02 standard is associ-
ated with the operation of SJRPP and three other JEA power plants (Northside,
Kennedy, and Southside). These three plants, along with the proposed project,
are geographically aligned along a roughly northeast to southwest orientation
which causes a maximum interaction of emissions from these facilities to occur
when wind blows parallel to this direction. This violation was predicted to
occur 2.5 km southwest of the JEA Southside facility (Oven 1981). Because of
this violation, JEA remodeled the 24-hour S02 emissions, varying the operation-
al modes of its facilities to determine a scenario which would not violate the
24-hour S02 FAAQS. It was determined that under maximum load for the JEA
system, the violations could be avoided by shutting down the JEA Southside
Units 1 and 2 during periods of maximum system usage. JEA has not yet pro-
posed a specific means of mitigating the predicted violation but has indicated
its intention to do so. FDER has reserved final determination on the adequacy
of any mitigation of the predicted impacts until a specific proposal has been
made.
The results of the modeling for compliance with the NAAQS and FAAQS are
presented in Table 4.2-3. Values for HC and lead are not presented because
emissions of these pollutants were projected to be very low. No violations of
the NAAQS or FAAQS are predicted as a result of the operation of the SJRPP.
Effects on Non-Attainment Areas
The entire Jacksonville area is classified as non-attainment for ozone
while a portion of downtown Jacksonville is classified as non-attainment for
TSP. The extent of the contribution of the proposed plant to the formation of
ozone and therefore its impact on the Jacksonville ozone non-attainment areas
cannot be estimated through modeling. However, because of the plant's low
emission levels (below USEPA's significance levels) of oxidants and hydro-
carbons (the primary precursors of ozone), it was assumed by JEA that the
impacts of the proposed plant on ozone concentrations in the Jacksonville area
will not be significant (JEA/FP&L 1981a) .
-------
Table 4.2-3. Comparison of predicted concentrations for the
operation of SJRPP with the NAAQS and FAAQS (Moehle 1981d).
Pollutant/
averaging time
SO,
3-hour
24-hour
annual
Monitored
background
concentration
(ug/m3)
123
21
11
Maximum
projected
concentration
(ug/m3)
987
220C
13
Total
concentration
(ug/m3)
1,110
241C
24
NAAQS FAAQS
(ug/m3) (ug/m3)
1,300 1,300
365 260
80 60
TSP
24-hour
annual
79
37
28
3
109
40
150
75
150
60
NO,
annual
15
10
25
100
100
CO
1-hour
8-hour
d
d
112'=
<110€
40,000 40,000
10,000 10,000
These values do not include contributions from the JEA Northside Plant and the
St. Regis Paper Co.
These concentrations include contributions from the proposed JEA steam electric
generating station, the existing JEA Northside Plant and the existing St. Regis
Paper Co.
Q
Predicted with JEA Southside Units 1 and 2 shut down (Jackson 1981).
CO monitoring data was not available. However, because of the low ambient air
concentrations of CO projected, no violations of the NAAQS for CO is expected.
e
These values were estimated from the projected SO- ambient air concentrations
based on worst-case operating load and meteorological conditions.
4-13
-------
The impact of the plant on the Jacksonville particulate non-attainment
area was estimated through modeling and compared with the USEPA "significance
levels" which are 1 ug/m3 for an annual average and 5 ug/m3 for a 24-hour
average. The TSP non-attainment area basically covers the central downtown
area and is at its closest point 9.4 km from the proposed plant.
The annual average impact was calculated using the total TSP emissions
from the operation of the proposed plant including fugitive dust emissions
from the coal handling facilities, coal unloading facility, limestone hand-
ling, waste disposal, and cooling towers. The results of the analysis indicate
that the annual average TSP impact on the non-attainment area would be less
than 1 ug/m3, the USEPA significance level. The maximum 24-hour TSP impact
would be 4 ug/m3, which is less than the 5 ug/m3 USEPA significance level.
Based on these results, there should be no significant effects on the Jackson-
ville area non-attainment areas.
Effects on PSD Increment
There are two PSD areas which may be affected by the operation of SJRPP:
the Jacksonville Class II area; and the Okefenokee Wilderness Area, a Class I
area located approximately 38 miles (61 km) northwest of the proposed project.
A PSD assessment must consider all major sources commencing operation after a
specified baseline date (25 November 1977 for the Jacksonville area) within 50
km of the project site for Class II increment consumption and within 100 km of
the Class I area for Class I increment consumption. The details of the sources
considered for these assessments are presented in the SJRPP SCA/EID (JEA/FP&L
1981a) .
The results of the computer modeling indicate that there will be no
violations of the Class II increment in the Jacksonville area. Table 4.2-4
presents the Class II increment consumption in the Jacksonville area. The
results are based on the worst case plant load (100%) and worst case year
(1973) resulting from the five year analysis including the impacts from the
fugitive TSP emissions. The year 1973 was used for assessment because the
meteorological data for that year provided the highest ground level pollutant
concentrations of the years analyzed (1970-1974).
Predicted annual average S02 and TSP concentrations are far below the
allowable Class II PSD increments of 20 ug/m3 for S02 and 10 ug/m3 for TSP.
The highest annual levels were calculated to be 2.0 ug/m3 for S02 occurring
4.0 km northeast of the proposed plant and 2.4 ug/m3 for TSP occurring 5.0 km
south-southeast of the proposed plant.
Since all short-term standards can be exceeded once per year, the highest,
second-highest concentrations are used for comparison with standards. The
highest, second-highest short term concentrations are used for comparison with
short-term increments. The highest, second-highest 24-hour predicted concentra-
tion for S02 is 44 ug/m3. This concentration represents approximately 48% of
the PSD Class II increment and is predicted to occur 1.2 km northwest of the
proposed plant. The highest, second-highest predicted 3-hour S02 concentration
is 346 ug/m3, which is approximately 68% of the PSD Class II increment. This
concentration was also calculated at a distance of 1.2 km northwest of the
proposed plant. The highest, second-highest 24-hour average TSP concentration
t-14
-------
Table 4.2-4. Class II increment analysis (Moehle 1981d) .
Maximum3 PSD
Class II Class II
Pollutant/ increment consumption increment
averaging time (ug/m-*) (ug/m )
so2
3-hour 346 512
24-hour 44 91
annual 2 20
TSP
24-hour 18 37
annual 2.4 19
a
These values include contributions from all increment consuming sources
impacting the ambient air quality within 50 kilometers of the proposed
new source, including the proposed JEA steam electric generating station.
Five years of meteorological data was used in the analysis; therefore,
these values represent the highest, second highest concentrations.
Table 4.2-5. Class I increment analysis (Moehle 1981d) .
Maximum3 PSD
Class I Class I
Pollutant/ increment consumption increment
averaging time (ug/m^) (ug/m^)
so2
3-hour 18 25
24-hour 4 5
annual <1 2
TSP
24-hour < 1 5
annual < 1 10
a
These values include contributions from all increment consuming sources
within 100 kilometers of the Class I area including the proposed JEA
electric steam generating station. Five years of meteorological data
was used in the analysis; therefore, these values represent the highest,
second highest concentrations.
4-15
-------
is calculated to be 18 ug/m3, which represents appproximately 49% of the
increment. This concentration occurs 1.0 km west of the proposed plant.
The modeling for the plant impacts on the Okefenokee Wilderness Area
Class I area included a preliminary five year analysis assuming the proposed
plant operating at 100% load. Year 1973 was found to produce the highest
ground level concentration increase at the Okefenokee Class I area. Table
4.2-5 summarizes the results of the PSD Class I modeling for the proposed
plant and other increment consuming sources. The predicted annual average S02
and TSP concentrations of 1 ug/m3 are below the allowable PSD increments of
2 ug/m3 for S02 and 5 ug/m3 for TSP.
Because the short-term Class I allowable increments are not to be ex-
ceeded more than once per year, the highest, second-highest short-term increm-
ental concentrations rather than highest predicted values are compared with
the allowable increments. The highest, second-highest calculated 3-hour S02
concentration at the Okefenokee Class I area was 18 ug/m3 which represents 72%
of the allowable increment. The highest, second-highest 24-hour S02 concen-
tration (4 ug/m3) was calculated to consume approximately 80% of the allowable
increment. The highest, second-highest calculated 24-hour TSP concentration
was less than 1 ug/m3 which represents only 10% of the Class I allowable
increment.
Other Air Quality Effects
The effects of fugitive dust from coal trains, accidental air emissions
releases, and acid rain are addressed in Appendix K. Radioactive emissions
are addressed in Appendix U.
Fugitive dust emissions from coal trains in the Jacksonville area are
expected to be minimal. An estimated 1% of coal by weight would be lost as
fugitive dust over 500 miles with an estimated 90% of the total losses occur-
ring during the first few hours of train transit (JEA/FP&L 1981a). Fugitive
dust can also occur as a result of agitated train road bed dust. These sources
were modeled to determine if an impact on the TSP ambient air quality standard
would occur. The 24-hour average TSP level in the Jacksonville area resulting
from the operation of three coal trains per day (a conservative estimate) was
calculated to be 22 ug/m3 at a distance of 100 meters downwind of the railroad
tracks under light wind conditions (1 meter/second) and neutral (Pasquill
Class C) atmospheric stability conditions. When added to the Jacksonville
area background level of 50 ug/m3, this total is relatively small compared to
the National Ambient Air Quality Secondary Standard and Florida Standard of
150 ug/m3.
The possible air quality effects of the malfunction of the FGD or ESP
systems are addressed in this section. Continued operation of a coal-fired
power plant without FGD or ESP control is not normally allowed under current
Federal regulations. The worst-case scenarios considered, therefore, are the
operation of one of the SJRPP units without FGD and a 20% failure of the ESP
(the ESP is constructed in 150 sections with a 10% redundancy, therefore, a
20% failure is unlikely). The instantaneous increase in S02 emissions due to
a FGD unit failure would be 5.5 times the controlled emissions. Assuming a
3-hour down time, the 24-hour peak emissions would increase by a factor of
4-16
-------
1.6. A 20% failure of the ESP would result In an instantaneous emissions
increase of 24 times the controlled emissions. For a 3-hour down time, the
24-hour emissions would Increase by a factor of 3.8. The expected ground
level pollutant concentrations which would result from any of these malfunc-
tions would probably be higher than the applicable 24-hour standards depending
on the meteorological conditions at the time. However, this would not neces-
sarily constitute a violation because the regulations permit short-term stan-
dards to be exceeded for one 24-hour period per year.
The effects of the operation of a single coal-fired power plant on acid
precipitation are not well known. It is known, however, that reactions in the
atmosphere with S02 and N02 result In sulfuric and nitric acid formation.
These reactions are thought to occur on long distances, with actual acid
precipitation occurring several hundred kilometers from the point of the
emissions (JEA/FP&L 1981). Presently, there is no method for determining
where or to what extent acid precipitation will occur as a result of S02 and
N02 emissions from a coal-fired power plant. The use of FGD systems for S02
control and boiler controls for NOx control will, however, minimize the effects
of the operation of a coal-fired power plant on acid precipitation. SJRPP
will be required to have a FGD system to control S02 emission and boilers
designed to minimize N02 emissions. Therefore, the effects of acid precipi-
tation due to.the operation of SJRPP should be minimal.
Net Emissions
No modeling has been performed to estimate the ground level concentra-
tions of pollutants emitted by Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 4. Therefore, the
impacts of the SJRPP are compared to the other alternatives through a compari-
son of emissions. For impact assessment the emissions for each alternative
(including SJRPP) are presented by area including Jacksonville, Sanford, the
FP&L system except Sanford, and the total FP&L and JEA systems. The emissions
from each alternative are then distributed by area and compared to the emissions
which would result from the combustion of the equivalent amount of oil dis-
placed by the alternative. For purposes of comparison it was assumed that the
SJRPP would displace 550 MW of oil-generated power in both the JEA and FP&L
systems. The projected emissions from the displacement of oil in the JEA
system (5,875,000 bbl/yr) and the FP&L system (5,440,000 bbl/yr) are presented
in Table 4.2-6.
Table 4.2-6. Emissions from oil-fired plants which will be displaced
by operation of SJRPP (tons/year).
Pollutants JEA Service Area FP&L Service Area
Sulfur Dioxide 27,922 25,001
Particulates 1,821 1,686
Nitrogen Oxides 5,464 11,994
Carbon Monoxide 617 517
Hydrocarbons 123 114
4-17
-------
To compute the net emissions for SJRPP, the oil displaced emissions were
subs tract ed from the operational emissions (Table 4.2-1). The aet changes in
air emissions resulting iron operation of SJRPP are presented in Table 4.2-7.
The erzissions presented in Table 4.2.7 are compared to the other alternatives
at the end of this chapter.
Table 4.2-7. SJRPP net emissions* by area (tons,'year).
Sulfur dioxide
Particulates
Nitrogen oxides
Carbon monoxide
Hydrocarbons
Jacksonville
+ 708
693
+17,139
+ 1,216
105
FP&L
Sanford (except Sanford)
-25,001
- 1,686
-11,994
- 571
114
Total
-24,293
- 2,379
+ 5,145
+ 645
219
*
Net emissions equal the SJRPP emissions minus the oil displaced emissions.
4.2.2.4 Air Quality Impacts of the Alternatives
The air quality impacts of the alternatives are quantified by comparing
predicted net air emissions. The net emissions as presented herein are the
predicted air emissions for each alternative minus the air emissions which
will be displaced due to the reduction in oil use. Negative net emissions
indicate a reduction in emissions as compared to existing conditions while a
positive number indicates an increase.
Four scenarios were chosen for impact assessment: (1) the JEA system;
(2) the Sanford facility; (3) the FP&L system minus Sanford; and (3) the total
JEA and FP&L systems. These scenarios were chosen to assess the various
combinations of actions taken for the alternatives. The JEA scenario includes
the Jacksonville area and Duval County. This scenario was chosen to compare
those actions in the JEA service area including the proposed action, the COM
conversion of NGS Units 1 and 3, and the coal conversion of NGS Unit 3. The
Sanford scenario addresses the coal conversion of Sanford Units 4 and 5. The
FP&L system except Sanford was considered because a portion of the oil dis-
placed emissions due to purchase of power, solar systems, and refuse plants
would occur outside of the Sanford area. The total net emissions are used to
interpret system-wide changes under each alternative.
Alternative 1
eacn
t r.e
The total oil displaced emissions for the JEA system are the same for
alternative. It is assumed that the oil displaced would be equivalent to
amount needed to produce 550 MW of power (the amount the SJRPP "would
--IS
-------
provide to the JEA system). Based on the existing operational characteristics
of the JEA system (Appendix CC), it was determined that 5,875,000 barrels of
oil per year would be displaced in the JEA system. The oil displaced emissions
for the JEA system are presented in Table 4.2-8.
Table 4.2-8. Oil displaced emissions for the JEA system (all
alternatives).
Pollutant Emissions (tons/year)
Sulfur Dioxide
Particulates
Nitrogen Oxides
Carbon Monoxide
Hydrocarbons
27,922a
1,821
5,464
617
123
Based on JEA's system average oil sulfur content of 1.38%, corresponding
to the average emissions limitations for the Northside, Kennedy, and Southside
Stations (1.98, 1.0, and 1.0 Ibs S02/MMBtu, respectively).
For Alternative 1, the emissions presented in Table 4.2-8 represent those
emissions displaced by the installation of residential solar water heaters in
the Jacksonville area, construction of the Duval County refuse-fired power
plant, the COM conversion of NGS Units 1 and 3, and the purchase of 307.6 MW
of power from Plant Vogtle.
The oil displaced emissions for the FP&L system were calculated in a
similar manner as for the JEA system. It was determined that 5,440,000 barrels
of oil per year in the FP&L system would be displaced by Alternative 1. These
emissions reduced by the displacement of a total of 550 MW of oil-fired power
are presented in Table 4.2-9.
Table 4.2-9. Alternative 1 oil displaced emissions for the FP&L
system.
Pollutant Emissions (tons/year)
Sulfur Dioxide 25,001*
Particulates 1,686
Nitrogen Oxides 11,994^
Carbon Monoxide 571
£
Hydrocarbons 114
^Based on average 1980 FP&L oil sulfur content of 1.35%.
Based on SIP limit of 0.1 Ibs/MMBtu.
^Based on AP-42 estimate of 105 lbs/1000 gal (0.7113 Ibs/MMBtu).
Based on AP-42 estimate of 5 lbs/1000 gal (0.034 Ibs/MMBtu).
6Based on AP-42 estimate of 1 lb/1000 gal (0.068 Ibs/MMBtu).
4-19
-------
The figures in Table 4.2-9 indicate those emissions which would be displaced
by the installation of residential solar water heaters in the FP&L system,
construction of refuse-fired power plants in Seminole, Brevard, Manatee, and
Sarasota Counties, and purchase of 365.7 MW of power from Plant Vogtle.
The total displaced emissions for both JZA and FP&L under Alternative 1
are depicted in Table 4.2-10. The net emissions for Alternative 1 are presented
in Table 4.2-11. The net values were calculated using the alternative emissions
previously presented and the oil displaced emissions presented in this section.
Alternative 2
The JEA oil displaced emissions for Alternative 2 are identical to those
presented for SJRPP and Alternative 1. In this case (Alternative 2) these
emissions would be displaced by purchase of 550 MW of power from Plant Vogtle.
The FP&L oil displaced emissions result from the coal conversion of
Sanford Units 4 and 5 and purchase of 72.8 MW of power from Plant Vogtle. The
FP&L displaced power for the conversion of the Sanford Plant and purchase of
power is 728 MW (7,200,154 bbl of oil) in this alternative because it was
determined that Sanford Units 4 and 5 would be the most suitable units in the
F?&L system to convert and that both of the 364 MW net capacity units would
probably be converted at the same time (Moehle 1981c). The existing Sanford
emissions (i.e., oil displaced emissions), the oil displaced emissions for the
remainder of the FP&L system, and the total FP&L oil displaced emissions are
presented in Table 4.2-12. These emissions represent the oil displaced emis-
sions for FP&L in Alternatives 2, 3 and 4. The total oil displaced emissions
for Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 for the JEA and FP&L systems are presented in
Table 4.2-13.
The net emissions for Alternative 1 are presented in Table 4.2-14. The
net emissions were calculated by subtracting the oil displaced emissions from
the Alternative 2 emissions.
Alternative 3
The oil displaced emissions for Alternative 3 are the same as those for
Alternative 2. Alternative 3 is the same as Alternative 2 for the FP&L system.
The JEA oil displacement would occur due to the construction of a 280 MW
coal-fired power plant and the purchase of 270 MW of power from Plant Vogtle.
The net emissions for Alternative 3 were calculated by subtracting the oil
displaced emissions from the Alternative 3 emissions. These are presented in
Table 4.2-15.
Alternative 4
Alternative -* is identical to Alternatives 2 and 3 for the FP&L system.
The JEA system oil displaced emissions would occur as a result of the coal
conversion of XGS Unit 3 and purchase of 319 MW of power from Plant Vogtle.
The .Alternative 4 net emissions are presented in Table 4.2-16.
+-20
-------
Table 4.2-10. Alternative 1 oil displaced emissions
for the JEA and FP&L systems* (tons/year).
Sulfur dioxide
Particulates
Nitrogen oxides
Carbon monoxide
Hydrocarbons
JEA
27,922
1,821
5,464
617
123
FP&L
25,001
1,686
11,994
571
114
TOTAL
52,923
3,507
17,458
1,188
237
*Based on 550 MW displacement from each system.
Table 4.2-11. Alternative 1 net emissions* by area (tons/year).
FP&L
Sulfur dioxide
Particulates
Nitrogen oxides
Carbon monoxide
Hydrocarbons
Hydrochloric acid
Jacksonville Sanford
+ 6,752
+ 225
+ 4,968
+12,100
+ 513
+ 1,493
(except Sanford)
-24,103
- 1,335
-10,917
+12,006
+ 425
+ 1,548
Total
-17,351
- 1,110
- 5,949
+24,106
+ 938
+ 3,041
*Net emissions equal the Alternative 1 emissions minus the oil displaced
emissions.
**Distributed throughout the FP&L system
4-21
-------
Table 4.2-12. Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 FP&L oil displaced
emissions.
Pollutant
Sulfur Dioxide
Particulates
Nitrogen Oxides
Carbon Monoxide
Hydrocarbons
Sanf ord
33,393a
386b
10,419°
496d
99e
FP&L (except Sanf ord)
10,449f
7678
5,458°
26 Od
52e
FP&L (total)
43,842
1,153
15,877
756
151
Based on Sanford SIP limit of 2.75 Ibs S02/MMBtu (2.5% S).
Based on SIP limit of 0.1 Ibs MMBtu.
CBased on AP-42 estimate of 105 lbs/1000 gal (0.7113 Ibs/MMBtu).
Based on AP-42 estimate of 5 lbs/1000 gal (0.034 Ibs/MMBtu).
eBased on AP-42 estimate of 1 lb/1000 gal (0.0068 Ibs/MMBtu).
g
Based on 1980 average Sanford oil sulfur content of 2.13%.
Based on AP-42 estimate of 10 (S) + 3 = 24.3 lbs/1000 gal uncontrolled
emissions, and mechanical collectors at 84% efficiency, or 0.263 Ibs/MMBtu.
t-22
-------
Table 4.2-13. Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 oil displaced emissions
for JEA, Sanford, and FP&L (tons/year).
I
ho
JEA Sanford
Sulfur dioxide 27,922 33,393
Particulates
Nitrogen oxides
Carbon monoxide
Hydrocarbons
Table 4.2-14.
Jacksonville
1,821 386
5,464 10,419
617 496
123 99
Alternative 2 net
Sanford
FP&L
(except Sanford) FP&L
10,449 43,842
767 1,153
5,458 15,877
260 756
52 151
emissions* by area (tons/year) .
FP&L (except Sanford)
NSPS SIP (NSPS and SIP)
Sulfur dioxide -27,922
Particulates - 1,821
Nitrogen oxides - 5,464
Carbon monoxide - 617
Hydrocarbons - 123
-21,340 +21
+ 217 + 1
+1,634 +4
+ 341
+ 152 +
,850 -10,449
,623 - 767
,647 - 5,458
341 - 260
152 - 52
Total
(JEA & FP&L)
71,764
2,974
21,341
1,373
274
Total
NSPS SIP
-59,711 -16
- 2,371 -
- 9,288 - 6
536 -
23 -
,521
965
,275
536
23
*Net emissions equal the Alternative 2 emissions minus the oil displaced emissions.
-------
Table 4.2--15. Alternative 3 net emissions* by area (tons/year).
ho
-p-
Sulfur dioxide
Particulates
Nitrogen oxides
Carbon monoxide
Hydrocarbons
Jacksonville
-20,634
- 1,534
+ 290
138
118
Sanford FP&L (except Sanford) Total
NSPS
-21,340
+ 217
+ 1,634
+ 341
+ 152
SIP
+21,850
+ 1,623
+ 4,647
+ 341
+ 152
(NSPS and SIP)
-10,449
767
- 5,458
260
52
NSPS
-52,423
- 2,084
- 3,534
57
18
SIP
- 9,233
678
521
57
18
*Net emissions equal the Alternative 3 emissions minus the oil displaced emissions.
-------
Table A.2-16. Alternative 4 net emissions* by area (tons/year).
Jacksonville
Sulfur dioxide
Particulates
Nitrogen oxides
Carbon monoxide
Hydrocarbons
NSPS
-23;340
- 1,592
882
298
28
SIP
-12,802
- 1,057
+ 263
298
28
Sanford FP&L (except Sanford) Total
NSPS
-21,340
+ 217
+ 1,634
+ 341
+ 152
SIP
+21,850
+ 1,623
+ 4,647
+ 341
+ 152
(NSPS and SIP)
-10,449
767
- 5,458
260
52
NSPS
-55,129
- 2,142
- 4,706
217
+ 72
SIP
- 1,401
201
548
217
+ 72
*Net emissions equal the Alternative 4 emissions minus the oil displaced emissions.
-------
4.2.3 Comparison of Impacts
The alternative impacts are analyzed by comparing the net emissions for
the alternatives. Table 4.2-17 presents a summary for the four area scenarios
for all alternatives. Negative numbers in Table 4.2-17 indicate a net area
decrease in air emissions for the alternative while positive numbers indicate
a net increase in area emissions due to the alternative implementation. The
preferred alternatives from an air quality standpoint can be determined from
Table 4.2-17 by comparing the emissions by scenario and alternative by pollutant
The relative order of the alternatives by pollutant, based on the magnitude
and direction of change of net emissions under each alternative, are presented
in Appendix K.
4.2.4 Conclusions
The alternative impacts presented consider only emissions. While emissions
are the primary concern for impact assessment, other factors such as meteoro-
logical conditions, operational characteristics, and the diversity of the
emission sources (such as the FP&L system) can have an effect on ground level
concentrations. For these reasons, the relative numbers projected in Table
4.2-17 should not be considered inflexible, but rather relative indicators of
the actual impacts which would occur for any alternative implementation. The
following discussion summarizes the relative impacts for each study area.
4.2.4.1 Jacksonville
Alternative 2 offers the greatest reduction in emissions for all pollu-
tants in the Jacksonville area with all emissions of criteria pollutants
decreasing. Emissions of all criteria pollutants will also decrease if Alter-
native 4 (NSPS) is implemented, although to a lesser extent than Alternative 2.
All other alternatives will result in a net increase of at least one of the
criteria pollutants and Alternative 1 will result in an increase in all of the
criteria pollutants as well as hydrochloric acid.
4.2.4.2 Sanford
The Sanford area will experience a significant decrease in S02 emissions
for Alternatives 2 (NSPS), 3 (NSPS), and 4 (NSPS). Emissions of S02 and all
other criteria pollutants will either remain the same as the existing condi-
tions or increase. The proposed project and Alternative 1 will result in no
net change in the current levels of emissions in the Sanford area while
Alternatives 2 (SIP), 3 (SIP), and 4 (SIP) will result in an increase in all
criteria pollutant emissions.
4.2.4.3 FP&L Except Sanford
All alternatives except Alternative 1 will result in a net decrease in
emissions in the FP&L system (except Sanford). The proposed project will
result in the largest decrease and Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 will have equal
decreases but somewhat less than the proposed project. Alternative 1 will
result in decreases in S02, TSP, and NOx emissions and increases in CO and HC
emissions.
4-26
-------
Table 4.2-17. Net air emissions (tons/year) by area
for the proposed project (SJRPP) and alternatives.
Jacksonville
Sanford
I
NJ
Sulfur
Dioxide
Particulates
Nitrogen
Oxides
Carbon
Monoxide
Hydrocarbons
Hydrochloric
Acid
Sulfur
Dioxide
Particulates
Nitrogen
Oxides
Carbon
Monoxide
Hydrocarbons
Hydrochloric
Acid
i-H CM 1*1 -» sr
3 I I I I
•p u u u utn w PH
(DU 3 H P pel p Wl
on C C C C z C
O.T-, «l 91 V 01 I>
00 U U U U U
+ 708 + 6,752 -27,922 -20,634 -23,340 -12,802
- 693 + 225 - 1,821 - 1,534 - 1,592 - 1,057
+17,139 + 4,968 - 5.464 + 290 - 882 + 263
f 1,216 +12,100 - 617 - 138 - 298 - 298
105 + 513 - 123 - 118 - 28 - 28
1,493 -
FPSL (Except Sanford)
•-H CM CO -*
I I I I
•a u *j u *j
a u p c P P
o ai G M G C
SO *J 4J *-» *-»
0- £ 3 3 3 3
-25,001 -24.103 -10,449 -10,449 -10,449
- 1,686 - 1.335 - 767 - 767 - 767
-11,994 -10,917 - 5,458 - 5.458 - 5,458
571 +12.006 - 260 - 260 - 260
114 + 425 - 52 - 52 - 52
+1,548
^t CM M «i m 01 01 U « 01
> > > > > > >
-rl £ -H i-l -H -H -H
•rl U 4J1/1 *-* U in UpL, U(/l iJ PH
a u n) 4fu 0(L, «Oi 5 n g P- « M
3 u p p w PM acn Pco p 10 pen
not C bias MM C S5 >- t% ft 35 U
S. -r-> 3 V 4) « V U 0)
|£33 3 3 333
-21,340 +21,850 -21,340 +21,850 -21,340 +21.850
+ 217 + 1,623 + 217 + 1,623 + " 217 + 1,623
- + 1,634 + 4,647 + 1,634 + 4,647 + 1,634 + 4,647
+ 341 + 341 +341 + 341 + 341 + 341
+ 152 + 152 + 152 + 152 + 152 + 152
Total
t-t CM CM CO fl -» -T
> > > > ? S >
13 u u u) up* utn up* *Jc/] up*
Olu ig qpu taM •&. AM qp* QM
GOU o dm ceo cv) cca ctn ct^
Ov V4 U55 ^ USE U hK u
O-T-iOl Q) ft) Q U 9 «
K°rj -j H .-} J H -j
PHf».
-------
4.2.4.4 JEA and FP&L Total
Alternative 2 (NSPS) will result in the greatest decrease in all emis-
sions when both the JEA and FP&L systems are considered. Alternatives 2 and 3
(both NSPS and SIP) will result in a decrease in emissions of all criteria
pollutants. Alternative 4 will cause a net decrease in all pollutants except
hydrocarbons. The proposed project will cause an increase in NOx and CO
emissions while Alternative 1 will cause an increase in CO, HC, and HC1.
4.3 SURFACE WATER RESOURCES
The potential impacts of the proposed project (SJRPP), the No Action
Alternative, and the four additional alternatives on surface water resources
are summarized in this section. For further information refer to Appendix L.
4.3.1 Construction-Related Impacts
This section summarizes the potential construction-related impacts that
could result from the proposed project (SJRPP) and the four alternatives. The
potential effects of surface runoff, wastewater, and dredging activities
during construction on surface water resources are described. No change from
existing conditions is expected under the No Action Alternative and therefore
no further discussion of this alternative is provided.
4.3.1.1 Proposed Project (SJRPP)
SJRPP Plant Site
Approximately 300 acres of land within the railroad loop will be cleared
and grubbed. Approximately 10 acres within this area will be paved (construc-
tion, buildings, roads, etc.). The total site runoff is expected to be about
61 acre-feet, based on the 10-year, 24-hour design storm of 7.6 inches.
During construction, temporary sedimentation ponds will be located south-
east of the railroad loop and within the area enclosed by the loop. All
runoff waters generated within the general boundaries of the rail loop during
construction will be directed to these ponds. Effluent from the ponds will be
directed to the main construction sediment control pond where the effluent
will be discharged (NPDES 002) to a borrow pit connected to Browns Creek.
This runoff is expected to contain little chemical contamination, but will
contain suspended solids from soil erosion as well as BOD and nutrients from
runoff and the sanitary wastewater treatment facility. JEA has projected the
total suspended solids concentration in the pond effluent to be 50 mg/1 on an
average daily basis with a maximum of 100 mg/1. However, because Browns Creek
is a small, tidally flushed stream with high biological sensitivity, a higher
degree of sediment control would be necessary to prevent degradation of water
quality and impacts of increased sedimentation on benthic invertebrates. The
runoff sediment control pond will be designed with sloping embankments, thus
allowing growth of vegetation along the edges of the pond and facilitating
biological uptake of nutrients and metals which may be contained in runoff
entering the pond (JEA/FP&L 1981b) .
-------
SJRPP - Sanitary Wastes
During plant construction, the peak manpower is expected to be approxi-
mately 2,300 people. Of this number, approximately 650 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 remain-
der of the work force is expected to use temporary and permanent toilet facil-
ities. Wastewater from these facilities will be treated in two 15,000 gpd
extended aeration type package plants. These plants are designed to achieve
90% to 95% removal of BOD and suspended solids while minimizing biological
sludge production. Effluent quality from the plant (s) is expected to be as
follows (JEA/FP&L 1981b):
Total Suspended Solids 20 mg/1
BOD5 20 mg/1
Oil and Grease 10 mg/1
Nitrogen as N 40 mg/1
Phosphorus as P 10 mg/1
During construction, the effluent from the sanitary waste treatment
facility will be directed to the runoff sediment control pond where it will be
discharged with the runoff to Browns Creek (NPDES 002). The effluent from the
sanitary wastewater treatment facility would be highly diluted in the sediment
pond and would constitute only a small portion (6%) of the total discharge on
an annual average. However, during dry weather sanitary effluent could con-
stitute a greater portion of the total discharge and the concentration of
total residual chlorine (TRC) would be of concern. Measures should be taken
to minimize the concentration of TRC in the effluent to avoid toxic effects on
sensitive aquatic species in Browns Creek marsh. An effluent limitation of
0.01 mg/1 with no mixing zone has been recommended in the Draft NPDES Permit
(Appendix B). After Unit 1 is completed the sanitary effluent will be rerouted
to the NGS discharge channel. After construction is completed only one of the
two plants will be needed for the 375 operational employees and the other will
be retained as a stand-by unit.
SJRPP - Other Wastewaters
Approximately 20,000 gpd of wastewater are expected to be generated from
truck washing. Washout from trucks will be directed to a 2.2 million gallon
capacity sedimentation pond and then to the construction phase runoff sediment
control pond. Rainfall runoff from the equipment refueling areas will be
directed to the runoff sedimentation pond through oil-water separators de-
signed to handle the 10-year, 24-hour storm.
Pre-operational boiler and condensate system cleaning wastes will be
treated on-site after neutralization in the metal cleaning waste retention
basin. The waste cleaning solutions, flush waters, and associated debris will
be piped to the retention basin for the neutralization and precipitation of
iron oxides. The supernatant will then be treated in the wastewater treatment
facility for solids removal and final pH adjustment. It is anticipated that
the effluent will be discharged to the St. Johns River via the NGS discharge
channel, although the alternative of having a contractor dispose of the waste
will also be considered (JEA/FP&L 1981b).
4-29
-------
Blount Island Coal Unloading Facility - Area Runoff
During construction, some suspended solids in non-point source runoff
will enter Fulton-Dame Point Cutoff. These materials will create localized
problems with turbidity, but will not adversely affect the water quality of
the Fulton-Dame Point Cutoff.
Blount Island Coal Unloading Facility - Dredging
Dredging will be performed in order to construct the dock for the coal
unloading facility. The dredging operation will result in an increase in
turbidity and in the levels of suspended solids in the water column.
Elutriate tests on the sediments of the Fulton-Dame Point Cutoff at the
site of the proposed coal unloading facility showed that levels of the follow-
ing pollutants were in excess of State water quality criteria for Class III
marine waters. (Mercury may not in fact exceed the Class II standard of
0.0001 mg/1 because the method of detection used in the elutriate test was
defined as being 0.0002 mg/1, which makes it appear that a violation would
occur):
Antimony
Cadmium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Oil and Grease
Silver
The JEA has applied to FDER for a variance from State water quality standards
outside of the maximum allowable mixing zone during dredging for aluminum,
cadmium, copper, cyanide, iron, lead, mercury and silver (JEA/FP&L 1981d).
Dredging may release varying amounts of these toxic materials and could be
detrimental to aquatic organisms. Any materials released, however, would be
rapidly removed from the water column by settling. No long-term changes in
the water quality of the St. Johns River are expected to occur as a result of
dredging. All dredged material will be disposed of in diked and weired upland
areas. No long-term changes in water quality from weir discharges are ex-
pected.
Transmission Lines
The construction of two 230 kV transmission lines from the proposed site
to the Normandy Substation and the Fort Caroline and Robinwood Substations
would have short-term impacts on water quality. Tower construction in the
Mill Cove mud flat areas east of the existing line would require draglining or
dredging to accommodate equipment use. A temporary increase in turbidity
would occur and as in the case of the Blount Island coal facility construction,
there would be some resuspension of pollutants in the sediment. Turbidity
screens would be used to minimize water quality degradation. Dredging equip-
ment would be brought into the area by barge via the existing channel (JEA/FP&L
1981a).
4-30
-------
Approximately 120 acres of land would have to be cleared in order to
accommodate the new transmission line. Six or more streams and channels would
be spanned by the transmission lines not including the crossing of the St.
Johns River. Culverts would be placed where necessary to avoid altering
streamflow characteristics during construction activities. Erosion of soil
during construction of the transmission lines would increase sedimentation and
degrade water quality at stream crossings. The use of construction equipment
compacts top soil and as a result, infiltration of rainfall is reduced and
surface runoff and erosion increase. Increased erosion is evidenced by rills
and gullies. The loss of top soil and soil compaction removes nutrients and
causes decreased soil productivity (JEA FP&L 1981a). However, construction
activities will occur on a relatively small portion of the transmission corridor
at any one time. Because the terrain is flat and the new ROW will follow the
existing ROW over most of its length, erosion and sedimentation from the
proposed project should be minor.
4.3.1.2 Construction-Related Impacts of the Alternatives
This section summarizes the potential impacts to surface waters under
Alternatives 1 through 4. The potential effects of construction-related
wastewater discharges, increased erosion and dredging are considered.
Alternative 1
The construction of the five refuse-fired power plants will generate
wastewater and area runoff with characteristics similar to those described for
the proposed project. Because these facilities will be smaller than the
SJRPP, the amount of wastewater generated will be less than for the construc-
tion of SJRPP.
Wastewater generated by the conversion of NGS Units 1 and 3 to a coal-oil
mixture will be processed in the plant's existing wastewater treatment plant
and discharged through percolation ponds. A slight increase in the mass of
pollutants entering near surface groundwaters will occur. Construction of 150
miles of transmission lines will require the removal of vegetation and the
denudation of soil. Increased soil erosion will occur along with increased
storm water runoff. Streams will experience increased sedimentation and
increased water temperatures, and some modifications to streambanks may occur
at the point where transmission lines cross the streams.
Alternative 2
Conversion of FP&L's Sanford Units 4 and 5 will require clearing of
vegetation; construction of temporary facilities including access roads,
shops, and storage sheds; and earthwork including excavation, grading, trench-
ing, and soil treatment. Most of these activities are associated with the
construction of the coal storage area and, in the case of NSPS, the FGD sludge
landfill.
These activities will increase soil erosion and storm water runoff.
Suspended sediments discharged to the St. Johns River at Sanford will contain
some heavy metals as well as oil and grease. Local increases in turbidity
near the point of discharge will occur, but lasting degradation of water
quality is not expected. Construction of 150 miles of transmission line will
4-31
-------
result in increased soil erosion and sedimentation at the point where trans-
mission lines cross streams. These effects will be of short duration, however
Alternative 3
The construction impacts associated with the conversion to coal of FP&L's
Sanford Units 4 and 5 are discussed under Alternative 2. Construction of a
280 MW coal-fired plant at the site of the proposed project would result in
the same types of impacts as would the proposed project. The magnitude of the
effects on surface water quality would be less because of the smaller area
involved. No dredging would occur in the Fulton-Dame Point Cutoff, eliminat-
ing any dredging-related water quality degradation. No construction activ-
ities would occur on Blount Island since a coal unloading facility would not
be required under this alternative.
Alternative 4
Under this alternative, the only construction-related impacts on the
surface water resource would be in association with the conversion to coal of
FP&L's Sanford Units 4 and 5 and the coal conversion of NGS Unit 3. Construc-
tion-related water quality impacts of this alternative would be similar to
those described for the Sanford Units under Alternative 2, except that in the
case of the NGS Unit 3 conversion the sedimentation and runoff of oil and
grease would occur in or adjacent to a much more senitive estuarine system.
4.3.2 Operation-Related Impacts
4.3.2.1 No Action
Under the No Action Alternative, no power plant would be built at the
proposed project site and no other action would be taken to bring power to
FP&L's or JEA's system. The other facilities of concern, JEA's NGS and FP&L's
Sanford Plant, would continue to operate as they do now. At the NGS, once-
through cooling water would continue to be withdrawn and discharged to the
St. Johns River. Wastewaters would continue to be discharged to percolation
ponds where they seep into the near surface water table. At the Sanford
Plant, cooling would continue by means of the closed cycle cooling lake.
Surface water quality in the St. Johns River would remain unchanged from
existing conditions. In the Blount Island Channel and the Fulton-Dame Point
Cutoff, ambient concentrations of the pollutants identified in Section 3.2.1
would continue at times to exceed the State water quality criteria for
Class III marine waters.
4.3.2.2 Proposed Project (SJRPP)
The two primary sources of water for the SJRPP plant will be surface
water from the St. Johns River and groundwater from the Floridan Aquifer. The
discharges from cooling tower blowdown and the wastewater treatment system
will be through the NGS discharge canal to the St. Johns River. Primary
concerns with respect to surface water quality are discharges of residual
chlorine, heat, copper, iron, mercury, cyanide, silver, oil and grease, and
aluminum.
4-32
-------
SJRP? - Cooling Tower Blowdown
The dilution flow from the existing NGS is a tnain factor in determining
the impact of the thermal discharge from the SJRPP- The discharge from the
proposed plant will be mixed with the NGS discharge water and diluted before
being discharged to the St. Johns River. Mathematical modeling was performed
to predict the average and extreme characteristics of the thermal plumes in
the St. Johns River. Under average conditions, the extent of the plume from
the combined discharge is predicted to be greater than that for the NGS alone
by 60 to 600 feet in length and 0.4 to 2.8 acres in area, with respect to the
2° F isotherm (JEA/FP&L 1981a). The extent of the thermal plume would increase
over baseline conditions during all months of the year. The modeling per-
formed for the SJRPP discharge was based on the assumptions that the SJRPP
discharged into the NGS surface water intake, flowed through the once-through
cooling system, and discharged to the St. Johns River. The revised wastewater
discharge plan calls for the SJRPP to discharge directly to the NGS discharge
canal. This design change will not alter the conclusions derived from the
modeling. The proposed plan is expected to be in compliance with present
regulatory requirements for thermal discharges from the NGS point of discharge
(POD) to the St. Johns River and the same mixing zone should be recognized for
the SJRPP plant as for the NGS.
The concentration of chemical and physical constituents in the cooling
tower blowdown from SJRPP will be directly proportional to those in the makeup
water. Individual chemical and physical characteristics of the blowdown were
calculated by multiplying the corresponding parameter in the makeup water by
the 1.5 or less cycles of concentration estimated for the cooling towers. The
only chemical additions to the towers will be chlorine to control biological
fouling and sulfuric acid to control scaling (JEA/FP&L 1981b). In accordance
with the Standards of Performance for New Source steam electric generating
stations (Table 4.3-1), concentrations of free available chlorine in the
blowdown will not exceed 0.2 mg/1 for more than two hours per day per cooling
tower prior to combination with other plant effluents. A chlorine minimiza-
tion study will be implemented soon after plant start-up to establish approp-
riate doses of chlorine. Sulfuric acid additions are expected to be on the
order of 25 to 50 mg/1 of feed water. An increase in sulfate concentrations
in the cooling tower blowdown is expected as a result of these additions
(JEA/FP&L 1981b).
It is proposed that the cooling tower blowdown be discharged directly to
the existing NGS discharge channel without being treated (JEA/FP&L 1981a).
Predicted cooling tower blowdown concentrations for the pollutants of concern
are presented in Table 4.3-2 along with predicted in-stream concentrations.
Concentrations of copper, cyanide, iron, mercury, and silver would exceed
State water quality criteria for Class III marine waters (JEA/FP&L 1981c).
The high levels of these pollutants are due to the high concentrations observed
in the St. Johns River coupled with the concentrating effects of the cooling
towers. Residual chlorine may also be discharged at levels which exceed water
quality criteria, but such discharges can occur at most for two hours daily
for each of the towers.
Because levels of total residual chlorine (TRC) in excess of State water
quality standards have been observed in the St. Johns River (JEA/FP&L L981c),
there is concern over the impacts of free available oxidants (FAO) and total
4-33
-------
Table 4.3-1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency standards of performance
of new sources: maximum allowable discharge concentrations by waste
source (milligrams per liter)3.
Waste
source
AH discharges
Low- volume
wa s t e s ' 8
Bot tom-ash-
transport
water' »*•
Fly-ash-
t rans port
water' ' l
Metal-cleaning
wastes and
boiler
blowdown^ ' 8
Cooling-tower
blowdown' > *
Main condenser
Coal-pi le
runoff"
Cons true t ion
runoff"
Effluent Characteristics
Zinc, chromium,
Free available phosphorus,
chlorine'' and other
Total suspended Chlori- corrosion
solids Oil & grease Allow. Copper, total Iron, total Max. nation inhibitors
Daily Daily Daily Daily pll Daily Daily Daily Daily instan- period Daily Daily
max.c avg." max. avg. range PCB max. avg. max. avg. taneous avg. max. avg. Heat
6.0-9.0 ND
100 30 20 15
100 30 20 15
NDJ NDJ NDJ NDJ
100 30 20 15 1 1 1 1
0.5 0.2 NDA1 NDA1
NDJ«m
50° 6.0-9.0
50J'° 6.0-9.0
Abbreviat ions :
PCB - polychlorinated biphenyl compounds.
ND = no discharge.
NDA =• no detectable amount.
Note: See footnotes at end of table.
-------
Table 4.3-1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency standards of performance
of new sources: maximum allowable discharge concentrations by waste
source (milligrams per liter)a (concluded).
"From Federal Register, Volume 3_9_, No. 196, October 8, 1974 (Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Part 423 (Promulgated)) and
Federal Register, Volume 45, No. 200, October 14, 1980 (Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Part 423 (Proposed)).
^Neither free available chlorine nor total residual chlorine may be discharged from any unit for more than 2 hours in any one day,
and not more than one unit in any plant may discharge free available or total residual chlorine at any one time unless the utility
can demonstrate to the Regional Administrator that the units in a particular location cannot operate at or below this level of
chlorination. (Note: The instantaneous maximum concentration of 0.14 milligram per liter of total residual chlorine (total
residual oxidants) is included in the October 14, 1980, proposal.)
cMaximuui 24-liour value.
"Average value for 30 consecutive days.
eMeasured in standard units.
The quantity of pollutants discharged shall not exceed the quantity determined by multiplying the flow from the waste source by
the concentration in the table.
^Include, but are not limited to, wastewaters from wet-scrubber air-pollution-control systems, ion-exchange water-treatment systems,
water-treatment-evaporator blowdown, laboratory and sampling streams, floor drainage, cooling-tower-basin-cleaning wastes, and blow-
down from house-service recircula ting-water systems. Boiler blowdown is included in the October 14, 1980, proposal.
"The quantity of pollutants discharged shall not exceed the quantity determined by multiplying the flow of bottom-ash-transport
water by the above concentrations and dividing the product by 20. The elimination of this requirement is included in the
4, October 14, 1980, proposal.
I "The dry-fly-ash-handling requirement (i.e., no discharge of copper, nickel, zinc, arsenic, and selenium) is included in the Octo-
ui ber 14, 1980, proposal .
limitations remanded and set aside by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit on July 16, 1976.
^Slowdown shall mean the minimum discharge of recirculating cooling water for the purpose of discharging materials contained in the
process, the further buildup of which would cause concentrations exceeding limits established by the best engineering practice.
'NO discharge of coo 1 ing-tower-maintenance chemicals that contain the 129 priority pollutants is included in the October 14, 1980,
proposa 1.
""There shall be no discharge of heat from the main condensers except for heat that may be discharged in blowdown from cooling-water-
recirculation systems, provided that the temperature at which the blowdown is discharged does not exceed at any time the lowest
temperature of recLrcula ted cooling water before the addition of the makeup water.
"Any untreated overflow from facilities constructed and operated to treat the volume of material-storage runoff and construction
runoff that results from a 10-year, 24-hour rainfall event shall not be subject to the pH and total-suspended-solids limitations
stipulated for this waste source.
°lnstantaneous maximum limits, not daily averages.
Note: In the event that waste streams from various sources are combined for treatment or discharge, the quantity of each pollutant
or pollutant property attributable to each controlled waste source shall not exceed the specified limitation for that waste source.
-------
Table 4.3-2. Chemical characteristics of the SJKP1* effluent for parameters
of concern (JEA/l'T&L 198lc).
i
LO
Parsneter Alualnua
(units) (-8/1)
Predicted Punp Su«p
Concentration 0.14
Cooling Tower Slowdown
Concentration (av. /•««.) 0.7/5.4
Discharge to River
Concentration'1 (av./»«x.) 0.5/4
Mixing Zone
Concentration0 (av./aiax.) d/3.66
Observed Anblont Con-
centration (av./nax.) 0.49/3.63
Water Quality Criterion 1.5
(not to exceed)
Observed Ambient X
Occurrence Above
Criterion 14.3
Copper Cyanide
O-B/1) (ug/D
1.0 0
0.1/0.41 14/134
0.072/0.34 10/99
0.071/0.283 d/91
0.069/0.275 10/90
0.015 5
99.4 36.8
Iron
(°B/D
1.0
1.2/4.0
0.83/3
d/2.73
0.8/2.7
0.3
97.7
Total
Oil and Residual
Mercury Crease Silver Chlorine
37.4 15 5.8 0
0.35/0.89 2.9/13.4 0.23/0.52 NA«
0.56/1.67 2.06/10.4 0.21/0.54 NA«
0.27/0.7 d/9.1 0.165/0.37 NA«
0.24/0.6 2/9 0.16/0.35 0.03/0.2
0.1 5 0.05 0.01
36 4.6 1.5 1.6
• Not available, will be b«low EPA standard (0.2 Bg/1 average, 0.5 ng/1 naxlDun free available chlorine)
b Point of dlacherge to St. Johns River through existing NGS submerged dlffuser
c Values are predicted at the boundary of a 31 acre nixing tone
d Value less than, or essentially equal to, observed average ambient concentration
-------
residual oxidants (TRO) (chlorine plus other oxidants formed by the reaction
of chlorine with other materials in salt water) on the water quality of the
River. In addition, the interaction of chlorine discharges from NGS Units 1,
2, and 3 and SJRPP Units 1 and 2 has not been established. The Draft NPDES
Permit will recommend that the concentration of TRO be limited to 0.2 mg/1 in
the blowdown, 0.1 mg/1 at the POD, and 0.01 mg/1 at the edge of the mixing
zone in Blount Island Channel. Other than the chlorine minimization study no
information has been presented to indicate how JEA intends to comply with
these limitations. The use of dechlorination, blowdown holdup and use of an
automatic, mechanical condenser biofouling control system may be considered.
SJRPP - Other Plant Effluent Streams
Wastewaters from SJRPP Units 1 and 2 will originate from a number of
sources other than the cooling towers. These include area runoff, coal handl-
ing, ash handling, metal cleaning, FGD blowdown, sanitary wastes, boiler
blowdown, and miscellaneous low volume wastes. Effluents from particular
operations will be reused where feasible, and when necessary they will be
treated prior to reuse. Effluents not suitable for reuse will be collected in
lined retention basins or sediment ponds and treated at the chemical waste-
water treatment facility as required to meet the Standards of Performance.
The chemical wastewater treatment facility (Section 2.2.7.2) will be capable
of providing treatment for metal cleaning wastes, area runoff, and small
volume process wastewaters. In addition, facilities will be provided for
sanitary wastewater treatment and removal of oil and grease. Chemical char-
acteristics of the effluent from the SJRPP wastewater treatment system are
difficult to predict since the coal and coal waste characteristics have not
been identified. The final effluent quality will depend on the type of coal
used, intensity and duration of rainfall, and operating characteristics of the
treatment process. Nevertheless, effluent concentrations have been estimated
on conservative values reported in the literature for waste streams resulting
from similar plant operations and average treatment levels achieved by similar
processes. These are presented as the combined concentration of all waste-
water effluents at the pump sump (Table 4.3-2):
The cooling tower blowdown and all normal operational wastewater treat-
ment system effluents will be combined as NPDES discharge #001 (JEA/FP&L
1981e) and discharged to the St. Johns River through the NGS discharge channel,
At the point of discharge to the St. Johns River, maximum and average concen-
trations are projected by the applicant to exceed Class III water quality
criteria for the following pollutants (JEA/FP&L 1981b) :
C op pe r
Cyanide
Iron
Mercury
Silver
Aluminum (maximum only)
Oil and grease (maximum only).
Total residual chlorine (TRC)
4-37
-------
Because the standards for these pollutants would be perodically exceeded even
under existing conditions, JEA has petitioned FDER for a variance from State
water quality criteria in the mixing zone of the Blount Island Channel
(JEA/FP&L 1981c).
In the event that a storm in excess of the 10-year, 24-hour magnitude
occurs such that runoff exceeds the capacity of the treatment system, the
excess will be discharged from the runoff sedimentation pond to Browns Creek.
This discharge point is near the discharge 002 (Construction Runoff Sediment
Control Pond Effluent) listed in the Draft NPDES permit.
SJRPP - Landfill Leachate
Solid wastes produced by the plant operation will include those generated
by the flue gas desulfurization (FGD) system (FGD sludge) and by the coal
combustion system (fly ash and bottom ash). Other solid wastes include re-
latively small volumes of sludges from the sedimentation ponds, retention
basin, cooling towers, and wastewater treatment facilities. Metal cleaning
waste sludges may be classified as hazardous depending on actual chemical
characteristics. Attempts will be made to market FGD sludge, fly ash, and
bottom ash, but if these attempts fail these wastes together with the other
solid wastes will be placed in the on-site landfill.
The landfill would be developed so that the base will be above the season-
al high.water table and so that the base material will have a permeability of
9 x 10~ cm/sec (JEA/FP&L 1981b). Rainfall infiltration will be reduced to
between 5 and 8 inches per year following closure of a typical 10-acre dis-
posal cell. This will result in the production of approximately 500 gallons
per day of leachate. While a cell is being actively filled, infiltration
rates and leachate production will be higher. The movement of groundwater in
the water table aquifer at the SJRPP site is downgradient towards Browns Creek
and Clapboard Creek. Due to the high permeability and low cation exchange
capacity of the sandy soils on the SJRPP site, there is a potential for leachate
that enters the water table aquifer to move downgradient towards the creeks
and adversely impact surface water quality.
Groundwater quality downgradient from a solid waste disposal area will be
dependent on the quality of the actual leachate. Table 4.3-3 presents the
median and maximum values of leachate constituents as reported in the litera-
ture (JEA/FP&L 1981a). If solid waste leachate at the site contains concen-
trations of constituents approaching the upper ends of ranges of reported
values, resultant groundwater quality may exceed State water quality standards
(JEA/FP&L 1981a). Estimated mass loadings of individual pollutants on Browns
Creek, which lies downgradient from the landfill cells, include approximately
2 to 5 pounds of arsenic, selenium, and zinc per year per acre of landfill.
Lesser amounts of copper, lead, mercury, nickel, silver, and antimony will
also leach into Browns Creek (Table 4.3-3). If 100 acres of the 551 acre
landfill contribute leachate to Browns Creek, then loadings of heavy metals on
Browns Creek would be 100 to 500 pounds per year. These estimates are based
solely on assumed leachate characteristics of typical FGD sludge. The load-
ings do not account for the leachate characteristics of unmarketed bottom ash
and fly ash and the low volume solid wastes which may be codisposed of on-site.
These factors plus the potential sale of some high volume solid waste could
change the leachate characteristics from the site and the subsequent loadings
to surface waters.
4-38
-------
Table 4.3-3. Assumed chemical characteristics of FGD blowdown raw wastewater
and FGD sludge leachate (JEA/FP&L 1^8la; JEA/FP&L 1981b).
Solid Waste Leachate
FGD Sludge Liquors (mg/1)
Mass Loading1
Parameter
Arsenic
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Copper
Iron
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Zinc
Aluminum
Antimony
Beryllium
Boron
Manganese
Chlorides
Sulfate
i\d.w wdiut: ^uui_euLi a. LXUII
FGD Slowdown (mg/1)
0.300
0.110
3,000
0.200
8.1
0.40
0.070
1.500
2.200
0.600
0.350
0.300
2.300
0.140
0.046
2.500
6,905
10,000
Median
0.020
0.023
700
0.02
0.015
0.026
0.12
0.001
0.110
0.046
0.17
2,300
2,100
Maximum
1.80
0.10
2,600
0.50
0.40
0.10
0.55
0.07
2.70
27.00
9.00
5,000
30,000
on crowns Cre
(Ibs/acre)
2.73
0.15
3,950
0.76
0.61
0.15
0.83
0.11
4.10
10.62
13.66
7,588
45,530
1
Estimated by WAPORA based on ilfiltration rate after cell closure and maximum leachate
concentrations.
*-39
-------
Blount Island Coal Unloading Facility
Wastewater generated at the Blount Island coal unloading facility will
consist of sanitary wastes, area drainage, and rainfall runoff. Sanitary
wastes will be pumped to the existing Jacksonville Port Authority sanitary
waste facility. Treatment will be provided for runoff volumes up to the
10-year, 24-hour rainfall event (JEA/FP&L 1981b).
Site drainage is expected to average 5 gallons per minute (gpm) with a
maximum of 50 gpm. Rainfall runoff from the lined coal piles on Blount Island
will average 100 gpm based on an area of 35 acres, an average rainfall of 54.5
inches, and a runoff coefficient of 1.0. The rainfall runoff and site drain-
age will be directed to a lined sediment pond located at the Blount Island
unloading site where it will be treated for pH adjustment, iron precipitation,
and suspended solids removal. After treatment, the effluent from the sedimenta-
tion pond will be discharged to the percolation pond. No application for an
NPDES Permit for an emergency discharge has been filed so it is assumed that
no discharge to surface waters from this facility will occur under any circum-
stances.
Groundwater quality will be degraded by the water which infiltrates
through the bottom and sides of the percolation pond. The quality of the
leachate will be related to the kind and quantity of soluble minerals in the
coal. The runoff collected in the percolation pond will enter the existing
near-surface soils on the Island and will migrate to the Fulton-Dame Point
Cutoff.
Since a specific project coal source has not been selected, published
coal pile runoff quality data for Appalachian coal (USEPA 1978) were used to
calculate loadings on the wastewater treatment system, the percolation pond,
and the St. Johns River (Table 4.3-4).
Table 4.3-4. Coal pile runoff quality and estimated loadings on the
wastewater treatment system, on the percolation pond, and on
the St. Johns River (USEPA 1978).
Loadings (Ibs/yr)
Parameter
Arsenic
Copper
Iron
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
Assumes 80%
Runoff Concentration
(mg/1)
23.0
0.02
3.1
0.05
0.0005
0.06
23.8
0.8
removal of pollutants in
Wastewater Percolation
Treatment System
2,996.2
2.68
405.2
6.50
0.065
7.82
3,100.4 2,
104.3
treatment system excep
Pond
599.2
0.54
81.0
1.30
0.013
1.56
480.3
20.9
St. Johns
River
539.3
0.48
72.9
1.17
0.012
1.41
2,232.3
18.8
t for selenium
which is assumed to be removed only to a
Assumes 90% of pollutants delivered to the groundwater from the percolation pond
reaches the St. Johns River.
4-40
-------
Pollutants seeping into the St. Johns River from the Blount Island coal
unloading facility would contribute to periodic violations of Class III water
quality standards for copper, iron and mercury. For these parameters, no
degree of mixing would achieve compliance with the standards. Normally,
however, the leachates would be diluted rapidly to the ambient river concen-
trations in the Fulton-Dame Point Cutoff. Loadings of selenium, zinc, and
arsenic may degrade the River in the vicinity of the unloading facility.
4.3.2.3- Operation-Related Impacts of the Alternatives
This section summarizes the potential impacts to surface waters during
the operation phase of Alternatives 1 through 4. As indicated in Section 2.6,
the implementation of these alternatives would displace oil-fired generation
of electrical power in both the JEA and FP&L systems. The displacement of
generation also displaces the consumption of water and generation of pollu-
tants by those facilities. Because this displacement would occur throughout
the respective systems, it cannot be ascribed to one particular site. However,
it may be associated with an area. For comparison purposes, the net effect of
each alternative including the proposed project on the generation of waste-
water pollutants of concern has been identified for the major areas impacted
by the alternatives (Section 4.3.2.4. Table 4.3-5), the Jacksonville area, the
Sanford area, and other dispersed portions of the FP&L service area. The
total net effect of each alternative for Florida as a whole is also shown.
Alternative 1
The five refuse plants would use surface water for cooling and at four of
the sites it is assumed that surface water would also be used as makeup to the
other plant operations. Discharges from the wastewater treatment systems of
the five plants are assumed to be at approximately the same concentrations as
those predicted for SJRPP. Cooling tower blowdown quality is assumed to be
approximately the same as that for SJRPP for the pollutants of concern.
Because the refuse plants would generate only 114.5 MW compared with SJRPP's
1,100 MW, annual wastewater discharge volumes, heat discharges, and pollutant
loadings to receiving surface waters would be proportionally lower than at
SJRPP (see Table 2.6-3) .
Conversion of the NGS Units 1 and 3 from oil to a coal-oil mixture (COM)
would result in a loss of 79 MW in the generating capacity at NGS. Consequent-
ly, a decrease from existing conditions in the heat discharge and total resid-
ual chlorine discharge would occur. With COM, a bottom ash blowdown would be
required to prevent the buildup of solids. Because the blowdown would be
treated and discharged to the St. Johns River, additional loadings of the
pollutants of concern on the River would be realized. Because the NGS is
derated, other operation wastewaters would decrease in volume (Appendix CC).
However, these wastewaters would continue to be discharged to the environment
by way of the existing NGS percolation ponds. The quantity of water which
seeps to the surface waters via the near surface groundwater system would
decrease if COM conversion occurred at NGS. The change in water quality in
the St. Johns River and in local tributaries as a result of the decrease in
percolation would be imperceptible.
+-41
-------
No direct impacts on surface water resources are expected as the result
of the installation of residential solar water heaters.
Alternative 2
In converting FP&L's Sanford Units 4 and 5 from oil to coal, increases in
discharges to surface waters would occur from bottom ash handling and metal
cleaning operations and coal pile runoff (see Table 2.6-5). An increase in
discharges from sanitary facilities and decreases in discharges from demin-
eralizers and boiler blowdown would also occur, but these changes would not be
great. The cooling system for Sanford Units 4 and 5 is an artificial cooling
lake with no discharge to the St. Johns River except during emergency con-
ditions. To date no discharges from the pond to the River have been observed.
Under the SIP option 90.2 acres of land would be required for disposal of
bottom ash and fly ash. For the NSPS option 194.6 acres of land would be
required for disposal of bottom ash, fly ash, and FGD sludge. It is assumed
that any landfill areas on the site would be lined with an impermeable liner.
Therefore, no impacts on surface water resources due to leachate would be
expected.
Operation and maintenance of an additional 150 miles of transmission
lines would have only a minimal effect on surface water resources due to the
runoff of sediment from maintenance roads at stream or lake crossings during
storm events. Water consumption and pollutant generation would also be dis-
placed at oil-fired plants throughout the JEA and FP&L systems. The net
effect of Alternative 2 on pollutant generation in the JEA and FP&L systems is
shown in Table 4.3-5.
Alternative 3
The surface water impacts of the conversion of FP&L's Sanford Units 4 and
5 to coal are discussed under Alternative 2. Power purchased from Georgia
Power Company's Vogtle Power Plant would be transmitted over existing trans-
mission lines; therefore, no water quality impacts would be observed. How-
ever, water consumption and pollutant generation would be reduced at power
plants in the JEA and FP&L systems where oil-fired power was being displaced.
Construction of a 280 MW coal-fired power plant at the same site as the
proposed project would result in discharges from cooling tower blowdown and
from the several plant operations which would be discharged through wastewater
treatment facilities similar to those proposed for the SJRPP but of reduced
size. Discharges would be reduced from the proposed SJRPP discharges in
proportion to the reduction in generating capacity between the 280 MW power
plant and the net 1,100 MW SJRPP (see Table 2.6-7). Pollutant loadings to the
St. Johns River would be similarly reduced. Because the discharge would still
be to the River by way of the NGS discharge channel, no change from the NGS-
permitted mixing zone would be required. The average concentration of pollu-
tants of concern in the discharge would be above the standards for Class III
waters and the maximum concentrations would exceed the ambient concentrations
of these pollutants in the St. Johns River as well. Because ambient concen-
trations in the River already exceed Class III standards, the discharge would
be expected to further degrade the water quality of Blount Island Channel but
to a lesser extent than SJRPP. It is assumed that all solid waste landfill
4-42
-------
areas would be lined with an impermeable material so that no impacts on sur-
face water due to leachate are anticipated. The net effect of Alternative 3
on pollutant generation in the JEA and FP&L service areas is indicated in
Table 4.3-5.
Alternative 4
The surface water impacts of the conversion of FP&L's Sanford Units'4 and
5 to coal would be the same as those discussed under Alternative 2. No ad-
ditional transmission lines would be required for this alternative and no
additional right-of-way runoff effects would be expected. Also, water consump-
tion and pollutant discharges would be reduced at power plants in both systems
at which oil-fired generation is being displaced.
Converting JEA's NGS Unit 3 to coal would result in a loss in electrical
generating capacity of 247 MW. The derating of the plant would result in a
decrease in cooling water requirements and a decrease in wastewater generated
from demineralizers and boiler blowdown (see Table 2.6-9 and Appendix CC).
Additional wastewaters would be produced from coal pile runoff, metal cleaning,
and ash handling. If NSPS are imposed, additional wastewater would also be
produced by the FGD system. No leachate from the solid waste landfill would
seep into Browns Creek because all of these areas would be lined with an
impermeable material.
The decreased cooling water requirements due to derating would result in
a decrease in the discharges to the St. Johns River of heat and residual
chlorine. Also, wastewaters from the demineralizers would decrease by 20%
while metal cleaning wastewaters would increase slightly. Boiler blowdown
volume would be reduced by 20% and would be recycled for bottom ash handling
before being discharged to the percolation pond. The overall reduction in
flow to the percolation ponds would result in a decreased seepage of pollut-
ants to the surface waters. The actual decrease in pollutant flux cannot be
quantified.
Under the NGS coal conversion option, increased pollutant loadings would
enter the St. Johns River from FGD wastewaters and coal pile runoff. Both of
these sources of wastewater are assumed to discharge to the St. Johns River
after being treated. These discharges would degrade the waters of the St. Johns
River from the existing conditions. The net effect of Alternative 4 including
oil displaced discharges on wastewater pollutant generation in the JEA and
FP&L service areas is indicated on Table 4.3-5.
4.3.2.4 Comparison of Impacts
In order to compare the relative impacts of the various alternatives and
the proposed project, a pollutant generation analysis was performed. It was
assumed that the additional generating capacity provided by power purchases
and modified or new power systems would reduce the operation time of oil-fired
plants in the JEA and FP&L systems. In the JEA and FP&L systems all oil-fired
plants are assumed to use once-through cooling water systems and to discharge
wastewaters to percolation ponds as at NGS. Reduced operations would decrease
wastewater discharges to the percolation ponds and reduce the discharge of
heat and chlorine through the once-through cooling water. The pollutant loads
delivered to the surface waters by seepage from the percolation ponds are not
4-43
-------
quantified in the analysis of pollutant loadings on surface waters in Jackson-
ville, Sanford, and the FP&L system outside Sanford.
The proposed project and the small 280 MW coal-fired plant were assumed
to discharge all treated wastes and cooling tower blowdown to the St. Johns
River. Under the conversion of the Sanford plant to coal, cooling water was
assumed to be circulated through a cooling pond with no discharge to other
surface waters. Additional wastes from coal pile runoff, metal cleaning
operations, and bottom ash handling were assumed to be treated to the same
effluent concentration as the treated waste from the proposed project and then
discharged to the St. Johns River. Because the FGD system for the NSPS case
of Sanford coal conversion would not produce a commercial grade gypsum, it can
be operated without a wastewater discharge. This FGD system was selected
because there is no nearby market for gypsum at Sanford. There is a potential
market in Jacksonville, however.
In order to compare the proposed project with the No Action Alternative
and Alternatives 1 through 4, eight parameters were selected for analysis.
Chlorine and heat were selected because they are the primary pollutants associat-
ed with cooling tower discharges. The six other parameters (oil and grease,
copper, iron, mercury, aluminum, and silver) were selected because concentra-
tions of these pollutants occasionally exceed State standards in the St. Johns
Rive r.
The results of this analysis are presented in Table 4.3-5. The No Action
Alternative has no associated changes in pollutant mass loadings. The fol-
lowing discussion focuses on pollutant mass loadings in Jacksonville, Sanford,
the FP&L service area outside Sanford, and the total loading changes for the
FP&L and JEA service areas.
Jacksonville
The proposed project and the four alternatives would result in a decrease
in chlorine and heat discharges. Alternative 1 would reduce thermal dis-
charges the most. The difference in chlorine discharges between the proposed
project and Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 would not be significant, and all are
considered equally successful in decreasing chlorine discharges. The proposed
project would result in the greatest increase in the discharge of the remain-
ing pollutants while Alternatives 1 and 2 would cause the smallest increases
in pollutant loads. Overall, Alternative 2 would be the most beneficial and
Alternative 1 would be the second most beneficial option with respect to
surface water concerns for Jacksonville.
Sanford
The proposed project and Alternative 1 would result in no changes in
water quality at Sanford. Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 would increase pollutant
loadings and therefore decrease water quality at Sanford.
FP&L Except Sanford
Alternative 1 is the only alternative that would affect surface water
quality in the FP&L service area outside of Sanford. Based on the assumptions
of the analysis, this alternative could result in a net decrease in chlorine
4-44
-------
TaMu 4.3-'). Ncl change- I" ruin existing conditions of annual pollutant loadings to die Hurfaru waters of
J.-icksnuvl I If, S.mford, .ind peninsular Florida for the proposed project and ul cern.il lues.
.l.ii -ksonvi 1 I'' Sanford
u
o -o
4J W U
u o 01 — • «•* <"> -»
< 0. --I
O O u *-" *-* ^
o >-» ^ »-i r] "j -j
Z P- &. 0 0 + 1.6 0 0 0
A 1 um I n ura
(Ib/yr) 0 0 + 6.0 0 0 0 "'"NSPS
Silver • 2
(Ib/yr t O O -t 0.2 O O O SIP
5 -a
u U! U
o on-1
•< o. ••->
Op u
O M t< --J
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
a
o -o
-H 01 U
u
-------
and heat discharges and a net increase in discharges of other pollutants.
Overall, Alternative 1 appears to be the preferred alternative for this study
area because of the substantial potential decrease in chlorine discharges.
JEA/FP&L Total Systems
For Florida as a whole, Alternative 1 would be most beneficial since it
results in the greatest reduction in heat and chlorine discharges and the
smallest increase in discharges of the pollutants of concern. The proposed
project would increase most pollutant loads significantly. Only chlorine and
heat discharges would be reduced.
4.4 GROUNDWATER IMPACTS
4.4.1 Construction-Related Impacts
Construction impacts on groundwater resources are associated with de-
watering for deep excavations and discharges to the shallow aquifer system in
the form of leachate from sediment and waste disposal ponds. The construction
impacts of the proposed SJRPP and the alternatives are evaluated on the basis
of the need for excavation dewatering and the potential for leachate from
treatment ponds. A summary of the types of construction activities which
would occur under the proposed project and the alternatives that could poten-
tially impact groundwater resources is presented in Table 4.4-1.
4.4.1.1 Proposed Action (SJRPP)
The primary impact of construction on groundwater resources occurs during
dewatering for excavations of foundations and structures. Construction of the
SJEPP will require excavation of a coal and limestone unloader pit with sur-
face dimensions of 400 feet by 400 feet, basal dimensions of 80 feet by 80
feet, and a depth of 70 feet (JEA/FP&L 1981a). This excavation will penetrate
the full thickness of the water table aquifer and intermediate sands, and the
uppermost portions of the shallow rock aquifer. This activity could require
groundwater pumping of up to 1,000 gallons per minute (gpm) for a period of up
to one year and could draw down water levels in the plant area. The extent of
drawdown of the shallow aquifer during construction will be limited to the
immediate vicinity of the plant by the use of groundwater control measures
such as sheet pilings, slurry walls, grout curtains, dewatering wells con-
structed on benches within the excavations, or other methods (JEA/FP&L 1981a).
Groundwater movement and quality during construction will be monitored at
observation wells on-site to detect drawdown and/or contamination.
Other excavation activities limited to depths of 20 or 30 feet will
require dewatering of the shallow water table aquifer for periods of less than
one year in duration. This dewatering will drawdown the water table aquifer
in the vicinity of the SJRPP but the extent of drawdown is expected to be
limited by the low hydraulic conductivity of the aquifer. Drawdown due to
shallow excavation will not affect any wells in the area since there are no
wells completed "in the water table aquifer in the vicinity of the SJRPP.
Dewatering activities are not expected to affect the Floridan Aquifer due
to its depth and separation from the shallow aquifer system by the Hawthorne
Formation. No Floridan Aquifer recharge areas are located on the SJRPP site
and therefore will not be affected.
4-46
-------
Table 4.4-1 Construction dewatering and treatment pond
requirements of the proposed project and the alternatives,
Requires
Dewatering
of
Large Deep
Excavation
Requires
Dewatering
of Shallow
Foundation
No
Dewatering
Required
Constructicj
Runoff/Wastt
Pond
SJRPP xx - x
No Action - x -
Alternative 1
Solar Water Heaters - x -
Municipal Refuse-Fired Plants - x - x
COM (NGS, Unit 3) - x - x
Purchased Power - Rights-of-Way - x - -
Alternative 2
Purchase Power - Rights-of-Way x -
Sanford Conversion x x - x
Alternative 3
Purchase Power - Rights-of-way x -
Sanford Conversion to Coal x x - x
Build New 280 MW Coal-fired
Power Plant - x - x
Alternative 4
Purchase Power - Rights-of-Way x - -
Sanford Conversion x x - x
Northside Coal Conversion - x - x
4-47
-------
During the construction of SJRPP approximately 300 acres of Land within
the railroad loop will be cleared. Temporary sedimentation ponds will be
located southeast of the railroad loop and within the area enclosed by the
loop (JEA/FP&L 1981b). These ponds will control site runoff, suspended sedi-
ment, washout from the washing of concrete trucks, effluent from oil-water
separators serving the refueling areas, treated effluent from the sanitary
waste treatment facility, flushwater, and associated debris (JEA/FP&L 1981a).
At present the utilities do not propose to line the construction phase sedi-
mentation ponds. Therefore, these ponds are a potential source of groundwater
contamination. Although the projected quality of leachate or effluent from
these ponds has not been determined, they are expected to treat mostly (90%)
uncontaminated site runoff and should be relatively clean. Therefore, the
effect of leachate from the construction sediment ponds is not anticipated to
be a major concern.
4.4.1.2 Alternative 1
No deep excavations would be associated with any of the facilities pro-
posed in Alternative 1. Municipal refuse-fired plants are designed with a
tipping floor truck unloading system, but this is expected to require a relative-
ly shallow excavation (20 to 30 feet). Relatively shallow excavations would
be required for new facilities associated with the NGS COM conversion. If
deep borings are required for construction of powerline towers, dewatering
would be of short duration and would affect a small area.
4.4.1.3 Alternative 2
This alternative requires the construction of transmission line towers
for the purchase of power as previously discussed and the conversion of Sanford
Units 4 and 5 to coal. The Sanford conversion may require a deep excavation
for a coal and limestone unloader pit. Since these units would be rated at
655.2 MW after conversion, it is assumed that the unloader pit will be a deep
excavation approximately one-half the size of the SJRPP's and that construc-
tion and dewatering will require less time than expected for the SJRPP pit
construction. The impact on groundwater resulting from dewatering could be
further reduced by the use of grout curtains, sheet pilings, and slurry walls.
For the Sanford coal conversion it is assumed that construction phase sediment
ponds would be lined with an impermeable liner, thereby eliminating the possi-
bility of leachate contamination of the groundwater.
4.4.1.4 Alternative 3
This alternative also requires construction of rights-of-way for the
purchase of power and the conversion of Sanford Units 4 and 5 to coal. Impacts
resulting from these activities are the same as those discussed in the preced-
ing sections. The construction of a new 280 MW coal-fired plant by JEA will
require a coal and limestone unloader pit of a size assumed to be one-fourth
that of the SJRPP pit. This pit is assumed to be relatively shallow. Other
excavations for this plant are expected to be shallow and would require no
dewatering of the shallow rock aquifer. Assuming the use of appropriate
dewatering controls and a lined sediment pond, groundwater should not be
adversely affected by construction of this unit.
4-48
-------
4.4.1.5 Alternative 4
This alternative requires the construction of rights-of-way for purchased
power and the conversion of Sanford Units 4 and 5 to coal with resultant
impacts as discussed for the preceding alternatives. The conversion of NGS
Unit 3 to coal will require a coal and limestone unloader pit one-fourth the
size of the SJRPP"s. This is assumed to be a shallow excavation requiring no
dewatering of the shallow rock aquifer.
4.4.1.6 Comparison of Impacts
Since the SJRPP would require the largest construction effort including
deep excavation and an unlined treatment pond, it has a greater potential for
impact on groundwater resources than the alternatives. Alternatives 2, 3, and
4 involve the conversion of existing oil-fired plants and will also require
dewatering for unloading pits. The dewatering will be less extensive than
that required for the SJRPP, however. Some shallow foundation excavation
dewatering may be required at the alternative construction sites, although the
dewatering volume is assumed to be relatively small compared to the SJRPP.
Overall, Alternative 4 has a greater potential for construction impacts on
groundwater resources than the other alternatives because of the two coal
convers ions involved.
4.4.2 Operation-Related Impacts
Impacts on groundwater during the operation of the SJRPP could occur as a
result of withdrawals from aquifers and discharges to aquifers. Withdrawal of
large quantities of water from the Floridan Aquifer potentially could draw
down the level of the Aquifer and affect the yield and quality of other nearby
wells. However, the St. Johns River Water Management District believes that
the project will probably not cause severe drawdowns or loss of artesian flow
in surrounding wells. Also, discharges to aquifers from landfills and waste
pond leachate could affect the quality of the shallow aquifer system. Pres-
ented in Table 4.4-2 is a summary of the net groundwater requirements of the
proposed project and the alternatives. The nature and relative extent of
potential impacts on groundwater from the SJRPP and the alternatives is
described in the following sections.
4.4.2.1 Proposed Action (SJRPP)
Withdrawals from Aquifers at SJRPP
Operation of the SJRPP would require a moderately large use of ground-
water to produce a marketable gypsum product from the FGD system. Other major
uses of groundwater at the SJRPP include potable water supply, fire protec-
tion, plant service water, and makeup to the boiler water demineralizer system.
The St. Johns River Water Management District has found these withdrawals
acceptable.
Groundwater will be supplied by four wells (A, B, C, and D) one of which
will be essentially a standby well and one (A) which will serve primarily as a
monitoring well. All wells will be drilled to approximately (-)750 feet so as
to penetrate the Ocala Limestone (Floridan Aquifer). Wells B, C, and D will
be completed with an 18-inch casing to accommodate pumps capable of producing
4-49
-------
Table 4.4-2. Comparison of the net change In operational groundwater
requirements (in gpm) of the proposed action and the alternatives.
No Action
SJRPP
Alternative 1
Solar Hot Water
Municipal Refuse
NGS COM Conversion
Purchased Power
Jacksonville
avg/max
0
+ 3,546/5,295
0
7
- 292
0
Sanford
0
0
0
0
0
0
Other
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
avg/max
0
0
7
- 292
0
Alternative 2
Sanford Coal
Purchased Power
Alternative 3
Sanford Coal
Purchased Power
280 MW Coal Plant
Alternative 4
Sanford Coal
Purchased Power
NGS Coal (SIP)
NGS Coal (NSPS)
0
0
0
0
902/1,377
0
0
- 205
+ 393
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
902/1,377
0
0
- 205
+ 393
4-50
-------
at least 1,800 gpm. The applicants may decide to utilize pumps with nominal
vields of greater than 1,800 gpm in order to reduce the daily pumping duration.
The operation of pumps will be controlled by the requirements of plant opera-
tions and maintenance of adequate water storage capacity. Two of the main
wells will operate continuously to meet the average demand of 3,546 gpm. The
third well would then be available to supply the instantaneous maximum demand
of 5,295 gpm (JEA/FP&L 1981b). The maximum demand pumpage will be required
for a period of no more than 24 hours. Although deep well A will be used
primarily to monitor drawdown, a 100 gpm pump will be installed for an emer-
gency standby groundwater supply source. Since only two wells are required
for average groundwater use, their operation will be alternated to provide
routine maintenance.
No SJRPP groundwater production wells have been planned for the shallow
aquifer system. However, monitoring wells will be utilized to detect any
contamination of the shallow aquifer that might occur.
Groundwater Drawdown At SJRPP
The effects of the average groundwater drawdown of the Floridan Aquifer
have been estimated assuming that two wells produce 1,800 gpm long enough to
establish a steady-state cone of depression (Vergara 1981). Using this approx-
imation of average pumping conditions, a drawdown of approximately 15 feet was
calculated at the nearest site boundary and 9 feet at the nearest off-site
well (Well D-1255, Figure 4.4-1). Under average pumping conditions, approxi-
mately 66 Floridan Aquifer wells could be affected by a drawdown of 2 to 4
foot and approximately 137 wells could experience a drawdown of 1 to 2 feet.
The 1 foot drawdown contour is approximately an 11,000 foot circle of radius
and the 2 foot drawdown contour is an 8,000 foot circle of radius centered at
the midpoint between wells B and D. Analysis of pumping at a non-steady state
rate of 5,400 gpm (the maximum expected rate) indicated a maximum drawdown of
25 feet at the site boundary and 14 feet at the nearest off-site well (Well
D-1255). Fifty off-site Floridan Aquifer wells would experience drawdowns of
1 foot and 31 could experience a drawdown of 2 feet. A one foot drawdown
would occur within a circle 14,000 feet in radius and a 2 foot drawdown would
occur within a circle 11,000 feet in radius from a point centered between
wells B and D (Figure 4.4-2). Impacts from pumping at this maximum rate would
be short-term (for a period of less than 24 hours).
Analysis of the most recent potentiometric surface maps (September 1980)
shows that artesian flow from the Floridan Aquifer occurs in the area at a
head of approximately 15 to 20 feet above land surface. Thus, with an average
case drawdown of 9 feet at the nearest well, it would appear that no wells in
the area would lose artesian flow solely as a result of average pumpage for
the proposed plant. It is recognized that the rates of discharge will decrease
thus causing pumped wells to operate longer to produce a given quantity of
water. For those users currently utilizing artesian wells the flow could be
substantially reduced, possibly necessitating the use of pumps to deliver the
same quantity of water.
Under maximum use conditions it was predicted that nine inventoried wells
and seven potential wells in the area could expect drawdowns of greater than 6
feet (Vergara 1981). This modeled maximum drawdown condition will have the
greatest impact on Well D-1255, reducing its pumped production. Other wells
4-51
-------
•i foot
^drawdown
ontour
•t<'".-.*- K M,
* U«U D-HJI - U.S. C*ologlc»l Sorv.T U« H s
• W*t«r Qu.lUy D»tJ. Tib It D-7
HlitorU.l W»t«r Uv«li Plotted. Flguri D-4
Figure 4.4-1. Cone of depression around SJRPP for two wells discharging
3,600 gpm (average pumping condition)(adapted from JEA/FP&L 1981a
and Vergara 1981).
4-52
-------
•V-V ' 3V----'pf-/n/•• , ^^V' %,
'•:3?f""~£ $\ }>£ ,!?X-*»"» .\
•-^-.f.«,.. .. ,/v >^V' ..- xT" .' ...J.^n
contour 'S'»
^»if,?PWiBf«^4, • _
... " • '•
Figure 4.4-2. Cone of depression around SJRPP for three wells discharging
5,400 gpm (maximum expected rate)(adapted from JEA/FP&L 1981a and
Vergara 1981).
4-53
-------
similarly situated would also be affected in this general manner. During the
duration of time that maximum pumping occurs at the plant site, other known
and potential wells in the drawdown zone would have to flow or be pumped for
longer periods of time to deliver a set volume of water (Vergara 1981).
Drawdown of the Floridan Aquifer is not expected to affect the shallow
aquifer system since they are separated by the Hawthorn Formation which acts
as an aquiclude. No production wells are planned to be completed in this
system for SJRPP; therefore no decline in the shallow water table level is
expected.
Chloride Intrusion at SJRPP
Pollution of the Floridan Aquifer in the Jacksonville area by intrusion
of conate water with high concentrations of chlorides has been associated with
high rates of pumping. Within the immediate vicinity of the SJRPP site,
chloride concentrations average 20 to 30 mg/1 with a few exceptions (Section
3.3). Higher chloride concentrations in the Floridan Aquifer have been asso-
ciated with high production wells in the lower part of the upper permeable
zone. The wells at SJRPP will be completed in the upper part of the upper
permeable zone in order to minimize chloride intrusion. Nonetheless, any
additional pumping of the Floridan Aquifer is likely to result in increases in
chloride levels since gradual increases have been correlated with increased
use (Leve 1966 in JEA/FP&L 1981a).
Chloride pollution of the shallow aquifer system is not expected to
result from pumping from the Floridan Aquifer. There is a potential for
pollution of the water table aquifer, however, as a result of water leaching
through landfilled solid waste and unlined sediment ponds serving solid waste
storage areas.
Discharges to the Shallow Aquifer
JEA and FP&L hope to market high volume wastes including FGD sludge, fly
ash, and bottom ash. JEA proposes to dispose of unmarketed high volume wastes
and some small volume solid wastes in on-site landfill cells lined with a
material of moderately low permeability (9 x 10 cm/sec). JEA will also
conduct a five year study to determine the most acceptable method for dis-
posing of solid wastes for the life of the plant. Seepage of water through
wastes stored on the SJRPP site could leach potentially toxic substances from
ash and FGD sludge into the adjacent soil and groundwater. The exact quality
of leachate from these sources is dependent on the chemical content of the
coal to be burned at SJRPP which is unknown at this time (for estimated minimum
and maximum values of leachate constituents as reported in the literature see
Table 4.3-3, Section 4.3.2.2.) The impacts of the leachate on groundwater
will depend on the effectiveness of the protective measures employed.
As indicated in Section 3.4, the soils at the SJRPP site are mostly sands
with high permeability and little cation exchange capacity. As a result, the
potential for leaching of contaminants from the solid waste disposal areas to
the groundwater is high. Most leachate from the site is expected to be con-
tained within the water table aquifer and should flow downgradient from the
site to Browns Creek and Clapboard Creek. The impact of leachate on Browns
Creek is discussed in Section 4.3.2.2.
4-54
-------
Presently there are no wells in the vicinity of the SJRPP which utilize
the water table aquifer. The separation between the water table and under-
lying shallow rock aquifer is limited in extent; therefore it is possible that
any leachate which is not contained within the water table aquifer could
percolate down into the shallow rock aquifer. There are wells in the vicinity
of the SJRPP which utilize the shallow rock aquifer and which could potential-
ly be impacted by a deterioration in water quality. The extent of such contam-
ination is unknown but, it appears that most of the leachate would probably be
retained in the water table aquifer and any leachate which did reach the
shallow rock aquifer would be highly diluted. Should the utilities be success-
ful in finding a market for their waste material or should the solid waste
disposal cells be lined with an essentially impermeable liner (1 x 10 cm/sec
permeability), the impacts on groundwater due to leachate would be greatly
reduced. However, due to the unknown effects of the proposed project on the
quality of the shallow aquifers and the long-term contribution of the proposed
groundwater withdrawal to chloride contamination of the Floridan Aquifer,
major long-term adverse impacts on groundwater resources could occur.
4.4.2.2 No Action Alternative
This alternative requires the continued use of approximately 764 gpm by
the existing NGS. Under the No Action Alternative the potentiometric surface
of the Floridan Aquifer in the vicinity of NGS would continue to decline at
approximately the same rate (0.4 to 0.5 feet per year) as had been observed in
the past and chloride levels would remain relatively stable. Also, there
would be no increase in the discharge of pollutants to the shallow aquifer
system.
4.4.2.3 Alternative 1
Parts of this alternative requiring insignificant quantities of ground-
water include residential solar water heaters, municipal refuse-fired plants,
and purchased power. The major identified use would be JEA's conversion of
NGS Units 1 and 3 to coal-oil mixtures. Approximately 472 gpm of groundwater
is expected to be used for the bottom ash system, demineralizer, and the
boiler blowdown system. This would be a decrease of 292 gpm from existing
conditions and could reduce drawdown and chloride intrusion in the area.
Leachate discharges to the shallow aquifer system would decrease under Alter-
native 1 since approximately 628,248 tons per year of municipal and industrial
solid waste could be displaced by refuse-fired plants.
4.4.2.4 Alternative 2
This alternative also would require a small use of groundwater. No
groundwater would be used due to the purchase of power and only 222 gpm is
estimated to be used for the Sanford conversion to coal. Resultant drawdown
and chloride intrusions would remain stable since the groundwater used is
assumed to be the same as under current conditions. Little increase in the
leachate discharged to the water table aquifer is expected from the increased
high volume solid waste produced by coal combustion due to the fact that lined
waste disposal cells would be used.
4-55
-------
4.4.2.5 Alternative 3
The only distinction between Alternatives 2 and 3 is the construction of
a new 280 MW coal-fired plant by JEA. It is estimated that this plant will
require only 25% of the groundwater estimated to be used at the SJRPP (902 gpm
average and 1,377 gpm maximum). This reflects the intent to produce a market-
able FGD sludge and represents the next largest use of groundwater when com-
pared to SJRPP and the other alternatives. Some drawdown and an increase in
chloride levels would be expected. These would be proportionally lower than
for the SJRPP, however. Because the landfill cells would be lined with an
impermiable material, leachate from high volume solid waste would not be
expected to constitute a problem. If the high volume solid wastes could be
marketed, landfilling impacts would be reduced to a negligible level.
4.4.2.6 Alternative 4
This alternative includes purchase of power and the conversion of Sanford
Units 4 and 5 to coal, as previously discussed under Alternatives 2 and 3. In
addition, this alternative requires the conversion of the NGS Unit 3 to coal
which is expected to require 559 gpm of groundwater under the SIP option and
1,157 gpm under the NSPS option. These amounts represent changes from exist-
ing conditions of -205 and +393 gpm, respectively. The additional use of
groundwater under NSPS is required to produce a marketable grade of gypsum.
Groundwater impacts could vary under this alternative depending on whether
the SIP or NSPS are used. Under either case groundwater use will be lower
than SJRPP. Leachate discharges to the shallow aquifers system will increase
over the No Action Alternative since some bottom ash and fly ash is assumed to
be landfilled.
4.4.2.7 Comparison of Operation-Related Impacts
For the Jacksonville area the SJRPP would have the greatest potential
Impact on groundwater resources because of the larger volumes of groundwater
withdrawn and the large quantities of solid waste which may have to be dis-
posed of on-site. Alternative 3 would have the next largest impact due to the
operation of the small coal-fired plant adjacent to NGS. The Alternative 3
NSPS case would have only a slightly larger effect than either the No Action
Alternative or the Alternative 3 SIP case. Alternative 2 would reduce ground-
water use and solid waste generation in Jacksonville.
For the Sanford area there would be little change in groundwater use
under any of the alternatives since it was assumed that surface water would be
used for all Increased water needs. Also, because all solid waste disposal
areas would be lined, there would be little increase in potential groundwater
contamination under any of the alternatives.
For other areas within the FP&L service area Alternative 1 could result
in some overall benefit due to the reduction in the amount of solid waste
generated (see Section 4.5.3). There would be only a negligible change in
groundwater use for these areas under any of the alternatives. Overall, the
SJRPP has the greatest potential for major adverse impacts on groundwater
resources of any of the alternatives.
4-56
-------
4.5 EARTH RESOURCES
4.5.1 Construction Impacts
4.5.1.1 Topography
The construction of the proposed power plant at SJRPP or the implementa-
tion of any one of the alternatives which call for construction of new facil-
ities upon natural terrain will cause changes in the natural topography. Land
surfaces will be permanently altered and natural areas lost due to the construc-
tion of plant facilities, waste disposal areas, landfills, and pond areas.
4.5.1.2 Soils
The surface soil conditions at the SJRPP-NGS site are described by the
Soil Conservation Service as fine sandy soils that are generally unsuitable
for construction applications due to high permeabilities, excessive wetness,
normally high water tables, and susceptibility to seepage. The results of
soil test borings at the SJRPP/NGS sites indicate that the surface soils con-
form to SCS descriptions (USDA 1978, 1980) by being loose to very loose fine
sandy soils. These conditions indicate that during construction of plant
facilities properly designed deep foundations must be built so as to ensure
stability in wet, sandy soils. Designs similar to those used at the Northside
Generating Station should prove satisfactory for plant facilities.
The soils found on the SJRPP-NGS site and on the Sanford Plant site are
fine, sandy soils that are generally unacceptable for use in coal storage
piles, waste disposal and landfill, diversion structures, and sedimentation
ponds. High permeabilities and a low clay content indicate that seepage can
occur through these soils into shallow aquifers and surface waters. Leachates
can pass from disposal areas into shallow aquifers and surface waters if
adequate engineering practices (e.g., use of liners) are not adhered to.
Impacts upon the local hydrogeology are possible (Section 4.4).
4.5.1.3 Geology
The geology of the proposed site areas (SJRPP and Alternatives 1 through
4) will not change due to the construction of any of the facilities. Construc-
tion and operational impacts on local geology will be insignificant. Geological
impacts associated with groundwater hydrology are discussed in Section 4.4.
4.5.2 Operation Related Impacts
Impacts on earth resources due to the operation of the proposed project
and the alternatives are directly related to solid waste generation and dis-
posal (Section 4.5.3) and groundwater hydrology (Section 4.4). Direct impacts
on soils, topography, and local geology are not expected to be significant.
4.5.3 Generation and Disposal of Solid Waste
4.5.3.1 Construction-Related Impacts
It is assumed that solid waste generation and disposal during construc-
tion will be similar for the SJRPP and the alternatives and will differ only
4-57
-------
in the volume of waste generated and the amount of Land required for disposal
of the waste. Construction-related solid waste handling practices will be
similar for most of the alternative sites that are wooded with the possible
exception of the wetland areas on the SJRPP site. Contractors will timber the
sites for marketable pine pulpwood and hardwoods. After harvesting, the
construction areas will be cleared and grubbed. Solid waste will be burned or
buried in accordance with local and State requirements (JEA/FP&L 1981b). It
is assumed that clearing and disposal operations similar to those used for the
initial clearing of plant sites will be employed during construction of trans-
mission lines.
Construction waste materials, such as scrap wood and iron, will be taken
to a specified open area of the site where they will be separated and stock-
piled for possible reuse or salvage. Garbage generated by the construction
work force will be deposited in designated containers and disposed in dumpsters
for collection and disposal at designated county or municipal landfills near
the site. Sludges generated from construction phase operation of the central
wastewater treatment facility, sanitary wastewater treatment facility, and
metal cleaning waste retention basin will be disposed of in the same manner
proposed for the similar operational phase solid wastes. Sanitary waste
sludges will be disposed of offsite. Sludges from the central wastewater
treatment plant will be disposed in on-site landfills. If sludges from the
metal cleaning waste retention basin are found to be hazardous due to their
high corrosivity, they will be disposed of offsite by a RCRA permitted con-
tractor; otherwise they will be disposed on-site.
It is estimated that Alternative 2 would generate the largest amount of
solid waste due to the construction of 150 miles of transmission lines and the
clearing of additional land for the Sanford coal conversion. Alternative 1
would generate only slightly less waste due to transmission line construction
and the NGS COM conversion but the refuse plants would offset the need for
clearing additional landfill areas. It is assumed that installation of residen-
tial solar water heating systems would generate little waste material. The
proposed project (SJRPP) would require clearing of the plant site, waste
disposal areas, the Blount Island site, an undetermined amount of right-of-way,
and also involves disposal of 550,000 cubic yards of dredge materials from the
construction of the Blount Island facility on Quarantine Island. This would
probably generate less construction waste material than Alternatives 1 and 2
because of the much smaller amount of land clearing involved. Alternatives 3
and 4 would require the least amount of clearing and site preparation and
would probably generate the least construction waste.
4.5.3.2 Operation Impacts
Fossil fueled electric generating systems produce large volumes of solid
waste from combustion and from the major pollution control systems. Those
produced in the largest quantity are bottom ash, fly ash, and sludge from the
flue gas desulfurization (FGD) system. Much smaller quantities of sludge are
produced from sediment ponds, cooling towers, and wastewater treatment systems.
High volume solid wastes have been determined to be non-hazardous as defined
by Subtitle C of the 1976 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).
Based on classification criteria in the Florida State Solid Waste Plan, coal-
4-58
-------
fired power plant high volume solid wastes can be disposed of in a Class I
sanitary landfill (Appendix N) .
The primary problems associated with disposal of high volume solid wastes
from a power plant are the leaching of contaminants from the waste into the
groundwater and fugitive dust from handling and disposal of dry ash. Contami-
nants including metals, radioactive materials, and organic materials from the
coal burned at the plant will be largely retained in low concentrations in the
high volume waste materials. It is primarily due to the low concentration of
pollutants in the high volume solid wastes that these wastes are not defined
as hazardous under RCRA. Because the sandy soils of the sites have high per-
meability and low cation exchange capacity, the potential for impacts of
leachates on groundwater quality in the water table aquifer is high. The
impacts of solid waste leachates on groundwater and surface water quality are
described in Sections 4.4.1 and 4.3.2.2.
Solid waste generation for the SJRPP and the alternatives has been estim-
ated based on expected changes in fuel consumption and pollution control
options. The expected net changes in solid waste volumes for each of the
major units involved in the alternatives were identified in Chapter 2.0 (Table
2.2-5, SJRPP; Table 2.6-3, refuse plants and NGS COM; Table 2.6-5, Sanford
Units 4 and and 5; Table 2.6-7, SJRPP small coal plant; and Table 2,6-9, NGS
Unit 3 coal conversion). Presented in Table 4.5-1 is a summary of the net
changes in the generation of solid waste that would be expected to occur in
Jacksonville, Sanford, and the FP&L system under each of the alternatives.
These changes are discussed in the following sections.
SJRPP
As described in Section 2.2.8, all high volume solid waste generated at
SJRPP will be marketed if possible to reduce problems associated with waste
disposal. It is estimated that 49,147 .tons per year (tpy) of bottom ash,
196,673 tpy of fly ash, and 430,000 tpy of FGD sludge will be generated at the
plant during full operation. A landfill area totaling 551 acres will be
provided for disposal of all wastes which cannot be sold. This volume of
landfill will be adequate to contain all of the solid waste generated at the
plant. JEA proposes a five-year test program to determine the most economic-
ally acceptable way to dispose of excess high volume waste. The utility has
proposed that all solid waste not associated with the test program be put into
on-site landfill cells of 10 acres each which are above the water table and
have soil bottoms compacted to a permeability of approximately 9 x 10 cm/sec.
Each cell will be filled with layers of solid waste to a height of 60 feet,
then sealed with gravel and soil and covered with grass to reduce leachate and
fugitive dust emissions. Prior to closure it is estimated that fugitive dust
associated with handling dry fly ash will be controlled by mixing the ash with
FGD sludge which is 20% by weight moisture.
Compared to the high volume solid wastes, quantities of miscellaneous
solid wastes generated by the operation of the plant are very small. These
wastes include settled solids from various sedimentation ponds, the metal
cleaning waste retention basin, and the cooling tower basin; separated oil and
grease from oil-water separators; and sludges from the sanitary waste treat-
ment facility and the central wastewater treatment facility (JEA/FP&L 1981b).
Sludge from the sanitary treatment facility will be disposed of off-site.
*-59
-------
Table 4 . 5-1. Net change in high volume solid waste generation for the proposed project and alternatives.
Jacksonville
Sanford
Bottom Ash
(tons/year)
Fly Ash
(tons/year)
FGUS
(tons/year)
Total High
Volume Solid
-P~ Waste
^ (tons/year)
O
Bottom Ash
(tons/year)
Fly Ash
(tons/year)
FGDS
(tons/year)
Total High
Volume Solid
Waste
(tons/year)
a
O T3
•H 4) 4J
u en u
O O 4) i-H CM CO J M H H "j •j
Z f-> f^> < < < <
0 0 -643, 6851 0 00
0 0 8,900 0 00
000 0 -
0 0 -634,785 0 00
c
o -a
•rt 41 4-1
4J « O
0 O 41 --t CM
< O. i-l
O O 4-1 4-1
O ^ ^ H <-\
Z PH PL.
-------
Oily wastes will be disposed of off-site, burned in the boilers, or sold to
vendors for reuse. Except for the sludges from the metal cleaning waste
retention basin, other low volume wastes will be combined with the high volume
wastes and disposed of in onsite landfill cells.
Removal of wastes from the metal cleaning waste retention basin will be
required once every three to five years, corresponding with the frequency of
one or two boiler cleaning operations. Because of the potentially corrosive
and toxic nature of the liquid waste held in the basin, the settled solids
remaining in the retention basin may be considered hazardous under the rules
of RCRA. If the wastes are considered hazardous, JEA intends to have a RCRA
permitted contractor remove the wastes from the basin in accordance with the
applicable regulations and dispose of them offsite. In this case JEA would
also have to design, build, and operate the metal cleaning waste retention
basin as a hazardous waste surface impoundment. Should these wastes be deter-
mined not to be hazardous, the RCRA permitted contractor requirement will be
dropped and on-site disposal will be considered (JEA/FP&L 1981b). For pur-
poses of comparison with the alternatives it is estimated that production of
high volume solid waste at SJRPP will displace approximately 910 tpy of bottom
ash and 2,025 tpy of fly ash presently generated at the NGS and other stations
in the JEA and FP&L systems for a total net increase in solid waste production
of 675,820 tpy. This is reflected in Table 4.5-1.
Alternative 1
A net reduction of 570,969 tpy of solid waste in the Jacksonville area
would result from Alternative 1. The Duval County refuse plant would burn
refuse and produce bottom ash and fly ash with about 12% of the mass of the
original waste. The net reduction in solid waste for disposal in the County
would reduce the amount of land required as landfill by 265.3 acres over the
life of the project. The conversion of NGS Units 1 and 3 to burn COM would
increase the production of bottom ash and fly ash at the plant. The displace-
ment of oil-fired power in the JEA system would reduce the production of
bottom ash at NGS and other oil-fired stations.
The net effect of Alternative 1 on solid waste generation within the FP&L
system would be a reduction of 634,785 tpy. The refuse plants in Seminole,
Brevard, Manatee, and Sarasota Counties would reduce the amount of refuse for
disposal by 632,800 tpy and reduce the amount of landfill required by a total
of 275 acres. Operation of residential solar water heating units and the
refuse-fired plants would also reduce the operation of existing oil-fired
plants within the FP&L system and displace the generation of fly ash and
bottom ash.
Alternative 2
A net reduction of 455 tpy of solid waste in the Jacksonville area would
occur under Alternative 2 due to the displacement of oil-fired power by pur-
chased power. No high volume solid waste is assumed to be generated under the
purchase of power component of this alternative.
The conversion of Sanford Units 4 and 5 to coal would be expected to
produce an additional 456,794 tpy of FGD sludge, bottom ash, and fly ash,
under the NSPS option and 154,062 tpy of bottom ash and fly ash under the SIP
4-61
-------
option. Approximately 88.6 acres of additional landfill area would be re-
quired in the SIP case. Under the NSPS option the production of FGD sludge
would result in a large increase in the volume of solid waste generated at the
Sanford Plant as compared with the SIP option. This would require an addi-
tional 194 acres of landfill area around the Sanford Plant. A very small
amount of fly ash and bottom ash would be displaced in other parts of the FP&L
system due to a reduction in oil burning.
Alternative 3
The conversion of Sanford Units 4 and 5 to coal would generate the same
net amount of high volume solid waste as described under Alternative 2. The
implementation of Alternative 3 would require the construction of a new 280 MW
coal-fired power plant at the SJRPP site and purchase of power. This facility
would generate approximately 172,010 tpy of bottom ash, fly ash, and FGD
sludge and would require 138 acres of landfill capacity. As in other alterna-
tives, a small reduction in bottom ash production would take place due to oil
displacement in the JEA system. This would result in a net increase in solid
waste production in Jacksonville of 171,555 typ.
Alternative 4
Solid waste generation under this alternative is the same as Alterna-
tives 2 and 3 for Sanford and the FP&L system. For Jacksonville, JEA would
convert its largest boiler, NGS Unit 3, from oil to coal. As in the case of
the Sanford coal conversion, both the NSPS and SIP cases are considered. The
converted NGS Unit 3 would produce 174,642 tpy of bottom ash, fly ash, and FGD
sludge in the NSPS case. The SIP case would be the same less the 114,544 tpy
of FGD sludge. An additional landfill area of 37.6 acres would be required
for the SIP case and 105.9 acres would be required for the NSPS case. Com-
bined with the bottom ash displaced by the reduction in oil use, the net
increase in solid waste generation in the Jacksonville area would be 59,643
tpy for the SIP case and 174,187 tpy for the NSPS case.
Comparison of Operation Impacts
The high volume solid waste produced by the SJRPP, the No Action alterna-
tive, and the four additional alternatives will require disposal. If proposed
marketing plans as considered for the SJRPP, 280 MW coal plant, and the NGS
coal conversion do not materialize, all of the alternatives will require some
amount of land to dispose of high volume solid waste. Landfills would have to
be large enough to accommodate the high volume solid waste and they would have
to be designed to prevent or reduce the leaching and runoff of toxic elements
into groundwaters and surface waters. The impacts of solid waste leachates on
groundwater and surface water were described previously in Sections 4.4 and
4.3. The cumulative volumes of solid waste produced by the various alterna-
tives can be used as an indicator of the relative impacts of solid waste
disposal on earth resources as well as an indicator of potential impacts on
groundwater. Presented in Table 4.5-2 is a summary of the total volumes of
waste produced and landfill areas required for each of the alternatives con-
sidered .
4-62
-------
Table 4.5-2. Comparative impact analysis of high volume
solid waste production.
Total High Volume Waste Production
Alternative
SJRPP
No Action
Alternative 1
Alternative 2
Alternative 3
Alternative 4
Jacksonville
675,820
0
-570,969
-455
171,555
174,187*
59,643**
(tpy)
Sanford FP&L
0
0
-103,270 -531
456,794*
154,062**
456,794*
154,062**
154,062*
456,794**
0
0
,515
0
0
0
0
0
0
Landfill
Area
Requir ed
(acres)
531
0
-515.5
194*
89**
332*
227**
232*
127**
*NSPS
**SIP
This comparative analysis indicates that SJRPP will have the highest
degree of impact on the Jacksonville area by producing more high volume solid
waste than the other alternatives. Alternative 1 will have the least impact
on the Jacksonville area since large volumes of refuse will be displaced by
refuse-fired power plants. Alternative 2 and the No Action Alternative will
result in no change or very little change in the proportion of solid waste in
the Jacksonville area and will therefore have no impact. Alternatives 3 and 4
will have a moderate degree of impact on the Jacksonville area since the new
280 MW coal plant and the NGS conversion to coal produce approximately one
fourth the solid waste of SJRPP.
Impacts resulting from production of high volume solid waste in the
Sanford area are highest for Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 since they all involve
conversion of the Sanford Plant to coal. Little or no impacts would result in
the Sanford area from Alternative 1, SJRPP, or the No Action Alternative.
Other areas served by FP&L would not be impacted by production of high volume
solid wastes. Alternative 1 would have a beneficial impact by reducing refuse
loads requiring landfilling.
4.6 IMPACTS ON SOUND QUALITY
This section describes the effects of the proposed project and its alter-
natives on the sound quality in the Jacksonville and Sanford areas. Each
4-63
-------
alternative is discussed in detail in Chapter 2. The two study areas are the
areas that may be affected by noise generated as a result of the proposed pro-
jected and its alternatives. Study Area 1 is an area northeast of
Jacksonville, Florida (including NGS, the proposed SJRPP site, and the pro-
posed Blount Island facility) and Study Area 2 is an area northwest of Sanford,
Florida surrounding FP&L's Sanford Plant.
4.6.1 Construction Impacts on Sound Quality
4.6.1.1 No Action
No noise impact will result directly from the No Action Alternative.
Increased traffic noise and increased noise from industrial sources will occur
as Study Area 1 becomes increasingly industrialized. Study Area 2 will also
not be directly impacted by this alternative. Increased noise in this area
due to natural growth will be mininmal as this area is rural in nature.
4.6.1.2 SJRPP
Study Area 1 will experience increased noise levels due to the construc-
tion of the proposed project. The highest construction Leq noise level (54.4
dB(A)) will occur for an 18 month period during 1984 and 1985 (Figure 4.6-1).
It is predicted that SJRPP construction activities will increase noise levels
at the nearest residence (Location 3, Figure 4.6-2) to an L of 57 dB(A)-
This noise level is above the USEPA 55 db(A) L guideline ISr "residences
with outside activities" (Appendix S). Other noise sensitive receptors in
Study Area 1 will experience noise levels at or below the USEPA guidelines.
Short-term impacts are expected from pile driving, steam blowout, and con-
struction-related traffic. During steam blowout, noise levels in excess of 80
dB(A) will be experienced at the nearest residence for a period of three
minutes per episode. Steam blowout will occur approximately 20 times over a
two week period. There will be an insignificant transportation-related noise
increase along roadways leading to the facility except on New Berlin Road
which will experience a moderate noise increase of 10 dBA. Implementation of
the proposed project will have no effect in the Sanford Plant area as no
changes will occur there.
4.6.1.3 Alternative 1
Increased noise from construction activities will result from the con-
version of NGS Units 1 and 3 to burn COM and from the construction of a 56.2
MW refuse-fired generating plant at the Jacksonville City Landfill. This
construction activity will increase noise levels in Study Area 1 above ambient
levels. This increase would not be substantial since considerable noise is
presently generated from the existing operation of NGS and the Landfill. The
two facilities will not employ enough additional construction personnel to
noticeably increase traffic induced noise in the area. Implementation of
Alternative 1 will not effect the Sanford Plant area.
The purchase of power and construction of solar water heaters, refuse
fired plants, and transmission lines will have variable impacts at unspecified
locations. In general, these construction-related noise impacts should be
minimal unless construction activity occurs in very close promimity to sensi-
tive receptors.
4-64
-------
i-t
§
2
0
§
£
s
00
H O
[U O
^ 3
0)
c
o
ft
H-
O
0
I
n
o.
»u-
7fi-
30-
July
52.2
, 1982 Jan.
so s
, 1983 July,
52.0
1983 Jan.
54.4
, 1984 J,,ly
47.3
1985 Dec.,
1985
n>
H
H-
o
-------
/ -»^
\ C--N.v-- •:-•:•.-
»"- • • *
NORTHSIDE
STATION .
Noise Survey Monitoring Locations
Figure 4.6-2. Noise survey monitoring locations in Study Area 1
(JEA/FP&L 1981a).
4-66
-------
4.6.1.4 Alternative 2
Study Area 1 will experience the same effects from this alternative as
from the No Action Alternative. However, noise levels will increase in the
vicinity of the Sanford Plant due to construction related to modification of
the boilers. There will be an insignificant increased traffic-induced noise
during construction and increased noise resulting from earth moving operations
and steam blowout. It is likely that nearby residences would be impacted by
noise levels greater than 55 dBA, but these noise levels 'will be short-term.
4.6.1.5 Alternative 3
The effects of Alternative 3 on Study Area 2 are identical to those of
Alternative 2. Study Area 1 will experience increased noise levels resulting
from the construction of a 280 MW coal-fired power plant. The noise increase
for construction of the powerplant should be greater than that attributed to
the refuse-fired power plant of Alternative 1, but less than that attributed
to the proposed SJRPP. Since the construction activities associated with the
construction of SJRPP only slightly impact one residence, it is expected that
the construction of the 280 MW facility will have no adverse noise impacts.
Traffic induced noise impacts will be insignificant.
4.6.1.6 Alternative 4
Increased noise levels in Study Area 1 will result from the conversion of
NGS Unit 3 to burn coal. In addition to the boiler modifications and addi-
tional air pollution control equipment, it will be necessary to construct
facilities to handle the coal used to fuel Unit 3. Noise levels will increase
due the earth moving activities during preparation of the ash settling pond,
ash landfill, and the coal pile area. However, these noise levels will likely
be less than those associated with the SJRPP and should not significantly
impact sensitive receptors. Noise level increases associated with construction-
related traffic will be insignificant.
4.6.2 Operational Impacts on Sound Quality
4.6.2.1 No Action
No noise impact will result directly from the No Action Alternative.
Increased traffic noise and increased noise from industrial sources will
result, however, as Study Area 1 becomes increasingly industrialized. Simi-
larly, no noise impacts will result from this alternative on the Sanford area.
4.6.2.2 SJRPP
Operation of the SJRPP and associated coal handling facilities will not
increase noise levels significantly over present ambient noise conditions. In
fact, it is estimated that noise levels from SJRPP operation will be sub-
stantially below ambient levels at the nearest noise sensitive receptors at
most times. Table 4.6-1 indicates that the nearest residence will receive an
L noise level of 44 dB(A) from the proposed plant which is 10 decibels below
tne present noise level at the residence. In addition, since the area is
planned to be largely industrial, it is unlikely that there will be an increase
in the number of sensitive receptors located in close proximity to the site.
4-67
-------
Table 4.6-1. Projected operational noise levels at
the nearest residence due to major components of
2-600 MW coal-fired units (JEA/FP&L 1981a).
Component
Cooling Tower
Forced Draft Fan
Induced Draft Fan
Primary Air Fan
Turbine-Generator
Main Transformer
Aux. Transformer
Rotary Coal Car
Dumper
Stacker-Rec laiaer
Level
dB(A)a
76
85
85
85
95
85
85
73
75
(3 Feet
50
5
5
5
5
5
5
50
50
Total
Number
' of Units
2
4
8
4
2
4
4
1
1
Distance
to Nearest
Residence'3
(feet)
3700
5200
5400
5200
5200
4300
4300
5700
6000
Attenuated
Level at
Neares c
Residence
(d3A)
38
31
34
31
38
31
31
32
33
Total plant noise level projected to nearest residence = 44 dB(A)
a Per Ebasco specifications and vendor information
b Monitoring Station 3, Figure 4.6-2.
4-68
-------
4.6.2.3 Alternative 1
Noise from the operation of NGS Units 1 and 3 and a RFPP in Duval County
at the Jacksonville City Landfill will differ little from the noise levels
presently produced at NGS and the Landfill. The two facilities will not
employ enough additional personnel to increase traffic-induced noise in the
area. Delivery of COM by truck from Blount Island will increase existing
noise levels by approximately 0.5 dBA on Heckscher Drive.
Implementation of Alternative 1 will have no impact on the Sanford Plant
area.
4.6.2.4 Alternative 2
Study Area 1 will experience the same effects from this alternative as
from the No Action Alternative. Operation of the* coal-fired boilers at the
Sanford Plant will not increase noise levels in Study Area 2. However, an
increase in noise will result from the coal handling operations and increased
rail traffic. It is anticipated that this noise impact could be largely con-
trolled by appropriate mitigative measures.
4.6.2.5 Alternative 3
The effect of Alternative 3 on Study Area 1 will be increased noise
resulting from the operation of a 280 MW coal-fired powerplant. The noise
increase for operation of the powerplant should be greater than that attrib-
uted to the refuse-fired powerplant of Alternative 1, but less than that
attributed to the proposed SJRPP. This should not result in a significant
impact on nearby sensitive receptors.
4.6.2.6 Alternative 4
Increased operating noise levels at NGS will occur primarily from coal
and ash handling operations. Little additional noise will result from the
actual operation of the converted boiler at NGS and no impacts to noise sensi-
tive receptors are predicted.
4.6.3 Comparison of Impacts
The relative noise impacts of each alterantive cannot be quantitatively
addressed since specific noise levels for the alternatives (except SJRPP) and
the locations of the refuse fired powerplants are not known. Some acoustical
comparisons can, however, be made related to the SJRPP/NGS study area, the
Sanford study area, and the other areas which might be affected by noise from
one of the alternatives. No significant traffic-related noise increases are
predicted as a result of the operation of any of the alternatives or the
SJRPP.
The SJRPP/NGS study area is compatible, from a noise standpoint, for
development of any of the alternatives due to the existing sparsely spaced
noise sensitive receptors and the industrial zoning of the area. It is un-
likely that any noise sensitive development will occur within the area that
would be adversely affected by noise from any of the alternatives.
4-69
-------
The Sanford area is somewhat less noise compatible than the SJRPP/NGS
study area because several residences are now located near the existing facil-
ity and zoning in the area does not indicate that future development will be
industrial. There exists a potential for noise impacts associated with Alter-
natives 2, 3, and 4 due to the addition of coal handling facilities and, for
the NSPS alternatives, the additional waste handling facilities required.
Plant operational noise levels should remain approximately the same as at
present. There also exists the potential for future noise impacts associated
with possible residential development near the Sanford Plant.
The location of the refuse-fired powerplants will have a significant
effect on the relative impacts of Alternative 1. The proximity of these
facilities to noise sensitive receptors would determine the magnitude of the
impacts from Alternative 1. It should be noted, however, that these facil-
ities would be located adjacent to existing landfills which is significant for
two reasons. First, landfills are noise producers themselves which would mask
the effects of a new facility. Second, landfills are generally located in
sparsely populated or industrial areas.
Basically, with the exception of the refuse-fired powerplants, none of
the alternatives should cause a significant noise increase over existing
conditions. The location of the refuse-fired powerplants would determine
whether or not noise impacts would occur from Alternative 1.
4.7 AQUATIC AND TERRESTRIAL ECOLOGY
This section summarizes the potential impacts of the proposed project
(SJRPP) and the four additional alternatives on biological resources. A
detailed analysis of biological impacts which could result from construction
and operation of the SJRPP and each of the alternatives is presented in
Appendix 0. Under the No Action Alternative, no changes in existing bio-
logical communities are expected. Consequently, no further discussion of the
No Action Alternative is provided.
4.7.1 Construction Impacts
This section summarizes the potential construction-related impacts that
could result from the proposed project (SJRPP) and the four alternatives.
Included are discussions of the potential effects of elimination of terres-
trial habitats, disturbance of aquatic communities, and disturbance of habitat
of rare, threatened, or endangered species.
4.7.1.1 Proposed Project (SJRPP)
SJRPP Site - Terrestrial Communities
Clearing of the main site would result in elimination of several hundred
acres of terrestrial vegetation. A total of 84.3 acres of seasonally flooded
wetland habitat would be eliminated. This includes 1.5 acres of bottomland
hardwood, 32.6 acres of cypress swamp, 22.7 acres of bayhead, and 27.5 acres
of hardwood swamp (Table 4.7-1). These areas are classified as wetlands
according to criteria developed by USFWS (Cowardin et al. 1979). Wetland
communities on the site play an important role in detrital production, flood
prevention, filtering pollutants originating in upland areas, providing valu-
4-70
-------
Table 4.7-1. Areal summary of vegetation community types affected by
development of the proposed plant site (JEA/FP&L 1981a).
Facility Component (Acres)
Vegetal ion Community Plant Island
Type and Rail Loop
Bottomland llardwood
Cy press Swamp
Craaoy Scrub/Pine Flatwood
Bnyhead
ILirdwood Hummock
llardwood Swamp
Pine Flatwoods
Sal t Harsh
Grassy Scrub
Open
Tot a 1
0.0
7.3
158.4
21.1
61.3
27.5
10.6
0.0
0.0
14.1
300.3
Sol id Waste
Bottom Ash Disposal Area
Disposal Area A
0.
0.
128.
I.
1.
0.
8.
0.
0.
0.
140.
,0
0
2
6
5
0
9
0
0
0
2
0.0
3.3
0.0
0.0
79.4
0.0
5.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
87.8
Sol id Waste
Disposal Area
B
0.0
22.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
325.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
347.5
Access
Road
1.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.4
0.0
3.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
6.7
Total
Area
Affected
1.5
32.6
286.6
22.7
143.6
27.5
363.9
0.0
0.0
14.1
882.5
Total
Area
Within
Site (Ac)
79.9
40. 1
363.2
28.3
415.2
100.8
504.1
41.1
24.5
58.7
1655.9
Total
Area Not
Af fee ted
(Ac)
78
7
76
5
271
73
150
41
24
44
778
.4
.5
.6
.6
.6
.3
.2
.1
.5
.6
.6
Percent of
Total Area
On-Si te
Af lecteda
1 .8
81.2
78.9
80.2
34.6
27.3
70.2
0.0
0.0
24.0
53.0
* Total area of each vegetation type within site boundaries
-------
able food and habitat for wildlife, and helping to maintain the ecological
balance of the St. Johns River estuary (Section 3.5). Their elimination
constitutes an adverse impact and a permanent commitment of irretrievable
resources.
Approximately 364 acres of pine flatwoods on the main site will be elim-
inated during construction. Pine flatwoods on the site have been previously
disturbed and are not highly diverse or productive with respect to wildlife.
Pine flatwoods are also very common in the study area. However, pine flat-
woods are important as habitat for the gopher tortoise and several other
associated rare or threatened species which are commensal with the tortoises.
Pine flatwood areas also provide excellent quail habitat (Section 3.5).
Adverse impacts on these species would occur as a result of clearing opera-
tions .
SJRPP Site - Aquatic Communities
Aquatic habitats within seasonally flooded wetlands on the main site at
the SJRPP would be directly eliminated during site preparation. These aquatic
habitats: (1) release nutrients to adjacent salt marsh and estuarine areas;
(2) assimilate and filter various pollutants; and (3) are important to species
with short life cycles. Nevertheless, aquatic species which inhabit these
areas are important ecological components of terrestrial ecosystems in the
area.
Estuarine areas adjacent to the main site provide valuable feeding and
nursery grounds for numerous finfish and invertebrates, many of which are of
commercial and recreational importance. Any construction related effects due
to erosion runoff or drainage alterations which would occur if appropriate
mitigative measures are not strictly adhered to would result in adverse impacts
on these highly sensitive nursery and spawning areas.
During the six year plant construction phase, effluent from the sanitary
waste treatment plant as well as plant runoff will be discharged through the
runoff sediment control pond into a headwater area of Browns Creek marsh
(Section 4.3). Browns Creek in the vicinity of the discharge is a sensitive
nursery, spawning, and feeding area for many commercial and recreationally
important fish and invertebrates (Section 3.3). The discharge to Browns Creek
marsh will meet State and Federal water quality standards. However, potential
adverse impacts on this area could result from introduction of slightly elevated
levels of chlorine, suspended solids, nutrients, and trace metals. Possible
impacts could include toxic effects on more sensitive larval forms and food
organisms of commercially important species, increased occurrence of algal
blooms, and increased potential stress on reside-nt fish and invertebrate
populations.
SJRPP Site - Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Species
Construction activities could have several potential impacts on protected
species which inhabit the site or occur in the vicinity of the SJRPP. These
impacts include the following:
4-72
-------
• Some alligator habitat will be lost due to elimination of freshwater
wetlands (hardwood swamps) on the site;
• Loss of 364 acres of pine flatwood on the main site would eliminate
habitat of the gopher tortoise and associated rare species which
inhabit its burrows;
• The presence of the gopher frog and eastern indigo snake on the site
was not determined, but these species (often associated with gopher
tortoise burrows) would be eliminated if they occur on the site;
• Southern bald eagles which might rest or winter in the slash pines on
the border of the site would avoid the area during construction and
possibly in the future;
• Arctic peregrine falcons and southeastern kestrels which migrate
through the area each year or which winter in the area would avoid the
site during construction and possibly in the future;
• Nesting and/or feeding wood storks which are known to nest near the
site could be disturbed during construction and possibly in the future;
• Red-cockaded woodpeckers and Florida scrub jays, both of which may
have previously foraged on or near the site, would avoid the area
during construction and in the future;
• Nesting of several "species of special concern" which may utilize the
rookery at the edge of the site including the great and little blue
herons, snowy egret, reddish egret, and Louisiana heron would be dis-
turbed if construction occurs during breeding seasons; and
• Eastern brown pelicans and ospreys would probably avoid the area
during construction and possibly in the future.
• The existing populations of spoonflowers occurring in the bayhead area
would be eliminated.
These potential impacts would be minimized to some extent by establish-
ment of the proposed 200 foot buffer zone around the edge of the site. This
would help reduce noise and visual effects on the above species. However, the
proximity of the site to habitats of such a large number of rare, threatened,
or endangered species would probably result in construction-related impacts.
SJRPP - Blount Island Coal Unloading Facility
Construction of the coal unloading facility would eliminate approximately
86 acres of sea myrtle and grassy shrub habitats. These are considered to
provide only minimal wildlife habitat. Less than one acre of salt marsh and a
small area of mixed hardwoods on Blount Island would also be eliminated. The
entire area has been previously disturbed, however.
Benthic invertebrate populations would be eliminated during dredging
operations required to construct the coal unloading facility. However, these
^-73
-------
areas would rapidly recolonize and no long-term impacts on benthic organisms
are projected. Dredging may in some cases cause the release of various trace
metals or other toxic materials which could be detrimental to terrestrial and
aquatic organisms (USCOE 1976). Any materials which might possibly be released
would be rapidly removed from the water column by flocculation with ferric
hydroxide colloidal gels (Windom 1972; USCOE 1976). Such gels are abundant in
estuarine waters of the study area. Therefore, no long-term changes in the
water quality of the St. Johns River estuary are projected to result from
dredging and only short-term effects on aquatic organisms would occur.
Dredging would occur between late fall and early winter in order to
minimize potential impacts on ichthyoplankton, benthic organisms, and fish.
All dredged material will be disposed of in diked areas approved by the USCOE
(JEA/FP&L 1981a). No adverse long-term impacts due to dredging activities are
projected.
Spoil disposal on Blount Island would temporarily interrupt least tern
nesting activities in the area. When current and future JEA spoil disposal
activities are completed, least terns could resume nesting in the area pro-
vided that the quality of the dredged material is not deleterious to this
species.
SJRPP - Transmission Corridor
A total of 4.92 miles (120 acres) of terrestrial plant communities would
be disturbed along the existing corridor (JEA/FP&L 1981a). The preferred
corridors to JEA's Robinwood and Normandy Substations include wooded wetlands
(largely drained) with very little salt marsh. Thus, ROW alignment would have
little effect on corridor wetlands as a whole. However, assuming that the new
line will be adjacent to the existing ROW, some additional clearing (less than
150 feet) would be required through an undisturbed cypress wetland near Nor-
mandy Substation (Figure 3.5-3).
With proper care, salt marshes would not be greatly impacted by trans-
mission line construction. The applicant has stated that mats will be used to
support heavy equipment in the marsh, thereby preventing lasting damage to
marsh areas. If towers must be located in a marsh, the habitat would be
disturbed only in the immediate tower foundation areas.
Some upland plant communities along the existing ROW will be eliminated.
Cleared forested areas would be replaced by earlier stages of ecological
succession. No major forest stands would be eliminated in ROW preparation and
no chemical herbicides and pesticides will be used (JEA/FP&L 1981a).
On Blount Island, spoil areas on and near the existing ROW have the
potential to provide nesting habitat for several species of shorebirds as well
as least terns. If construction takes place during the breeding season (April-
August), these birds may be driven away from nesting areas. The osprey has
nested in towers on Blount Island and in the salt marsh near the NGS. Construc-
tion in the areas of nesting terns and ospreys will be avoided (JEA/FP&L
1981a). Fresh spoil mounds left behind or introduced to the area may expand
potential nesting habitat for the terns if the dredged material is not toxic.
4-74
-------
Tower construction in Mill Cove and the area east of the existing line
would require dredging or draglining. This activity would result in temporary
increases in turbidity and cause fish and other nekton to avoid the area.
Benthic invertebrates would also be temporarily eliminated in the dredged
area.
4.7.1.2 Construction-Related Impacts of the Alternatives
Alternative 1
Alternative 1 would require elimination of 39 acres of pine flatwood
habitat at the NGS site, but this habitat has been previously disturbed. A
total of 7 acres of habitat of unknown type in Seminole County and a total of
36 acres of unknown habitat would be eliminated in other portions of the FP&L
service area for construction of refuse-fired power plants under this alter-
native. However, this alternative would result in avoidance of the elimina-
tion of 265 acres of habitat in Duval County for a landfill since the plant
would dispose of this refuse. Elimination of an additional 275 acres of
terrestrial habitat in all other areas of the FP&L service area will be avoided
since the refuse-fired power plants in Seminole, Sarasota, Manatee, and
Brevard Counties will dispose of those materials which would have been land-
filled. This alternative would also disturb 150 miles of terrestrial com-
munities along the Georgia Power intertie transmission line ROW (about 3,640
acres). It is assumed that these disturbances will be minimized by proper
tower alignment and vegetation management techniques.
Alternative 2
Alternative 2 would also require a 150 mile long transmission line ROW
and therefore would result in disturbances identical to Alternative 1. This
alternative would also result in the elimination of 89 to 195 acres of land
immediately to the north of the Sanford site for solid waste disposal. These
areas are considered to be previously disturbed or of relatively moderate
quality as wildlife habitat. However, some of the more continuous pine flat-
wood areas could harbor gopher tortoises, gopher frogs, and indigo snakes.
Elimination of these habitats could constitute an adverse impact. Nine small
wetlands (apparently located primarily in open farm or pastureland areas) of
unknown type also would be eliminated (Appendix 0).
Alternative 3
Impacts at the Sanford Plant under this alternative would be identical to
those under Alternative 2. Construction of the 280 MW plant at the SJRPP site
would reduce habitat destruction by 50 to 75% in comparison with the proposed
project. Reorientation of the rail loop and use of solid waste disposal area
B would reduce potential impacts on valuable wetland areas and endangered
species habitats.
Alternative 4
Under this alternative, coal conversion of the NGS Unit 3 to coal would
result in elimination of 59 to 127 acres of additional upland habitat just to
the north of the plant on the site for solid waste disposal. Impacts in the
Sanford area and other areas of the FP&L system would be identical to those
under Alternative 3.
4-75
-------
4.7.1.3 Comparison of Construction-Related Impacts
Alternatives 1 and 2 would result in a large amount of habitat disturb-
ance along the 150 mile long transmission line ROW. In this respect, they
differ significantly from all other alternatives and the proposed project. If
ROW's are aligned with care and properly managed, however, they could be made
into productive wildlife habitats. In this case, Alternatives 1 and 2 would
result in a lower amount of habitat loss.
The terrestrial habitats at the Sanford Plant appear to be of relatively
low value to wildlife and consist largely of cleared areas. No adverse impacts
to wildlife under the coal conversion feature would occur under Alternatives
2, 3, and 4. However, areas in the vicnity of the Sanford Plant could harbor
certain protected species. The existence of these species would have to be
confirmed prior to beginning construction at the Sanford site. In addition,
several wetland areas of unknown characteristics would be eliminated. Alter-
native 3 would reduce the total amount of habitat disturbed at the SJRPP by 50
to 75% in comparison with the proposed project. Valuable wetland areas and
protected species could still be affected by runoff, however.
In conclusion, the proposed project would result in the most significant
construction impacts because relatively greater amounts of wetlands, upland
habitat, and protected species habitat would be eliminated. All of the other
alternatives would result in reduced construction-related impacts on bio-
logical resources.
4.7.2 Operation Impacts
This section describes the potential operation-related impacts which
could result from the proposed project (SJRPP) and the four alternatives.
Included are discussions of the potential effects of wastewater discharges,
solid waste disposal, air emissions, and transmission facilities on biological
resources.
4.7.2.1 Proposed Project (SJRPP)
Wastewater Discharge Impacts
The SJRPP will increase the total amounts of trace metals entering the
River by a small amount and will produce elevated levels of these pollutants
at the point of discharge and within the mixing zone. Since the St. Johns
River in the vicinity of the SJRPP is already stressed by elevated levels of
trace metals and other pollutants, there is a potential for adverse impacts to
result from the discharge.
The SJRPP will cause levels of mercury at the point of discharge (POD) to
approach the acute toxicity level for embryos of the American oyster under
worst case conditions (Tables 4.7-2 and 4.7-3). Levels of copper at the POD
would exceed acute toxicity levels calculated based on reported 96-hour LCsn
data for the planktonic stage of Cap itella capitata, an indigenous species of
polychaete worm. Predicted concentrations for cyanide under average condi-
tions will not exceed the calculated acute toxicity level for any known signif-
icant indigenous species. However, the maximum predicted concentration for
cyanide would exceed the calculated acute toxicity level at all locations
under maximum predicted concentrations.
4-76
-------
Table 4.7-2. Comparison of predicted aluminum, Iron, copper, cyanide, mercury, and silver concentrations
in the lilount Island Channel during proposed plant operation to toxlclty levels reported for sjynlfleant
Indigenous species of the Blount Island Channel (JEA/FP&L 1981a)*.
Estimated Concentration
l';i r.imeli r
Cyan hie (in^/ 1 )
Irun (mg/l)
Silver (ug/1)
Copper (|cg/l)
Aluminum (m|;/l)
Mercury (|ig/l)
A
Cone
Avfi
<0.01
0.08
0.16
69.0
0.49
0.24
mblent
entration3
Max
0.
2.
0.
275.
3.
0.
09
7
35
0
63
6
Class III
Standard1"
0.005
0.30
0.05
15.0
1.5
0.1
Estimated
POD Concentration3
Avgc Maxd
0.01
0.83
0.21
73.0
0.5
0.56
0.099
3.0
0.54
344.0
4.41
1.67
at Edge of 31 Acre
Mixing Zone6
AVRC Maxd
1
1
0.165
71.0
1
0.27
0
2
0
283
3
0
.09
.73
.37
.0
.66
.70
Toxlcity Levels for Significant
Indigenous Species*
96 hrLC5ne Acute" Chronic1
0.05-0.07 0.016-0.022
25 8.5
^5.8k ^1.9
80.0 27.0
8.9-17.8 3.0-5.9
^5.6k M.9
J
1.3
M).3
J
J
M).28
a See Table 5.1-9 (JEA/1'Hf.L 1981a).
b See Table 2.5-1 (JEA/FPiL I981a).
c Footnote b, Table 5.1-9 (JEA/Fl'iL 1981a).
d Footnote c, Table 5.1-9 (JEA/FI'&L I981a) .
e See Appendix C, Section C.6 (JEA/FP4L 11J81) for estimated concentrations. As discussed In Section 5.1.1, Section 17-4.244 (1) (g) , FAC,
allows maximum chemical mixing zones of 125,600 square meters (31 acres) for estuaries.
f Significant Indigenous species is defined as an important species of the Blount Island Channel as determined through
recent studies including the preoperational monitoring program (Table 2.2-2).
g The concentration of the pollutent lethal to 50 percent of the test organisms in 96 hours (96 hrLCso) where the 96 hrLCjQ
is the lowest value which has been determined for a species significant to the indigenous aquatic community, i.e., Blount
Island Channel; or may reasonably be expected, based upon evaluation by generally accepted scientific methods,
to produce effects equal to those of the concentration of the substance specified above.
li Defined as one-third of the 96 hrLC50.
1 Defined as one-twentieth of the 96
j Cimi-ent ration below Class III standard.
V 48 hrLC50.
I Less than or equal to ambient levels.
Ambient concentrations based on JEA/FPiL, 1981a, Water and Waste Management Study, St. Johns River Power Park, Units 1 & 2, 1985-1987, August 1981.
-------
Table 4.7-3. Indicator species and sensitivities used in computing acute
and chronic toxicity concentrations for cyanide, iron, silver, copper,
aluminum, and mercury (JEA/FP6.L 1981a)a.
4>
00
Parameter
Cyanide
Iron
Silver
Copper
AluninuB
Mercury
Indicator Species
Pinfish
La nod on rhomboides
Hosquitofish
Cambusia «ttini»
American oyster-embryod
Crassostrea virginica
Polychaete worn - trochophored
Capitel la capitata
White shrimp
Penaeua setiterus
American oyster-embryo*1
Crassostrea virginica
Reported 96 hrLC^n Concentration
0.068-0.066 rog/1 HCN as CN
(Daugherty and Carrett, 1951)
25 mg/1 FeCl 3 as Fe
(Wallen et_ aj_., 1957)
5.8 ug/1 AgN03 as Age
(Calabrese et_ al_. , 1973)
80 ug/1 CuSO^ ag Cu
(Reiah and Martin, 1976)
8.9-17.8 mg/1 A1C13 as A18
(Pulley, 1950)
5.6 ug/1 HgCl2 as Hge
(Calabrese et^ aU, 1973)
Reason for Selection
Significant Indigenous Species'*
Substitute for Significant Indigenous Species0
Significant Indigenous Species^
Significant Indigenous Species'
Significant Indigenous Species^
Significant Indigenous Species'
• For a comparative summary of toxicitiei for other significant indigenous species, refer to Appendix B, Tables B-22 through B-27.
b Only significant indigenous species reported in the available literature.
c There was no report of iron toxicity for a significant indigenous species; therefore, the moaquitofish was used since it occurs in
the tidal creeks of the study area and nay reasonably be expected to produce effects equal to those of significant indigenous
species, i.e., those that commonly occur in Blount Island Channel.
d Planktonic stage.
e Based on the 48 hrLCjQ since 96 hrtCjg was not reported; concentration of pollutant for 96 hrLCjo expected to be slightly
lower than at the 48 hrLCy).
f Host sensitive of several significant indigenous species reported in the available literature.
g Three other signifiant indigenous species of nekton within this toxicity range include red drum (Sciaenops ocellata) , spotted
seatrout (Cynoscion nebulosus), and striped mullet (Hugil cephalus).
-------
The average mixing zone and POD levels of cyanide, iron, silver, and
aluminum should be less than the calculated chronic toxicity levels for sig-
nificant indigenous species. Copper and mercury would exceed or equal the
calculated chronic toxicity levels. Maximum ambient and consequently maximum
predicted POD and mixing zone concentrations of cyanide, aluminum, copper,
iron, mercury, and silver would exceed the calculated chronic toxicity levels.
Maximum values of cyanide, mercury, and copper are estimated to exceed
the 96-hour LC concentration at the POD for indigenous species. Section 17-
4.222(4), FAC, prohibits a mixing zone from containing maximum concentrations
exceeding the 96-hour LC_ for a species significant to the aquatic community.
In conclusion, based on acute toxicity levels, potentially adverse condi-
tions due to ambient concentrations of cyanide, copper, and mercury (and
possibly other metals) could therefore exist in Blount Island Channel at the
POD and within the mixing zone. This would place additional stress on exist-
ing populations of estuarine organisms in the St. Johns River. For copper and
mercury, food web biomagnification could result. This is judged to constitute
a potentially major adverse ecological impact.
An additional source of trace metals may potentially be derived from coal
pile runoff at the Blount Island facility. The coal piles on Blount Island
will be lined, but some trace elements will reach the estuary via the percola-
tion pond which will collect the coal pile runoff (Section 4.3). Eventually,
some of these materials will enter the St. Johns River even though coal pile
runoff entering the percolation pond will be pretreated. This can only act to
degrade the quality of aquatic life in the estuary.
Impacts of Plant Water Use
Increased cooling water requirements would have certain impacts on exist-
ing impingement and entrainment patterns at NGS. Increased impacts of thermal
plumes and chlorine (used as an algal suppressant in cooling towers) are
expected to be negligible (Appendix 0).
No increased impingement would result from the proposed SJRPP during
combined operation with the NGS since flows and velocities at the NGS intake
would not change (JEA/FP&L 1981a). When the SJRPP is operating alone, it will
maintain a flow of 98,000 gpm. This would result in impingement of approxi-
mately 125,000 fish, 41,000 commercial shrimp, and 17,000 blue crabs per year
(Rehm et al. 1975; JEA/FP&L 1981a). Most impinged nekton would be returned to
San Carlos Creek via the fish return system currently being used at NGS.
However, the reliability and efficiency of this system have not yet been fully
demonstrated (Appendix 0) and are currently under study by the JEA. The
system was not operational during the USEPA site visit (24 June 1981). Until
more is known concerning the actual effectiveness of the fish return system,
impacts of impingement at SJRPP cannot be adequately addressed.
No increase in the total number of entrained zooplankton or ichthyo-
plankton would occur as a result of the combined operation of the SJRPP and
NGS (Appendix 0). However, the SJRPP would require a maximum of 14% of the
total volume of water used at NGS. This would result in a very small increase
in mortalities of living organisms which survive passage through the NGS.
When the SJRPP operates alone, entrainment mortalities would drop signifi-
4-79
-------
cantly. In conclusion, because no additional cooling water would be withdrawn
from the St. Johns River for the SJRPP, it will have no significant adverse
impacts on the entrainment and subsequent mortality of planktonic organisms
(Appendix 0).
Solid Waste Disposal Impacts
A significant impact on wetlands adjacent to the site could result from
seepage of contaminants from solid waste disposal areas. Waste disposal areas
will be designed to minimize seepage by use of liners with permeabilities of
9x10 cm/sec or less and other techniques (JEA/FP&L 1981a). However, a
certain amount of seepage will still occur (for fly ash or gypsum storage
areas seepage rates of 500 to 1,000 gallons per day per acre are possible)
(JEA/FP&L 1981a) . Since seepage will contain certain (and unknown) amounts of
trace elements, there is a potential for contamination of food chains in the
adjacent Browns Creek and Clapboard Creek marshes (Section 4.3). These sensi-
tive wetland areas provide habitat for many State and Federally listed rare,
threatened, or endangered species and also are nursery, spawning, and feeding
areas for numerous commercially important fish and invertebrates (Section
3.5).
Air Emission Impacts
Terrestrial Vegetation. An analysis of potential impacts of S02, N02,
and 03 separately and acting synergistically on terrestrial vegetation was
provided by the applicants (JEA/FP&L 1981a). Responses of terrestrial vegeta-
tion in the vicinity of the SJRPP were also analyzed (JEA/FP&L 1981a). The
following conclusions were made with regard to the potential significant
negative effects of these emissions on terrestrial vegetation:
• Under worst-case conditions and in the area of maximum concentration
some sulfur dioxide injuries could occur to maples, southern pines,
sumac, blackberries, sweetgum, and cherries (However, occurrence of
worst-case conditons would be rare);
• Maximum predicted ground level concentrations of nitrogen dioxide were
well below threshold values of sensitive species except for alfalfa
(which is not grown in the vicinity of the site); and
• Existing ambient levels of ozone in the study area (294 ug/m3) are
within the range of threshold concentrations reported to be injurious
to vegetation, but it is difficult to predict the actual impacts due
to the lack of knowledge concerning ozone effects;
• Under worst-case conditions, some injury to area vegetation may result
from S02/03 synergism, but the occurrence of worst-case conditions
would be highly infrequent.
Some impacts due to gaseous emissions may occur due to operation of the
SJRPP, but these would occur only under worst-case conditions. The worst-case
conditions would occur infrequently, however.
4-80
-------
An analysis of the potential effects resulting from the emission of 18
trace elements on surrounding vegetation was also conducted (JEA/FP&L 1981a).
Predicted deposition rates were calculated for each element and the potential
impacts on plant life in the area due to elevated levels of trace metals in
the soil were determined by comparison to known threshold toxicities. A
detailed analysis showed that levels of these metals in soils would not result
in any significant adverse effects on surrounding vegetation.
Fugitive dust emissions from coal storage piles and loading facilities
will be controlled by wet spraying, dry dust collection, and enclosed con-
veyors. This will reduce fugitive emissions by over 90% (JEA/FP&L 1981a).
Fugitive dust emissions will therefore be highly localized and will not be
significant.
An analysis of the potential effects of cooling tower drift on vegetation
was conducted in which predicted salt deposition rates were compared to natural
rates of deposition and to known chloride and sulfate injury thresholds. The
following is a summary of the conclusions of this analysis:
• The natural rate of sea salt deposition was estimated to be 0.41
mg/m2/hr based on data from New Jersey. The SJRPP was estimated to
produce an additional 0.9 mg/m2/hr.
• Natural background rates of chloride deposition were estimated to be
0.23 mg/m2/hr; the SJRPP would produce an additional 0.28 mg/m2/hr.
• Natural background rates of sulfate deposition were estimated to be
0.42 mg S04/m2/hr; the SJRPP would add 0.035 mg SC>4/m2/hr to this
figure.
From these results and a review of the literature, it was concluded that
salt deposited from the cooling towers would have no significant effect on
natural vegetation or crops within the immediate vicinity or the region of the
proposed plant with the possible exception of flowering dogwood (Cornus florida).
The chloride injury threshold for flowering dogwood is reported to range from
0.561 mg Cl/m2/hr (1.02 mg salt/m2/hr) (Curtis et_ al_. 1978) to 16.67 mg Cl/m2/hr
(Silberman and McCune 1978). Flowering dogwood is the only naturally occur-
ring species found within the immediate vicinity of the proposed plant with a
reported chloride injury threshold. On the basis of the reported injury
threshold and the predicted maximum seasonal average deposition rate of 0.51
mg Cl/m /hr, it is possible that some injury could occur to flowering dogwood
if located within the area of maximum off-site deposition (JEA/FP&L 1981a).
There is also some concern regarding deposition of cooling tower salts on
pasture grasses at the nearby M&M dairy farm. A study by Schroeder (1966)
showed that Pensacola bahia grass is sensitive to elevated levels of salt.
However, since the area in question already receives approximately 32.7 pounds
of salt/acre/year, it is doubtful that the small increases in salt deposition
produced by the SJRPP would cause adverse impacts on bahia grass.
Terrestrial Wildlife. Levels of S02 and N02 predicted to occur in the
vicinity of the SJRPP are well below those reported to cause acute or chronic
injury to terrestrial wildlife. Wildlife and livestock would also be exposed
f-81
-------
to trace element emissions from the proposed plant. However, recent studies
(Dvorak et al. 1978) have shown that if tall stacks are used and if the NSPS
limits are met, no adverse impacts on livestock and wildlife due to trace
metal emissions should occur. No studies were located during the course of
completion of this EIS which addressed effects of trace element emissions from
coal-fired plants on dairy cows or cow milk. It is unlikely that adverse
effects would occur due to the use of taller stacks, the dispersion character-
istics of the plume, and emission characteristics at the SJRPP. However, such
effects cannot be accurately assessed at this time due to the lack of avail-
able information.
Some fugitive dust would be emitted from coal storage areas, but this
will be controlled by appropriate mitigative techniques. Only highly local-
ized effects on wildlife would therefore result from these emissions.
Cooling towers and facility stacks are tall enough to obstruct birds
migrating along the Atlantic Flyway and some mortalities would occur. How-
ever, the number of mortalities would be extremely small relative to the total
populations in the area. Cooling tower drift will deposit increasing amounts
of salt on surrounding farming areas. Dairy cows and livestock in the area
around the plant should not be affected by these emissions, however, since the
maximum amount of salt deposited will amount to only about 0.2 mg/m2/hr (15.6
Ibs/acre/year). The State of Maryland Power Plant Siting Act recommends 100
Ibs of salt/acre/year as a cautionary limit for agricultural areas. The
natural rate of deposition at the SJRPP was estimated to be 0.42 mg/m2/hr
(32.7 Ibs/acre/year) (JEA/FP&L 1981a). Therefore, the proposed plant would
not cause the cautionary limit to be approached or exceeded. This would be
true even under worst-case conditions at the edge of the site boundary
(Appendix 0).
Aquatic Habitats. The most significant potential impacts of stack emis-
sions on aquatic life are related to acid rain. The pH levels in Florida
lakes, primarily those in the northern part of the State, have been dropping
(e.g., becoming more acidic) over the past two decades. Many of Florida's
perched sand lakes have little or no buffering capacity and are therefore very
susceptible to acid rain. As noted by the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish
Commission (GFWFC), such areas exist 30 miles to the west of the proposed
plant. The extreme western portion of Nassau County, most of Baker and Columbia
Counties, the western half of Clay County, the eastern half of Bradford County,
and parts of Georgia are characterized by surface waters of pH 4.0-5.0
(Appendix H).
The proposed plant has some potential for further reducing the pH of the
surface waters in these areas because of acid precipitation. The assessment
by the Florida GFWFC was a subjective determination based on the amounts of
sulfur and nitrogen oxides to be produced, the prevailing wind direction, and
the proximity of the areas of concern (Appendix H). However, it is extremely
difficult to attribute acid rain impacts to any particular point source (Dvorak
et al. 1978). Therefore, these assertions cannot be proven until further
studies are conducted in the specific geographic areas in question. The most
objective assessement at this time would be to conclude that an unknown poten-
tial exists for such effects to occur.
-------
Coal soil-age at the dock area and fugitive coal dust emissions could
result in coal particles entering the St. Johns River. Potentially toxic
effects on acuatic organises could occur since coal contains various amounts
of sulfides, hydrocarbons, and trace elements (Torrey 1978). However, little
is 'renown about the factors which control the fate of coal dust in estuaries.
It is therefore difficult to accurately assess the long-term impacts of coal
dust from the proposed facility on aquatic life in the area. The potential
for long-term buildup of coal dust within the estuary exists. However, the
small amount of coal dust emitted would be greatly diluted over a large area.
4.7.2.2 Operation-Related Impacts of the Alternatives
This section describes the potential biological impacts which could
result from the implementation of Alternatives 1 through -4. The discussion is
based on a more detailed analysis presented in Appendix 0. The reader is
referred to Sections 4.2 and 4.3 of the EIS for data concerning the air and
water pollutant loadings on which the assessment of biological impacts is
based.
Alternative 1
Alternative 1 would result in only very small increases in loadings of
oil, grease, and trace metals to the St. Johns River estuary near Jacksonville
(less than 1% of the increase caused by the proposed project). These in-
creases would probably not greatly affect existing aquatic communities al-
though any increase in toxic materials would produce added stress on aquatic
life in the area. This alternative does not involve the Sanford Plant and
its waste discharges would not change. Pollutant loadings to surface waters
could be expected to decrease at some other existing generating stations in
the FP&L service area due to oil displacement. However, new discharges would
occur at the various refuse-fired plants. Greater impacts could occur at new
generating locations, but a slight improvement in overall conditions for
aquatic life in the FP&L system would result.
Net increases in emissions of S02 in the Jacksonville area under this
alternative would be 9.5 times greater than the increases caused by the pro-
posed project (Section 4.2). This could result in S02 injury to surrounding
vegetation at the NGS and at the Jacksonville North Landfill under worst-case
conditions. Increased HC1 emissions from the refuse plant could have a similar
effect in the vicinity of the landfill. No air-related biological impacts are
projected in the Sanford area and only localized impacts are projected in
other parts of the FP&L service area due to operation of the other refuse
plant s.
Alternative 2
Wastewater discharges under this alternative would have little effect on
aquatic life in the St. Johns River near Jacksonville. However, increased
pollutant discharges potentially could further degrade aquatic life in the
eutrophic waters of the St. Johns River near the Sanford Plant. No effects of
wastewater on aquatic life would result in other parts of the FP&L service
area.
4-83
-------
Decreases in air emissions under this alternative due to displacement of
oil-fired power generation may benefit terrestrial communities in the Jackson-
ville area. However, major increases in air emissions in the Sanford area for
the SIP case could have negative biological impacts on the terrestrial commu-
nity. The large reduction in S02 emissions at Sanford for the NSPS case would
improve conditions for the biological community. Reductions in net emissions
in other areas of the FP&L system could benefit biological communities.
Alternative 3
The 280 MW coal-fired plant at the SJRPP site would reduce additional
pollutant loads to the St. Johns River estuary as compared to the proposed
project (Section 4.2). This would be an improvement over the SJRPP, but would
still potentially place increased stress on existing aquatic populations due
to the elevated levels of pollutants. Wastewater impacts on aquatic life in
the Sanford area would be the same as in Alternative 2 under this alternative.
Alternative 3 would have no effect on aquatic life in other portions of the
FP&L system.
Net emissions in the Jacksonville area would decrease due to the purchase
of power, but would increase at the SJRPP site due to operation of the small
coal-fired plant. However, the emissions of the small coal-fired plant would
be only about 25% of those predicted for the proposed project. This could
result in lower potential for S02 and N02 injury to terrestrial vegetation in
comparison with the proposed project. Under NSPS, biological impacts due to
S02 emissions at Sanford could be reduced; under SIP limits, they would poten-
tially increase. Decreased emissions in other portions of the FP&L system
could benefit biological communities in these areas.
Alternative 4
A net increase in loadings of most pollutants would occur in the St.
Johns River near Jacksonville under this alternative. This increase would
further degrade the existing water quality and place additional stress on
aquatic organisms in the estuary. The impacts of Alternative 4 on aquatic
resources within the FP&L service area would be the same as described under
Alternatives 2 and 3.
If NSPS limitations are applied to the NGS Unit 3 and Sanford Units 4 and
5 coal conversion, the large reduction in S02 emissions would benefit the
surrounding biological communities. For the SIP case, substantial increases
in emissions with associated biological impacts would occur in the vicinity of
both NGS and Sanford. However, a noticeable benefit to the Jacksonville area
would still result due to the emissions displaced by purchase of power.
4.7.2.3 Comparison of Impacts
Wastewater Discharges
Alternatives 1 and 2 would produce the fewest wastewater discharge ef-
fects on aquatic life in the St. Johns River in the Jacksonville area. The
proposed project would produce the largest net increase in pollutants (other
than chlorine) and would have the greatest effect on aquatic life in a system
that is already stressed by poor water quality. Alternatives 3 and 4 would
4-84
-------
both have adverse impacts on aquatic life in the St. Johns River estuary near
Jacksonville due to overall increases in pollutant loadings. Alternatives 2,
3, and 4 would contribute to a further decline in the quality of aquatic life
in the already eutrophic St. Johns River near the Sanford Plant. Alternative 1
and the proposed project would have no effect on this area. Impacts on aquatic
life in other areas of the FP&L system would be relatively minor under any of
the alternatives.
Air Emissions
Alternative 2 would have the most beneficial impacts on wildlife and
plant communities in the Jacksonville area in the vicinity of the NGS and
SJRPP since this alternative would result in a net decrease in all air emis-
sions through purchase of power. However, these benefits are offset by in-
creases in the Sanford area. Alternative 1 would increase air emissions by
the greatest amount, and would therefore have the greatest relative biological
impacts. Since the proposed project was shown to have potential S02 impacts
(under worst-case conditions), Alternative 1 may potentially have even greater
impacts on vegetation near the SJRPP. Alternative 1 is also unique in causing
increased HC1 emissions which would potentially have impacts on surrounding
biological communities near the SJRPP at the Jacksonville North Landfill
(these are not possible to predict accurately without modeling, however).
Alternatives 3 and 4 would probably have similar effects on the Jacksonville
area plant and animal communities depending on whether NSPS or SIP limits were
used.
Due to increased emissions, Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 could have adverse
biological impacts in the Sanford area under SIP, but beneficial effects under
NSPS. Alternative 1 and the proposed project would have no biological effects
on the Sanford area due to air emissions. Only localized air-related impacts
on biological resources are projected for other areas of the FP&L system under
Alternative 1.
Solid Wastes
The potential impacts of solid wastes for Alternatives 1 through 4 on the
biological communities in all areas would be similar since all waste disposal
sites will be lined with an impermeable material to prevent seepage. Certain
of the solid waste disposal areas for the proposed project, however, will be
lined with material of permeabilities of only approximately 9xlO~ cm/sec
(Section 3.4). This constitutes a major difference between the proposed
project and the four alternatives. Since the disposal areas for the proposed
project are located adjacent to and upgradient of the Brown's Creek and Clap-
board Creek marshes, seepage from solid waste could contaminate the food
chains in these valuable wetlands (Section 4.7.2.2). This area harbors various
State and Federally listed rare, threatened, or endangered species, and is an
important nursery feeding and spawning area for commercially important fish
and shellfish. Contamination of the food chain could have adverse impacts on
these species. These potential impacts would not occur under Alternatives 1
through 4 because all solid waste disposal areas would be lined with imperm-
eable materials.
i-85
-------
4.8 IMPACTS ON CULTURAL RESOURCES
The impacts of the proposed project (SJRPP), the No Action Alternative,
and the four additional alternatives on historic, cultural, and archaeological
resources are evaluated in this section. The comments and recommendations of
the Florida SHPO have been used extensively to determine effects and/or impacts
on historical and cultural resources in Duval and Volusia Counties. A more
detailed analysis of cultural resources impacts which could occur from construc-
tion and operation of the SJRPP and the alternatives is presented in Appendix P.
4.8.1 Construction-Related Impacts
4.8.1.1 SJRPP
Construction of the SJRPP would have an adverse effect on archaeological
resources which are potentially eligible for listing on the National Register
of Historic Places. USEPA has made a formal request for a determination of
eligibility from the Keeper of the National Register for a cluster of eleven
significant archaeological sites (Figure 4.8-1) known as the St. Johns River
Power Park Archaeological District. On 30 September 1981, the Secretary of
the Interior determined that the District is eligible for listing on the
National Register of Historic Places (Schull 1981). Land modification activ-
ities during construction of the SJRPP would destroy portions of the sites in
this district. Construction of a runoff sediment pond would destroy site
8Du699. Railroad loop construction would destroy portions of 8Du699 and
8Du634. Site Du677 would be destroyed as the result of land modifications
necessary to construct a solid waste disposal landfill. The remaining sites
in the district, 8Du670, 8Du673, 8Du675, 8Du678, 8Du674, may be subject to an
adverse effect as the result of isolation from or alteration of the property's
surrounding environment. In addition, compaction of soils during construction
activities may alter or destroy unidentified buried archaeological remains.
The locations of the archaeological resources which would be adversely impacted
by construction at the SJRPP site are indicated in Figure 4.8-2.
Pursuant to the advisory Council on Historic Preservation's regulations
(36 CFR 800), USEPA has consulted with the Florida SHPO and is seeking Advisory
Council comments in regard to the identified adverse impact on the archaeo-
logical resources at SJRPP. According to the Florida SHPO, the proposed coal
unloading facilities on Blound Island are located in an area deemed unlikely
to contain significant archaeological or historic site remains (Percy 1981a).
Therefore, the construction of facilities on Blount Island would have no
effect on cultural resources.
Archaeologically sensitive areas within the proposed transmission line
corridor have been identified in Appendix K of the applicants' EID (JEA/FP&L
1981a). The Florida SHPO recommends that once the line right-of-way is selected
that those portions of the right-of-way crossing the identified archaeologically
sensitive areas be subjected to a systematic archaeological site assessment
survey and copies of the resulting reports submitted to FDAHR for review and
comment (Percy 1981a).
The site facilities will be visible from two National Register prop-
erties, the Fort Caroline National Monument, and the Kingsley Plantation on
Ft. George Island.
4-86
-------
SOLID WASTE
DISPOSAL AREA A
BOTTOM
DISPOSAL
RAIL LOOP
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE
LOCATION MAP
eULTUUJ. RESOURCE ftCCCMUSUNCX
COAL FIRED POKE*
STC, flUWU. COUNTY,
SMOVtL TISTS ( «l • •*»•> I
SEDIMENTATION POND
Figure 4.8-1.
1980a) .
Archaeological site location map, SJRPP (Wood and Randolph
4-87
-------
i
oo
CD
8 0116777!
; (off mapped area)
Solid
dS^^assef^
Figure 4.8-2. Location of
archaeological resources
which would be adversely
impacted by construction
of the SJRPP (JEA/FP&L
1981b).
. TM AM)
WlLi DwG NO t^ZSO
OUtD
OUSTING COM:RCTC MOMJICNI
BASCL1W 'A* SU
-------
4.8.1.2 No Action Alternative
The No Action Alternative may result in an indirect impact on the poten-
tially eligible St. Johns River Power Park Archaeological District. The No
Action Alternative means that no further action would be taken to preserve or
mitigate these resources, as a result these resources may be subject to loot-
ing by relic collectors.
4.8.1.3 Alternative 1
Alternative 1 includes land modification activities in the eastern por-
tion of the existing NGS plant site along San Carlos Creek. This a green belt
area which under Alternative 1 may be used as a site for a 25-acre ash land-
fill and a 14-acre ash pond. If construction of the existing NGS has left
this land area in a relatively undisturbed condition, then the Florida SHPO
may recommend a cultural resource survey due to the potential archaeological
sensitivity of the area. It is known that a prehistoric site, San Carlos
Creek A (8Du91), was destroyed by the original construction at NGS (FDAHR
1980). USEPA has requested comments and recommendations from the Florida SHPO
regarding the cultural resource assessment of this portion of the existing NGS
plant site.
Alternative 1 would also require the construction of 150 miles of trans-
mission lines from Tifton, Georgia to central Florida. The effect of con-
structing this line on cultural resources would depend on the specific right-
of-way (ROW) chosen. After selection of the ROW, the Florida SHPO would
determine the need for a systematic archaeological and historic site assess-
ment survey.
4.8.1.4 Alternative 2
Alternative 2 involves expansion of facilities beyond the present boun-
daries of FP&L's Sanford Plant (Figure 2.6-7). Cultural resource data indi-
cate no impact to National Register or eligible properties within the existing
plant site. Site 8Vol66, which was located within the Sanford Plant site, was
subjected to extensive disturbance during the original construction (Percy
1981b).
If conversion of the existing Sanford Plant should affect lands not
severely disturbed by the original construction, then a cultural resource
survey may be required by the Florida SHPO. Approximately 150 miles of trans-
mission line corridor associated with this alternative may be subject to a
systematic archaeological and historic site assessment depending upon the
recommendations of the Florida SHPO.
4.8.1.5 Alternative 3
Alternative 3 requires expansion of the Sanford Plant and construction of
a 280 MW coal-fired power plant by JEA at the SJRPP site. The National Regis-
ter eligible St. Johns River Power Park Archaeological District is located in
the southeastern portion of the SJRPP tract (Figure 4.8-2). The construction
of a smaller rail loop and sediment control basin would probably have no
impact on the potential archaeological district if the facilities are sited so
that a buffer zone is provided to the western portions of sites 8Du634 and
-------
8Du699. No impacts due to solid waste disposal would occur at site 8Du677
since the landfilling facility would be located north of Island Drive, an area
which has been subjected to a systematic cultural resource survey. Alterna-
tive 3 also involves expansion of existing facilities at the Sanford Plant
with the same associated impacts as discussed for Alternative 2.
4.8.1.6 Alternative 4
Alternative 4 includes expansion of existing facilities at the Sanford
Plant. The impacts due to construction would be the same as for Alterna-
tive 2. This alternative also includes conversion of JEA's NGS Unit 3 and
expansion beyond the existing plant boundaries. The additional land require-
ments would include 38 acres for an ash landfill and 64 acres for an FGD
sludge landfill. If constructed as proposed (Section 2.6), the sludge land-
fill could adversely affect portions of the Archaeological District on the
SJRPP project site although there would be less overall land disturbance. The
siting of the sludge landfill would have similar adverse effects on these
archaeological resources to those produced by the proposed project.
4.8.1.7 Comparative Analysis of Impacts due to Construction
Potential impacts to cultural resources may occur as a result of imple-
mentation of the proposed project, the No Action Alternative, and the four
additional alternatives. A definitive comparison among alternatives is not
possible, however, due to the availability of only limited data for the NGS
and Sanford Plant sites. In general, the construction of the SJRPP would
cause direct adverse impacts to the St. Johns River Archaeological District by
destroying all or a portion of several sites. Other sites in the District may
be isolated from the surrounding environment by construction activities.
Alternatives 3 and 4 may also cause adverse impacts to this significant re-
source unless appropriate mitigation is implemented. Potential impacts also
could occur on unknown resources near the Sanford site especially under the
NSPS option. Impacts on unidentified cultural resources may occur under
Alternatives 1 and 2 as a result of transmission line construction and expan-
sion of the Sanford Plant in areas which have not been subjected to systematic
archaeological or historic site assessment surveys. The proposed action, the
No Action Alternative, and Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 4 may result in indirect
impacts to the SJRPP Archaeological District unless measures are taken to
preserve this resource or to implement mitigative measures which would protect
it from looting by relic collectors.
4.8.2 Operation-Related Impacts
Implementation of the proposed project as well as the four alternatives
could cause impacts on cultural resources due to acid rains and activities
that result in changes in the soil chemistry or the composition of the adja-
cent wetlands muck. The St. Johns Citizens for Clean Air have raised the
question of adverse effects from emissions or acid rains on National Register
properties in St. Augustine, Florida. No definitive evaluation can be made
due to the present lack of knowledge concerning the impacts of acid rain. The
Florida SHPO states however, that effects of acid rain on historic structures
in St. Augustine would be either minimal or unmeasurable (Tesar 1981).
4-90
-------
.+ .9 SOCIOECQNOMIC IMPACTS
This section describes the potential socioeconomic impacts of the No
Action Alternative, the proposed project (SJRPP), and each of the four ad-
ditional alternatives. The primary areas of consideration include population
impacts, economic impacts, and impacts on cominunity services in the affected
project regions. Each of these areas is considered according to the impacts
resulting from the construction phase of each alternative and from the opera-
tion of each alternative.
4.9.1 Population Impacts
Impacts on the population caused by the proposed power plant and the
proposed alternatives will result from construction and operation workers
moving into the area to take advantage of the new employment opportunities.
Many of these workers will bring their families and settle in the area (either
on a temporary or permanent basis) and will create a market for some addition-
al workers and their families to provide supporting services. The influx was
determined by employing worker relocation data to a population influx model
(Appendix Q).
4.9,1.1 Construction Impacts
The following sections identify the possible population impacts of con-
struction activities for each alternative. The analysis focuses on the influx
of construction workers, their families, and any secondary employment influx
induced by the construction activities of each alternative.
No Action Alternative
Under the No Action Alternative, no power generating facility would be
constructed nor any conversion undertaken. Consequently, the population of
the Jacksonville/Duval County area and Sanford, Seminole County, and Volusia
County should continue to grow as expected in the existing baseline projec-
tions .
SJRPP
The amount and pattern of settlement of the population influx resulting
from SJRPP will have both positive and negative effects on the Jacksonville/
Duval County area, although these impacts are expected to be moderate. The
peak construction labor force is expected to be 2,316 workers by 1984. It is
anticipated that 23% or 533 workers will relocate into the project region
(JEA/FP&L 1981a). Of these 533 workers, 48.9% are expected to come with
families, resulting in a total of 592 people (Mountain West Research, Inc.
1976; JEA/FP&L 1981a). Some of the other workers will bring a spouse and
thus, a total of 1,005 people directly related to the construction of the
SJRPP may relocate to the project region.
Non-basic secondary employment will also result from the influx of new
people to the project area. Because of the availability of unemployed persons
in Jacksonville/Duval County, however, it is expected that most of the non-basic
secondary jobs generated by the proposed project will be filled by local
residents. It is estimated that 95% of the induced employment should be
4-91
-------
absorbed by the local labor market. In addition, construction worker families
should also absorb some of the jobs (an estimated 1.0%) (Mountain West Re-
search, Inc. 1976). Consequently, only 4% of the induced service sector
employment (4,076) or 163 workers are projected to immigrate into the project
region. The total influx associated with the secondary service secondary
employment is projected to be about 300 people. The influx of basic and
non-basic immigrants is therefore estimated to total approximately 1,300.
The greatest influx of people should occur in Jacksonville/Duval County.
For the SJRPP project, Jacksonville/Duval County may receive a maximum of
1,097 persons associated with the construction phase. Other areas receiving a
greater influx of people should include Clay County (Orange Park), Nassau
County (Fernandina Beach), and St. Johns County (St. Augustine). The total
influx of 1,300 people into the project region should increase the projected
population only slightly. No county is expected to receive a population
increase of over 2.0%. Only Jacksonville/Duval County will receive a major
influx of people from the construction phase of the proposed project, but this
increase should not have major impacts.
Alternative 1
Population impacts of Alternative 1 will result primarily from the influx
of people responding to the generation of new employment opportunities. Five
counties could be impacted by the population influx resulting from the construc-
tion of refuse-generated power facilities. Potential sites being considered
for refuse recovery facilities are located in Seminole County, Manatee County,
Sarasota County, Brevard County, and Duval County. It is estimated that the
peak construction work force for constructing a new refuse-powered facility
would total. 350 workers. Thus, considering the influx of new workers, the
families they bring, and the influx from secondary employment generated, the
construction of a new facility is expected to result in a maximum influx of
almost 300 immigrants for any of the project areas. An influx of 300 people
to any of these counties would constitute less than 1% of each county's 1980
population.
The conversion of JEA's Northside Units 1 and 2 to burn a coal and oil
mixture is expected to require a peak work force of approximately 400 con-
struction workers per unit. This peak work force, however, would last only a
few months and the construction work force for the two units would overlap.
Consequently, it is estimated that the peak work force for the entire project
would be no more than 600 workers. The impacts of this conversion are ex-
pected to be concentrated in Jacksonville/Duval County. The conversion is
expected to produce a peak influx of about 340 people of which approximately
290 would move to Jacksonville. This influx would constitute less than 1% of
the 1980 County population.
Retrofitting residential hot water systems in the FP&L and JEA service
areas would result in employment opportunities related to the design, manu-
facture, installation, and maintenance of new solar water systems. For the
FP&L service area it is estimated that for six years (1982 to 1988) solar
installation companies would need to employ approximately 1,140 people per
year. After 1988, the number of employees for the retrofitting program is
expected to decline. For the JEA service area, it is estimated that 80 workers
per year would be needed during the peak six-year period.
4-92
-------
The FP&L service area covers southern Florida and most of the eastern
Florida coast. The retrofitting of these residential hot water systems is
expected to be dispersed throughout the service area. While urban areas
usually include larger residential areas, no one location is expected to
receive a concentration of the solar conversion. Consequently, it is expected
that the employment opportunities generated by the retrofitting will be dis-
persed throughout the service area. The annual need for 80 workers in JEA's
service area should be adequately supplied by the Jacksonville area.
Construction of the transmission lines for Alternative 1 would occur from
Tifton, Georgia to Ft. White, Florida, and from Ft. White to central Florida.
The construction of these lines may generate new employment opportunities, but
no significant influx of people is expected to immigrate to any one particular
locale. The purchase of power considered under Alternative 1 from Georgia
Power's Plant Vogtle is also not expected to result in any population impacts
for specific areas.
Alternative 2
The conversion of FP&L's Sanford Units 4 and 5 from oil to coal is esti-
mated to require a peak construction labor force of 750 workers. This estima-
tion is based on the assumption that a regular schedule will be maintained and
that construction will require approximately 26 months. The total amount of
time the units should be out of service on such a schedule is nine months.
The peak construction work force for the Sanford Plant conversion should occur
during 1984. Of the 750 workers to be employed in the construction phase of
this conversion, 23% or 173 workers may be expected to relocate in the region.
Approximately 130 of these workers are expected to bring families. Thus, the
23% influx of construction workers could result in 327 people coming into the
area as a direct result of the Sanford conversion.
In addition to the basic construction jobs generated by the project,
non-basic secondary jobs also will be created. It is estimated that the
induced service sector employment will total 1,321 jobs of which 90% (or
1,189) of the jobs will be filled by the local labor force or family members
of construction workers. An influx of 132 workers (10%) and their families is
expected to occur as a result of the secondary employment induced by the
project. Consequently, the peak construction labor force for converting the
FP&L Sanford units may result in 327 people coming to the region as a direct
result of construction employment. An additional 249 persons should be expected
to arrive from secondary employment induced by the project and a total popula-
tion influx of 576 is anticipated as a result of the power plant conversion.
Only the cities of Sanford and Orlando are expected to receive any size-
able influx of people. Of these two comimnities, only Sanford's influx should
constitute an increase of close to 1% of the population. While Orlando may
receive a relatively large number of the project's immigrants, this influx
should constitute a very small percentage of the total Orlando population and
have little impact on the social and economic conditions of Orlando. The
influx to Sanford may affect community services, but the impacts are expected
to be minimal.
4-93
-------
Alternative 3
In Alternative 3, the smaller JEA coal-fired plant is projected to be
280/1,110 or approximately 25% of the size of the SJRPP. Thus, the socioeco-
nomic impacts of the smaller plant are based on scaled-down information from
the SJRPP.
The peak construction work force of the smaller coal-fired plant is
projected to be 579 workers. Of this work force, 133 laborers may immigrate
to the project region bringing with them an additional 85 family members.
From the secondary service sector jobs generated from constructing this plant,
some 77 people could be expected to move into the project region. From the
total influx of this alternative project, an estimated 277 people are expected
to move into Jacksonville/Duval County. This influx of people, however, would
constitute less than 0.5% of the County population and is not expected to
affect the community greatly.
Alternative 4
The peak work force necessary to convert the NGS Unit 3 is estimated to
be 750 workers. The construction of this project should take approximately 24
to 26 months, although the peak force should exist for a much shorter time.
173 construction workers are expected to move into the project region bringing
with them 112 family members. The non-basic service employment generated by
the construction could result in approximately 100 people moving to the region.
The primary area which would be affected by this conversion is Jacksonville/
Duval County. It is projected that of the 427 immigrants expected to move
into the project region, 360 would most likely move into Jacksonville. This
influx, however, constitutes less than 0.5% of the 1985 population.
Comparison of Impacts
The SJHPP project could generate an influx of more than 1,000 people to
the Jacksonville/Duval County area (Table 4.9-1). Each of the other alter-
natives would result in an influx of less than 500 people to any one commun-
ity. The second greatest influx would occur in Orlando from the conversion of
FP&L's Sanford Units 4 and 5 (Alternatives 2, 3 and 4). These immigrant
populations, however, are not expected to be significant for any of the com-
munities including Jacksonville/Duval County and Orlando. Even the influx
associated with the construction of SJRPP should constitute at most 2.3% of
the 1984 population projected for Jacksonville/Duval County. The construction
work force for each project will be temporary and the increased number of
people should be adequately served by all affected communities.
4.9.1.2 Operation Impacts
The following sections identify the population impacts associated with
the operation of each alternative. The analysis centers on the population
influx resulting from the basic operational employment created, secondary
service sector employment generated by the operation phase, and any family
members accompanying these workers.
4-94
-------
Table 4.9-1. Construction phase impacts of SJRPP and the alternatives
to community populations.
Alternative
No Action
SJRPP
Alternative 1
Each refuse-powered
facility
Conversion of NGS
Units 1 and 2 to COM
Residential Solar
Conversion
FP&L
JEA
Alternative 2
FP&L's Sanford
Plant Conversion
Alternative 3
Smaller JEA coal-
fired facility
FP&L's Sanford
Conversion
Alternative 4
Conversion of NGS
Unit 3
FP&L's Sanford
Plant Conversion
Size of Peak
Construction
Labor Force
2,316
350
600
1,140
80
750
579
750
750
750
Regional
Population
Influx
1,288
300
340
unknown
576
328
576
427
576
Projected Population
Influx By Specific
Locale
1,095: Jacksonville/
Duvall County
200: Any of 5 counties
300: Jacksonville/
Duval County
dispersed throughout FP&L's
service area
237: Sanford
406: Orlando
277: Jacksonville/
Duval County
237: Sanford
406: Orlando
360: Jacksonville/
Duval County
237: Sanford
406: Orlando
4-95
-------
No Action Alternative
The No Action Alternative would postpone the construction of any new
facilities or the conversion of existing facilities until a later date.
Consequently, no jobs would be generated during operation nor would any secon-
dary service sector positions be created. The population of the relevant
communities should increase as presently projected.
SJRPP
The number and settlement pattern of immigrant operation workers from
SJRPP will have certain positive and negative effects on the Jacksonville area
although these impacts are not expected to be great. Operation workers should
begin to be employed during 1984 with operation expected to continue through
the year 2027. The peak operating work force of 375 is expected to be reached
by 1987 and remain at this level until 2025.
It is expected that a great majority (85%) of operation phase employees
will come from the local labor force. Approximately 147 people are expected
to move into the area. Of this influx, approximately 56 persons (38%) will be
non-local workers needed to operate the proposed new power plant. The remain-
ing 91 new residents will be composed of workers family members.
Only Jacksonville/Duval County, is expected to receive any significant
influx of people. It is estimated that 124 people can be expected to settle
in Jacksonville/Duval County as a result of the operation of the proposed
power plant. Because of the size of Duval County, however, this influx repre-
sents a very small increase in the projected population and is expected to
have very little impact on the population. None of the other counties within
the project region is expected to receive a major influx of people from the
operation phase.
Alternative 1
Population impacts from Alternative 1 would occur only from operation of
refuse-fired facilities. No population impacts are expected to occur due to
the operation of the residential solar hot water systems or the additional 150
miles of transmission lines. The operation of the NGS 'Unit 1 after being
converted to use a coal and oil mixture is not expected to require any addi-
tional operation staff. Consequently, no population impacts should be realiz-
ed from the operation of this converted unit.
The operation of new refuse-fired facilities would create new employment
opportunities in the project area. The labor required to operate a 50 MW
plant ±s approximately 55 people. A maximum of 38 workers is expected to move
into the area as a result of the operational employment opportunities. Because
the labor requirements are quite small, it is possible that the local labor
force of each community would fill the employment positions. Therefore, very
few (if any) impacts are expected to result from the operation of the refuse-fired
facilities.
4-96
-------
Alternative 2
Only the operation of FP&L's converted Sanford Units 4 and 5 would result
in any population impacts for this alternative. The operation of the Sanford
Plant, once conversion of Units 4 and 5 has taken place, is projected to
incorporate an increase of 76 employees excluding additional maintenance
staff. The additional 76 workers should be employed by the end of 1985 when
Units 4 and 5 are projected to go on-line.
It is predicted that 85% of the additional operation work force will be
supplied by local labor. Thus, 11 operational employees may be expected to
move into the project area because of the coal conversion project. The re-
sulting influx from the basic operational work force resulting from the con-
version should total only 29 persons. However, secondary employment may also
be generated by the additional work force at the Sanford Plant. An estimated
143 secondary jobs could be generated. Of these secondary positions, 10 may
be filled by persons moving into the area. It is estimated that a total
influx of 55 persons should be anticipated as a result of basic and secondary
employment induced by the conversion of Sanford Units 4 and 5.
Since the operation work force is more permanent than the construction
work force, the operation employees may be more likely to locate closer to the
plant. Consequently, for purposes of assessing project impacts, a worst case
scenario is used. This scenario assumes that all 55 people would locate in
the City of Sanford. Nevertheless, this influx from the increased operational
staff constitutes less than 0.2% of Sanford's projected 1985 population. This
influx is expected to have minimal impact on the community.
Alternative 3
The impacts from Alternative 3 include the operational impacts of FP&L's
converted Sanford Units and the operation of a new coal-fired power plant
similar to SJRPP but approximately 75% smaller. It is estimated that the peak
labor force necessary to operate this smaller coal-fired power plant would
total about 95 people. Most of the operational staff positions are expected
to be filled by the local labor force. Of the 95 workers needed, 14 may be
expected to move into the area as a result of such employment opportunities.
These workers may be expected to bring families which could mean a total
influx of 37 people.
The service sector employment generated by the operation of this plant
could possibly result in 179 additional employment opportunities. These
service sector jobs, however, are expected to be filled by the local labor
force and the families of operation workers. Therefore, no specific influx is
expected to occur from the generation of secondary employment.
Alternative 4
The primary impacts of Alternative 4 relate to the conversion of FP&L's
Sanford Units and the conversion of JEA's Northside Unit 3 boilers from burn-
ing oil to coal. The conversion of the NGS Unit 3 would require an addi-
tional operating staff of approximately 100 employees excluding maintenance
staff requirements. The addition of 100 operational staff positions at JEA's
NGS could bring a small number of people into Jacksonville. It is estimated
4-97
-------
Table 4.9-2. Population impacts for the operation of SJRPP and
the various alternatives.
Alternative
No Action
SJRPP
Alternative 1
Each refuse-fired facility
Alternative 2
Conversion of FP&L's Sanford
Units 4 and 5
Alternative 3
Smaller coal-fired JEA
Plant
Conversion of FP&L's Sanford
Units 4 and 5
Alternative 4
Conversion of NGS Unit 3
to coal fired
Conversion of FP&L's Sanford
Units 4 and 5
Peak Operation
Labor
Force
Regional
Population
Influx
Influx to
Specific
Locale
375
55
76
95
76
100
76
147
38
55
37
55
40
55
124: Jacksonville/
Duval County
38: any of five
counties
55: Sanford
37: Jacksonville/
Duval County
55: Sanford
40: Jacksonville/
Duval County
55: Sanford
4-98
-------
that no more than 15 of the positions would be filled by workers moving into
the area. These 15 workers could, however, produce a total influx of some 40
people including their family members. These people are all expected to
locate in the Jacksonville area, yet such an influx should have no adverse
impacts. The secondary employment generated by these additional operation
positions are expected to be filled by the local labor force and operational
workers' families, thereby creating no additional influx of people.
Alternative 4 would result in population increases for both Sanford and
Jacksonville. The operation of Sanford's Units could mean an additional 55
people for the Sanford connmnity while the conversion of NGS Unit 3 could mean
an influx of 40 people to Jacksonville. These increases are small and are not
expected to result in any adverse impacts.
Comparison of Impacts
None of the proposed alternatives are expected to result in adverse
operational impacts to any specific populations. As identified in Table
4.9-2, the proposed SJRPP project would clearly add the greatest number of new
people to one single community. Yet this additional 124 people would con-
stitute a minor increase in Jacksonville's population. Alternative 1 has the
potential for affecting the greatest number of communities since five counties
have been identified as possible locations for refuse-fired power plants.
Alternatives 2 and 3 would mean an influx of people to both Sanford and Jackson-
ville. Nevertheless, the increases associated with these alternatives are
interpreted as relatively minor additions to the population and are not ex-
pected to result in any adverse impacts.
4.9.2 Economic Impacts
In addition to the influx of people resulting from employment opportun-
ities associated with the various alternatives, the construction and operation
of the projects can be expected to impact the economies of the project regions.
While economic impacts may vary greatly with the project and the community,
comparative assessments can be made for certain aspects of the alternatives.
This analysis focuses primarily on the economic impacts of both the construc-
tion and operation phases for the payroll of the basic labor force; the pay-
roll of secondary service sector employment induced by the project; and any
taxes expected to be paid by JEA and/or FP&L to the local communities.
4.9.2.1 Construction Impacts
This section identifies the income generated by the construction of each
proposed alternative. The level of income generated by basic construction
payrolls and induced secondary payrolls provides a basis for comparing the
relative economic effects of each alternative. Local taxes are not included
in this section since the bulk of taxes will occur during the operation of the
project.
No Action Alternative
This alternative would postpone construction of new power generating
facilities to a later date and thereby also postpone any subsequent income
generated into local economies. The impact of this option is to delay con-
struction costs and the generation of local revenue to a future date.
4-99
-------
SJRPP
In addition to the employment opportunities afforded by the operation of
the proposed project, the construction of the project can be expected to have
an impact upon the economy of the local region. During project construction
more than 6,300 temporary employment opportunities will be created as a result
of basic construction jobs and induced service sector employment. The total
construction force payroll for the proposed project is projected to be as much
as $206 million (1980 dollars) (JEA/FP&L 1981a). This payroll will be spread
over a six-year period. The economy of the region, however, will also be
affected by the non-basic secondary jobs generated from the construction of
SJRPP, Of the 6,300 jobs created during the construction phase, 4,078 tem-
porary, non-basic secondary jobs are expected to be created. The construction
of this plant is expected to generate over $150 million (1980 dollars) in
secondary employment and a total of approximately $360 million for basic and
non-basic salaries. The peak annual payroll for basic employees is estimated
to be about $60.2 million while the peak payroll for non-basic employees
should be about $44.5 million. However, because of payroll expenses, the
actual amount of payroll reaching the local economy will be substantially less
than $360 million. About $288 million would actually reach the employees in
net income with the Jacksonville/Duval County economy actually receiving about
$243 million.
Alternative 1
It is estimated that approximately 350 workers will be needed for the
construction of a refuse-powered facility. The income generated from the con-
struction payroll of such a facility is therefore estimated to total about
$9.1 million annually during the peak construction period. Taking into ac-
count a 20% deduction for payroll expenses, approximately $7.3 million of
basic construction salaries could be expected to enter the local economy of
the county in which the facility is located.
The non-basic secondary jobs induced by the construction of these facil-
ities could mean an additional $6.2 million in secondary salaries. Of this
payroll total, about $4.9 million would actually reach the employees. There-
fore, the combination of basic and non-basic payrolls associated with the
construction of each refuse-powered facility is expected to generate an addi-
tional $12.2 million for the local economy.
The conversion of JEA's Northside Units 1 and 2 to burn a coal and oil
mixture is expected to require a peak construction work force of 600 employees.
The payroll for these employees is estimated to total $15.6 million. Of this
payroll, the workers would actually receive about $12.4 million with about
$10.4 million reaching the Jacksonville economy. The non-basic secondary work
force should generate about $10.8 million with about $7.3 million reaching the
Jacksonville area. Thus, the total net income resulting from basic and non-basic
payrolls associated with the conversion of NGS Units 1 and 2 is projected to
be about $17.7 million for Jacksonville.
Retrofitting residential hot water systems for the FP&L service area
would result in the employment of about 1,140 people per year from 1982 to
1986. This direct employment would generate a payroll of about $29.6 million
of which about $23.6 million actually would reach the employees. The se-
4-100
-------
condary employment induced by the retrofitting could result in $15 to $20
million in additional income. This income, however, would be dispersed over
much of Florida and no one community is expected to receive a greater pro-
portional share of the income. The 80 employees estimated to be needed to
retrofit the systems in the JEA service area would result in over $2 million
in salaries to the Jacksonville area.
Construction of the 150 miles of transmission lines will also generate
income in the form of payroll salaries. The data regarding the exact number
of employees needed are not available, however. Consequently, no payroll
income estimates have been projected. The employees are expected to reside in
numerous areas and no one particular community is expected to be greatly
impacted.
Alternative 2
The conversion of FP&L's Sanford Units 4 and 5 can be expected to impact
the economic conditions of the project region. The primary sources for these
impacts are expected to be the payroll of the construction labor force and the
payroll of the secondary employment induced by the construction phase. The
peak construction work force for converting FP&L's Sanford Units 4 and 5 is
projected to be 750 employees. The greatest peak annual income expected from
conversion is estimated to be over $33 million. Of this $33 million, $19.5
million will be created directly by the peak construction labor force. The
secondary employment should account for more than $13.5 million. Once payroll
expenses are deducted, the basic workers payroll should total about $16 million
while the secondary payroll should generate about $10.8 million. It is estimat-
ed that about $14.6 million would enter the Orlando economy while about $9
million should reach Sanford.
Alternative 3
In addition to the income generated by the Sanford Plant conversion,
Alternative 3 would include payroll income resulting from the construction of
a small coal-fired power plant in Jacksonville. The labor force of the smaller
coal-fired plant should lead to a payroll of approximately $15 million annually
of which at least $10 million can be expected to enter the Jacksonville economy.
The non-basic labor force induced by the construction of this plant should
generate an annual payroll of $10.4 million with about $7 million entering the
Jacksonville economy. In summary, a total of about $17 million may reach the
Jacksonville economy as a result of constructing the smaller JEA coal-fired
power plant. Approximately $14.6 million would enter the Orlando economy and
$9 million would reach Sanford as a result of converting the Sanford Units 4
and 5.
Alternative 4
This alternative would include the payroll income generated by the con-
version of Sanford Units 4 and 5 as well as that resulting from the conversion
of the NGS Unit 3. The maximum work force necessary to convert the NGS from
oil-burning to coal-burning is estimated to total 750 workers. This work
force should result in a construction payroll of approximately $19.5 million.
Of this payroll, the workers should actually receive about $15.6 million and
over $13 million should eventually reach the Jacksonville economy. The non-bas-
4-101
-------
Table 4.9-3. Construction phase payroll income from SJRPP and
the various alternatives.
Alternative
No Action
SJRPP
Alternative 1
Each refuse-
powered facility
Conversion of
NGS Units 1 and 2
to COM
Residential Solar
Conversion
Alternative 2
Conversion of
FP&L's Sanford Units
4 and 5
Alternative 3
Smaller, coal-
fired plant
Conversion of
FP&L's Sanford Units
4 and 5
Alternative 4
Conversion of NGS
Unit 3
Conversion of FP&L's
Sanford Units
4 and 5
Peak Annual
Construction
Payroll
(in 1980 dollars)
$60.2 million
$9.1 million
$15.6 million
$29.6 million
$19.5 million
$15.0 million
$19.5 million
$19.5 million
$19.5 million
Peak Annual
Non-Bas ic
Payroll
(in 1980 dollars)
$44.5 million
$6.2 million
$10.8 million
$20.0 million
$13.5 million
$10.4 million
$13.5 million
$13.5 million
$13.5 million
4-102
-------
ic employment should generate a payroll of over $13.5 million of which over $9
million could be expected to reach Jacksonville.
Thus, the impacts of this alternative would include payroll income added
to the economies of Sanford, Orlando, and Jacksonville. The conversion of the
Sanford Units would mean an addition of about $14.6 million to Orlando and $9
million to Sanford. Conversion of the NGS would add about $22 million to the
Jacksonville area.
Comparison of Impacts
Clearly, the greatest amount of income generated by any of the alter-
natives is that resulting from the basic and non-basic secondary payrolls for
SJRPP. Table 4.9-3 presents an overview of the total income generated by the
construction of these alternatives. The SJRPP payrolls could mean the addi-
tion of some $104.7 million into the Jacksonville economy. Alternative 1
would also have rather profound economic impacts since a possible $90.7 million
could result from construction payrolls associated with the building of refuse-
powered facilities, converting the NGS Units 1 and 2, retrofitting residential
hot water systems throughout part of Florida, and building 150 miles of trans-
mission lines. The secondary employment induced from these actions could
total an additional $61.8 million. These actions, however, are widely dis-
persed and the economic impacts to any one community are not expected to be
great. Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 would affect both the Jacksonville area and
the Sanford area but the impacts are expected to be minimal for each area.
4.9.2.2 Operation Impacts
While the impacts of constructing these alternatives will be rather
temporary, the effects of operating the projects will extend over a much
greater period depending upon the life of the project. The following sections
identify the economic impacts expected to occur from the operation phase of
the various alternatives. These impacts are expected to be generated pri-
marily by the income from operation payrolls, induced secondary employment
payrolls, and local taxes paid during the projects' operation.
No Action Alternative i
Under the No Action Alternative the operation of any new facilities would
be postponed to a later date. Operational costs and public revenues assoc-
iated with the operation phases of these alternatives would be realized at a
future date.
SJRPP
The operation of the proposed SJRPP will result in the generation of 375
basic operation jobs plus 700 non-basic secondary employment positions. The
total operation payroll for the years 1984 to 2027 may surpass $269 million
(1980 dollars) with an annual payroll of over $6.3 million from 1987 to 2025.
While payroll expenses will decrease the actual amount distributed among the
employees, over $5 million annually should be expected to reach the employees.
Again, the greatest portion of this payroll should be distributed in the
Jacksonville/Duval County area with about $4.2 million going into the area
each year between 1987 and 2025.
4-103
-------
The secondary employment induced from the operation of SJRPP is expected
to generate over $326 million between 1984 and 2027 with an annual secondary
payroll of about $7.2 million between 1987 and 2025. Accounting for the de-
duction of payroll expenses, Jacksonville/Duval County should receive about
$4.8 million annually in secondary payroll income during this 39-year operat-
ing period.
The local economy will also be affected by the generation of public
revenues resulting from the project. Because 20% of the proposed project is
to be owned by FP&L, this percentage of the plant's value would be subject to
local taxation. By applying the 2% property and miscellaneous tax to the 20%
of the SJRPP value, it is estimated that approximately $7 million would be
paid in local taxes if Blount Island is not included and about $7.6 million if
Blount Island is included in the project. The JEA feels that having SJRPP as
a long-term, reliable source of lower cost electric power will be an induce-
ment to industry to locate in Jacksonville.
Alternative 1
The economic impacts of Alternative 1 are expected to result from the
operation of refuse-powered plants; the operation of the converted NGS Units 1
and 2; and the operation of residential solar water heaters. The primary
source of impacts would result, however, from the operation of the new refuse-
powered facilities. The labor force required to operate one of the refuse-
powered facilities is estimated to total 55 people. This labor force would
result in an operation payroll of approximately $937,000 per facility. After
payroll expenses are deducted about $750,000 could be expected to enter the
economy of the county in which the facility is located. This operatonal work
force will also induce non-basic secondary employment. A secondary work force
of about 100 people should be expected with a payroll totaling a little more
than $1 million. Together with the operational payroll, each facility should
be expected to generate about $1.5 million annually in basic and non-basic
payrolls which actually reach the employees.
Each refuse-powered facility would also mean additional taxes for the
county in which the facility is located. The amount of taxes paid for the
facilities varies, however. The Seminole County facility is expected to
result in $.8 million, the Brevard County facility would generate $1.9 million,
Manatee County's facility would result in $1.0 million, and the facility in
Sarasota County would generate $1.2 million in additional taxes. If all five
facilities were constructed, the total amount of taxes generated would be
about $4.9 million. These refuse-powered facilities are expected to generate
such taxes for a project life of 15 years (although the actual lifetime of the
project should be greater).
The operation of NGS Units 1 and 2 are not expected to require any ad-
ditional operating staff. Consequently, no payroll income from basic or
non-basic employees is projected. The conversion of the NGS Units 1 and 2 to
burn a coal and oil mixture would increase the total value of the NGS. Since
JEA is a municipally owned utility, no increases in taxes would occur under
the conversion.
The operation of residential solar water heaters should require some
additional maintenance workers to keep the systems operable yet no data is
4-104
-------
available for projecting such maintenance requirements. The taxes expected to
be generated by the conversion of residential hot water systems are expected
to total approximately $20 million. These taxes should, however, be dispersed
among many Florida counties. The addition of these solar residential systems
may also result in certain tax credits for those residents who install them.
These credits would most likely be Federal and State level income tax credits
and should not directly affect the economy of local communities.
While there are no specific operational impacts associated with the
transmission lines, taxes would be paid to local counties. Taxes resulting
from the construction of the transmission lines is estimated to total about
$0.4 million. These taxes would be paid to various counties through which the
lines pass. A breakdown of the taxes paid to each county is not available.
No adverse impacts are expected to result from the payment of these additional
taxes.
Alternative 2
The economic impacts resulting from the conversion of Sanford Units 4 and
5 should result primarily from the payroll of the additional operation labor
force, the payroll of induced secondary employment, and any additional taxes
paid by FP&L to Volusia County as a result of the conversion. The conversion
is expected to require an additional operating staff of 76 employees. In
addition, 143 non-basic secondary jobs should be generated. The peak annual
income expected from converting the Sanford Units is estimated to total over
$2 million of which $1.3 million will be generated by the employment of the
additional 76 operation workers. The remaining $776,948 is to result from
secondary employment. However, only $1.6 million should actually reach the
Sanford economy. While this additional revenue may be associated with econ-
omic growth in the community, the amount is considered to be relatively small
and the impacts should not be adverse.
The economic conditions of the project area could also be affected by
additional taxes associated with the conversion of these two units. Since
these two units will increase the value of FP&L's Sanford Plant, annual prop-
erty taxes paid to Volusia County should increase. Taxes associated with the
conversion of the Sanford Units 4 and 5 will vary depending on whether a
scrubber is included in the conversion. With a scrubber, the plant should
result in about $9.7 million in taxes to Volusia County. If the plant con-
version does not include a scrubber, local taxes should total approximately
$6.1 million.
It should be pointed out that the local taxes paid by FP&L will go to
Volusia County. The workers associated with plant construction are expected,
however, to reside in either Orange County (Orlando) or Seminole County (Sanford)
While these workers may generate sales taxes and certain individual property
taxes in their respective communities, the plant itself will not result in the
payment of property taxes to the counties in which the employees reside.
The 150 miles of transmission lines should not generate any additional
operational payroll income, but property taxes on the lines will be paid to
local governments. Approximately $.4 million is expected to be paid in local
taxes for the transmission line corridor. These taxes will be distributed
among various counties.
4-105
-------
Alternative 3
Under Alternative 3 the primary economic impacts should occur from the
operation of the proposed smaller JEA coal-fired power plant as well as the
operation of Sanford's converted Units 4 and 5. The peak operating labor
force for the smaller coal-fired power plant is estimated to be 95 persons.
This operating work force should generate a payroll of approximately $1.6
million of which about $1.2 million would actually be paid to the employees.
The Jacksonville area economy would receive about $1 million annually from
this operation payroll. The additional 179 non-basic secondary labor force
would generate about $1.8 million in payroll income of which about $1.2 million
would enter the Jacksonville area economy. The basic and non-basic payrolls
should be expected to result in a total of about $2.2 million annually for the
Jacksonville area. Thus, Alternative 3 would generate $2.2 million for Jackson-
ville and about $1.6 million for Sanford.
There would be no property taxes generated by this smaller coal-fired
plant since JEA would be the sole owner. There could be some payments by JEA
made "in lieu of taxes", but the amount of these payments cannot be determined
at this time. The conversion of Sanford Units 4 and 5 would generate about
$9.7 million to Volusia County (with a scrubber) or about $6.1 million (with-
out a scrubber). The construction of transmission lines would generate approxi-
mately $.4 million in taxes to the various counties in which they are located.
Alternative 4
The economic impacts of Alternative 4 are expected to result from the
conversion of JEA's Northside Unit 3 as well as the conversion of the Sanford
Units 4 and 5. The conversion the NGS Unit 3 is expected to require an ad-
ditional operating staff of 100 employees. The payroll for this staff should
total about $1.7 million, with the employees actually receiving about $1.3
million and approximately $1.1 million reaching Jacksonville's economy.
The secondary employment induced by this additional operating work force
is estimated to total about 188 workers and an additional payroll income of
about $1.9 million. The Jacksonville area is projected to receive about $1.2
million as a result of the induced secondary employment. The combined payroll
income expected to enter the Jacksonville area as a result of the basic and
non-basic employment totals $2.3 million annually. Thus, for Alternative 4
the conversion of the Sanford Units 4 and 5 is expected to result in an annual
addition of $1.6 million for Sanford while the converted NGS Unit 3 would
result in about $2.3 million for Jacksonville.
The conversion of the NGS Unit 3 by JEA would not result in any addi-
tional taxes for Jacksonville/Duval County. The only public revenues gene-
rated by this alternative would be those paid to Volusia County for the con-
version of Sanford Units 4 and 5 or between $6.1 and $9.7 million.
Comparison of Impacts
The proposed SJRPP project has the potential for the greatest economic
impacts to one community (Table 4.9-4). The operational labor force of 375
people plus the secondary labor induced by these operational workers would
generate approximately $13.5- million in additional payroll income. In addi-
4-106
-------
Table 4.9-4. Economic impacts associated with the operation
phase of SJRPP and the various alternatives.
Alternative
No Action
SJRPP
Alternative 1
Each refuse-
powered fac-
ility
Residential
solar conver-
sion
Transmission
lines
Alternative 2
Conversion of
FP&L's Sanford
Units 4 and 5
Transmission
lines
Alternative 3
Smaller JEA
coal-fired
plant
Conversion of
FP&L's Sanford
Units 4 and 5
Annual
Operation
Payrolj.^
$6.3 million
$0.9 million
(unknown)
$1.3 million
(unknown)
$1.6 million
$1.3 million
Annual
Non-Bas ic
Secondary Payroll
$7.2 million
$1.0 million
(unknown)
$0.77 million
(unknown)
$1.8 million
$0.7 million
Taxes to
Local Governments
$7 million (without
Blount Island)
$7.6 million (with
Blount Island)
$0.8 million:
Seminole County
$1.9 million:
Brevard County
$1.0 million:
Manatee County
$1.2 million:
Sarasota County
$20 million: dispersed
throughout various counties
$0.4 million: dis-
persed throughout
various counties
$9.7 million (with srubber):
Volusia County; or
$6.1 million (without scrubbe
Volusia County
$0.4 million: dispersed
throughout various counties
$9.7 million (with
scrubber):
Volusia County
or
$6.1 million (without
scrubber):
Volusia County
4-107
-------
Table 4.9-4. Economic impacts associated with the operation
phase of SJRPP and the various alternatives (concluded).
Alternative
Transmission
lines
Alternative 4
NGS Unit 3
Conversion
Conversion of
FP&L's Units
4 and 5
Annual
Operation
Payroll
(unknown)
$1.7 million
$1.2 million
Annual
Non-Bas ic
Secondary Payroll
(unknown)
$1.9 million
$0.7 million
Taxes to
Local Governments
$0.4 million: dis-
persed throughout
various counties
$9.7 million or
Volusia County
4-108
-------
tion, the amount of taxes paid by FP&L for SJRPP is surpassed only by the
conversion of Sanford Units 4 and 5 with a scrubber in the amount of public
revenues generated. The operations associated with Alternative 1 would gener-
ate the greatest amount of total income, but would be dispersed among the
greatest number of people and would not be concentrated in one single community,
4.9.3 Community Services
The construction and operation of any of the proposed alternatives could
affect the services offered by each community. The influx of people assoc-
iated with these proposals could result in additional demands upon the af-
fected communities and their ability to provide services. The following
sections identify community service impacts associated with the construction
phase and operation phase of each alternative. Considered in this analysis
are impacts on the following: water supply and wastewater treatment; public
safety; educational facilities; health care; and housing. The assessment of
impacts on local community services is based on the projected population
growth without the proposed project and the population influx anticipated with
the proposed project.
4.9.3.1 Construction Impacts
The following sections identify the impacts of the No Action Alternative,
the proposed project (SJRPP), and the four alternatives on the services of the
affected communities. These impacts are expected to result from the additional
influx of people occurring from the construction phase of each alternative.
No Action Alternative
Under the No Action Alternative there would be no new facilities con-
structed or existing facilities converted and therefore no new influx of
people would affect the project communities. The future baseline conditions
would remain as projected.
SJRPP
The influx of 1,005 people directly related to the project plus the
additional 1,298 non-basic secondary influx should not put a strain on Jack-
so nville/Duval County's water supply. The area's supply is expected to ade-
quately serve this temporary influx. The wastewater treatment system is also
operating with excess capacity. This system has a 3-stage (1984, 1988, and
1990) projected expansion schedule which should adequately serve the immigrant
construction population (JEA/FP&L 1981a).
The law enforcement staff of Jacksonville/Duval County was reported in
1980 to have an excess of 161 full time personnel (JEA/FP&L 1981a). There is
expected to be an immigrant demand of four staff personnel for the peak labor
force. The projected excess of law enforcement employees should absorb this
demand, however. The temporary influx also should not adversely affect the
system's ability to provide adequate law enforcement services. The demands
made by the construction phase influx are not expected to adversely affect
local fire protection services. These services should be adequately provided
by the Jacksonville/Duval County Fire Department (JEA/FP&L 1981a).
4-109
-------
The immigrant population associated with the construction of SJRPP will
generate additional students for the Jacksonville/Duval County School System.
The physical facilities have a current excess of 4,400 pupil stations and are
expected to be able to absorb the additional students. Additional instructors
may need to be employed as a result of this influx. The peak demand is estim-
ated to require a maximum of five additional teachers resulting in the annual
cost of about $144,600 (JEA/FP&L 1981a). This requirement, however, should
decline after 1985.
The current housing surplus in the Jacksonville area is estimated to
total 11,000 units (JEA/FP&L 1981a). It is projected that the vacancies in
housing between 1982 and 1987 will range from about 11,600 to 12,400. Because
the construction employment is rather temporary, it is assumed that a large
portion of the influx will desire rental housing. As a result of the steady
increase in apartment construction during the 1970's, there should be adequate
rental housing for the construction influx. The number of single family
dwellings has also increased rather steadily and such units should also be
available on a rental basis.
Alternative 1
The major construction impacts of Alternative 1 center on the construc-
tion of refuse powered facilities and the conversion of JEA's Northside Units
1 and 3. The retrofitting of residential hot water systems and the construc-
tion of transmission lines should not have significant impacts on any parti-
cular community.
Five counties have been identified as potential sites for refuse-powered
facilities. Each of these facilities is estimated to require a construction
work force of 350 people. The influx of basic and non-basic workers is esti-
mated to total a maximum of 200 people for each facility. No major impacts
are expected to result from this construction influx. Each county is expected
to have an adequate water supply for the immigrant population and the influx
should not strain the supply for the existing population. The influx should
not require any additional public safety personnel; therefore, the projected
service level should adequately meet their needs. The county school systems
should be able to absorb the influx of school children although a few addi-
tional instructors may be required. The housing supply also is expected to
meet the needs of these people and private doctors and hospitals should pro-
vide adequate health care.
The conversion of JEA's Northside Units 1 and 2 is projected to require a
peak work force of 600 people. This construction work force can be expected
to result in an influx of about 290 people for Jacksonville/Duval County which
is less than that for SJRPP- The resulting impacts should therefore be less
than those expected for the proposed project. Based on this analysis, no
adverse impacts to community services are anticipated from the actions pro-
posed in Alternative 1. The refuse-powered facilities and the conversion of
NGS Units 1 and 2 do not generate a population influx great enough to affect
the level of services in any of the affected communities.
4-110
-------
Alternative 2
The source of impacts to community services in this alternative is the
conversion of Sanford Units 4 and 5. The conversion of the Sanford Units is
projected to result in an influx of some 968 people during the construction
phase of this conversion. Only the City of Sanford is expected to receive an
influx great enough to affect community services. The 327 people projected to
move into Sanford could affect the ability of Sanford to serve its new resid-
ents.
The Sanford/North Seminole County community would be required to supply
an additional 20,768 gallons per day as a result of the influx occurring from
the Sanford conversion. The principal water supply is the Floridan aquifer
which has an estimated 300 mgd available for human use. The temporary demand
of less than 21,000 gpd should be adequately met during the construction phase
of this project. Similarly, the secondary waste treatment for the Sanford
plant is designed to handle a maximum flow of 8 million gpd and should adequ-
ately handle the population influx.
Sanford currently has 51 sworn officers in the City's Police Department.
The influx of 327 persons would not require the employment of any additional
officers. Fire protection services provided by the City of Sanford include a
fire fighting force of 39 with four engine companies, one ladder company, and
two emergency rescue vehicles. The population influx will not require any ad-
ditional fire fighting staff. In addition, health care services are currently
operating at a vacancy rate which should easily accommodate the anticipated
influx.
The enrollment projections for the Sanford area indicate little growth
and even some decline over the next decade. The conversion of Sanford Units 4
and 5 may result in an influx of some 175 children into the Sanford schools.
However, one new elementary school will be completed within five years and
additional vacant pupil stations should exist from declining enrollments. It
is projected that such an influx could be adequately absorbed by the education
system (Ray 1981).
Seminole County has experienced a steady growth in housing over the past
ten years and expects that growth to continue through 2000. Likewise, housing
in the City of Sanford should also continue to grow although not at a rate as
great as the County. Given the estimated 7.5% vacancy rate that occurred
between 1970 and 1980, the Sanford area should have a sufficient number of
housing units for the influx of people related to the construction phase. It
is projected that about 1,950 multi-family housing units will be available in
Sanford in 1985 (ECFRPC 1977). Even if most immigrant workers move into
multi-family housing, the housing market should be able to adequately accommo-
date them.
Alternative 3
Under Alternative 3, impacts to community services would occur from the
conversion of FP&L's Sanford Units 4 and 5 as well as from the construction of
a smaller coal-fired plant in Jacksonville by JEA. The construction of this
smaller coal-fired power plant is expected to require 579 construction workers
which can be expected to result in an influx of about 277 people to Jacksonville/
4-111
-------
Duval County. As with the immigrant population associated with the conversion
of JEA's NGS Units 1 and 2, this influx represents a very small portion of the
County's population. The alternative action is not expected to result in
adverse impacts.
Alternative 4
This alternative includes impacts associated with the conversion of
Sanford Units 4 and 5 and impacts to Jacksonville/Duval County as a result of
converting JEA's Northside Unit 3 from oil-fired to coal-fired. The peak
construction work force for converting the NGS Unit 3 is expected to be 750
resulting in an influx of 360 immigrants to Jacksonville/Duval County. Again,
however, such an influx constitutes a relatively small portion of the popula-
tion (less than 0.5%). The impacts of this influx are expected to be small
and temporary.
The influx of 360 people should not significantly affect the water supply
or wastewater treatment system of Jacksonville/Duval County. Such an influx
demand should be adequately met by the projected excess service levels. The
public safety system is projected to have a surplus of personnel and this
projected surplus of Jacksonville/Duval County should provide adequate ser-
vices for the construction influx. The school system should be able to absorb
any additional students, although a few instructors may need to be added. The
housing supply and health care facilities should meet any demands of this
influx population.
Comparison of Impacts
The proposed project would generate the greatest influx of people associ-
ated with the construction of any of these alternatives. Because SJRPP re-
sults in more people immigrating to a single community, this project also
means the greatest impacts to the services of any one area. Only the con-
version of FP&L's Sanford Units 4 and 5 compares to the impacts of SJRPP.
The most vulnerable area of community services is often the educational
system. While the physical facilities may be able to accomodate additional
students, instructional staff may have to be added even for a very temporary
influx of students. Nevertheless, all impacted communities are expected to
meet the anticipated demands with additional staff requirements. The other
community services are expected to adequately serve the influx associated with
these projects. The water supply and wastewater treatment systems have been
adequately planned to meet their future service needs so that the influx
demand should not significantly affect their capabilities. Law enforcement
personnel and fire fighting staff of each community should be sufficient to
protect the influx and resident population. Housing and health care services
also are expected to be sufficient for the demands made on each community.
4.9.3.2 Operation Impacts
This section identifies the impacts on community services from the opera-
tion phase of each alternative. The impacts are based on the peak operation
work force and the associated population influx. While the life of the pro-
jects vary, most would last for at least 15 years.
4-112
-------
No Action Alternative
The No Action Alternative would postpone any needed power facilities and
consequently any influx of operation personnel. Services should remain at the
levels projected for future baseline conditions.
SJRPP
The operation of SJRPP is expected to require a peak work force of 375
people which is expected to be maintained from 1987 through 2025. The influx
of new residents generated by the operation of this plant is expected to be
about 150 people. This influx constitutes a relatively small percentage of
the future population projected for Jacksonville/Duval County (less than
0.5%). Because this influx is so small, no adverse impacts are expected to
occur from the operation of SJRPP.
Alternative 1
The impacts of Alternative 1 would occur only from the operation of
refuse-powered facilities. The conversion of JEA's Northside Unit 1 would not
require any additional operating staff and therefore no new demands would be
made on the community by an incoming population. The operation of the resi-
dential solar water systems should not lead to any significant impacts on
community services and no impacts are expected from the power purchase or
transmission lines.
Each refuse-powered facility is estimated to require 55 operational
employees. This work force is projected to result in a maxmimum influx of 40
people to any of the associated counties. This influx would represent a very
small portion of the population of any of the counties considered. Consequent-
ly, all services are expected to be adequate in meeting the needs of these new
residents.
Alternative 2
The conversion of FP&L's Sanford Units 4 and 5 is expected to result in
an influx of 49 people for the peak operation phase. In order to determine
the greatest impacts, it is assumed that all 49 people will locate in Sanford.
This figure represents less than 0.2% of Sanford's projected population. This
small increase should result in no major demands on community facilities and
se rvic es.
Alternative 3
Under Alternative 3, a population influx would occur in Sanford from the
operation of Units 4 and 5 and in Jacksonville from the operation of the
smaller JEA coal-fired power plant. This coal-fired plant is the distinctive
aspect of this option and would mean that two specific communities would be
affected .
The smaller coal-fired plant would require an operational work force of
95 employees. It is estimated, however, that only about 30-40 people would
actually move into Jacksonville from other areas as a result of the operation
4-113
-------
of this plant. This influx would be a very small percentage of the projected
population and is not expected to have any adverse impacts on Jacksonville/
Duval County.
Alternative 4
The distinction of this alternative is the conversion of JEA's Northside
Unit 3 to coal-fired power. The operation of JEA's NGS Unit 3 would require
an additional work force of 100 employees. This additional work force would
mean a maximum influx of 40 people to the Jacksonville area. Such an influx
is a very small percentage of the projected population and should be adequ-
ately served by the community. No adverse impacts are expected to result from
their immigration. Water supply, wastewater treatment, public safety, housing,
education services, and health care should all be adequately provided.
Comparison of Impacts
None of the alternatives would result in significant impacts on community
services. The influx of people associated with these operations are rela-
tively small and none of the communities would experience significant changes
in their service levels. Even the proposed action, which accounts for the
greatest influx, would result in relatively few additional demands on Jackson-
ville/Duval County's ability to provide services.
4.10 IMPACTS ON LAND USE, RECREATION, AND AESTHETICS
This section describes the potential impacts of the proposed project and
potential alternatives on land use, recreational resources, and aesthetic
conditions. The analysis centers on changes in existing land use patterns,
changes in current zoning, compliance with comprehensive land use plans,
changes in recreational areas, and impacts on the aesthetic condition of
surrounding areas. Each of these areas is considered according to the poten-
tial impacts resulting from the construction and operation phases of each
alternative.
4.10.1 Construction Impacts
4.10.1.1 No Action Alternative
Under the No Action Alternative, there would be no construction of new
facilities or conversion of any existing units. Existing land use consequent-
ly would not be altered, no zoning changes would be required, and future use
of the land should occur as projected.
4.10.1.2 SJRPP
Construction of the proposed project is consistent with existing land use
within a five mile radius of the proposed site. Along with existing industries
in the area, the project would serve to strengthen the designation of port-
related industry for this area. The site area is currently industrial in
nature and these land uses are not expected to be altered as a result of plant
construction. Current land use activities on-site include timber cultivation
and limited hunting, however, and such activities would be precluded by construc-
tion of the proposed facility for at least the life of the project.
4-114
-------
The site of the proposed project has been zoned IH for heavy industrial
uses. On 24 February 1981, the Jacksonville City Council enacted Ordinance
No. 80-1290-700 which rezones the land for the power plant to GU (Government
Use) at such time as JEA acquires the fee simple title to the property. The
ordinance also waives the height limitations and permits required under the
Building, Electrical, and Plumbing Codes. Pursuant to Section 403.508 of the
Florida Statutes, a Land Use and Zoning Hearing was held in order to take
testimony regarding compliance of the proposed plant with local zoning and
adopted comprehensive land use plans. This hearing was held 5 May 1981 and
the Hearing Officer submitted a recommended order on 8 July 1981. A confirma-
tory determination has also been made by the Governor and his Cabinet
regarding the proposed use of this site.
The proposed 1,656 acre site has been determined by the Jacksonville
Planning Department to be consistent with the policies and land uses of the
Land Use Element of the 2005 Comprehensive Plan. The Department determined
that the proposed power plant facility would constitute an industry not neces-
sarily requiring a waterfront location, but significantly dependent on the
port or waterfront for conducting its business. It was determined that the
proximity of the facility to an adequate source of cooling water and the
proximity of the waterfront to the coal unloading facility constituted a
significant, if not essential, factor in selecting and using the power plant
site. The Department further found that their projections indicated that by
the year 2005, ample lands designated for water-related industrial use would
still be available.
According to the Jacksonville/Duval County Land Use Plan Map, a metro-
politan recreational park is proposed on a portion of the site of the existing
Northside Sanitary Landfill. Although some of this landfill site will be
needed for the proposed project, there should be sufficient land on the remain-
ing landfill area for the proposed park. In addition, some of the wetlands to
be conserved on the project site adjacent to the landfill could be included in
the park.
The coal unloading facility is planned to be located on a 55 acre site at
the riverfront on the south side of Blount Island. This coal handling facil-
ity is an Industrial use consistent with the Land Use Plan Map and Element.
The 2005 Comprehensive Plan proposes all of Blount Island for water-related
industrial uses.
Areas diverted to transmission line rights-of-way (ROW) can still be
utilized for certain compatible land uses including: general agriculture;
cultivation of nursery stock pine trees; parks; golf courses; equestrian or
bicycle paths; picnic areas; game refuges; and hiking trail routes. It is
possible that a part of existing corridors may also serve the new transmission
lines. Transmission lines are not a land use specifically identified on the
Land Use Plan Map or a permitted use within any of its land use classifica-
tions. The proposed project includes location proposals only for a broad
corridor for the transmission lines and not a specific location of the line.
The proposed corridor, however, largely follows an existing transmission line
ROW.
By avoiding most areas of existing or planned medium or high density
residential development, the preferred transmission corridors remain largely
4-115
-------
compatible with surrounding land uses. The preferred corridors are charac-
terized mostly by natural upland vegetation. It is probable that the selected
ROW will cross limited areas of medium residential development. Such crossings
may result in the displacement of a small number of residences. These crossings
will be avoided when possible.
The preferred corridor section to the Robinwood Substation includes a
limited area of private recreation uses consisting of a golf course and tennis
courts. It may be possible to avoid crossing portions of these recreation
areas by using tower designs which decrease the right-of-way width necessary
along with changing the tower location. However, it appears likely that one
of these properties may be affected by the transmission line.
Railroad lines are not addressed separately in the Land Use Element and
railroad rights-of-way also are not a defined use within the zoning code. The
basic route of the railroad lines already exists so that no significant change
would be involved if additional lines were needed for SJRPP. It should be
noted that the railroad connection to Blount Island is owned by the Jackson-
ville Port Authority.
4.10.1.3 Alternative 1
Four counties in FP&L's service area are potential sites for the con-
struction of refuse recovery and generation facilities. These counties include
Seminole, Brevard, Manatee, and Sarasota. Only Duval County in JEA's service
area is considered for the location of such a facility. For each facility,
land is required for the plant and the ash disposal landfill. Depending on
the size of the facility, the necessary land requirements vary (Table 4.10-1).
Each site considered is located at existing landfills. These refuse-powered
plants would result in a land saving due to the amount of refuse landfill
avoided.
Table 4.10-1. Land requirements for refuse-powered facilities
proposed in Alternative 1 (in acres).
Duval County
Seminole County
Brevard County
Manatee County
Sarasota County
Ash
Landfill
28.0
4.7
11.1
5.9
7.2
Plant
13.5
2.3
5.4
2.9
3.5
Total
41.5
7.0
16.5
8.8
10.7
Refuse
Landfill
Avoided
165.3
44.9
105.4
56.0
68.7
Because these facilities are to be located at existing landfills, they
are expected to be consistent with land use patterns of the area and the
comprehensive plan of each county. Since specific locations have not been
identified, any necessary zoning changes are not known.
4-116
-------
Recreational resources also are not expected to be significantly affected
A recreational park is proposed for the existing Northside Sanitary Landfill,
but there should be sufficient land remaining to construct the park. The
effects of constructing these facilities should have positive impacts on
surrounding aesthetic conditions. The reduction in necessary refuse landfill
areas should improve the aesthetic conditions of each area.
The conversion of JEA's Northside Units 1 and 3 is expected to require a
total of 45.4 acres. Storage of the coal and oil mixture is expected to
require 6.5 acres, the ash pond 13.9 acres, an ash landfill 24.8 acres, and
ESP 0.20 acres. This conversion, however, will not significantly affect land
uses in the area and the project is expected to be consistent with the Land
Use Element of the 2005 Comprehensive Plan. Impacts to be project area should
be less than those projected for SJRPP since the conversion is expected to
occur on the existing NGS site.
Construction of the transmission lines will require the purchase of land
for the corridor. While the specific land uses of these areas is not known,
areas diverted to the transmission line right-of-way can still be used for
certain compatible uses. Easements from the State will be required for the
crossing of any State-owned land including those of river/stream bottoms.
Some counties may require zoning changes.
Although specific impacts cannot be identified since exact transmission
line corridors are not known, several general assessments can be made. Most
construction of transmission lines should occur in rural, sparsely populated
areas. Some residential areas, however, will be affected by the lines.. Resi-
dents living in close proximity to the corridor may oppose the change of land
use and may object to changes in aesthetic conditions of such areas. It is
anticipated that the impacts associated with the transmission lines will be
minimized wherever possible.
4.10.1.4 Alternative 2
Conversion of the Sanford Plant would require a significant increase in
the land required for operation as a coal-fired plant. In addition to the
conversion of these units, the construction of transmission lines from Georgia
to central Florida would also affect surrounding areas (Section 3.1.3).
Land requirements for the Sanford Plant conversion result primarily from
coal storage and handling, the air pollution control system, and ash handling
and disposal. The larger increase would occur if NSPS emission controls are
required because large quantities of FGD scrubber sludge would have to be
disposed of. For coal delivery, the plant will require a new spur from the
nearby SCL Railroad. The spur will require 2 to 3 miles of track to accom-
modate 100-car unit trains. A rail car unloading facility must be constructed
as well as coal conveyors. The land necessary for various aspects of this
conversion is identified below as distinguished by SIP and NSPS requirements:
Coal Pile: 16.01 acres (418,509 tons;
average height of 20 feet)
Ash Pond: 32.79 acres
4-117
-------
Table 4.10-2. Comparative analysis of construction impacts on land use,
recreation, and aesthetics.
Alterna tive
No Action
SJRPP
• Plant Site
• Blount
Island
Facility
• Transmission
lines
Alternative 1
• Refuse-
powered
Facilities
• Conversion
of NGS Units
1 and 3
• Transmission
Lines
Alternative 2
• Sanford
Plant
Conversion
• Transmission
Lines
Alternative 3
• Sanford
Plant
Conversion
• Small
coal-fired
plant
Alternative 4
• Sanford
Plant
Conversion
• Conversion
of NGS
Unit 3
Significant
Changes in
Land Use
Patterns
Hone
None
None
Some
possibility
Not
expected
None
Some
possibility
From
agri-
cultural
to
industrial
Some
possibility
From
agri-
cultural
to
Indus trial
None
From
agri-
cultural
to
industrial
None
Zoning Compliance
Changes with Compre-
Required henslve Plan
None
IH to GU Yes
(ordinance
enacted
2-24-81)
None Yes
None Yes
not Yes
expected
None Yes
Some Unknown
possibility
Special Yes
Exception
must be ob-
tained from
Volusia Co.
Some Unknown
possibility
Special Yes
Exception
oust be ob-
tained
IH to GU Yes
Special Yes
Exception
nust be ob-
tained
IH to GU Yes
Impacts on Impacts
Recreational on
Resources Aesthetics
None None
None Visibility
of landfills
None Visibility
of coal pile
Unknown Reduction
of certain
natural areas
None Reduced
landfill
areas
None None
Unknown Reduction of
certain
natural areas
None Visibility
of coal pile
and landfills
Unknown Reduction of
certain
natural areas
None Visibility
of coal pile
and landfills
None Visibility of
landfill
None Visibility
of coal pile
and landfills
None Visibility of
landfills
4-118
-------
Ash Landfill:
Air Pollution Control:
(SIP) 57.37 acres
(NSPS) 58.01 acres
(SIP) ESP's - 0.77 acres
(NSPS) ESP's - 0.77 acres
S02 modules - 1.03 acres
FGD facilities - 1.18 acres
FGD landfill - 103.76 acres
(or a total of 106.74 acres)
Coal Unloading and Handling: 8 acres
Total Land Needed:
Sanford Coal (SIP):
Sanford Coal (NSPS):
114.94 acres
221.55 acres
Impacts of the Sanford conversion will occur from the land needed for the
coal pile and the landfills for ash and sludge disposal. It is anticipated
that the coal pile will be located on land currently owned by FP&L. The
sludge landfills, the ash landfill, and some of the ash pond would require the
purchase of additional land. Most of the land to be purchased is currently
farmland and zoned for agricultural uses. The conversion to industrial use
would require approval by Volusia County.
In order to convert these land uses, the County must issue a Special
Exception for power generation uses in agricultural lands. Such a Special
Exception was previously issued for an experimental FP&L conversion project,
and the County would be expected to issue one for this action. Since much of
the land in the vicinity, such as that along US Highway 17/92 and the SOL
Railroad, has already been converted to industrial and commercial use, the
conversion of this land is considered to be in compliance with the Volusia
County Comprehensive Plan (Oshinski 1981).
The additional coal pile and landfills are expected to affect the aes-
thetic conditions of the surrounding areas. Depending upon the exact location
of the sludge landfills, the residents of Meadowlea Estates could be affected
by the sights and smells of the landfills. Barwick Road is expected to be
extended to connect with Fort Florida Road. From this highway, the coal pile
and two sludge landfills should be visible. The location of these landfills
in close proximity to the residential area is expected to arouse a certain
amount of public opposition.
No specific impacts are expected on the recreational resources of the
area. Possible impacts could occur, however, from the proximity of the land-
fills to a local park and marina.
4.10.1.5 Alternative 3
Under this alternative, impacts on land uses, recreation, and aesthetics
would result from the conversion of the Sanford Units 4 and 5 as discussed in
Section 4.10.1.4 and from the construction of a smaller coal-fired power plant
4-119
-------
by JEA. The coal-fired power plant is projected to be approximately 75%
smaller than the proposed SJRPP project. As in the case of SJRPP, this small
power plant would be consistent with existing land uses and in compliance with
the expected uses identified in the 2005 Comprehensive Plan. The project
would serve to reinforce the future industrial development of the area.
Impacts on aesthetic conditions and recreational resources would be similar to
those of SJRPP (Section 4.10.1.2).
4.10.1.6 Alternative 4
The conversion of the NGS Unit 3 would require land for a coal pile, ash
pond, ash landfill, and FGD sludge landfill. This proposal would require JEA
to purchase additional land. The land requirements associated with this
conversion are identified below as distinguished by SIP and NSPS limitations.
Coal Pile:
Ash Pond:
Ash Landfill:
Air Pollution Control:
Coal unloading and handling:
Total Land Needed:
NGS Unit 3 (SIP):
NGS Unit 3 (NSPS):
6.08 acres (159,090 tons;
average height of 20 feet)
21 acres
(SIP) 37.6 acres
(NSPS) 38.0 acres
(SIP) ESP's - 0.23 acres
(NSPS) ESP's - 0.23 acres
S02 modules - 0.31 acres
FGD facilities - 0.35 acres
FGD landfill - 67.9 acres
(or a total of 68.69 acres)
3.0 acres
114.94 acres
221.55 acres
While the conversion of the NGS would require the purchase of additional
land, the conversion of this land would be compatible with the land uses of
the area and uses projected for this area in the 2005 Comprehensive Plan. The
zoning classification would have to be changed to GU (Government Use), but the
change is not expected to face significant opposition.
Impacts on aesthetic conditions may result from the coal pile and land-
fills. These areas most likely would not be visible from either Heckscher
Drive or New Berlin Road, however. The municipal park proposed for the North-
side Sanitary Landfill could be affected, but it is expected that sufficient
land would remain for this proposed recreational resource.
4.10.1.7 Comparison of Impacts
None of the alternatives would result in major changes to future land use
patterns, recreational resources, or aesthetic conditions. Table 4.10-2
4-120
-------
summarizes the impacts of the various alternatives. The proposed SJRPP project
is expected to reinforce land uses already existing in the project area and is
consistent with the Jacksonville Comprehensive Plan.
Of the alternatives proposed, those including the conversion of FP&L's
Sanford Units 4 and 5 would most likely have the greatest possibility of
changing use patterns. The Sanford conversion would require the purchase of
additional land by FP&L and would convert agricultural lands to industrial
use. This conversion, however, occurs in an area which has mixed uses, parts
of which are becoming more industrialized. The conversion would require
Volusia County to issue a Special Exception, but such an action is not expected
to be opposed.
The construction of the refuse-powered facilities should not affect land
use patterns since the facilities are intended to be located at existing land-
fills. The conversion of NGS Units 1 and 3 should not require the purchase of
additional land and therefore is expected to have few land use impacts. The
conversion of NGS Unit 3 to coal-fired power would require additional acreage
for the disposal of ash and sludge. This land is expected to be located on
the proposed SJRPP site or near the existing Northside Sanitary Landfill, and
while it would entail the conversion of currently natural areas, it is a use
consistent with the surrounding area.
None of the proposed actions are expected to greatly affect recreational
areas. The iminicipal park proposed for portions of the Northside Sanitary
Landfill in Duval County should not be preempted by any of the proposed actions.
Aesthetic conditions will be most affected by those alternatives incorporating
coal piles and landfills. The visibility of the pile and landfill areas could
become a concern to local residents. Only the Sanford Plant conversion pro-
poses to locate such structures near residential areas. It is expected,
however, that every effort will be made to locate these structures as far as
possible from the residences.
4.10.2 Operation Impacts
The impacts of the various alternatives to land use patterns, recrea-
tional resources, and aesthetic conditions are expected to occur primarily
from the construction of these various facilities. A minimal level of impacts
is anticipated to occur from the operation phase.
4.10.2.1 No Action Alternative
Under the No Action Alternative, no changes would occur in existing or
projected conditions.
4.10.2.2 SJRPP
Approximately 678 acres of land would be required for the operation of
the proposed SJRPP project. This acreage is due in part to the need for waste
holding/storage areas which are to be kept as small as possible by selling the
gypsum by-product where marketable. Operation of the proposed plant should
affect land use patterns by reinforcing current land use plans and trends.
The proposed plant should not significantly affect land uses beyond a five
4-121
-------
mile radius. The operation of the plant may result in the development of
secondary businesses. The location of such induced businesses, however, is
not expected to change existing land use patterns. Employees needed to operate
the plant may require additional housing, but this demand is not expected to
be large. No impacts are expected to affect aesthetic conditions or recreation-
al resources.
4.10.2.3 Alternative 1
The operation of the residential solar hot water systems, the converted
NGS Units 1 and 3, the purchase of power, or the transmission of power is not
expected to affect land use patterns, recreational resources, or aesthetic
conditions. The refuse-powered facilities may bring in some operational
employees which require new housing, but this demand should be relatively
insignificant. Any induced businesses resulting from the refuse-powered
facilities should likewise have relatively minor impacts on surrounding areas.
4.10.2.4 Alternative 2
The conversion of FP&L's Sanford Units 4 and 5 may result in the develop-
ment of secondary businesses and some residential housing for operational
employees. The land uses of the project area, however, include residential,
commercial, and industrial uses and the induced development is not expected to
generate adverse changes in land use patterns or recreational areas. Aesthetic
conditions in the vicinity of the plant would be affected by the operation of
the landfill areas.
4.10.2.5 Alternative 3
In addition to the minor operational impacts associated with conversion
of the Sanford Plant, Alternative 3 includes the operation of the smaller JEA
coal-fired power plant. This plant could result in. the development of some
secondary businesses and residential areas. This induced development should
not generate significant changes to land use patterns, recreational resources,
or aesthetics, however.
4.10.2.6 Alternative 4
Under this alternative, impacts could be realized from the conversion of
the Sanford Plant and the conversion of the NGS Unit 3. The operation of the
converted NGS Unit 3 should not result in many changes to existing areas.
Some secondary businesses could be generated, but their development is not
expected to result in any major changes to land use, recreation, or aesthetics.
4.10.2.7 Comparison of Impacts
The most important impacts to result from the operation of these actions
would occur from induced secondary business development and residential housing
development. Such developments may occur from the SJRPP project, the con-
version of FP&L's Sanford Plant, the smaller JEA coal-fired power plant, or
the operation of the refuse-powered facilities. The development associated
with these projects is expected, however, to be compatible with the existing
land use patterns and no major changes are anticipated to occur on the land
use patterns, recreational resources, or aesthetics of surrounding areas.
4-122
-------
4.11 IMPACTS ON TRANSPORTATION
This section describes the effects of the SJRPP and the alternatives on
the transportation systems in the vicinity of the associated facilities. For
purposes of this analysis, two study areas have been designated. Study Area 1
includes the transportation facilities that serve NGS, the proposed SJRPP site
and Blount Island. Study Area 2 includes the transporation facilities that
serve the Sanford Plant.
4.11.1 Construction Impacts
4.11.1.1 No Action
The No Action Alternative is for JEA to continue to burn oil in the
electric generating plants. No construction impacts to transportation are
associated with the No Action Alternative.
4.11.1.2 SJRPP
Impacts to transportation during the construction of the SJRPP would
reach a maximum in 1985 when employment is at its peak. Ninety percent of the
2,575 employees are expected to arrive at the plant site between 7:00 and 8:00
a.m. The total traffic generated during this year compared to the capacity of
the four roads leading to the site (Table 4.11-1) indicates that Main Street
and Eastport Road will not exceed the desired level for urban design condit-
ions (level of service C). However, both Heckscher Drive and New Berlin Road
will be exceeding this level and congestion is expected, especially at the
intersections along these roads. New Berlin Road is also expected to receive
additional impacts related to truck damage to the road surface.
Under existing traffic conditions, all signalized locations and roadways
in the area of the proposed site are operating smoothly with additional capac-
ity available. The influx of the power plant construction force and the
continued growth in this area will affect traffic conditions along these
roadways. The most severe problem will occur at the intersection of New
Berlin Road and Heckscher Drive, presently an intersection of two lane facili-
ties. The turning traffic from Heckscher onto New Berlin is expected to
significantly increase and will likely require the addition of a left turn
lane on the west approach at this location. Other locations likely to require
improvements are: Heckscher Drive/Main Street; Heckscher Drive/I-95 Spur;
Main Street/Eastport Road; Eastport Road/Heckscher Drive; and Main Street/New
Berlin Road.
4.11.1.3 Alternative 1
Conversion of NGS Units 1 and 3 to burn COM will result in increased
construction work force traffic and increased equipment delivery truck traffic
in the Jacksonville area. However, the increase will be on a smaller scale
than that of the SJRPP. Table 4.11-2 depicts the existing traffic and pro-
jected 1985 traffic volumes for the affected roadways in Study Area 1. No
roadways in Study Area 1 would be significantly affected by construction of
the refuse plant or the COM conversion under Alternative 1. Implementation of
Alternative 1 will have no effect on the transportation facilities in the
Sanford area (Study Area 2).
4-123
-------
Table 4.11-1. Existing and projected (1985) average daily
and peak hour traffic volumes in the proposed site
vicinity (Harland Bartholomew and Associates Inc. 1980
in JEA/FP&L 1981a).
Heckscher Drive
Main Street
Eastport Road
New Berlin Road
ASSUMPTIONS.'
10% Growth
1980 Average
Daily Traffic
t 10,265
16,466
7,591
1 1,636
1980 Peak
Hour Volume
835
1,386
615
159
Projected
1985 Average
Daily Traffic
16,136
21,962
10,459
5,781
Projected 1985
Peak Hour Volume/
Capacity (level
of service C)
2,753/2,600
2,605/5,200
1,276/2,000
1,972/1,800
GIVEN:
Construction Employment - 2,575 (1985 peak)
1.2 Persons per car Construction Truck -Traffic - 37,200 in 1985 (peak)
90% work 8:00 a.m. - 4:30 p.m.
Table 4.11-2. Existing and projected (1985) peak hours traffic volumes in
Study Area 1 for construction of Alternatives 1, 3, and 4.
Heckscher Drive
Main Street
Eastport Road
New Berlin Road
Projected 1985 Peak Hour Traffic
Volume: Construction
1980 Peak Hour
Traffic Volume/
Level of Service
C Volumes
835/2,600
1,386/5,200
615/2,000
159/1,800
Alt 1
1,201
1,993
884
229
Alt 3
1,123
1,864
827
214
Alt 4
NGS
1,159
1,924
853
396
ASSUMPTIONS:
20% growth (1980-1985)
90% work between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m.
Traffic distributed proportionately to 1980 peak hour volumes
4-124
-------
4.11.1.4 Alternative 2
Study Area 1 will experience the same effects from Alternative 2 as from
the No Action Alternative. Conversion of Sanford Units 4 and 5 will increase
traffic in Study Area 2 slightly (Table 4.11-3). Most of the additional const-
ruction work force and equipment delivery traffic will be carried by Interstate
Highway 4 which presently has excess capacity available.
4.11.1.5 Alternative 3
The effects of Alternative 3 on Study Area 1 will result from the construc-
tion of the 280 MW power plant. Construction of this plant is essentially the
same as constructing SJRPP except that the plant is one-fourth the size of the
SJRPP and the Blount Island coal facility will not be built. Construction
traffic will be correspondingly less (Table 4.11-2). The effects of Alternative
3 on Study Area 2 are identical to those of Alternative 2 (Table 4.11-3).
4.11.1.6 Alternative 4
In Study Area 1, increased traffic loads will result from the conversion
of NGS Unit 3 to coal. More construction traffic will be generated than for
the NGS COM conversion because 45 acres of land will have to be cleared for
the ash pond, ash landfill, and coal pile (Table 4.11-2). The Blount Island
facility will not be built for this alternative. The effects of Alternative 4
on Sanford Area 2 would be identical to those of Alternatives 2 and 3 (Table
4.11-3).
4.11.2 Operational Impacts
4.11.2.1 No Action
Under No Action, the impact to transportation systems in Study Area 1
would be a 2% per year increase in traffic volumes (predicted by the Jackson-
ville Planning Board) as industrial expansion in the area continues. The No
Action Alternative would result in a general increase in traffic volumes in
Study Area 2.
4.11.2.2 SJRPP
Although plant operation will increase local traffic volumes, this in-
crease will be greatly reduced from the construction phase. Plant operation
will require approximately 375 employees, 90% of whom are expected to be
assigned to the day shift. Approximately 280 vehicles will be added to cur-
rent traffic volumes during the morning shift arrival. Local roads are easily
capable of accommodating this traffic increase.
The effects of coal trains entering and leaving the plant site would be
the most significant traffic impact during plant operation. To estimate this
impact, worst case delay times created by plant-related coal train traffic
alo-ng Heckscher Drive, Main Street, and Eastport Road were computed. This
analysis assumed that local trains would operate during peak traffic hours.
The total daily vehicle delay (i.e., The number of vehicles delayed times the
delay time) for the crossing of Main Street at Eastport Road by coal trains
supplying the proposed plant was estimated to be approximately 128,300 seconds
4-125
-------
Table 4.11-3. Existing and projected (1985) peak hour traffic volumes for
the alternatives affecting Study Area 2 (the Sanford Plant).
Projected
1985
1980 Average 1980 Peak Hour
Annual Daily Peak Hour Traffic
Traffic Traffic Alts. 2,3,&4
U.S. Highway 17/92 6090 456 567
Interstate Highway 4 24,834 1,860 2,312
ASSUMPTIONS;
1.2 persons per car
K factor = 8% for US 17/92
7% for Interstate 4
7% growth (1980-1985)b
a
Includes constructions worker traffic proportioned between the two
roads; construction truck traffic volumes are not available.
b(ECFRPC 1977)
4-126
-------
per day with the longest anticipated single delay of 1.5 minutes. This would
equal a total annual social cost of about 3106,000 (total annual delay times
minimum wage).
Trains will cross Eastport Road at two points (near Main Street and also
where Eastport Road turns south toward Heckscher Drive). The total daily
vehicle delay for Eastport Road is projected to be 6,678 seconds with a long-
est anticipated single delay of 1.5 minutes which would equate to a total
annual social cost of $50,555.
Coal trains arriving at the plant from the Blount Island coal unloading
facility will cross Heckscher Drive near the NGS. Two scenarios were con-
sidered for delay time calculations. The first scenario assumed that all the
coal for the plant would be shipped by barge. The second scenario assumed
that one-half of the SJRPP yearly coal requirements would be provided by
barge. In the first case, delay would be approximately 7,100 seconds per day
with a longest anticipated single delay of 9.5 minutes. This would result in
a total annual social cost of about $7,800. Delay for the second scenario
would be approximately 14,200 seconds per day and 19.1 minutes for the longest
anticipated delay. This would equal a total annual social cost of $15,600.
4.11.2.3 Alternative 1
Operation of the converted NGS units 1 and 3 will result in 80 additional
workers and 60 additional peak hour vehicles. It is assumed that the COM will
be delivered by truck from two independent COM producers to be located on
Blount Island. In order to deliver adequate supplies of COM, 75 tanker trucks
will be used per day.
Only 55 personnel will be required to operate the refuse-fired plant,
which will result in 41 additional peak hour vehicles. This is not enough
additional traffic to create any congestion problems in the vicinity of the
plants. Refuse delivery truck traffic may increase if refuse is diverted from
other landfills in the Jacksonville area to the RFPP. Alternative 1 would
have no effect on transportation facilities in the Sanford area (Study Area
2).
4.11.2.4 Alternative 2
Operation-related impacts of Alternative 2 on transportation in Study
Area 1 would be identical to those under the No Action Alternative. Operation
of the Sanford Plant after coal conversion would require 76 additional workers
and 57 additional peak hour vehicles which will not affect traffic volumes in
the area. Delivery of coal to the site would increase rail traffic in Study
Area 2 by two trains every three days. However, since no traffic data for the
Sanford area were made available, the potential impacts of this increase
cannot be assessed at this time.
4.11.2.5 Alternative 3
The operation of the 280 MW plant will require 95 additional personnel
and 71 additional peak hour vehicles which will not significantly affect
traffic in Study Area 1. The effects of Alternative 3 on transportation in
Study Area 2 would be identical to those of Alternative 2.
4-127
-------
4.11.2.6 Alternative 4
Operation of NGS after coal conversion would require 100 additional
personnel and 75 additional vehicles and consequently would have a negligible
effect on traffic in Study Area 1. Delivery of coal to the plant by truck
would cause delays at Main Street and Eastport Road.
4.11.3 Comparison of Impacts
Transporation impacts under any of the four alternatives would be less
severe for the Study Area 1 as compared to the proposed project. From a
transportation standpoint, the SJRPP/NGS study area is compatible with development
under any of the alternatives due to the comparatively small increase in
traffic that each would generate. Alternatives 3 and 4 would cause the great-
est impact of all the alternatives (except SJRPP) because they would employ a
large number of workers and require the highest volumes of coal train traffic.
The refuse-fired power plant and the COM conversion at the NGS under Alter-
native 1 would produce negligible increases in traffic in the Jacksonville
area.
Transportation patterns in Study Area 2 would be affected by the con-
version of Sanford Units 4 and 5 as outlined for Alternatives 2, 3, and 4.
However, is not expected that any adverse transportation impacts would occur
under these alternatives because little traffic would be added to that pre-
sently attributed to the Sanford Plant.
In summary, none of the four alternatives should cause adverse operation-
related impact on transportation patterns. In contrast, the traffic delays
cause by coal train deliveries at the SJRPP would constitute adverse social
and economic impacts.
4.12 ENERGY IMPACTS
4.12.1 Construction Impacts
Energy will be consumed in the construction phases of all alternatives.
Construction of transmission lines and the construction and installation of
residential solar hot water systems will also consume energy. Most of the
energy consumed will be petroleum-based energy used to fuel construction
vehicles. Electricity would also be consumed during construction, most of
which would be produced using oil-fired plants. It is assumed that construc-
tion-related impacts of the alternatives on energy resources are related to
the magnitude of the construction activities involved.
4.12.2 Operation Impacts
4.12.2.1 No Action
Under the No Action Alternative, JEA and FP&L will continue to burn oil
in boilers in order to generate electricity. For the short-term, the high
cost of oil and the insecurity inherent in the importation of foreign oil
would continue to burden FP&L and JEA electrical energy consumers.
4-128
-------
In the long-term, the electrical energy reserves of the utilities would
decrease. Use of relatively scarce and expensive boiler fuels such as natural
gas would continue. In order to meet future demands and to lower the cost of
electricity to their customers, both JEA and FP&L would be required to con-
struct other generating facilities, procure power from other sources, institute
conservation measures, or cut back on energy consumption. The latter option
would curtail economic growth in both service areas.
4.12.2.2 SJRPP
The proposed project will increase the bulk supply of electricity to the
JEA and FP&L systems by a net amount of 550 MW each. This would satisfy JEA's
future power needs at a competitive cost (Appendix BB) well into the 1990's,
but would meet FP&L's future power needs for only about 1 year at the current
rate of growth (Bivans 1981). In addition, the fuel mix for these two systems
will be diversified to include coal, a more abundant and less -expensive fuel.
Energy will be consumed in the operation of the proposed facilities and in
mining and transporting 3,500,000 tons of coal per year from Kentucky or
Tennessee to the plant. The process of burning coal to produce electrical
energy is a medium efficiency process. Considerable amounts of energy are
lost in the process as waste heat and in the conversion of thermal energy to
mechanical energy and then to electrical energy.
Plant consumption of electrical energy also includes such energy inten-
sive systems as the FGD system and ESP's and accounts for some of the differ-
ence in the 1,200 MW rating and its estimated net output of 1,100 MW.
4.12.2.3 Alternative 1
The refuse plants, residential solar water heating units, and purchase of
electrical energy from a Georgia Power's Plant Vogtle would provide 228.4 MW
of additional generating capacity to the JEA system and 550 MW to the FP&L
system without requiring long distance transport of fuels. This alternative
would meet approximately one half of the power needs projected by JEA and all
of the power needs for FP&L that the SJRPP was designed to supply. However,
the relative cost of generating this additional power would be high, even more
for FP&L than continuing to burn oil (Appendix BB). The conversion of NGS to
a coal-oil mixture will reduce generating capacity at the NGS by 152 MW which
would have to be made up by the purchase of power. The basic fuels making up
the coal-oil mixture will be transported over long distances to the NGS site.
Power generated at Plant Vogtle would be transmitted to Florida at an effic-
iency of about 97%. Refuse plants will make use of materials that normally
would be discarded; hence, refuse plants represent a method of recycling these
materials to generate electricity and reduce the bulk of material to be land-
filled. There is a loss of energy associated with the conversion of thermal
energy for this process. The solar water heaters make use of a virtually
limitless renewable resource. Due to variability in the weather, however,
these systems require a backup energy source such as natural gas or elec-
tricity in order to provide a reliable source of hot water.
4.12.2.4 Alternative 2
Under Alternative 2, 550 MW of additional capacity would be purchased
from Plant Vogtle for JEA. Conversion of FP&L's Sanford Plant reduces gen-
4-129
-------
erating capacity and 72 MW of power would be purchased to makeup for this
derating. This alternative would meet JEA's future capacity needs and displace
oil at a competitive cost to that provided by SJRPP- However, FP&L would gain
no capacity and would have to begin making plans to meet its projected need
for additional capacity in 1989. The Sanford Plant conversion to coal would
meet FP&L's need to displace oil, but would increase the need for power during
conversion to replace the power normally supplied by Sanford Uni-ts 4 and 5.
Energy would be required to transport the coal, a bulkier fuel then oil, from
the coal fields to Florida. Also about 10% of Sanford Units 4 and 5 generat-
ing capacity would be lost due to derating and about 3% of the power purchased
from Plant Vogtle would be lost in transmission.
4.12.2.5 Alternative 3
Impacts as the result of the purchase of power and the conversion to coal
of FP&L's Sanford Plant were described in Section 4.11.2.3. The small 280 MW
coal-fired power plant on the site of the proposed project will have impacts
similar to the proposed project on the energy resources, but would be reduced
in magnitude. As in the case of Alternative 2, JEA would be able to meet the
projected capacity needs for which the proposed project was designed, but FP&L
would not. Both utilities would reduce the use of oil as a boiler fuel in
favor of coal, a more abundant resource.
4.12.2.6 Alternative 4
The purchase of power and the Sanford Plant conversion to coal were
discussed in Section 4.12.2.3. NGS Unit 3 would be derated by 46% as a result
of conversion to coal firing and the loss in capacity would be made up by
purchase of power to prevent a loss of regional supplies of electric energy.
Energy impacts related to fuel transportation would be increased since coal
would have to be transported over long distances to supply both the NGS and
Sanford Plants. This alternative would supply 72 MW of additional capacity to
JEA and none to FP&L. As in the case of Alternatives 2 and 3, the utilities
would have to begin planning other means to meet future capacity and reliabil-
ity needs.
4.12.2.7 Summary of Operation-Related Impacts
The proposed project and each of the four alternatives will reduce the
amount of oil used in generating electricity in the JEA and/or FP&L systems.
Only the proposed project and Alternative 1 provide additional generating
capacity for the FP&L system. Additional energy would be provided for JEA in
all alternatives (Table 4.12-1).
Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 allow for the greatest reduction in oil con-
sumption in generating electrical energy due to the conversion of Sanford
Units 4 and 5. The proposed project and each alternative provide for the same
reduction in oil consumption in the JEA system. The proposed project and
Alternative 1 allow for an increase in FP&L's electrical generating capacity;
other alternatives do not. If Alternatives 2, 3, or 4 were selected, FP&L
would have to begin making plans for other facilities or means of obtaining
additional capacity in order to meet its projected needs.
4-130
-------
Table 4.12-1. Oil displacement and electrical generation
capacity additions to the JEA and FP&L systems for the proposed
nroiect and each alternative.
L J
project and each alternative
Barrels of Oil
Displaced Additional Generating
(x 103 barrels) Capacity (MW)
No Action
SJRPP
Alternative 1
Alternative 2
Alternative 3
Alternative 4
JEA
0
5,875
5,875
5,875
5,875
5,875
FP&L
0
5,440
5,440
7,200
7,200
7,200
JEA
0
550
228.4
550
550
72
FP&L
0
550
550
0
0
0
Under the proposed project, oil is displaced by increasing the use of
coal. Alternative 1 provides oil displacement through increased used of coal,
alternative fuel sources, and purchased nuclear power. Solar energy and
refuse combustion provide additional capacity and displace oil, while making
use of recycled materials or renewable and limitless fuel sources. Alterna-
tives 2, 3, and 4 provide additional capacity with purchased power and dis-
placed oil through the conversion of oil-fired plants to coal or a coal-oil
mixture. Purchased power does not involve the transport of primary fuels to a
power plant; however, electrical energy must be transmitted over an expanded
transmission line system. Of all options discussed, only coal-fired and
COM-fired power plants require long distance fuel transport.
4.13 HUMAN HEALTH IMPACTS
The potential for human health impacts from the proposed project and the
alternatives are summarized in this section. Principle concerns with respect
to human health include air emissions and wastewater discharges. The no-action
alternative would have no net effect on the human health impacts in the Jacksonville
area. A more detailed discussion on human health is presented in Appendix V.
4.13.1 Proposed Project
4.13.1.1 Air Emissions
The air quality impacts on human health due to the operation of the
proposed project are assessed for the criteria pollutants (those for which
national standards have been developed) and non-criteria pollutants (those for
which no standards exist), and radionuclides.
Criteria Pollutants
Criteria pollutants are those pollutants for which National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS) have been determined. The primary NAAQS are man-
4-131
-------
dated by the Clean Air Act for protection of public health with an adequate
margin of safety. Pollutants currently having a (NAAQS) are sulfur dioxide
(S02), nitrogen oxides (NOx), carbon monoxide (CO), particulates, hydrocarbons
(HC), lead, and ozone. Because the proposed project will increase the net
emissions of these pollutants in the Jacksonville area, ground level con-
centrations and human exposure to these pollutants will increase. However,
ambient concentrations resulting from emissions from the proposed project and
all major sources in Duval County would not violate any of the NAAQS (Section
4.2). A potential violation of the 24-hour FAAQS for S02 was predicted by
FDER (see Appendix K or Section 4.2 of the SAR/EIS). If this violation were
to occur there would be a short-term increase in the potential health risks
for elderly persons and persons with acute and chronic respiratory disorders
in the vicinity of the violation. Operational changes in the JEA system which
are being considered to mitigate this impact include shutting down JEA's
Southside Units 1 and 2 during peak load conditions. FDER has not yet deter-
mined the adequacy of the proposed change to mitigate the predicted violation.
However, if the violation can be mitigated no further adverse health impacts
would be expected to occur. It should be noted that the 24-hour S02FAAQS is
more stringent than the NAAQS and that no violations of the NAAQS were modell-
ed under any scenarios.
Possible impacts due to lead emissions were not modelled as part of the
original air quality assessment (JEA/FP&L 1981a). Lead emissions from the
proposed facility are projected to be 5.94 g/sec (JEA/FP&L 1981a). The short
term ground level concentration for lead can be estimated by ratioing the lead
emissions with those for S02 and in turn ratioing the ground level concentra-
tions. Using this method, the maximum 24-hour lead concentration due to the
emissions from SJRPP would be 1.08 ug/m3 which would occur 1.8 Km slightly
south of east from the facility. The NAAQS for lead is 1.5 ug/m3 averaged.
over a 90 day period. Since the predicted 1.08 ug/m3 is for a 24-hour period
under 100% load, it would represent a significant overprediction of the 90 day
average concentration. No ambient air data for lead is available in the
vicinity of the project site; however, data are available for the downtown
area of Jacksonville (USEPA 1981). Two sets of data are available corre-
sponding to a downtown commercial district and a downtown residential neighbor-
hood. The maximum and mean 24-hour concentrations of lead measured in the
commercial district were 2.72 ug/m3 and 0.89 ug/m3 respectively. The maximum
and mean 24-hour concentrations measured at the neighborhood monitors were
1.74 ug/m3 and 0.47 ug/m3 respectively. In'both cases only the maximum valves
exceed the NAAQS of 1.5 ug/m3; however, the averaging time is different and a
violation is not necessarily indicated. Lead concentrations are significantly
affected by motor vehicle emissions. This probably accounts for the large
change in lead concentrations from the downtown commercial to the downtown
residential area. Because of the transportation factor, the ambient concentr-
ations measured downtown would not be considered representative of the proposed
project site. Assuming that the mean downtown residential concentration of
lead is more representative of the SJRPP area, the maximum uncontrolled ground
level concentration of lead from the SJRPP would increase concentrations to
approximately 1.55 ug/m3 near the site. This would be only a short term
increase based on extremely conservative emission assumptions. Therefore,
health impacts due to emissions of lead from SJRPP appear to be low. In
addition, with respect to criteria pollutants in Jacksonville, there may be a
general improvement as a result of the operation of SJRPP since it would
4-132
-------
displace emissions from the oil-fired Southside and Kennedy units which are
located in the downtown area.
The proposed project would cause a reduction in air emissions in the FP&L
system service area. Since a reduction in emissions may be assumed to improve
air quality, there would be a net improvement in human health in the FP&L
service area as a result of the proposed project.
Non-Criteria Pollutants
The SJRPP would also produce emissions of several non-criteria pollut-
ants. These include trace elements, sulfates, and nitrates. A literature
review of the potential effects of elevated levels of these trace pollutants
on human health is presented in Appendix V. This section analyzes the po-
tential health-related impacts of the non-criteria pollutants generated by the
SJRPP using a worst-case scenario approach. The worst-case scenario is ex-
tremely conservative and assumes that all trace elements present in coal
burned at SJRPP would be emitted through the SJRPP stacks (i.e., it is assumed
the FGD, ESP and bottom ash will collect none of these emissions). Because of
the nature of most trace elements (particulates), it is likely that the ESP
will remove a large percentage of these elements. Also, a portion of those
substances will be retained in the bottom ash (i.e. all mass will not be
emitted into the atmosphere). Potential health impacts of trace elements are
analyzed in this section by application of the Threshold Limit Value (TLV).
Threshold Limit Values for several trace metals have been established by the
American Conference of Government Industrial Hygienists. The TLV's represent
concentrations under which it is believed that nearly all workers may be
repeatedly exposed without adverse effects. These values (TLV) do not provide
an indicator of constant exposure (ambient) so a human threshold limit value
(HTLV) is derived by dividing the TLV by 100. This provides a value for
comparison with ambient air values. Further discussion of TLV's and HTLV's is
provided is Appendix V.
The maximum 24-hour ground level concentration of the trace elements
emitted from SJRPP were estimated by comparing the emissions of the trace
elements to the S02 emissions and comparing those with the ground level S02
concentrations predicted. This provides a very conservative number for com-
parison with the HTLV values because the concentrations would be a short term
maximum rather than the long term average. However, if this methodology does
not produce an exceedance of the HTLV, it can be reasonably concluded that the
potential for human health impacts from trace element emissions as a result of
the operation of SJRPP would be small. -Table 4.13-1 depicts the trace elements
assessed, their emissions, predicted increase in 24-hour maximum ground level
concentrations, and the HTLV. Background concentrations of various trace
pollutants at several locations in the Jacksonville area are shown in Table
4.13-2. There are no ambient data for the exact area of maximum concentration
considered in Table 4.13-1. Only the increase in the concentration of beryl-
lium is predicted to exceed the applicable HTLV. This exceedance is approxi-
mately 0.004 ug/m3. As shown in Table 4.13-2, the ambient concentrations of
beryllium in Jacksonville and at the SJRPP site are extremely low. Because of
the small exceedance, the conservative analysis and the low background levels
the actual potential for human health impacts due to beryllium appears to be
low.
4-133
-------
Table 4.13-1. Worst case analysis of trace element emissions and potential
for adverse health effects due to SJRPP.
Projected
Uncontrolled Stack
Trace
Elements
Arsenic
Beryllium
Boron
Cadmium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Fluorine
Manganese
Mercury
Molybdenum
Nickel
Selenium
Strontium
Tin
Vanadium
Zinc
Sulfate
Nitrate
Concentration3
in Coal (ppm)
25
1.3
42
0.24
20
9.8
18
89
18
0.2
4.6
15
4.0
130
2.0
38
25
-
—
Emission
Rateb
(gin/sec)
2.52
1.31 x
4.23
2.42 x
2.02
9.88 x
1.81
8.97
1.81
2.02 x
4.64 x
3.02
4.03 x
13.10
2.02 x
3.83
2.52
57:03
44.91
10-1
10-2
lo-1
10-2
10-1
10-1
lo-1
Projected Stack
Emission Ratec
(Ib/hr)
19.96
1.04
33.50
0.19
16.00
7.82
14.34
71.04
14.34
0.16
3.67
23.92
3.19
103.75
1.60
30.33
19.96
451.70
355.70
Maximum Worst Case
Trace Element
Concentration Increase"
(ng/m3)
0.4600
0.0240
0.7670
0.0040
0.3660
0.1790
0.3280
1.6270
0.3280
0.0040
0.0840
0.5480
0.0730
2.3760
0.0370
0.6950
0.4570
10.3440
8.1450
Human Health
Threshold Limit
Values (TLV
divided by 100)8
(ug/m3)
5.0
0.02
100
0.5
1.0
-
2.0
2.0
5.0
0.1
-
10.0
2.0
_
-
1.0
-
-
—
Sulfate and nitrate emissions estimated to be 5% of 862
aSource: Gluskoter et al. (1977) in JEA/FP&L (1981).
Based on coal consumption rate of 3.5 x 10" tons/year.
and NC>2 emissions.
CS02 emission rate of 1138.3 g/sec = 9034 Ib/hr.
Based on maximum predicted ambient S02 concentrations of 220 ug/m^ on a 24-hour basis, which is contribution of
proposed plant without any of the additional emission sources, assuming that all emissions are unaffected by FGD
and electrostatic precipitator systems, and all trace elements in the coal are emitted through the stacks.
eSource: USEPA (1981); maximum 24-hour value observed on a single occasion in downtown Jacksonville.
Source: JEA/FP&L (1981); measured at the SJRPP site.
g
See Section 2.3.8.
-------
Table 4.13-2. Comparison of ambient atmospheric trace pollutant
concentrations for three areas in the vicinity of Jacksonville,
Florida and human health threshold criteria in ug/m-^ (USEPA 1981}
(JEA/FP&L 1981a).
Pollutant
Beryllium
Barium
Cadmium
Coppper
Iron
Manganese
Molybdenum
Nickel
Vanadium
Zinc
Nitrate
Sulfate
Chloride
Arsenic
Mercury
Selenium
Asbestos
Fluoride
Downtown
Commercial
District
(max/mean
in ug/m-5)
0.0005/0.0003
0.135/0.027
0.002/0.001
0.13/0.08
3.03/0.92
0.22/0.03
0.011/0.002
0.070/0.018
0.154/0.043
0.182/0.105
4.69/2.57
17.6/9.6
-
-
-
-
-
-
Center City
Residential
Neighborhood
(max/mean
in ug/nH)
0.0003/0.0002
0.539/0.485
0.004/0.001
1.43/0.57
1.57/0.38
0.10/0.02
0.0086/0.0013
0.067/0.023
0.121/0.027
0.434/0.0067
4.61/ -
22.2/ -
-
-
-
-
-
-
SJRPP
Site
(max/mean
in ug/m-3)
<0.003/<0.003
-
0.0024/0.0009
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.34/0.17
19.1/10.7
2.49/0.85
<0.002/<0.002
0.003/0.0009
<0.0005/<0.0005
ND/ND
0.5/0.15
Human Health Threshold
Limit Values
(TLV's divided by 100)
(.in ug/m-5)
0.02
5.0
0.50
2.0
-
5.0
-
10.0
1.0
-
-
-
-
5.0
0.10
2.0
-
_
4-135
-------
Radioriuclides
Radionuclides (radioactive isotopes from decay of radioactive elements)
are found in coal and will be emitted during operation of the proposed facil-
ities. Coal contains at least 50% carbon by weight as well as sulfur, iron,
moisture, and trace quantities of naturally occurring radioactive materials
such as uranium (U-235, U-238), thorium (TH-232), their decay products, and
potassium-40. When coal is burned, the mineral content of the coal is con-
verted to ash and slag. These waste materials contain most of the radionu-
clides originally present in the coal. A fraction of the ash is released to
the atmosphere, and the remainder is collected and either re-utilized or
landfilled. Appendix V provides a more detailed analysis of potential health
related impacts of radioactive emissions. Due to the extremely small amounts
of radioactive materials emitted in comparison to background levels, no ad-
verse impacts due to the operation of the SJRPP would result.
4.13.1.2 Wastewater Discharges
The potential health-related impacts from water discharges would be
related to bioaccumulation of some of the pollutants in fish and other marine
life. The proposed project would discharge cooling tower blowdown and heated
wastewater to the St. Johns River. The net change in bulk pollutant loadings
which reflect the increase or decrease in loadings from the existing con-
ditions are shown in Table 4.3-5. The proposed project would result in net
increases in loadings of oil and grease, copper, iron, mercury, aluminum, and
silver, and net reductions in loadings of chlorine and heat to surface waters.
The increases would result in average and maximum concentrations which will
occasionally exceed Class II water quality criteria for copper, cyanide, iron,
mercury, silver, aluminum (maximum only), and oil and grease (maximum only).
The SJRPP could exacerbate existing conditions by exposing increasing numbers
of food chain organisms to elevated levels of trace metals within the mixing
zone. However, it is not possible to accurately predict the exact nature of
the potential human health effects of these increases in levels of trace
metals in the lower part of the estuarine food chain.
The proposed coal unloading facility at Blount Island would also add
trace elements to the St. Johns River. These materials would be transported
to the River by seepage from the percolation pond and could exceed the Class
III water quality standard for copper, iron, selenium, and mercury after
mixing. The potential health problems are again related to bioaccumulation of
mercury and copper in. fish and other marine life, but are difficult to accu-
rately define.
4.13.1.3 Other Vectors
There is an potential for leachate from the solid waste disposal cells on
the SJRPP site to contaminate the -water table aquifer and, to a lesser extent,
the shallow rock aquifer. Due to the high permeability and low cation exchange
capacity of the soils on the site, metals and other trace pollutants in the
leachate would enter the water table aquifer and probably be transported
down-gradient to Browns Creek and Clapboard Creek. There are no wells in the
vicinity of SJRPP which utilize the shallow aquifer so the potential for
direct impact on human health is low. Because of a discontinuous separation
between the water table aquifer and the shallow rock aquifer in the area,
4-136
-------
there is also a potential for some of the leachate to reach the shallow rock
aquifer. Although the leachate would be highly diluted, there is a possibil-
ity that some of the pollutants in the leachate could be picked up in low
concentrations by wells using the shallow rock aquifer near the SJRPP. There-
fore, there is some remote, long term potential for human health impacts due
to leachate contamination of groundwater supplies.
4.13.2 Impacts of Alternatives
A detailed assessment of net changes in air emissions, water discharges,
and solid waste generation has been provided in other Appendices. The assess-
ment includes an evaluation of the proposed project and four alternatives. A
brief statement as to potentially adverse or beneficial nature of each alter-
native with respect to human health is provided in this section. The analysis
is based on the assumption that when pollutants entering the environment show
a net increase, human health is adversely affected. Only comparative health
impacts among the alternatives are presented. Absolute estimates of increased
deaths and illnesses are not possible due to the lack of detailed information.
4.13.2.1 Air Emissions
There is widespread agreement that a general degradation of air quality
can be associated with an increase in morbity and mortality. Moreover, there
is no argument that the risks are extremely variable and that the young, the
elderly, and the infirmed are the most susceptible groups. Of the four pro-
posed alternatives, Alternative 1 would have the greatest potential for adverse
impacts on air quality and, consequently, human health of the Jacksonville
area. Alternative 1 would result in net increase in emissions of S02, par-
ticulates, NOx, CO, HC, and hydrochloric acid (Table 4.2-17). These increases
are due to conversion of Northside #1 and #3 from burning oil to coal and
addition of a refuse-fired power plant. Relative to the proposed project,
Alternative 1 could result in greater health impacts because of larger increas-
es in concentrations of S02, particulates, CO, and trace elements. Alterna-
tives 2, 3, and 4 could improve human health conditions because of a decrease
in air emissions in the Jacksonville area.
Human health could benefit from Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 in the FP&L
service area outside of Sanford. Under these alternatives, human health could
be affected in Sanford due to net increases in air emissions of S02, NOx, CO,
HC, and trace elements. The health effects due to S02 would be greatly reduced
if the conversion to coal of FP&L's Sanford facility includes an FGD system to
meet NSPS standards. Relative to the proposed project, Alternatives 2, 3, and
4 could potentially result in greater adverse health impacts due to relatively
higher net air emissions in the Sanford area.
Human health could be adversely affected in the FP&L service area and
outside Sanford because of increased emissions of CO, HC, and hydrochloric
acid from proposed refuse plants.
4.13.2.2 Wastewater Discharges
Of the four proposed alternatives, Alternatives 1, 3, and 4 would in-
crease the net bulk discharges of copper, iron, mercury, aluminum, silver, and
oil and grease to the surface waters of Jacksonville. Relative to the pro-
4-137
-------
create a cone of depression with 15 feet of drawdown at the nearest site boundary
and approximately 9 feet of drawdown at the nearest off-site well. Approxi-
mately 66 Floridan Aquifer wells could experience declines of 2 to 4 feet and
approximately 137 wells could experience drawdowns of 1 to 2 feet. Under
maximum usage conditions for a 24-hour period, it was shown that the cone of
depression at the site boundary was 25 feet with a drawdown of 14 feet at the
nearest off-site well. Approximately 50 wells could experience water level
declines of greater than 1 foot and 31 wells could experience drawdown of
greater than 2 feet. Under either average of maximum pumping conditions, the
flow of some artesian wells and the yield of some pumped wells in the immediate
vicinity of the SJRPP would be reduced.
Any increased production from the Floridan Aquifer has the potential for
inducing increased chloride concentrations within the Aquifer. Chloride con-
centrations in the Floridan Aquifer can generally be correlated with high
rates of production, particularly from deeper zones. The proposed project
could contribute to long-term increases in chloride contamination of the
Floridan Aquifer. In addition, leachate from solid waste disposal areas will
not be contained by the normal soils of the SJRPP landfill site. Solid waste
disposal will therefore contribute leachate constituents to the water table
aquifers which will probably discharge to surface water bodies down-gradient.
The quantity of leachate, its chemical composition, and the precise change in
groundwater quality are unknown at this time. The potential for groundwater
contamination from leachate constitutes a major potential adverse impact of
the project. A groundwater monitoring and testing program has been proposed
to evaluate this potential problem.
5.1.4 Aquatic and Terrestrial Ecology
During construction, approximately 84 acres of valuable seasonally flooded
wetlands and much of its associated fauna will be eliminated. Clearing of 364
acres of pine flatwoods would eliminate any remaining habitat suitable for
gopher tortoises, gopher frogs, indigo snakes, and other species which depend
on gopher tortoise burrows on the site. Construction activities and human
presence in the area could disturb nesting or feeding activities of several
rare, threatened, or endangered State and Federally listed birds which occur
in the marshes just to the east of the site. These same species could also be
affected by the discharges of treated sanitary and runoff wastewaters during
construction into a headwater of Browns Creek marsh. Such a discharge could
also adversely affect larval forms of commercially important fish and shellfish.
During operation, seepage of leachates from solid waste areas into Browns
and Clapboard Creek marshes could contaminate the food web in these senitive
wetlands. Trace element seepage from the percolation pond on Blount Island
and discharges of copper, mercury, and other trace metals at the POD from SJRPP
could also place a further stress on aquatic life in the St. Johns River estuary.
5.1.5 Sound Quality
Adverse noise impacts are expected to occur due to the construction of the
SJRPP. Noise resulting from the normal construction activities associated with
the project, however, would increase noise levels by only 2 dB at the nearest
receptor. The most severe adverse noise impact would occur during steam blowout.
5-2
-------
The steam blowout event would be of short duration (approximately 3 minutes) and
would be preceded by notification to area residents.
5.1.6 Cultural Resources
The proposed project would have an adverse effect on the St. Johns River
Power Park Archaeological District, a property deemed eligible for listing on
the National Register of Historic Places. Sites 8Du634 and 8Du669 may be
eliminated as the result of the siting of the rail loop and runoff sediment
control pond. Site 8Du677 may be eliminated as a result of land modification
activities related to the siting of a 90-acre solid waste disposal landfill.
5.1.7 Socioeconomic Conditions
Construction of the SJRPP would create a temporary influx of workers to
the Jacksonville area. Additional public costs would be incurred as a result
of the additional demands on various public services by the immigrant work
force and their families. These additional costs, however, would be temporary
and are not expected to be great. The operation of the SJRPP would generate
a relatively small influx of workers. While the influx is more likely to
locate permanently in the Jacksonville area, the public costs incurred will be
minimal since they will be spread over a longer time frame and will be offset
by various tax revenues.
5.1.8 Land Use, Recreation, and Aesthetics
No adverse impacts on land use are projected for the SJRPP site or the
Blount Island coal unloading facility. The greatest effects on land uses
would result from construction of the transmission lines. It is probable
that the selected transmission line right-of-way (ROW) would cross limited
areas of medium density residential development. These crossings could result
in the displacement of a small number of residences. The preferred corridor
also includes two recreational areas - a golf course and tennis courts. It
may be possible to avoid these areas by altering tower designs. Most of the
land uses of the selected transmission line corridor, however, would be com-
patible with existing patterns. The SJRPP would add tall cooling towers, a
640 foot exhaust stack, a coal pile, and sludge and ash disposal landfills
to the existing vista of the area. The taller structures would be visible
from Heckscher Drive and New Berlin Road and residences along these highways
would be affected by these dominant industrial features.
5.1.9 Transportation
Construction of the SJRPP would result in several adverse impacts to
transportation systems in the area of the plant. Increased traffic on Heck-
scher Drive and New Berlin Road would exceed the desired level of service
for urban design conditions and traffic congestion would occur at the fol-
lowing intersections during rush hours: Interstate Highway 95 and Heckscher
Drive; Main Street and Heckscher Drive; Main Street and New Berlin Road; Main
Street and Eastport Road; and Heckscher Drive and New Berlin Road.
5-3
-------
Adverse transportation impacts due to the operation of the SJRP would
result from coal trains entering and leaving the site. Traffic woul exper
ience delay when the unit trains cross Main Street, Eastport Road, N i Berl.
Road, and Heckscher Drive. The impact would be the most severe when :he
trains cross these roads during rush hours.
5 . 1 . 10 Human Health Impacts
le 24-! our
If the operation of the SJRPP were to result in a violation of
FAAQS for S02 as predicted, there would be an increased potential in :he
vicinity of the violation for deleterious effects on the health of t i elde ly
and those with acute and chronic respiratory disorders. All other r julate*
air pollutants are predicted to be in compliance with applicable sta lards.
There could be a small increase in the concentration of some trace e aments in
the Jacksonville area, but no increase in potential health risks is iticip; ted.
No adverse human health impacts are projected to result from wastewa ar dis
charges; however, there may be some increased risk of health impacts due to
the potential contamination of groundwater in the vicinity of SJRPP.
5.1.11 Energy Impacts
No adverse impacts on energy resources are anticipated from the constr c-
tion or operation of the proposed project.
5.2 IDENTIFICATION AND EVALUATION OF AVAILABLE MITIGATIVE MEASURES
This section summarizes the measures which are available to mit gate
potential impacts of the construction and operation of the SJRPP on he nat ral
and man-made environment. Included are discussions of measures for inimiz .ng
impacts on air, water, earth, biological, economic, cultural, and hu an res urces,
5.2.1 Mitigation of Construction-Related Impacts
Seveal methods are available which can effectively mitigate man of th
proposed project's adverse construction impacts.
5.2.1.1 Air Resources
Appropriate methods of dust control and dust emission preventio
used to mitigate effects of construction in the vicinity of the prop
Air quality control rules of the State of Florida for fugitive dust
and open burning will also be met (Florida Department of Environment
tion, Chapter 17-2.04(3) FAG; and Florida Division of Forestry, Chap
(FAC). To comply with these regulations, all reasonable precautions
taken to prevent fugitive dust emissions during construction. Such
will include using asphalt, oil, water, or dust-suppression chemical
control of dust from grading and clearing operations and on dirt roa
During construction, vegetation will be cleared in the main sit
along the transmission line ROW. Open burning of debris must comply
following conditions:
• Burning will be performed between 9:00 a.m. Eastern Standard
(EST) and one hour before sunset; at other times, a forced c
system will be used;
will e
sed si e.
missio is
1 Regu .a-
er 51-
will b •
recaut .ons
for t .e
s.
area .nd
with t le
Time
aft
5-4
-------
• The burning location will be at least 45 meters (50 yards) from the
nearest occupied building or public highway;
• Piles will be no larger than can be burned within the designated time;
• Moisture content and composition will be favorable for good burning;
and
• Smoke emissions will not exceed 40% capacity or Number 2 on the Ringel-
mann chart except during startup.
Adherence to the above practices will minimize air-related impacts during the
construction phase.
5.2.1.2 Water Resources
Main Site and Blount Island
Potential impacts on water resources during the construction phase will
be related primarily to erosion and sedimentation. Accelerated erosion will
be controlled by compaction of embankments, early soil stabilization, limiting
the size of exposed areas, maintenance of relatively flat grades, stabiliza-
tion of stormwater flat grades, and stabilization of stormwater outlets and
flat bottom ditches as well as other appropriate erosion control techniques.
Sedimentation will be controlled during construction by use of sediment
control basins and traps, filter berms, straw bales, perforated riser pipes
at drainage structures, or other applicable devices as appropriate. Site
drainage will be toward the south to a sedimentation pond located near the
plant loop. This pond will be sized to provide 24-hour detention of storm-
water runoff for the 10-year, 24-hour rainfall event to ensure compliance with
effluent standards. The draft NPDES permit will require that overflow dis-
charges from the pond do not exceed 50 mg/1 of total suspended solids, although
the means by which this limit is to be achieved has not been identified.
Earthmoving activities will be staggered so that the surface area of
disturbed land at any one time is limited. With the exception of that area
occupied by plant components, exposed areas will be revegetated with pines and
other vegetation native to the site and beneficial to wildlife.
Effluent from the sanitary wastewater treatment plant and runoff from the
site will be collected in a sedimentation pond prior to discharge to Browns
Creek marsh. However, this waste will have a great potential for producing
adverse impacts on this sensitive wetland. The total residual oxidants (TRO)
concentration in the effluent from the pond (NPDES 002) should be maintained
at a level no greater than 0.01 mg/1 or the discharges should be routed to the
NGS discharge channel (NPDES 001) in order to effectively mitigate these
impa ct s.
Transmission Line ROW
Potential erosion-related impacts on water resources which could result
from ROW construction will be mitigated by adhering to the following guide-
lines established by the Federal Power Commission (1971):
5-5
-------
• The time and method of clearing the ROW will take into account soil
stability and protection of vegetation;
• Trees, shrubs, grass, and topsoil not cleared will be protected
from damage during construction;
• Clearing of the ROW to the mineral soil will be avoided. If this
does occur, topsoil will be replaced and stabilized without undue
delay by planting appropriate vegetation;
• Scars on the ground surfaces in erosion prone areas will be repaired
and replanted;
• Terraces and other erosion control devices will be constructed where
necessary;
• Where the ROW crosses streams, the banks will be stabilized and if
necessary culverts will be constructed to minimize alterations in
water flow;
• Construction access roads will be stabilized by erosion control
measures and by planting grass and other appropriate vegetation.
Roads will be designed for proper drainage;
• Service and access roads will be used jointly when possible;
• Exposed ground will be sprayed with water to reduce dust as
needed; and
• Periodic inspection of the transmission line will include observa-
tions for areas of erosion; these areas will be noted and promptly
stabilized.
Adherence to the above guidelines will ensure that water quality in area
streams, rivers, and wetlands will not be degraded due to increased erosion.
In addition, no chemical sprays or defoliants will be used during the construc-
tion phase. During operation some herbicides will be used to control vegeta-
tion. These materials will be used in strict accordance with all applicable
regulations and manufacturers' instructions.
Dredging at Blount Island and Mill Cove
Dredging activities at the Blount Island coal unloading facility and for
the transmission towers in Mill Cove could have potential impacts on water
quality. These impacts will be mitigated by limiting dredging activities
from late fall to early winter (November through early January). The material
resulting from any subsequent maintenance dredging will be pumped to the
Quarantine Island disposal area if adequate capacity is available and per-
mitted by the Jacksonville Planning Authority and the USCOE. If not, an
alternative existing spoil area to the north-northwest of the NGS will be
used. All dredging and filling activities must be permitted and approved by
the USCOE.
5-6
-------
5.2.1.3 Groundwater Resources
Any potential construction-related impacts of dewatering will be miti-
gated by employing groundwater control measures in the vicinity of the site.
These measures will be designed to limit the lateral extent of dewatering
effects and minimize the quanitities of groundwater which must be produced
in order to achieve the desired level of dewatering. The control measures
could include such techniques as the use of sheet pilings, slurry walls,
grout curtains, or dewatering wells constructed on benches within the
excavation.
5.2.1.4 Biological Resources
Sensitive Areas
A total of approximately 65 acres of hardwood swamp in the northwestern
portion of the SJRPP property and remaining portions of other seasonally
flooded wetlands will be preserved. The draft NPDES permit will require a
buffer zone approximately 200 feet in width around each of the on-site wetlands
which are contiguous with the St. Johns River or its tributaries. In addition,
the permit will require that the boundary of the buffer zone be defined by a
fence which will serve to restrict access to the wetlands and aid in the
preservation of these areas.
Wetlands along the transmission line ROW could also be affected by con-
struction activities. Mats will be used to support heavy equipment in these
areas. If towers must be located in a marsh, the marsh habitat will be dis-
turbed only in the immediate tower foundation areas. When construction in a
particular area is complete, the mats will be removed.
Wildlife Resources
When possible, construction of solid waste disposal areas in close prox-
imity to the rookery near the SJRPP site will be timed to avoid disrupting
nesting birds in spring and early summer. The gopher tortoise, listed as a
species of special concern by the Florida Game and Freshwater Fish Commission,
is abundant on the site. An effort will be made to capture and transport
these reptiles to another area prior to construction. However, the feasi-
bility of relocation will first be evaluated through consultation with appro-
priate State agencies since this may be a difficult procedure (Shapiro 1981).
On Blount Island, spoil areas on and near the existing ROW have potential
as nesting habitat for the least tern (Sterna albifrons) and osprey (Pandion
haliaetus). Construction in these areas will be avoided.
Aquatic Habitats
Potential construction-related impacts on aquatic habitats will be miti-
gated as described under water resources (Section 5.2.12).
5-7
-------
5.2.1.5 Land Use and Socioeconomics
It is probable that the selected transmission ROW will cross limited
areas of medium density residential development. Such crossings may result
in the displacement of a small number of residences. These crossings will be
avoided when possible. The preferred corridor section to the Robinwood Sub-
station includes a limited area of private recreation facilities. It may be
possible to avoid crossing these recreation areas by using tower designs
which decrease the transmission line ROW width and by changing the tower
location.
5.2.1.6 Cultural Resources
Avoidance, protection in place through project design, and data recovery
are the basic options available for mitigation of potential impacts on cul-
tural resources. The applicants have identified an area within the SJRPP
tract which will be fenced off in order to restrict land access to most
archaeological sites, but site 8Du699, the largest and perhaps most signifi-
cant site in the archaeological district, would be destroyed as a result of
the siting of a sedimentation control pond adjacent to the rail loop. The
Florida SHPO has recommended salvage archaeological excavation of any of the
identified archaeological resources which cannot be avoided or preserved in
place.
Archaeological excavation includes data recovery using scientific methods,
analysis and preservation of archaeological and historical materials and infor-
mation that otherwise would be lost, and the study of these resources in their
original physical context. Data recovery programs through archaeological
excavation are usually undertaken only as a last resort to save important
information prior to any land modification activities while allowing construc-
tion to proceed on other areas of the proposed site.
The administrative procedure for mitigation preferred by USEPA is a
formal Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) (36 CFR 800.6(c)). A formal request must
be submitted to the Advisory Council on the Historic Preservation (ACHP) to
initiate the MOA procedure. The procedure requires the submission of a pre-
liminary plan to mitigate adverse effects. This consultation process will
result in a formal MOA signed by all concerned parties. The mitigation speci-
fied in the MOA will be incorporated in the proposed project's NPDES permit
as a special condition.
5.2.1.7 Noise and Transportation
Noise levels due to the operation of construction equipment will be
minimized by requesting contractors to make use of modern low noise level
equipment. Most construction activities will take place during daylight
hours which will further reduce noise impacts. Steam blowout at the start-up
of each unit is expected to present the greatest noise impact. Such opera-
tions will occur intermittently over a two week period per unit. Steam
blowout will be restricted to daylight hours with prior notice made to the
public.
5-J
-------
Traffic will be controlled by limiting site access to required delivery
vehicles. Employee parking will be restricted to a designated area located
near the construction office. New Berlin Road will experience extensive
truck traffic during site preparation and plant construction. Any damage to
the road surface resulting directly from this plant-related traffic will be
repaired.
5.2.2 Mitigation of Operation-Related Impacts
5.2.2.1 Air Emissions
JEA and FP&L propose to incorporate air pollution control facilities into
the proposed project to control emissions of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides,
particulates (fly ash), carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, and fugitive dust.
Other trace pollutants will also be removed from the plant emissions along
with the major criteria pollutants. All of the systems are designed to meet
the NSPS and the BACT requirements of USEPA's PSD regulations. However, a
violation of the 24-hour Florida S02 standard is predicted to occur. The
FDER is currently negotiating with JEA to develop measures to reduce S02
emissions to acceptable levels.
Emissions of particulates from the boilers will be controlled to the
99.78% level by the use of electrostatic precipitators (ESP) (JEA/FP&L 1981a).
Two ESP's will be provided for each generating unit to assure reliability of
operations. Emissions of nitrogen oxides will be controlled to levels
required under the NSPS by the design and control of boiler operations (JEA/FP&L
1981a). Carbon monoxide emissions will also be controlled by boiler design and
operation. Emissions of sulfur dioxide will be controlled to the 90% level
by the use of limestone flue gas desulfurization (FGD) system which will follow
the ESP system (JEA/FP&L 1981a).
Potential cooling tower draft impacts will be mitigated by using drift
eliminators and barriers within the cooling towers and limiting the cycle
of concentration to 1.5 or less. These measures will reduce the drift to
0.002% of the recirculating water volume of the towers.
Fugitive dust will be produced by a number of sources including the coal,
limestone, fly ash, and FGD waste handling disposal systems. Proposed mitiga-
tive measures to control these sources of particulates include:
• Coal Handling. Fugitive dust will be controlled by different
methods at each point in the coal handling system. Wetting
agents (90-99% efficient) will be used on the various coal piles;
fabric filters (99.9% efficient) will be used to clean emissions
from the coal barge terminal unloader, conveyor transfer points,
and the surge bins of the coal handling building. Water spray
systems (97% efficient) will be used on the stacker reclaimer and
rotary dump areas. Conveying systems will be totally enclosed.
• Limestone Handling. Limestone dust from unloading railcras will
be suppressed with water sprays. The limestone will be transported
on enclosed conveyors; hoppers will be vented to fabric filters.
5-9
-------
• Fly Ash and FGD Sludge Handling. Fly ash will be transported in
enclosed conveyors with fabric filters at all transfer points.
Fly ash will either be sold as a by-product or mixed with wet
scrubber sludge and stored in an on-site landfill.
5.2.2.2 Surface Water Resources
Water Intake
It appears that the impingement control system serving the NGS/SJRPP
cooling water intake is not functioning properly. Further mitigation of the
present impingement of aquatic organisms at the NGS intake screens appears
necessary. It is recommended that this situation be improved without delay.
Wastewater Discharge
Potential impacts of wastewater discharges on surface waters will be
mitigated by treating the process waste streams to the best extent practic-
able using the latest technologies. Individual process -wastewater streams
contributing to the discharge include: cooling tower blowdown; demineralizer
regeneration wastes; flue gas desulfurization (FGD) system blowdown; metal
cleaning wastes; coal and limestone storage are^t runoff; ash and FGD solids
handling and temporary storage area runoff; sanitary wastes; active solid
waste landfill runoff; and miscellaneous (mostly oil-bearing) wastes. Most
of these wastewater streams will be combined and treated in the chemical
wastewater treatment facility. The metal cleaning waste stream will be
treated separately from other wastes to assure it has met applicable USEPA
iron and copper limits. Cooling tower blowdown will be combined with treated
wastewater streams prior to discharge. Oil-bearing wastes will be collected
and treated in oil/water separators and the water portion will be sent to the
main pump sump after treatment. Despite these measures, violations of water
quality standards will occasionally result. JEA has applied for a variance
from Florida Class III water quality standards in recognition of this fact.
In order to accurately assess the effects of the predicted water quality
violations in the St. Johns River, it is recommended that a bioassay test
program on the NGS/SJRPP discharge be initiated. The results of this program
would be used to indicate the adequacy of the proposed wastewater treatment
system and the possible need for additional mitigation.
Runoff Control
Runoff will be controlled by several sedimentation ponds. These will
Include two coal pile runoff ponds (one on the main site and one on Blount
Island), a sedimentation pond treating runoff from the solid waste handling
and temporary storage areas, and sedimentation ponds constructed to collect
runoff from the active solid waste landfill area and the solid waste test
cell area.
5-10
-------
Of the sedimentation ponds, only the main plant and Blount Island coal
pile runoff sediment control ponds will be lined with an impermeable material.
Other plant facilities which will be lined with the same material include the
metal cleaning waste retention basin and the flow equalization basin. The
sedimentation ponds will be designed with sufficient capacity to satisfy the
regulatory requirements for runoff control and to process the volume associated
with the 10-year, 24-hour rainfall event.
Effluent from the main plant coal pile runoff sedimentation pond will be
treated at the central wastewater treatment facility. Effluent from the
landfill and solid waste handling and temporary storage area runoff sedimenta-
tion ponds will also be treated in the central wastewater facility. Effluent
from the Blount Island coal pile runoff sedimentation pond will be treated
prior to discharge into the percolation pond. However, some trace elements
will still reach the St. Johns River estuary via seepage through the percola-
tion pond. This facility would need to be designed for zero discharge if
impacts on water quality and aquatic life are to be fully mitigated.
5.2.2.3 Earth Resources
Solid Waste Disposal
Large volumes of solid wastes will be generated at the proposed SJRPP
facility by the FGD system and the fly ash and bottom ash collection systems.
Smaller volumes of semi-solid sludges will be generated by the cooling towers
and the various wastewater treatment systems. All of the high volume residues
will be commingled and disposed of on-site if they cannot be sold as market-
able by-products. Because of the absence of specific plant coal and leachate
characteristics, a solid waste storage program will be implemented. Its
elements include an on-site solid waste disposal test program and an on-site
landfilling operation for material not directly associated with the test
program.
Material in areas to be tested will be disposed in cells lined with
impermeable plastic. Material not a part of the testing program will be dis-
posed of in 10 acre landfill cells designed to minimize leachate caused by
rainfall infiltration. Measures to minimize leaching will include locating
the base of the landfill above the seasonal high water table, compacting the
base material to 9.0 x 10 cm/second permeability, compacting waste material
in layers, compacting and sloping the top surface of the landfill, surrounding
the disposal area with diversion berms, and vegetating the covered landfill.
However, some seepage from these unlined cells will still occur. Therefore,
the design of these disposal areas should be altered to include linings which
would approach or equal 1.0 x 10 cm/second if effective mitigation is to be
achieved. An additional mitigative measure would be to deter use of solid
waste disposal area A in the early operational stages of the project. Use
of solid waste area B intead would minimize the potential for leachate to
enter the Browns Creek marsh since area A is closer to this sensitive area.
Groundwater Resources
Potential impacts to groundwater arising from leachate from coal piles
on the main site and liquid waste ponds will be mitigated by lining these
5-11
-------
areas with a material with a permeability of approximately 1.0 x 10
cm/second. As discussed above, however, some solid waste disposal areas and
sediment ponds receiving solid waste area runoff will not be lined with imper-
meable material and therefore are a potential source of contamination of
groundwater in the area. To mitigate these potential impacts, these areas
should all be fully lined and designed for eliminating seepage.
In order to minimize chloride contamination of the main water supply
wells at SJRPP, JEA proposes to complete the wells in the upper part of the
Ocala limestone. In addition, it is recommended that the proposed wells be
spaced as far apart as possible in order to reduce the localized drawdown of
the Floridan Aquifer. The majority of high quality groundwater to be used at
SJRPP will be for the production of marketable quality FGD sludge (gypsum).
Therefore, if the FGD sludge cannot be marketed, non-potable water should be
substituted for groundwater in the FGD process to the greatest extent possible.
5.2.2.4 Human Health
Potential effects of the proposed project on human health are primarily
related to increases in the ground level concentration of S02, NOx, and parti-
culates. The proposed emission controls should be adequate to mitigate any
adverse impacts on human health. However, the predicted violation of the
24-hour State standard for S02 is indicative of the need for better control of
this pollutant. The FDER is currently negotiating with JEA to develop mitigat-
ive measures which will reduce potential impacts to an acceptable level.
5.3 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS
The proposed action would result in certain adverse environmental impacts
despite the emphasis on state-of-the-art impact control technology in all
project phases. Some of the impacts are unavoidable consequences of a commit-
ment to project objectives. Others, while avoidable, are regarded as insignifi-
cant compared to the cost of their elimination. In the SJRPP project, every
effort will be made to ensure the most environmentally favorable tradeoffs
between construction and operation of the generating units and the use of air,
land, and water resources.
5.3.1 Atmospheric Resources
An increase in pollutants released to the atmosphere as a result of the
proposed SJRPP would result. The emissions of nitrogen dioxide and particu-
lates from the SJRPP would not result in a violation of Federal or State
ambient air quality standards. As a result of on-going negotiations between
FDER and JEA, sulfur dioxide emissions are anticipated to be within acceptable
levels. Air emissions would use up portions of available Prevention of Signifi-
cant Deterioration Class II increments at points close to the facility. This
would not preclude future industrial development in the site region. No
adverse effects on the nearby Okefenokee Class I area are projected.
5-12
-------
Emissions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides have been associated
with acid precipitation. To date, however, only a general relationship has
been established. The relationship between emissions of the precursor pollu-
tants from a particular source and acid deposition in a particular area
remaias speculative. The most highly publicized relationship is that between
emissions from the industrial midwestern and the eastern United States and
acid rain in the northeastern United States and Canada. It is therefore
difficult to determine how much of an adverse impact the SJRPP would produce
with respect to acid rain.
5.3.2 Land Resources
A total of 1,656 acres of land would be preempted from other uses during
the life of the project. This would include a loss of 84 acres of seasonally
flooded wetlands and 364 acres of pine flatwood habitat. This would result
In loss or displacement of the wildlife and rare, threatened, or endangered
species now inhabiting these areas. These are considered to constitute
unavoidable adverse impacts if the SJRPP were built and to be operated. A
total of 882 acres of habitat (including the above habitat types) will be
eliminated on the main site as would an undetermined amount of transmission
line ROW acreage.
5.3.3 Water
Discharge of cooling tower blowdown and wastewater treatment plant
effluent would cause or exacerbate additional violations of Florida Class III
water quality standards for several trace metals when water quality of the
River approaches or exceeds the applicable standards. This would have an
adverse impact on water quality and aquatic life in the St. Johns River
estuary. Also, dredging of the turning basin at the Blount Island coal
unloading facility and during tower construction in Mill Cover would tempo-
rarily eliminate benthic invertebrate populations in a 21 acre area. The
current level of aquatic organisms entrained through the NGS intake will
continue and because of the use of the intake by SJRPP some entrainment will
continue after retirement of NGS Units 1, 2, and 3.
5.3.4 Sensitive Areas
Discharge of sanitary wastewater and plant runoff from the sedimentation
pond for six years during construction could adversely affect the Browns Creek
salt marsh. This area is a sensitive nursery, spawning, and feeding ground
for numerous commercially important fish and shellfish. Several protected
species of birds also feed, roost, or nest here.
Elimination of 84 acres of seasonally flooded wetlands on the marsh site
would permanently remove these resources as part of the interconnected wetland
system in this portion of the St. Johns River estuary. This would constitute
an unavoidable adverse impact on biologically sensitive areas.
5.4 RELATIONSHIP OF SHORT-TERM USES OF MAN'S ENVIRONMENT AND
MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY
During the proposed 40-year life of the SJRPP, the air, water, and land
resources of the site will be committed to the production of electric power.
5-13
-------
Some additional commitment of new resources beyond the site would also be
required since the existing transmission line ROW would have to be widened
slightly. Elimination of wetlands on the site itself will contribute to a
decline in the overall productivity of the Browns Creek estuarine area by
permanent elimination of 84 acres as a potential source of food and habitat.
The production of electricity during the operating life of the station
will contribute to tourism and other industries within the JEA service area
and within those of other utilities purchasing power from SJRPP- This
electric power will accomodate the projected increase in the population of
the region and the projected electrical needs for the FP&L system.
5.5 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES
The proposed plant will consume an estimated 95.7 million tons of coal
during its 40-year life. The consumption of fuel oil for start-up and flame
stabilization is expected to be 169,000 barrels over the life of the station.
The flue-gas-desulfurization system will use an estimated 8.6 million
tons of limestone during plant life. Most of this resource will be irretriev-
ably committed. Some, however, will be recovered as gypsum which will be
sold for wallboard manufacture.
Materials like concrete cannot be recycled and thus will be irretrievably
committed to the construction of the station. Other materials such as steel
and aluminum may be reclaimed if it is economically feasible. Other construc-
tion requirements such as labor and capital will also be irretrievably com-
mitted to the proposed project.
Land containing a variety of habitat types would be permanently committed
in areas to be used as solid waste disposal areas. A small one acre salt marsh
on Blount Island would also be permanently committed.
5-14
-------
6.0 SUMMARY OF SAR/EIS FINDINGS
As a result of the alternatives screening, selection, and evaluation
process utilized in this SAR/EIS, no specific conclusions are made regarding
an environmentally and economically preferable overall alternative. The basic
level of detailed information available for the alternatives to the SJRPP and
the broad economic and environmental assumptions required to make comparisons
among the alternatives prevents the identification of any one of the alternatives
as being clearly superior. However, certain generalizations regarding the
evaluation of the No Action Alternative, SJRPP, and Alternatives 1 through 4
can be stated along with a. recommended course of action.
6.1 SUMMARY OF ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
The economic analysis of the alternatives and the proposed project (Sec-
tion 2.6.4) focused primarily on the cost savings that could be realized by
displacing oil-fired generating capacity. This analysis was based solely on
the capital and operating costs of each alternative and did not take into
account the differing levels of additional generating capacity provided by
each alternative in comparison to SJRPP. Various other scenarios also had to
be factored into the analysis including variations in fuel costs (oil and
coal), the cost-effectiveness of the Blount Island coal handling facility, and
the actual cost of purchasing nuclear power from Georgia Power Company.
Consequently, the findings of this analysis serve primarily as an indicator of
the economic comparability of the alternatives of oil savings rather than as
an indication of the most cost-effective alternative overall.
With respect to the primary issue on which the project is currently being
proposed, oil displacement, several of the alternatives appear to be attractive.
The proposed project and Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 would be less expensive than
continuing to burn oil in the JEA and FP&L systems. On a total basis, Alternatives 2,
3, and 4 appear to be comparable or greater in savings than SJRPP if the level
of additional generating capacity is not considered. All four alternatives
provide cost savings to JEA (due largely to the relatively less expensive
purchase of power from Georgia Power Company) while Alternatives 2, 3, and 4
provide cost savings to FP&L due to the financial attractiveness of the Sanford
coal conversion. Consequently, it appears that three of the four alternatives
can meet the economic criteria used to justify the SJRPP; that is, they displace
oil-fired generation at a low cost. It must be recognized, however, that
proceeding with SJRPP does not preclude either JEA or FP&L from proceeding
with these other alternatives.
6.2 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
The environmental analysis of the SJRPP and the alternatives (Chapter
4.0) focused on the potential impacts of implementing the projects on twelve
resource areas. This analysis was based on site- and project-specific data
and detailed analyses for the SJRPP site and impact area while more general
data and analyses were utilized for the alternatives. Consequently, although
impact analyses were carried out for each alternative, the level of detail
provided in these analyses varies significantly between the proposed project
and the alternatives.
6-1
-------
As expected, the No Action Alternative results in the fewest adverse
environmental impacts. In comparing the action alternatives, it was generally
found that the greater the magnitude of the alternative, the greater the degree
of both beneficial and adverse environmental impacts. Location was also found
to be a major factor in the level of impacts. As a result, SJRPP would
generate the greatest overall level of beneficial economic impacts while also
generating the greatest level of adverse impacts (land consumption, water
quality degradation, etc.). Those alternatives which include solar hot
water heating systems and refuse-fired power plants result in significant
environmental benefits for some resource areas since these components are
more environmentally benign; that is, they encourage conservation and
recycling. Similarly, the alternatives which include the purchase of power
from Georgia Power Company result in reduced adverse environmental impacts
since the resource consumption and pollutant generation of Plant Vogtle are
considered to occur regardless of whether JEA and FP&L purchase the power or
not. Of course, there is no assurance that such impacts will occur.
Many of the adverse impacts of the proposed project which cannot be com-
pletely mitigated are a function of its location. The impact on wetlands and
the exacerbation of existing water quality problems may not have occurred at
other alternative site. Based on the site selection study, however, the
lack of availability of other sites and/or political opposition to their
selection appeared to present delays that could not be economically tolerated
in Jacksonville. Therefore, a more readily available but more environmentally
sensitive site was selected. Because of this the applicants have been
willing to exert additional effort toward mitigation of the project impacts.
6.3 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
Based on the preceding discussions, it is apparent that viable alter-
natives to the construction and operation of the SJRPP exist. Alternatives
were developed based on their ability to meet the same economic goals which
were identified by the FPSC as the reasons for approving the early construc-
tion of SJRPP. The alternatives were judged to equal the economic benefits
of the SJRPP by satisfying the following criteria:
• the alternative would replace or save oil equivalent to or
greater than the oil saved by the proposed project;
• the alternative must replace an amount of oil for each
utility (JEA and FP&L) equivalent to the oil displaced by
the proposed coal-fired power plant;
• the alternative must not result in any loss of capacity to
either utility; and
• the alternative must be implementable within the proposed time
frame of the SJRPP project (1987).
The selection of one of the alternatives over the proposed project would
satisfy the economic need but it would not take into account JEA's and FP&L's
long-range system management plans including potential voluntary coal conver-
6-2
-------
sions and the long-term need for additional generating capacity. It must be
noted that the SJRPP provides a much greater level of additional generating
capacity than any of the alternatives. Consequently, there are future costs
required to supply this additional capacity under the alternatives which have
not been factored into this analysis.
6.4 RECOMMENDED COURSE OF ACTION
It is anticipated that JEA and FP&L will resolve the outstanding environ-
mental issues associated with the SJRPP. USEPA would then propose to permit
the proposed project with certain conditions. The NPDES permit and other
regulatory requirements would be met by the proposed project. It must be
noted, however, that based on the initial findings of this SAR/EIS, various
alternatives to the proposed project are available and appear to be at least
comparable to the SJRPP from an economic and environmental standpoint. Since
these alternatives meet the oil b ackout goals of the proposed project, it can
be argued that one of these alternatives should be implemented. The selection
of one of these alternatives would defer a decision on the SJRPP for approximately
three to four years when possibly the need could be better predicted and
mitigation of impacts might be greater through improved technology. However,
proceeding with SJRPP does not preclude the implementation of alternatives
evaluated in the SAR/EIS. USEPA recommends that JEA and FP&L carefully consider
such options in future systems planning.
The following conditions for the NPDES permit are proposed as a result of
the findings of the SAR/EIS:
• No herbicides shall be used in the initial clearing operations of
transmission line rights-of-way (ROW). Thereafter the use of herbicides
for maintenance shall be minimized and shall be used in strict accordance
with USEPA-approved products and procedures.
• During ROW clearing operations and transmission line tower construc-
tion, an undisturbed 25 foot wide buffer shall be maintained adjacent
to all streams, rivers, or lakes. Within this zone, selective topping
of trees or removal of conflict trees which topping would otherwise
kill is allowable but is to be done without disturbance of the root
mat.
• The Permittee shall comply with terms of a Memorandum of Agreement
which will provide acceptable mitigation of adverse impacts to archaeo-
logical resources on the SJRPP site (the MOA will be negotiated and
presented in the Final SAR/EIS).
• The Permittee shall line each on-site solid waste landfill area prior
to active disposal operation at the landfill. If other than an impervious
liner is employed, the permeabilities of the liner shall be on the
order of 1 x 10 cm/second and a minimum of three feet in thickness.
If a permeable liner material is selected, results of permeability
tests by an independent testing laboratory are to be submitted to
USEPA no less than 90 days prior to landfill operations to document
compliance with this requirement. Based on a minimum of two years of
testing data of waste produced by SJRPP, Permittee may propose to
USEPA to use less stringent leachate controls.
6-3
-------
• The Permittee shall utilize solid waste disposal area "B", north of
Island Drive, prior to clearing and utilization of disposal area "A".
• An undisturbed buffer zone approximately 200 feet in width shall be
maintained between all construction activity areas and on-site wetlands
contiguous with the St. Johns River or its tributaries. The buffer
zone is to be defined by placement of a fence at the upland limit of
this buffer zone as depicted on Figure 3.5-1 of the SAR/EIS. The
buffer zone shall exist along the external southeast side of the plant
rail loop.
• The use of groundwater from the wellfield for plant service water for
SJRPP shall be minimized to the greatest extent practicable but in no
case shall exceed 7.6 mgd on a maximum daily basis or 5.1 mgd on an
average basis. If it is determined that the FGD sludge cannot be
economically marketed as a gypsum product, the Permittee shall assess
the feasibility of using non-potable alternative water supplies to
replace high quality groundwater in scrubber operation. The assessment
is to be submitted to USEPA and must include specific water quality
requirements of the scrubbers and levels of corrosive constituents in
alternative water supplies.
• After consultation with and approval from USEPA, the Permittee shall
institute a groundwater monitoring program as outlined in the State of
Florida, Conditions of Certification, Sections II.B.2 and II.F.6.
Monthly data shall be submitted quarterly to USEPA commencing one year
prior to commercial operation of Unit 1.
• A bioassay test program shall be performed on the combined NGS/SJRPP
discharge effluent (NPDES 001) commencing at the start of commercial
operation of Unit 1. One 96-hour continuous flow-through test of the
effluent is to be performed each quarter of the year. Quarterly
testing reports are to be submitted to the USEPA. Additionally, a
monthly screening test (96-hour continuous flow-through bioassay) on
the full strength effluent and a control is to be performed during the
first year and reported quarterly. At the end of the first year, the
monthly screening test may be discontinued upon receipt of USEPA
approval. Permittee shall submit a detailed study plan for the bioassay
to USEPA for review and approval at least six months prior to beginning
the test program. The study plan shall propose methodology, indigenous
test species, appropriate quality control measures, and test program
operators.
The complete FDER Conditions of Certification are presented in Appendix D and
the complete Draft NPDES Permit is presented in Appendix A.
6-4
-------
7.0 LIST OF PREPARERS
7.1 US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Robert B. Howard
F. Theodore Bisterfeld
Charles H. Kaplan
Henry G. Strickland
David Holroyd
Louis Nagler
Ronald Raschke, Ph.D.
Gail Mitchell
Michael J. Hartnett
William L. Kruczynski, Ph.D.
Chief
EIS Preparation Section
Sanitary Engineer
Project Officer
Biologist
NPDES Permit Coordinator
Chief, Power Plant/Synfuel Unit
Water Quality
Engineer
Air Resources
Engineer
Meteorologist
Aquatic Resources
Aquatic Ecologist
Groundwater
Groundwater Hydrogeologist
Residuals Management
Engineer
Wetlands Resources
Biologist
7.2 FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION
Hamilton S. Oven, Jr.
Adminis trator
Power Plant Siting
Division of Environmental Programs
Bureau of Air Quality Management
Larry George (Air Modeling Section)
Bill Thomas (New Source Review Section)
Bob King (New Source Review Section)
Ed Pelagyi (Air Quality Section)
Tom Walker (Air Modeling Section)
Bureau of Drinking Water and Special Programs
Barney Barnes (Drinking Water Section)
Dr. Rodney DeHan (Groundwater Section)
Don Kell (Groundwater Section)
Sam Johnston (Hazardous Waste Section)
John Reese (Solid Waste Section)
7-1
-------
Bureau of Water Analysis
Dr. Lawrence Olsen (Biology Section)
Scott McClelland (Water Quality Analysis)
Steve Palmer (Water Quality Analysis)
Division of Environmental Permitting
Stephen Fox (Director)
Bureau of Permitting
Suzanne Walker (Bureau Chief)
Karen Anthony (Power Plant Siting Section)
Susan Boyd (Power Plant Siting Section)
Joe Ryan (Power Plant Siting Section)
Marvin Collins (Standard Permitting Section)
Jacksonville Subdistrict Office
Frank Watkins
John Ketteringham
Tim Deuerling
Catherine Farmer
Office of General Counsel
Louis Hubener
7.3 WAPORA, INC.
Ronald B. McNeill Project Manager
Steven D. Bach, Ph.D. Assistant Project Manager/Biologist
Lawrence Olinger Project Administrator
Jerald D. Hitzemann Quality Control
William J. March, Ph.D. Hydrologic Engineer/Meteorologist
Mirza Meghji, Ph.D. Environmental Engineer
David M. Conner Air/Acoustical Engineer
Kenneth Simonton Acoustical/Transportation Specialist
Ruthanne L. Mitchell Assistant Cultural Geographer/Draftsperson
Kim Banks Archaeologist
Fred C. Mason III Geologist
Walker J. Duncan Geologist
Jan E. Dillard Socioeconomist/Planner
7-2
-------
Mark L. Cameron
Alyse Gardner
Greg Seegert
Wesley Powell
Socioeconomist/Planner
Biologist
Biologist
Editor
7.4 ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS, INC.
Seth Ira Schwartz
John B. Stamberg
Stan M. Kaplan
Peter G. Goering
Lauren P. McCombs
Stacie Foster
Project Engineer
Quality Control
Economic Analyst
Engineering
Alternatives Analyst
Alternatives Analyst
7-3
-------
8.0 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND COORDINATION EFFORTS
8.1 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
In accordance with State and Federal regulations, USEPA and FDER have
conducted a public participation program in conjunction with the preparation of
this SAR/EIS. This program consists of: (1) an initial publicly announced
scoping meeting of citizens and leaders from Jacksonville/Duval Country and
State and Federal government agencies at which the scope of the proposed SAR/EIS
was discussed and the central issues identified; (2) institution of changes in
the scope of the SAR/EIS which were identified as a result of the meeting; (3)
a formal public hearing to present the results of the draft SAR/EIS and receive
public comments; (4) distribution of the DEIS for public review; and (5)
publication of comments in the final SAR/EIS.
The public scoping meeting was held 9 April 1981 in Jacksonville, Florida.
Areas of concern which were identified at the time included:
• alternatives to building a new coalfired power plant;
• potential water quality violations in the St. Johns River;
• use of high quality groundwater in the S02 emission control scrubbers;
• impacts on groundwater quality from solid waste materials and coal
piles;
• impacts on the air quality around Jacksonville, especially in the event
of an emission control system malfunction;
• impacts on wetlands; and
• effects of emissions from the cooling towers on the surrounding areas.
At this meeting, representatives of USEPA and FDER also explained aspects
of the Memorandum of Understanding between the two agencies and the purpose of
coordinating the review efforts. The representatives identified the basic
responsibilities of each agency. Other meetings have also been held regarding
the proposed SJRPP project. On 5 May 1981 a land use and zoning hearing was
held in Jacksonville to discuss land use impacts. The Florida Public Service
Commission held a hearing on 22 and 23 May 1981 in Tallahasee regarding the
need for the project. Through these mechanisms and continual day-to-day contact
with local, State, and Federal officials as well as informed individuals, USEPA
and FDER have consistently incorporated the public in this review process.
8.2 AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS, AND INDIVIDUALS INCLUDED IN THE DRAFT SAR/EIS
REVIEW PROCESS
The comments of the following agencies and organizations are directly
requested in the review of this project.
5-1
-------
Federal Agencies
US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Room 537, West Tower
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20202
Regional Administrator
Region IV
345 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
Department of Agriculture
Deputy Chief
Forest Service
Room 3029, S. Bldg.
Washington, D.C. 20250
Assistant Administrator
National Programs Staff
^Agricultural Research Service
'Washington, D.C. 20250
Director, National Resource
Economic Research Service
Economics Division, Room 412
Bldg. 500 12th Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20250
Administrator
Soil Conservation Service
Room 5105 South Building
Washington, D.C. 20250
Soil Conservation Service
Federal Building
P.O. Box 1208
Gainesville, Florida 32601
Department of the Army
Chief of Engineering Division
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Jacksonville District
P.O. Box 4970
Jacksonville, Florida 32201
Department of Commerce
Economic Development Administration
Special Assistant for the Environment
Washington, D.C. 20230
8-2
-------
National Marine Fisheries Service
Regional Director
Duval Building
9450 Koger Boulevard
St. Petersburg, Florida 33702
Department of Energy
Director of NEPA Affairs
Mail Station E-201, GTN
Washington, D.C. 20543
Energy Research and Development Administration
Office of Environmental Assessments
ERDA - Mail Stop E-201
Washington, D.C. 20545
Federal Aviation Administration
Office of Environmental Quality
AEQ-100
800 Independence Avenue, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20591
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Commission's Advisor on Environmental Quality
825 North Capitol Street, N.E.
Washington, D.C. 20426
Federal Highway Administration
Director, Office of Environmental Quality
Room 3226, Nassif Building
Washington, D.C. 20590
Department of Health, Education and Welfare
Director, Office of Environmental Affairs
Room 4740, Hew North
Washington, D.C. 20202
Department of the Interior
Assistant Secretary - Program Development and Budget
Director, Office of Environmental Project Review
Department of the Interior
Washington, D.C. 20240
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Regional Director
17 Executive Park Drive, N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30329
3-3
-------
State Agencies
Florida Department of Environmental Regulation
Division of Environmental Permitting
2600 Blairs tone Road
Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Department of Administration
Bureau of Intergovernmental Relations
Division of State Planning
660 Apalachee Parkway
Tallahassee, Florida 32304
State of Florida Department of State
The Capitol
Tallahassee, Florida 32304
State Historic Preservation Officer
Director, Division of Archives, History,
and Records Management
Department of State
401 East Gaines Street
Tallahassee, Florida 32304
Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission
Randy Kau.tz, Ann Schapiro
Environmental Specialist
Farris Bryant Building
620 South Meridian Street
Tallahassee, Florida 32304
Florida Public Service Commission
Bob Trapp
Engineering Department
700 South Adams Street
Tallahassee, Florida 32304
St. Johns River Water Management District
E.D. Vergera
Executive Director
Don Thompson
Route 2
P.O. Box 659
Palatka, Florida 32077
8-4
-------
Northeast Florida Regional Planning Council
Executive Director
8641 Baypine Road, Suite 9
Jacksonville, Florida 32216
Florida Department of Transportation
Haydon Burns Building
605 Suwannee Street
Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Jacksonville Area Planning Board
East Bay Street
Jacksonville, Florida 32202
Private Interest Groups
Heckscher Drive Community Club
Sierra Club, Power Plant Siting Committee,
Florida Chapter
Sierra Club, Jacksonville Chapter
Jacksonville Chamber of Commerce
Florida Clean Air Coalition
Duval Audubon Society, Inc.
St. Johns Citizens for Clean Air
Mayor's Committee for the Environment
Citizens to Sell JEA
Arlington Jaycees
Southside Businessmen's Club
Florida Lung Association
Clay Citizens Coalition
Sea Oats Garden Club
Duval County Young Republicans
3-5
-------
9.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY
AP-42. 1976. Compilation of air pollutant emission factors. Second edition.
US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air and Waste Management,
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park NC,
variously paged.
Bailey, J. 1981. Personal communication, J. Bailey, Jacksonville Bio-
environmental Services, 3 September 1981.
Beamer, Monte. 1981. Personal communication, Monte Beamer, Seminole County
Planning Department, 24 August 1981.
Bivans, Ernest L. 1981. Prepared direct testimony of Ernest L. Bivans before
the Florida Public Service Commission. Docket 810045 EU JEA/FP&L.
Blot, J.W., E.J. 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).
Breitmoser, Richard. 1981. By letter, Richard Breitmoser, Division Chief,
Research and Environmental Affairs Division, Jacksonville Electric
Authority, to F. Theodore Bisterfeld, US Environmenal Protection Agency,
Region IV, 10 September 1981.
Brezonik, P.L., C.D. Hendry, Jr., E.S. Edgerton, R.L. Schulze, and T.L. Crisman.
1980. Acidity, nutrients, and minerals in atmospheric precipitation over
Florida: Deposition patterns, mechanisms, and ecological effects (Draft).
USEPA, Corvalis OR.
Causey, L.V., and G.G. Phelps. 1978. Availability and quality of water from
shallow aquifers in Duval County, Florida. US Geological Survey Water
Resources Investigations 78-92, 36 p. In: JEA/FP&L. 1981a. Site
certification application - EID for proposed St. Johns River Power Park.
Clark, Dietz, & Associates Engineers, Inc. 1977. 201 facility plan; Volume
2, optimum plan and preliminary engineering: Sanford/Lake Mary/North
Seminole County.
Curtis, C.R., B.A. Francis, and T.L. Lauver. 1978. Dogwood as a bioindicator
species for saline drift. In; Cooling Tower Environment - 1978. Pro-
ceedings of a Symposium on Environmental Effects of Cooling Tower Emissions,
Maryland Department of Natural Resources.
Duval Audubon Society, Inc. Unpublished list of bird sightings for the period
January 1977 to February 1981, and Christmas counts from 1948 to 1980.
Submitted to USEPA Region IV by Joseph Wilson, Duval Audubon Society,
Inc., Jacksonville, FL.
Duval County Fire Department. 1980. Personal communication, Chief,
County Fire Department. In: JEA/FP&L. 1981a. Site certification
application - EID for proposed St. Johns River Power Park.
9-1
-------
Duval County Public Works Department. 1979. Waterworks and wastewater treat-
ment plant reports. In: JEA/FP&L. 1981a. Site certification applica-
tion - EID for proposed St. Johns River Power Park.
Duval County School System. 1980. Enrollment estimates and projections,
facility capacities, county public school system. In; JEA/FP&L. 1981a.
Site certification application - EID for proposed St. Johns River Power
Park.
Dvorak, et al. 1978. Impacts of coal-fired power plants on fish, wildlife,
and their habitats. Document No. FWS/OBS-78/29. Biological Services
Program, Fish and Wildlife Service, US Department of the Interior.
East Central Florida Regional Planning Council (ECFRPC). 1977- Orange-
Seminole-Osceola statistical data: 1970-2000. ECFRPC Research Division.
EBASCO Services Inc. 1978. 600 MW coal-fired standard plant, project descrip-
tion. In: JEA/FP&L. 1981a. Site certification application - EID for
proposed St. Johns River Power Park.
. 1980. Coal procurement study - Phase I (preliminary)
for Jacksonville Electric Authority. In; JEA/FP&L. 1981a. Site
certification application - EID for proposed St. Johns River Power Park.
Ellis. 1981. Personal communication, Nap Ellis, Florida Department of
Transportation, Tallahassee, Florida, 19 August 1981.
Envirosphere Company. 1980. Revised Prevention of Significant Deterioration
report to US Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV. Prepared for
Jacksonville Electric Authority.
Fairchild, R.W. 1971. The shallow aquifer system in Duval County, Florida.
Report of Investigations No. 59, Florida Geological Survey, Tallahasee
FL, 51 p.
Florida Department of Environmental Regulation (FDER) - 1979. Water quality
assessment: State water quality management plan. Tallahassee FL, 261 p.
. 1980. St. Johns River - water quality. St. Johns River
District, Orlando FL, 45 p.
Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. 1978. Florida
vital statistics.
Florida Department of State, Division of Archives, History and Records Manage-
ment, Bureau of Historic Sites and Properties. 1980. Historical, arch-
itectural and archaeological survey of Duval County, Florida. Prepared
for the Florida Bicentennial Commission and the Historical and Cultural
Conservation Commission, City of Jacksonville. 148 p.
9-2
-------
Florida Gas Company. 1981. Personal communication, Seth Schwartz, Energy
and Environmental Analysis, Inc., June 1981.
Florida Governor's Energy Office. 1981. Annual report to the Legislature
(1980): Save it Florida. Tallahassee FL, 52 p.
Florida Power and Light Company (FP&L). 1976. Ecological parameter monitoring
at the Sanford Plant. Prepared by Applied Biology, Inc., Atlanta GA,
variously paged.
124 p.
1981. Ten year power plant site plan, 1980-1989. Miami FL,
Florida Public Service Commission (FPSC). 1981a. Memorandum: Electric and
Gas Department to Steve Trebble, Commission Clerk. Preliminary Report
Docket Number 810045-EU-Petition of Jacksonville Electric Authority and
Florida Power and Light Company, St. Johns River Power Park Units 1 and 2
and related facilities to determine need for electric power plants.
. 1981b. Memorandum: Electric and Gas Department to Steve
Trebble, Commission Clerk. Final Report Docket Number 8100 45-EU -
Petition of Jacksonville Electric Authority and Florida Power and Light
Company, St. Johns River Power Park Units 1 and 2 and related facilities
to determine need for electric power plants. 6 p.
Franks, B.J., and G.G. Phelps. 1979. Estimated drawdowns in the Floridan
Aquifer due to increased withdrawals, Duval County, FL. US Geological
Survey Water Resources Investigations 79-84. 22 p. In: JEA/FP&L.
1981a. Site certification application - EID for proposed St. Johns River
Power Park.
Harland Bartholomew and Associates, Inc. 1980. Traffic survey. In; JEA/
FP&L. 1981b. Water and waste management study, St. Johns River Power
Park Units 1 and 2, 1985-1987.
Harrison, C. 1981. Personal communication, C. Harrison, Seminole County
Fire Department, 24 August 1981.
Hendry, L.C., T.G. Goodwin, and R.F. Labisky. 1980. Florida's
vanishing wildlife. Florida Cooperative Extension Service, Circular 485.
69 p.
Jackson, Jim. 1981. Personal communication, Jim Jackson, Envirosphere
Company, 2 October 1981.
Jacksonville Area Planning Board. 1977. Housing in Northeast Florida. In:
JEA/FP&L. 1981a. Site certification application - EID for proposed St.
Johns River Power Park.
. 1978. Projected population, households, and housing demand.
In: JEA/FP&L. 1981a. Site certification application - EID for proposed
St. Johns River Power Park.
9-3
-------
. 1979. 2005 comprehensive plan. In: JEA/FP&L 1981a. Site
certification application - EID for proposed St. Johns River Power Park.
____• 1980. Personal communication with Ron Barton and Betty
Seabrook. In; JEA/FP&L. 1981a. Site certification application - EID
for proposed St. Johns River Power Park.
Jacksonville Electric Authority (JEA). 1976. Northside Generating Station
316 demonstration. Jacksonville FL, 72 p.
1977. Site selection study - final report. Prepared by
United Engineers and Constructors, Inc., variously paged.
Jacksonville Electric Authority/Florida Power and Light Company (JEA/FP&L).
1981a. Site certification application - environmental information docu-
ment for proposed St. Johns River Power Park. Prepared by Envirosphere,
Inc., variously paged.
. 1981b. Water and waste management study, St. Johns River
Power Park Units 1 and 2, 1985-1987- Prepared by EBASCO Services, Inc.,
45 p.
. 1981c. State of Florida, Division of Administrative
Hearings, Case No. 81-357, Jacksonville Electric Authority, St. Johns
River Power Park, power plant site certification application, petition
for variance (wastewater discharge). Submitted 2 September 1981, 21 p.,
plus appendices.
. 1981d. State of Florida, Division of Administrative Hearings,
preliminary draft, Jacksonville Electric Authority, St. Johns River Power
Park, power plant site certification application, petition for variance
(dredging). Submitted 2 September 1981.
Knochenmus, D.D., and M.E. Beard. 1971. Evaluation of the quantity and
quality of the water resources of Volusia County, Florida. Bureau of
Geology Report of Investigations No. 57.
Kuchler, A.W. 1964. Potential natural vegetation of the US. American
Geographical Society Publication No. 36. 116 p. plus map.
Leve, G.W. 1966. Groundwater in Duval and Nassau Counties, Florida. Florida
State Board of Conservation, Florida Geological Survey Report of Investiga-
tion No. 43, 91 p. In: JEA/FP&L. 1981a. Site certification application •
EID for proposed St. Johns River Power Park.
Leve, G.W., and D.A. Goolsby. 1969. Production and utilization of water in
metropolitan area of Jacksonville, Florida. Florida State Board of
Conservation, Division of Geology Information Circular No. 58, 37 p. In:
JEA/FP&L. 1981a. Site certification application - EID for proposed St.
Johns River Power Park.
9-4
-------
Lyles, R. 1981. Prepared direct testimony of Royce Lyles before the
Florida Public Service Commission. Docket No. 81005-EU. In: JEA/FP&L.
1981a. Site certification application - EID for proposed St. Johns River
Power Park.
Moehle, D. A. 1981a. By letter, Dale A. Moehle, Division Chief, New Genera-
tion Project, Jacksonville Electric Authority, to Hamilton S. Oven, Jr.,
Administrator, Power Plant Siting Section, Florida Department of Environ-
mental Regulation, 18 May 1981.
. 1981b. By letter, Dale A. Moehle, Division Chief, New
Generation Project, Jacksonville Electric Authority, to Hamilton S.
Oven, Jr., Administrator, Power Plant Siting Section, Florida Department
of Environmental Regulation, 15 June 1981.
. 1981c. By letter, Dale A. Moehle, Division Chief, New
Generation Project, Jacksonville Electric Authority, to F. Theodore
Bisterfeld, US Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV, 1 July 1981.
. 1981d. By letter, D.A. Moehle, Division Chief, New Genera-
tion Project, Jacksonville Electric Authority, to Hamilton S. Oven, Jr.,
Administrator, Power Plant Siting Section, Florida Department of Environ-
mental Regulation, 11 August 1981.
Moreau, Ray. 1981. Personal communication, Ray Moreau, Florida Department of
Environmental Regulation, Division of Solid Waste, with Seth I. Schwartz,
Energy and Environmental Analysis, Inc., June 1981.
Moulding, John. 1981. Personal communication, John Moulding, US Corps of
Engineers, Jacksonville, Florida, 12 August 1981.
Mountain West Research, Inc. 1976. Construction worker profile, summary
report. Prepared for the Old West Regional Commission. Washington DC.
National Center for Health Statistics. 1978. Vital statistic report; Table 257,
death rates for 69 selected causes. US Department of Health and Human
Services, Public Health Service, Office of Health Research, Statistics
and Technology.
Northeast Florida Regional Planning Council (NEFRPC). 1979. Regional socio-
economic update. In; JEA/FP&L. 1981a. Site certification application -
EID for proposed St. Johns River Power Park.
Oshinski, Robert. 1981. Personal communication, Robert Oshinski, Volusia
County Planning Department, 27 August 1981.
Oven, Hamilton S. 1981. Personal communication, Hamilton S. Oven, FDER, to
Mr. D.A. Moehle, JEA, 31 August 1981.
9-5
-------
Percy, George W. 1981a. By letter, George W. Percy, Deputy State Historic
Historic Preservation Officer, to Dale A. Moehle, Division Chief, New
Generation Project, JEA, 26 March 1981.
. 1981b. By letter, George W. Percy, Deputy State Historic
Preservation Officer, 14 August 1981.
Poole, Howard D. 1981. Personal communication, Howard Poole, Seminole County
Fire Department, 24 August 1981.
Powers, Bruce. 1981. Personal communication, Bruce Powers, Florida Depart-
ment of Transportation, Tallahassee, Florida, 19 August 1981.
Ray, Ralph. 1981. Personal communication, Ralph Ray, Seminole County School
System, 24 August 1981.
Rhem, A.E., F.C. Tone, and J.B. Kirkwood. 1975. Biological assessment of the
water and marsh areas of the St. Johns River. Reported to Reynolds,
Smith and Hills.
Rice, Major. 1981. Personal communication, Major Rice, Seminole County
Police Department, 24 August 1981.
Rutledge. 1981. Computer data of groundwater quality for Volusia County
water wells.
Ryan, J. 1981. By Letter, J. Ryan, FDER, 6 October 1981.
Schull, Carol. 1981. By letter, Carol Schull, Acting Keeper of the National
Register of Historic Places, to Theodore F. Bisterfeld, EIS Project
Officer, USEPA, 30 September 1981.
St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD). 1980. Final report on
the St. Johns River Power Park.
Shapiro, A.E. 1981. By letter, Anne E. Shapiro, Florida GFWFC, 3 September
1981, 2 p.
Sherlock, H.B. 1981. Prepared direct testimony of H.B. Sherlock before the
Florida Public Service Commission, Docket 810045 EU JEA/FP&L.
Silberman, D.H., and D.C. McCune. 1978. Some factors affecting the response
of plants to simulated cooling tower saline mist. In: Cooling Tower
Environment - 1978. Proceedings of a Symposium on Environmental Effects
of Cooling Tower Emissions. Maryland Department of Natural Resources.
Snell, L.J., and W. Anderson. 1970. Water resources of Northeast Florida.
Department of Natural Resources, Bureau of Geology Report of Investiga-
tions No. 54, 77 p. In: JEA/FP&L. 1981b. Water and Waste Management
Study, St. Johns River Power Park Units 1 and 2, 1985-1987.
9-6
-------
State of Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. 1978.
Florida morbidity statistics, 1978. 82 p.
Tesar, Louis. 1981. Personal communications, Louis Tesar,. Historic Sites
Specialist, Florida Department of Archives, History and Records Manage-
ment, April-May 1981.
Torrey, S. (Ed.). 1978. Trace contaminants from coal. Noyes Data Corpora-
tion, Park Ridge NJ, 294 p.
US Army Corps of Engineers (USCOE), Jacksonville District. 1976. Cross
Florida barge canal restudy report, draft environmental impact statement.
Department of the Army, Jacksonville FL.
. 1980a. Metropolitan Jacksonville, Florida water resources
Study: Annex III - flood plain management. Jacksonville FL, 293 p.
1980b. Metropolitan Jacksonville, Florida water resources
study:" Plan formulation appendix. Department of the Army, Jacksonville
FL, variously paged, 137 p.
. 1980c. Metropolitan Jacksonville, Florida water resources
study: Public involvement and comments appendix. Department of the
Army, Jacksonville FL, variously page, 372 p.
US Department of Agriculture (USDA), Soil Conservation Service. 1978. Soil
survey of the City of Jacksonville, Duval County, Florida. In coopera-
tion with the University of Florida, Institute of Food and Agricultural
Sciences and Agricultural Experiment Station. 113 p. plus maps.
. 1980. Soil survey of Volusia County, Florida. 207 p. plus
maps.
US Department of Commerce (USDOC). 1961. Local climatological data for
Sanford, FL. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Ashville
NC.
. 1978. Local climatological data, annual summaries for
1978; Part I, Ala - Mont. Prepared by National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, Oak Ridge TN, variously paginated.
. 1981. 1980 Census of population and housing. Florida -
final population and housing unit counts. PHC80-V-11. US Bureau of the
Census, Washington DC.
US Department of Labor. 1980. Employment and earnings 1970-1980, Bureau
of Labor Statistics. In; JEA/FP&L 1981a. Site certification applica-
tion - EID for proposed St. Johns River Power Park.
US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1972. Mixing heights, wind
speeds, and potential for urban air pollution throughout the contiguous
United States. Prepared for the Office of Air Programs, Washington,
D.C., 115 p.
9-7
-------
. 1976. Quality criteria for water. Washington DC, 256 p.
. 1978. Source assessment: water pollutants from coal storage
areas.Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory, Cincinnati OH,
105 p.
1979. A Handbook of key Federal regulations and criteria
for multimedia environmental control. EPA-600/7-79-175. Research Triangle
Park NC, 271 p.
. 1980. STORET data, May 1972 to January 1979.
. 1981. Storage and retrieval (STORET) inventory of the water
quality in the St. Johns River at US Highway 17/92 and at Sanford, FL.
Computer print out Washington, D.C.
Vegara, E.D. 1981. By letter, E.D. Vergara, to Hamilton S. Oven,
FDER, 23 July 1981, 9 p.
Volusia County. 1980. Volusia County comprehensive plan. Prepared for the
Volusia County Planning Board and Volusia City Council. Volusia County,
FL, 106 p.
Weston, Inc. 1978. Metropolitan Jacksonville, Florida water resources
study. Annex I. Submitted to US Corps of Engineers, variously paged,
449 p.
White, W.A. 1970. Geomorphology of the Florida peninsula. Bulletin 51,
Florida Geological Survey, Tallahassee FL, 164 p.
Windom, H. 1981. Personal communication, Dr. Herbert Windom, Skidaway Insti-
tute of Oceanography, 10 March 1981.
Wood, W. Dean, and Tersea P. Rudolph. 1981a. A cultural resource re-
connaissance of a prposed coal-fired power plant site. Duval County,
Flordia. Prepared by Southeastern Wildlife Resources, Inc. for Enviro-
sphere Company. New York NY, 68 p.
Wood, W. Dean, and Tersa P. Rudolph. 1981b. Testing of eleven archaeo-
logical sites in the vicinity of a proposed power plant, Duval County,
Florida. Prepared by Southeastern Wildlife Resources for Envirosphere
Co., New York NY, 69 p. plus appendices.
Wyrick, Granville G. 1960. The groundwater resources of Volusia County,
Florida. The Florida Geological Survey Report of Investigation No. 22,
Tallahassee FL, 65 p.
9-8
-------
APPENDIX A
PSD PRELIMINARY DETERMINATION
-------
Revised Preliminary Determination
Jacksonville Electric Authority
PSD-FL-010
I. Applicant
Jacksonville Electric Authority
P. 0. Box 53015
233 W. Duval Street
Jacksonville, Florida 32201
II. Location
The Jacksonville Electric Authority (JEA), in cooperation with
Florida Power and Light Company (FPL), proposes to construct a new
power generating facility consisting of two 600 megawatt (MW)
coal-fired steam generating units in Duval County, Florida. The
construction site, known as the St. Johns River Power Park, is
located adjacent to the existing JEA Northside Generating Station,
approximately 15 kilometers northeast of downtown Jacksonville,
Florida. The UTM coordinates of the proposed source are 446.9
kilometers east and 3366.3 kilometers north.
III. Project Description
The applicant proposes to construct a new power generating
station consisting of two 600 MW turbine-generator units powered by
two pulverized coal-fired steam generators (boilers), two auxiliary
boilers, and coal, limestone, and fly ash handling facilities. The
two proposed steam generators will fire a maximum of 6144 million
Btu's per hour (MMBtu/hr) each or approximately 292.6 tons per hour
each of a medium bituminous coal having a minimum higher heating
value of 10,500 Btu/lb. Of the coals under consideration, the
maximum sulfur content coal has 4.0 percent sulfur by weight.
Two 127 MMBtu/hr auxiliary boilers will be utilized to provide
start-up and shutdown capability for the two turbine-generating
units. The auxiliary boilers will be fired with No. 2 fuel oil
having a maximum sulfur content of .76 percent by weight (wt. %) and
a maximum higher heating value of 19,567 Btu/lb.
-------
Jacksonville Electric -2- PSD-FL-010
The cooling system will consist of two counter-flow natural draft
cooling towers located at the north end of the plant.
The coal handling facility provides for water delivery of coal
by ocean-going barge or ship to a marine terminal located on Blount
Island, Florida where a 30-acre coal surge pile will be operated.
The coal will be transferred from the marine terminal to the proposed
plant site by a shuttle train. The facility also will be capable of
receiving direct rail car coal shipments. The coal handling
equipment at the proposed plant site includes a rotary car dumper,
yard area coal storage, transfer system, coal silos, and tripper
floor distribution system. On the average, less than 10,000 tons per
day of coal will be unloaded at the proposed source.
Limestone will be delivered to the proposed source by rail and
stored in an open pile or dry storage silos.
IV. Source Impact Analysis
PSD regulations amended in the August 7, 1980, Federal Register
require that a new fossil fuel-fired steam electric plant with"
potential emissions of 100 or more tons per year of any pollutant
*• regulated under the Act undergo a PSD review for each pollutant which
results in a significant net increase in emissions. Table 1 presents
an emissions summary for the proposed new source. The proposed new
source has potential emission increases of sulfur dioxide (SOg) and
other pollutants of greater than 100 tons per year and significant
increases in particulate matter (PM), nitrogen oxides (NO*), carbon
monoxide (CO) and S02- Therefore, a PSD review is required for
S02» MOx, PM, and CO. A full PSD review consists of the
following:
A. A demonstration that Best Availabile Control Technology
(BACT) is being applied to all facilities emitting 503,
PM, NOX, and CO;
B. An analysis of existing air quality;
C. A demonstration that the source will not cause or
contribute to any NAAQS violations;
-------
Jacksonville Electric -3- PSD-FL-Q10
D. A PSD increment analysis;
E. A growth analysis;
F. An analysis of impacts on soils, vegetation, and visibility;
and
G. A Class I area analysis.
The proposed new source will be located in an area considered
attainment for all pollutants under review. A non-attainment area for PM
is located in the vicinity of Jacksonville, Florida, approximately 9
kilometers from the proposed new source at its closest point. Also, Duval
County is nonattainment for ozone. The source, however, has insignificant
emissions of VOC and therefore is not subject to review for this pollutant.
The JEA's application was considered complete prior to August 7, 1980.
It should be noted that Table 1 in the.Preliminary Determination and the
Public Notice misrepresented emissions estimates for S0?, NO , CO, and PM
M A
(pounds per hour in place of tons per year). Table 1 of this determination
correctly summarizes these emissions rates. A notice of correction was
published for public information.
A preliminary determination and public notice was made previously
regarding the proposed construction. Subsequent design modifications to the
plant, however, have necessitated issuance of this revised preliminary deter-
mination. Where necessary, additional analysis of emissions, controls, etc.
were provided by the applicant. The revised preliminary determination
correctly reflects the design of the proposed power generating station.
A. Best Available Control Technology (BACT)
Paragraph (i)(9) of the August 7, 1980 PSD regulations exempts this
source from paragraph (j) of the regulations. Instead, paragraph (j) of
the June 19, 1978 PSD regulations applies. Therefore, BACT must be
applied to all emission units emitting SCL, PM, NO , and CO because
£ A
allowable emissions of these pollutants are greater than 50 tons per
year.
-------
Jacksonville Electric -4- PSD-FL-010
Sulfur Dioxide
BACT must be applied to the two proposed steam generators
(boilers) and the auxiliary boiler to control S02 emissions.
The applicant proposes to install a lime/limestone flue gas
desulfurization (FGD) system on each of the proposed steam generators
as BACT for S02. The S02 removal efficiency of a single FGO system is
90 percent (.76 Ib/MM Btu S02 emissions determined in a 30-day rolling
average). With emissions rates below 0.6 Ib/MMBtu, the applicant will
maintain a minimum 70 percent control efficiency consistent with the
NSPS requirements for steam generating electric plants (40 CFR 60
Sufapart Da).
Two other emissions control systems, a lime/limestone FGD with
a 95 percent SO- removal efficiency and a lime spray drying FGD with a
90 percent SOo removal efficiency, were examined. The incremental cost
of the higher efficiency lime/limestone FGD system was determined not to
be cost effective with respect to the resulting improvement in air quality
The lime spray drying FGD system also was rejected on the basis of
economics and the existance of favorable operating experience with
alternate systems operating over a wide range of fuel characteristics.
The New Source Performance Standard (NSPS) for electric utility steam
generation was promulgated June 11, 1979. The NSPS limits S02 emissions
to 10 percent of potential S02 emissions and a maximum emission rate of
1.2 Ib/MMBtu heat input except when the emissions are less than 0.6
Ib/MMBtu. At the latter emission rate, a minimum of 70 percent reduction
(30 percent of potential emitted) in potential S02 emissions is required.
The percentage reduction in potential S02 emissions is dependent upon
the sulfur content of the coal. The proposed S02 control system meets
all requirements of the NSPS for electric utility steam generation
stations for the control of S02 emissions. A continuous monitor for
sulfur dioxide emissions will be installed in the flue of both steam
generators in accordance with 40 CFR 60.47a. The acove emissions
control system represents 3ACT for SO- emissions from the two proposed
steam aenerators.
-------
Jacksonville Electric -5- PSD-FL-010
Auxiliary boilers will be fired with .76 wt. % sulfur fuel oil.
The S02 emissions from the auxiliary boilers are small when
compared to those from the main units. BACT for S02 emissions from
the auxiliary boilers has been determined to be the firing of .76 wt.
% sulfur fuel oil.
Particulate Matter
Application of BACT is required for the emissions of PM from the
two steam generators (boilers), auxiliary boilers and coal, fly ash,
and limestone handling facilities.
BACT for PM emissions from the two steam generators has been
determined to be the installation of an electrostatic precipitator
with a PM removal efficiency of 99.78 percent (.03 Ib/MMBtu). Two
alternative systems, an electrostatic precipitator with a PM removal
efficiency of 99.85 percent (.02 Ib/MMBtu) and a fabric filter with a
PM removal efficiency of 99.85 percent (.02 Ib/MMBtu), were examined
in the BACT analysis. The higher efficiency electrostatic
precipitator was determined not to be cost effective with respect to
the resulting improvement in ambient air quality. The fabric filter
system also was rejected on the basis of economics and the existence
of favorable operating experience with the alternate systems. The
NSPS for electric utility steam generation limits PM emissions fo .03
Ib/MMBtu heat input. The proposed PM emissions control system meets
the NSPS requirements for control of PM emissions. A continuous
monitor for opacity emissions will be installed in the flue of both
steam generators in accordance with 40 CFR 60.47a. The above system
has been determined to be BACT for PM emissions from the two steam
generators.
Control and collection of particulate matter emissions from the
coal handling system will be accomplished by several different
methods including totally enclosed conveying systems, water spray
dust collection systems, and dust collection systems utilizing fabric
filters.
Control of fugitive dust from limestone handling will be accomp-
lished by the use of totally enclosed conveyors, fabric filter dust
collectors, and wet suppression systems.
Fugitive fly ash emissions will be controlled at all transfer and
discharge locations by fabric filters. The handling system utilized
to transfer fly ash to and from ash storage silos is enclosed and
exhausts are discharged through fabric filters. Transfer from silo
storage will be through gravity feed chutes to sealed trucks for
disposal in landfills or for sale.
Fugitive dissolved and suspended particulate emissions from the
cooling tower will be controlled by high efficiency drift
eliminators. Table 2 presents a fugitive emissions and control
summary.
The above emission control systems represent BACT for fugitive
emissions.
-------
Jacksonville Electric -6- PSD-FL-010
BACT for PM emissions from the auxiliary boilers has been
determined to be the firing of No. 2 fuel oil with an ash content of
0.01 wt. %. Therefore, no air pollution control equipment for the
purpose of PM reduction is warranted.
Nitrogen Oxides and Carbon Monoxide
BACT must be applied to the two steam generators and the
auxiliary boilers to control NOx and CO emissions. Emissions of
NOX and CO resulting from the combustion of coal is dependent on
such factors of boiler design as the amount of excess air in the
combustion chamber, flame temperature, burner spacing and burner
design.
The applicant proposes to use combustion controls and modern
boiler design for a maximum NOx emission rate of 0.6 Ib/MMBtu and
to minimize CO emissions. The maximum CO emission rate will be
determined during performance testing for compliance with NSPS (40
CFR 60.44a) and in accordance with Permit Condition No. 7. This is
in agreement with the NOx emission limit required in the NSPS for
steam electric generating stations. Control of NOx and CO
emissions will be accomplished by flue gas oxygen monitoring systems
to control the air/fuel ratio. In addition, continuous nitrogen
oxides and CO meters will be installed in the flue of both steam
generators in accordance with 40 CFR 60.47a.
The above emissions control system represents BACT for NOx and
CO emissions from the two steam generators and the auxiliary boilers.
B. Analysis of Existing Air Quality
Paragraph (i)(9) of the August 7, 1980 PSD regulations exempts this
source from paragraph (m)(l) of the regulations. Instead, paragraph (n)
of the June 19, 1978 PSD regulations applies. Therefore, an analysis of
existing air quality for S02, PM, NOx, and CO is required as deemed
necessary by the Administrator because the allowable emissions increases
of these pollutants are greater than 50 tons per year.
Monitoring data for S02» NOX, and PM were obtained from the New
Berlin monitoring site near Jacksonville, Florida for the year 1977.
Monitoring data for CO was not available; however, the area surrounding
the proposed new source has been classified attainment or unclassified for
CO and therefore no NAAQS violations for CO are expected.
-------
-7-
An air quality analysis using meteorological data from the
Jacksonville International Airport was used to determine the maximum
pollutant concentrations at the monitoring site when the contributions
from large existing sources of pollution were negligible. These sources
were the JEA Northside plant and the St. Regis Paper Company. These
maximum background pollutant concentrations were determined to be
representative of the existing air quality in the region of the proposed
source. All monitoring, data collection procedures, and modeling analyses
were conducted using EPA-approved techniques. The monitoring data was
utilized in the NAAQS analysis in projecting the maximum ambient air
concentrations of each pollutant under review. The results are shown in
Table 3.
The applicant also performed site-specific monitoring of all criteria
pollutants, the results of which were unavailable during technical review
of the application and development of the preliminary determinatnon. The
monitoring results do not conflict with the application analysis and the
basis for the preliminary and final determinations. Furthermore, the
ozone monitoring results do not indicate that a violation of the NAAQS
(235 ug/M^) has occurred in 1980 (212 ug/M3 1 hr. maximum).
C. NAAQS Analysis
The EPA-approved dispersion models CRSTER (modified for use with
multiple point sources of emissions) PTMPT and PAL were utilized to assess
the total ambient air concentrations of SOe, PM, NOx and CO within 50
km of the proposed plant site. Meteorological data for the years 1970 -
1974 were obtained from weather stations located at Jacksonville
International Airport (surface date) and Waycross, Georgia (upper air
observations). The meteorological data was determined to be represen-
tative of the weather conditions at the proposed construction site.
-------
Jacksonville Electric ~8~ PSD-FL-010
An emissions inventory of all increment consuming and other sources
within 50 km of the proposed plant; and new sources within 100 km of the
nearest Class I area-was compiled. For the purpose of the modeling
analysis, the main steam generating units were considered to operate
continuously. This is a conservative assumption because the plant cap-
ability factor is expected"to be no greater than 74''percent.
An initial modeling analysis determined that the 1973 meteorological
data represented the "worst-case" year assuming a 100 percent plant
load. Additional modeling at 75 percent and 50 percent load showed that
a 100 percent continuous operating load resulted in the highest ground
level concentrations. Therefore, the more detailed analyses were con-
ducted using the emission parameters for the 100 percent load level.
All modeling was conducted using EPA-approved modeling techniques. All
stacks were modeled at Good Engineering Practice (GEP) stack height. No
effects on the projected ambient air concentrations of pollutants were
expected to occur as a result of turbulent building wake effects (downwash-)
because all stacks met GEP stack height.
The maximum ambient air concentrations for the pollutants under review
were determined by modeling emissions from the proposed new source along
with emissions from the JEA Northside plant and St. Regis Paper Company.
The maximum concentrations obtained from the modeling analysis were added
to the maximum monitored concentrations (which did not include contributions
from the St. Regis Paper Company or the JEA Northside plant) to obtain the
maximum ambient air concentrations of each pollutant under review. This
analysis is considered conservative.because both the maximum monitored
and modeled concentrations were not located at the same geographical point.
The results of the NAAQS analysis are presented in Table 3.
A modeling analysis was conducted to determine the impact of PM
emissions (including fugitive PM emissions) from the proposed new source
on the PM non-attainment area located in the downtown Jacksonville, Florida
area. The maximum impacts were projected to be below 1 ug/m on an annual
average and 5 ug/m on a 24-hr average. These values are below the PSD
-------
Jacksonville Electric -9- PSD-FL-01Q
modeling significance levels as defined in the June 19, 1978 PSD regulations
43FR26358. Therefore, the proposed new source will not significantly impact
the PM non-attainment area which is in -compliance with the August 7, 1980
PSD regulations paragraph (f)(4)(a).
The VOC emissions from the proposed new source are not expected to
impact the ozone non-attainment area located near Jacksonville, Florida.
Presently, no EPA-approved dispersion models exist with which to model
ozone emissions (of which VOC is a precursor). The VOC emission levels
from the proposed new source are small and therefore are not expected
to significantly impact the ozone non-attainment area under any meteorologi-
cal conditions.
D. Increment Analysis
The models and meteorology for determination of PM and S0« incre-
ment consumption were the same as those discussed in the NAAQS analysis
(above). All increment consuming sources potentially affecting the
ambient air quality in the area of the proposed new source were included
in the modeling analysis. No violations of the Class II increment standards
were predicted. The results are presented in Table 4.
E. Growth Analysis
The proposed new source is expected to directly employ about 400
people. Most of these workers will come from the local work force. No
air quality impacts resulting from industrial, commercial, or residential
growth associated with the proposed new source are expected.
F. Soils, Vegetation and Visibility Analysis
No soils vegetation or visibility impacts are expected to occur due
to emissions from the proposed new source because of the relatively
small increase in ambient pollutant concentrations.
-------
Jacksonville Electric -10- PSD-FL-010
G. Class I Area Analysis
The nearest Class I area to the proposed new source is the Okefenokee
Swamp whose borders are located between 61 and 73 kilometers in a northwestly
direction. The models and meteorology used in the increment and MAAQS
analyses were utilized to predict the maximum SCU and PM increment
consumption at the borders of the Class I area. All increment consuming
sources potentially impacting the Class I area were included in the model-
ing analysis. Five years of meteorological data were modeled. No violations
of the Class I increments were predicted. The results are presented in
Table 5.
No impacts on Class I area soils, vegetation or visibility are expected
due to the low level of ambient air concentrations projected in the Class I
area for any pollutant under review. The results of this analysis will be
forwarded to the Federal Land Managers responsible for this Class I area for
comment on the significance of the Class I impacts.
V. Conclusion
EPA proposes a final determination of approval with conditions
for construction of the steam electric generating station proposed by the
Jacksonville Electric Authority. This determination is based upon the
application received May 28, 1980 and additional information dated July 8,
1980 and November 26, 1980 (application determined complete as of July 9,
1980). The determination of approval is contingent upon the following
specific conditions:
1. The proposed steam generating station will be constructed and
operated in accordance with the capabilities and specifications
of the application including the 600 megawatt generating
capacity and the 6144 MMBtu/hr heat input rate for each steam
generator.
2. Emissions will not exceed the allowable emissions listed in Table 6
for S02, PM, and NOX.
-------
Jacksonville Electric -11' PSD-FL-010
3. Compliance with the allowable emission limits for emission
points 1, 2, and 3 in Table 6 will be demonstrated with
performance tests conducted in accordance with the provisions
of 40 CFR 60.46a, 48a and 49a, including applicable test methods,
sampling procedures, sample volumes, sampling periods, etc.
Compliance with the emission limitations of all emission points
in Table 6 will be in accordance with 40 CFR 60, Appendix A; Method
5, Determination of Particulate Emissions from Stationary Sources;
Method 6, Determination of Sulfur Dioxide Emissions from Stationary
Sources; Method 7, Determination of Nitrogen Oxide Emissions
from Stationary Sources; Method 9, Determination of the Opacity
of Emissions from Stationary Sources; and Method 10, Determination
of Carbon Monoxide Emissions from Stationary Sources.
Emission points 4 thru 13 of Table 6 are exempted from mass emission
rate compliance tests unless opacity limits are exceeded or the
Administrator (or his representative) otherwise determines that such
performance testing is required. All facilities will operate within
10 percent of maximum operating capacity during performance testing.
4. A flue gas oxygen meter shall be installed in emissions points 1,2,
and 3 of Table 6 to continuously monitor a representative sample of
the flue gas.
Also the applicant will install and maintain a continuous monitoring
and recording opacity meter, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide and
carbon monoxide analyzers for each steam generator (emissions units 1
and 2 of Table 6) in accordance with the provisions of 40 CFR 60.47a.
-------
Jacksonville Electric -12- PSD-FL-010
5. Emission points 1 and 2 of Table 6 shall fire coal with an ash
content not to exceed 18% and a sulfur content not to exceed
4% by weight. Coal sulfur content shall be determined and
recorded in accordance with 40 CFR 60.47a.
Emission point 3 of Table 6 shall fire No. 2 fuel oil with a
maximum sulfur content of .7 percent by weight and a maximum
ash content of .01 percent by weight. Samples of all fuel oil
fired in the boilers shall be taken and analyzed for sulfur and .
ash content. Accordingly, samples shall be taken of each fuel
oil shipment received. Records of the analyses shall be recorded
and kept for public inspection for a minimum of two years after
the data is recorded.
6. The following requirements will be met to minimize fugitive
emissions of particulate from the coal storage and handling
facilities, the limestone storage and handling facilities,
haul roads and general plant operations:
a. All conveyors and conveyor transfer points will be
enclosed to preclude PM emissions (except those directly
associated with the coal stacker/reelaimer for which
enclosure is operationally infeasible).
b. Inactive coal storage piles will be shaped, compacted and
oriented to minimize wind erosion;
c. Water sprays or chemical wetting agents and stabilizers
will be applied to storage piles, handling equipment, etc.
during dry periods and as necessary to all facilities to
maintain an opacity of less than or equal to 10 percent.
d. Limestone handling will be from bottom dump rail car delivery with
wet dust suppression, and open storage or dry storage silos.
e. The fly ash handling system (including transfer and silo storage)
will be totally enclosed and vented (including pneumatic system
exhaust) through fabric filters.
-------
-13-
7. Maximum emissions of carbon monoxide will be determined during
performance testing for compliance with nitrogen oxide emissions
(NSPS - 40 CFR 60.44a.). The upper limit of carbon monoxide
emissions shall be that emission rate where the nitrogen oxides
emission is recorded at its lowest emission rate (to be not greater
than that required by NSPS (40 CFR 60.44a.).
8. The applicant will comply with all requirements and provisions of the
New Source Performance Standard for electric utility steam generating
units (40 CFR 60 Part Da). In addition, the applicant must comply
with the provisions and the requirements of the attached General
Conditions.
9. As a requirement of this specific condition, the applicant will
comply with all emissions limits and enforceable restrictions
required by the State of Florida Department of Environmental
Regulation which are more restrictive. That is, lower emissions
limits or more strict operating requirements and equipment
specifications than the requirements of specific conditions 1-9 of
this permit.
10. This PSD approval to construct shall be valid only in the
event that the stacks at the Southside (unitsl-4) and Kennedy(units
8,9,10) plants are raised to 84 meters as presented in the ambient
air quality analysis for this determination; or additional modeling
of air quality impacts is submitted which demonstrate that the NAAQS
will not be violated at the lower stack height under valid worst case
conditions. If such modeling is to be used to show compliance with
NAAQS it should be submitted prior to construction of the new units
at the St. Johns River Power Park.
-------
Table 1. EMISSIONS SUMMARY OF THE PROPOSED JEA
POWER GENERATING PLANT
PSD
Significance
Pollutant Potential Emissions Levels
(Tons per Year) (Tons per Year)
SO,
Z
PM
NO
X
CO
voc
41900 •
1626
32967
2990
28b
40
25
40
100
40
Potential emissions calculations are based on a continuous
maximum operating capacity.
Applicant estimated 0.0005 Ib VOC/MMBtu (27 tons/yr) average emissions
rate from the boilers.
-------
Table 2. FUGITIVE EMISSIONS AND CONTROL SUMMARY
Procea*
Ship Unloading
Ship Unloading
Tranaler Point*
Ship Unloading
Transfer Point*
Ship Unloading
Facility Train
Ship Unloading
Facility Coal
Surge Pile
Rail Car Unloading
Coal Handling
Transfer Point*
Coal Handling
Tranafer Point*
Coal Handling
Tranafer Point*
Coal Handling
Tranafer Point*
Coal Storage
•t Plant
Coal Storage
at Plant
Llveatone
Unloading
Llaeatone
Tranter Point
Cooling Tower*
Type
Crab Bucket
6 Point*
3 Point*
Loading Shed
Active
Rotary Duaiper
2. Point*
2 Point*
6 Point*
7 Point*
Active
2 Inactive Piles
Rail Dumper
1 Point
Drift
Ajaount
10.000 Tons /Day
10,000 Tons /Day
10,000 Ton* /Day
10.000 Tons /Day
30 Acre*
10.000 Tons /Day
10,000 Tons/Day
1,300 Ton* /Day
1.300 Tone/Day
5,000 Tons/Day
0 Acre*
15 Acre* Each
750 Ton a /Day
750 Tons/Day
2x603 Grans/Sec
Factor
.4LB/TOI/1
.2LB/Ton1
,2LB/Tona
.4LB/TonQ-
13LB/ Ac re/Day*
,4LB/Ton*
.2LB/Ton*
.2LB/Ton"
.2LB/Ton*
.2LB/Ton«
13LB/Acre/Day"
1.5LB/Acre/Day*
.4LB/Ton*
.2LB/Ton"
32,963 ppn Sol Ida
Control
(99.9X)b
(99.9X)b
(97X)b
(99.9X)b
(90X)"
(»7X)b
(99.9X)b
(99.9X)b
(97X)b
(99.9X)b
(90X)"
(99X)b
"""
(99.9X)b
2IX<50 Microns
Technique
Dry Collection on Hopper*
Dry Collection
Wet Suppreaalon
Dry Collection
Wetting Agent*
Wet Suppreaalon
Dry Collection
Dry Collection
Wet Suppreealon
Dry Collection
Wetting Agent*
Wetting Agent*
Wet Suppression
Dry Collection
Drift Cllalnatora
Cailaalon*
(Grans/Sec)
.04
.06
.95
.02
.20
.63
.02
.01
.62
.04
.05
.01
.002
.001
8.4
a (Pedco. I9M)
b (Slouglilon. 1980)
-------
Table 3. NAAQS ANALYSIS
Pollutant/
averaging time
Monitored
background
concentration
(ug/nr3)
SO
2
3-hour
24-hour
annual
123
45
11
Maximum
projected
concentration
(ug/m3)
1010
193
13
Total
concentration
(ug/rrr3)
1133
238
24
iNAAQS
(ug/rrv3)
1,300
365
SO
PM
24-hour
annual
79
37
27
3
106
40
150
75
NO
2
annual
15
10
25
100
CO
1-hour
8-hour
c
•
c
108s
<100C
40,000
20,000
aThese values do not include contributions from the JEA Northside Plant
and the St. Regis Paper Co.
These concentrations include contributions from the proposed JEA steam
electric generating station, the existing JEA Northside Plant and the
existing St. Regis Paper Co.
CCO monitoring data was not available. However, because of the low
ambient air concentrations of CO projected, no violations of the NAAQS
for CO is expected.
These values were estimated from the projected S02 ambient air
concentrations based on worst-case operating load and meteorological
conditions.
-------
Table 4. CLASS II INCREMENT ANALYSIS
Maximum3 PSD
Class II Class II
Pollutant/ increment consumption increment
averaging time (ug/rrr) (ug/rn^)
SO,
3-hour 357 512
24-hour 48 91
annual 2 20
PM
24-hour 17 37
annual 2.3 19
These values include contributions from all increment consuming sources
impacting the ambient air quality within 50 kilometers of the proposed
new source, including the proposed JEA steam electric generating station
Five years of meteorological data was used in the analysis; therefore,
these values represent the highest, second highest concentrations.
-------
Table 5. CLASS I INCREMENT ANALYSIS
Maximum PSD
Class I Class I
Pollutant/ 'increment consumption Increment
averaging time (ug/nr) (ug/nr)
so2
3-hour 18 25
24-hour 4 5
annual <-l 2
PM
24-hour <1 5
annual <1 10
aThese values include contributions from all increment consuming sources
within 100 kilometers of the Class I area including the proposed JEA
electric steam generating station. Five years of meteorological data
was used in the analysis; therefore, these values represent the highest,
second highest concentrations.
-------
Table 6. ALLOWABLE EMISSION LIMITS
(Ib/hour; Ib/MMBtu)
Emission Unit S02 NOx"PM Opacity
(Percent)
1. Steam generating boiler no. 1 4,669; 3,686; 184; 20
(6,144 MMBtu/hr maximum heat Input) 0.76 0.6 0.03
(30 day rolling average)
2. Steam generating boiler no. 2 4,669; 3,686; 184; 20
(6,144 MMBtu/hr maximum heat Input) 0.76 0.6 0.03
(30 day rolling average)
3. Auxiliary boilers (254 MMBtu/hr 203; 76; 2.5; 20
maximum heat Input total) 0.8 0.3 0.01
4. Ship unloading (Grab Bucket) 0.32 10
5. Ship unloading transfer points 0.1 (ea.) 10
(6 dry collection points)
6. Ship unloading 7.5 10
(3 wet suppression points)
7. Ship unloading facility train 0.2 10
(loading shed)
8. Ship unloading facility coal 1.5 10
storage pile (30 acres)
-------
Table 6. ALLOWABLE EMISSION LIMITS
(Ib/hour; Ib/MMBtu)
(continued)
Emission Unit
S02
PM
Opacity
(Percent)
9. Rail car unloading (Rotary Dumper)
10. Coal handling transfer points
(wet suppression points and
dry collection)
11. Coal handling transfer points
(11 wet suppression points)
12. Coal storage at plant
(8 acres active)
13. Coal storage at plant
(2-15 acre Inactive piles)
14. Limestone unloading
(rail dumper)
15. Limestone transfer points
16. Cooling towers
5 10
5 (each) 10
0.1 (each) 10
0.4 10
0.1
0.1
10
10
0.1 (each) 10
N/A
67
(each tower)
-------
GENERAL CONDITIONS
1. The permittee shall notify the permitting authority in writing of
the beginning of construction of the permitted source within 30 days
of such action and the estimated date of start-up of operation.
2. The permittee shall notify the permitting authority in writing of
the actual start-up of the permitted source within 30 days of such
action and the estimated date of demonstration of compliance as
required in the specific conditions.
3. hach emission point for which an emission test method is established
in this permit shall be tested in order to determine compliance with
the emission limitations contained herein within sixty (60) days of
achieving the maximum production rate, but in no event later than 180
days after initial start-up of the permitted source. The permittee
shall notify the permitting authority of the scheduled date of compliance
testing at least thirty (30) days in advance of such test. Compliance
test results shall be submitted to the permitting authority within
forty-five (45) days after the complete testing. The permittee shall
provide (1) sampling ports adequate for test methods applicable to
such facility, (2) safe sampling platforms, (3) safe access to sampling
platforms, and (4) utilities for sampling and testing equipment.
4. The permittee shall retain records of all information resulting from
monitoring activities and information indicating operating parameters
as specified in the specific conditions of this permit for a minimum
of two (2) years from the date of recording.
5. If, for any reason, the permittee does not comply with or will not be able
to comply with the emission limitations specified in this permit, the
permittee shall pro-vide the permitting authority with the following
information in writing postmarked within five (5) days of such conditions:
(a) description of noncomplying emission(s),
(b) cause of noncompliance,
(c) anticipated time the noncompliance is expected to continue or,
if corrected, the duration of the period of noncompliance,
(d) steps taken by the permittee to reduce and eliminate the
noncomplying emission,
and
(e) steps taken by the permittee to prevent recurrence of the
noncomplying emission.
Failure to provide the above information when appropriate shall constitute
a violation of the terms and conditions of this permit. Submittal of this
report does not constitute a waiver of the emission limitations contained
within this permit.
-------
6. Any change in the information submitted in the application regarding
facility emissions or changes in the quantity or quality of materials
processed that will result in new or increased emissions must be re-
ported to the permitting authority. If appropriate, modifications to
the permit may then be made by the permitting authority to reflect any
necessary changes in the permit conditions. In no case are any new or
increased emissions allowed that will cause violation of the emission
limitations specified herein.
7. In the event of any change in control or ownership of the source described
in the permit, the permittee shall notify the succeeding owner of the
existence of this permit by letter and forward a copy of such letter to
the permitting authority.
8. The permittee shall allow representatives of the State environmental
control agency and/or representatives of the Environmental Protection Agency,
upon the the presentation of credentials:
(a) to enter upon the permittee's premises, or other premises
under the control of the permittee, where an air pollutant
source is located or in which any records are required to
be kept under the terms and conditions of the permit;.
(b) to have access to and copy at reasonable times any records
required to be kept under the terms and conditions of this
permit, or the Act;
(c) to inspect at reasonable times any monitoring equipment or
monitoring method required-in this permit;
(d) to sample at reasonable times any emission of pollutants;
and
(e) to perform at reasonable times an operation and maintenance
inspection of the permitted source.
9. All correspondence required to be submitted by this permit to the permitting
agency shall be mailed to the:
Chief, Consolidated Permits Branch
Enforcement division
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region IV
345 Courtland Street
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
10. The conditions of this permit are severable, and if any provision of this
permit, or the application of any provision of this permit to any circum-
stance, is held invalid, the application of such provision to other
circumstances, and the remainder of this permit, shall not be affected
thereby.
The emission of any pollutant more frequently or at a level in excess of that
authorized by this permit shall constitute a violation of the terms and conditions
of this permit.
-------
USE OF FLUE GAS OXYGEN METER AS BACT FOR
COMBUSTION CONTROLS
Within the time limits specified in General Condition 3 of this permit,
the permittee shall determine the emissions of nitrogen oxides and carbon
monoxide from the permitted combustion device in accordance with test
methods and procedures set out in 40 CFR Part 60, Appendix A, Methods 7
and 10, respectively. These emission determinations shall be made at:
1) Maximum design capacity; and
2} Normal operational load.
The permittee shall install a continuous oxygen monitor in the flue of
the permitted combustion device which meets the requirements of 40 CFR
Part 60, Appendix B, Performance Specification 3. Results of emission
determinations shall be correlated to the flue gas oxygen content to define:
1) The point at which Nitrogen Oxides (NO )
emissions (Ib/MMBtu) equals the allowable
NO emission rate contained in the permit.
A
2) The point at which carbon monoxide (CO)
emissions exceed the'allowable CO emission
rate contained in the permit.
The flue gas oxygen content shall be maintained between these points and
alarms shall be set to sound when flue gas oxygen levels exceed either side of
this range.
Should any combustion equipment modifications be made such as different
type burners, combustion air relocation, fuel conversion, tube removal or
addition, etc., emissions correlations as described above shall be conducted
within 90 days of attaining full operation after such modification. Results
of all emission determinations shall be sent to the permitting authority
within 90 days after completion of the tests.
-------
APPENDIX B
NPDES PERMIT (DRAFT) (USEPA)
INCLUDING PERMIT RATIONALE
-------
Permit No. = FL0037869
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION IV
343 COURTLAND STREET
ATLANTA. CEORGJA J0365
AUTHORIZATION TO DISCHARGE UNDER THE
NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM
In compliance with the provisions of the Clean Water Act, as amended
(33 U.S.C. 1251 et. seq; the "Act"),
Jacksonville Electric Authority
233 West Duval Street
Jacksonville , Florida 32201
is authorized to discharge from a facility located at
St. Johns River Power Park
Units 1 and 2
11201 New Berlin Road
Jacksonville , Florida 32226
to receiving waters named St. Johns River and Browns Creek
from discharge points enumerated herein as serial numbers 001
through 008.
in accordance with effluent limitations, monitoring requirements and
other conditions set forth in Parts I, II, and III hereof. The permit
consists of this cover sheet, Part I 16 pages(s), Part II 12 page(s)
and Part III _4 page(s).
This permit shall become effective on
This permit and the authorization to discharge shall expire at
midnight, (5 years)
Date Signed
-------
A. EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
During the period beginning on start of discharge and lasting through expiration,
the permittee is authorized to discharge from outfall(s) serial number(s) 001 - Main Plant Discharge to the
Northside Generating Station (NPDES No. FL0001031) Discharge Channel (to the St. Johns River).
Such discharges shall be limited and monitored by the permittee as specified below:
Effluent Characteristic Discharge Limitations Monitoring Requirements
Inst. Maximum Daily Maximum Measurement Sample
Frequency Type
Temperature °C (°F) N/A 33.9 (93.0) Continuous Recorder
Total Residual Oxidants(mg/l) 0.10 NA I/week I/ Multiple Grabs
Additional Monitoring See Part III.C. l/month~ 24-hour composite
The pH shall not be less than 6.0 standard units nor greater than 9.0 standard units and shall be monitored
I/week on a grab sample.
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts.
Samples taken in compliance with the monitoring requirements specified above shall be taken at the following
location(s): Main Plant Discharge prior to entry into the Northside Discharge Channel, except that chlorine
shall be monitored at the end of the Northside Discharge Channel.
I/ From start of chlorination of each unit, analyses shall follow each application until sufficient
operating experience has been obtained to assure conforraance with limitations and then analysis frequency
may be reduced to one day per week.
n> pi pi
3 OQ H
£fl> rt
rr M M
o
o
u>
^J
CD
0%
-------
A. EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
During the period beginning on start of discharge and lasting through expiration,
the permittee is authorized to discharge from outfall(s) serial number(s) 002 - Runoff Sedimentation Control
Pond discharge to Browns Creek (includes construction and yard drainage, effluent from Concrete Truck Washing
Settling Pond and Sanitary Wastewater Treatment Facility effluent (OSN 003)).
Such discharges shall be limited and monitored by the permittee as specified below:
Effluent Characteristic Discharge Limitations Monitoring Requirements
Instantaneous Maximum Measurement Sample
Frequency Type
Flow-m3/Day (MGD) N/A I/week Grab
Total Suspended Solids (mg/1) 50 I/ I/week Grab
Oil and Grease 5.0 I/week Grab
Total Residual Chlorine (mg/1) 0.01 I/week Multiple Grabs
Detention Volume See Below I/month Calculations
The runoff treatment pond shall be capable of containing the 10-year, 24-hour rainfall event (61 acre-feet)
plus all accumulated silt. Not less than once per month, permittee shall ascertain that available settling
volume meets this requirement and shall report this finding when submitting Discharge Monitoring Reports.
To the extent practicable, water for concrete truck washing shall be recycled from the concrete washing
settling pond.
The pH shall not be less than 6.0 standard units nor greater than 8.5 standard units and shall be monitored
I/week by grab sample I/.
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam In other than trace amounts. ^ ^ ^
n> (» co
3 TO *"*
Samples taken in compliance with the monitoring requirements specified above shall be taken at the following H. * rt
location(s): point of discharge from the Runoff Sedimentation Control Pond. rt H M
gt.0
I/ Applicable to any flow up to the flow resulting from a 24-hour rainfall event with a probable recurrence
interval of once in ten years. 3
o
o
UJ
^j
00
a\
10
-------
A. EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
During the period beginning on start of discharge and lasting through expiration,
the permittee is authorized to discharge from outfall(s) serial number(s) 003 I/ - Sanitary Wastewater
Treatment Facility effluent (Two units in parallel) to OSN 002 during construcFion of Unit 1 and OSN 001
during operation*
Such discharges shall be limited and monitored by the permittee as specified below:
Effluent Characteristic Discharge Limitations
Monitoring Requirements
Daily Average Daily Maximum
(mg/1 except as noted)
Flow-m3/Day (MGD)
BOD5
Total Suspended Solids
Total Residual Chlorine 3/
N/A
30
30
N/A
114 (0.030) 21
60
60
N/A
Measurement
Frequency
2 /week
2/month
2 /month
2 /week 3/
Sample
Type
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab 3/
c:
-4
ro
^
CO
CO
The pH shall not be less than 6.0 standard units nor greater than 9.0 standard units and shall be monitored
2/week by grab sample.
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts.
Samples taken in compliance with the monitoring requirements specified above shall be taken at the following
location(s): Combined sewage treatment plant effluent prior to mixing with any other waste stream.
\
I/ Serial number assigned for Identification and monitoring purposes.
2_/ Neither unit shall be loaded at greater than one-half the value shown.
3/ Applicable only during periods of discharge to OSN 002.
fl> P> PI
H ao H
9 ro ft
O
O
lo
^4
OO
-------
A. EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
During the period beginning on start of discharge and lasting through expiration,
the permittee is authorized to discharge from outfall(s) serial number(s) 004 - Coal Pile Runoff Sedimentation
Pond overflow to Browns Creek.
Such discharges shall be limited and monitored by the permittee as specified below:
Effluent Characteristic Discharge Limitations^ Monitoring Requirements
Daily Average Daily Maximum Measurement Sample
Frequency Type
Flow-m3/Day (MGD) N/A N/A During Occurrence Estimate
Monitoring (See Part III.C.) N/A N/A During Occurrence Representative
Discharge to Browns Creek Is not permitted except when flow results from a 24-hour rainfall event with a
probable recurrence Interval of once In ten years (10Q24) or greater. All periods of discharge shall be
reported .
Discharge of water from the plant main pump sump to the coal pile runoff sedimentation pond is permitted during
periods when the pH of OSN 006 is not within permitted limitations, provided that available excess detention
volume not less than that required for a 10Q24 storm is maintained. Water level interlocks or other acceptable
positive methods shall be provided to assure control. A report defining the proposed control measures shall be
submitted not later than 12 months prior to commercial operation date of Unit 1.
The pH shall be monitored during discharge by representative grab samples.
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts.
Samples taken in compliance with the monitoring requirements specified above shall be taken at the following nj ^ ^
location(s): Discharge from the coal pile runoff sedimentation pond. 8 TO h
m
rt M
O
O
oo
0\
-------
A. EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
During the period beginning on start of discharge and lasting through expiration,
the permittee is authorized to discharge from outfall(s) serial number(s) 005 I/ - Unit 1 and 2 Cooling Tower
Slowdowns to OSN 001.
Such discharges shall be limited and monitored by the permittee as specified below:
Effluent Characteristic
Flow-m3/Day (MGD)
Free Available Oxidants - FAO
Total Residual Oxidants - TRO
Time of TRO discharge (minutes/day/tower)
Cycles of Concentration
Discharge Limitations
(mg/1 unless noted)
Chlorinatlon Period
Average Inst. Max*
Monitoring Requirements
N/A
N/A
See Below
See Below
See Below
See Below
Measurement
Frequency
Daily
I/week 2/
I/week 21
I/week |/
I/day
Sample
Type
Pump logs
Multiple Grabs
Multiple Grabs
Determinations
Calculation
Until the date noted in the next paragraph, FAO shall not exceed an average concentration of 0.2 mg/1 nor a
maximum of 0.5 mg/1 in the blowdown from either cooling tower during all periods of FRO discharge during any
day. Neither FAO nor TRO may be discharged from either cooling tower for more than two hours in any one day
and not more than one tower from either unit may discharge FAO or TRO at any time unless the permittee can
satisfactorily demonstrate to the regional administrator that the units cannot operate at or below this level
of chlorination. TRO shall not be discharged during periods when TRO is being discharged from any unit at
Northside Generating Station.
Not later than three years afer promulgation or July 1, 1987, whichever is earlier, TRO shall not exceed a
maximum concentration of 0.14 mg/1 in the combined cooling tower blowdown discharge. TRO shall not be
discharged for more than two hours per day. Note: In the event that BAT regulations for control of TRO or
chlorine are promulgated in a manner inconsistent with the October 14, 1980, proposed guidelines, requirements
of this paragraph will be modified consistent with the promulgated regulations (40 CFR 423).
There shall be no discharge of detectable amounts of materials added for corrosion inhibition (including, but
not limited to, zinc, chromium or phosphorus) or any chemicals added which contain the 129 priority pollutants-
Cycles of concentration shall not exceed 1.5 and shall be calculated by dividing the 24-hour average intake
flow by the 24-hour average blowdown flow for each tower.
CONTINUED
hd ^ *H
CD (a Pi
33Q n
ID rt
H-
rt M M
o
o
CO
^J
CO
-------
A. EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
During the period beginning on start of discharge and lasting through expiration,
the permittee Is authorized to discharge from outfall(s) serial number(s) 005 I/ - Unit 1 and 2 Cooling Tower
Blowdowns to OSN 001. (Continued)
The permittee shall notify the Director, Enforcement Division in writing not later than four months prior to
instituting use of any biocide or chemical used in cooling systems, other than chlorine, which may be toxic to
aquatic life, other than those previously reported to the Environmental Protection Agency. Such notification
shall include:
1. name and general composition of biocide or chemical,
2. 96-hour median tolerance limit data for organisms representative of the biota of the waterway into
which the discharge shall occur,
3. quantities to be used,
4. frequencies of use,
5. proposed discharge concentrations, and
6. EPA registration number, if applicable.
The pH shall not be less than NA standard units nor greater than NA standard units and shall be monitored NA.
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts.
Samples taken in compliance with the monitoring requirements specified above shall be taken at the following
location(s): Discharge from each of the cooling towers prior to mixing with other waste streams.
I/ Serial number assigned for identification and monitoring purposes*
2_/ From start of chlorination of each unit, analyses shall follow each application of chlorine until
sufficient operating experience has been obtained to assure conformance with limits and then analysis
frequency may be reduced to one day per week.
-------
A, EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
During the period beginning I/ and lasting through 2_/ ,
the permittee is authorized to discharge from outfall(s) serial number(s) 006 3/ - Unit 1 Central Wastewater
Treatment Facility effluent to OSN 001. ""
Such discharges shall be limited and monitored by the permittee as specified below:
Effluent Characteristic
Flow-ra3/Day (MGD)
Total Suspended Solids
Oil and Grease
Aluminum
Copper
Cyanide
Iron
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Zinc
Additional Monitoring
Discharge Limitations
r (Ibs/da:
Daily Avg
N/A
130(280)
45(100)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
i/day)
ily Max
N/A
210(470)
60(130)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
See
Other Units (mi
(except
Daily Ave
N/A
30
105/
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Part III.C.
as noti
Dally
N/A
50
155/
6/
67
67
67
67
6/
67
6/
6/
Monitoring Requirements
Measurement
Frequency
Continuous
2/week
2/week
4/
I/
!/
4/
47
i/
i/
4/
Sample
Type
Recorder
24-hour composite
3-grab composite
24-hour composite
24-hour composite
24-hour composite
24-hour composite
24-hour composite
24-hour composite
24-hour composite
24-hour composite
24-hour composite
24-hour composite
The pH shall not be less than 6.0 standard units nor greater than 9.0 standard units and shall be monitored by
continuous recorder.
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts.
Samples taken in compliance with the monitoring requirements specified above shall be taken at the following
location(s): Discharge from the central wastewater treatment facility prior to mixing with any other waste
stream, except that pH, metals and additional monitoring shall be from the Pump Sump. Daily flow records of
both the discharge from the Flow Equalization Basin and Coal Pile Runoff Sedimentation Pond also shall be
maintained by pump hour recorders.
CONTINUED
n> (»
H OQ
S (o
rt M M
a
o
f
o
o
OJ
^-1
00
-------
EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
During the period beginning I/ and lasting through 2/,
the permittee la authorized to discharge from outfall(s) serial number(s) 006 3/ - Unit 1 Central Wastewater
Treatment Facility effluent to OSN 001. (Continued)
I/ Start of discharge from Unit 1.
2/ Start of discharge from Unit 2.
3/ Serial number assigned for identification and monitoring purposes.
A_/ Once per week for the first six months after commercial operation date of Unit 1, once per two weeks for
the next six months and once per month thereafter unless the Director of the Enforcement Division
determines that analysis results Indicate the need for a greater measurement frequency. All data shall be
submitted monthly for the first six months of plant operation (and summarized quarterly in DMR's).
5/ During periods when coal pile runoff is not being processed, limitations shall be 15 and 20 mg/1,
respectively.
6_/ Value to be included depending upon the findings of variance hearings and approval of any variance by EPA.
(D pi pi
H tN ^
JU rt
rt H M
£5 00
O
o
O
CO
-------
A. EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
During the period beginning I/ and lasting through expiration,
the permittee is authorized to discharge from outfall(s) serial number(s) 006 2/ - Units 1 and 2 Central Wastewater
Treatment Facility effluent to OSN 001. "~
Such discharges shall be limited and monitored by the permittee as specified below:
Effluent Characteristic
Discharge Limitations
kg/day (Ibs/day5Other Units (mg/1)
(except as noted)
Daily Avg Daily Max Daily Avg Daily Max
Monitoring Requirements
Flow-m3/Day
Total Suspended Solids
Oil and Grease
Aluminum
Copper
Cyanide
Iron
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Zinc
Additional Monitoring
N/A
220(480)
90(200)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
360(800)
120(270)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
See Part
N/A
30
103/
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
III.C
N/A
50
5/
5/
5/
5/
V
5/
5/
5/
Measurement
Frequency
Continuous
2 /week
2 /week
4/
\]
4/
4/
47
I/
4/
Sample
Type
Recorder
24-hour composite oo
3-grab composite
24-hour composite
24-hour composite
24-hour composite
24-hour composite
24-hour composite
24-hour composite
24-hour composite
24-hour composite
24-hour composite
24-hour composite
During periods of metal cleaning, quantity limitations from this source shall be one-half of those noted above
(but is increased by the actual quantities of metal cleaning waste pollutants being discharged from OSN 007).
The pH shall not be less than 6.0 standard units nor greater than 9.0 standard units and shall be monitored by
continuous recorder.
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts.
Samples taken in compliance with the monitoring requirements specified above shall be taken at the following
location(s): Discharge from the central wastewater treatment facility prior to mixing with any other waste
stream, except that pH, metals and additional monitoring shall be from the Pump Sump. Daily flow records of
both the discharge from the Flow Equalization Basin and Coal Pile Runoff Sedimentation Pond also shall be
maintained by pump hour recorders.
CONTINUED
pi
OQ
0.
rt H M
O
O
CO
^1
00
0\
vo
-------
A. EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
During the period beginning I/ and lasting through expiration,
the permittee Is authorized to discharge from outfall(s) serial number(s) 006 2/ - Units 1 and 2 Central
Wastewater Treatment Facility effluent to OSN 001. (Continued)
ll Start of discharge from Unit 2.
2/ Serial number assigned for identification and monitoring purposes*
3/ During periods when coal pile runoff is not being processed, limitations shall be 15 and 20 mg/1,
respectively.
4/ Once per two weeks for the first six months after commercial operation date of Unit 2 and once per month
thereafter unless the Director of the Enforcement Division determines that analysis results Indicate the
need for a greater measurement frequency.
V Value to be included depending upon the findings of variance hearings and approval of any variance by EPA.
^ hd
(D P>
rt h-t H
Sj H,
o a
3
o
o
oo
o\
IO
-------
A. EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
During the period beginning on start of discharge and lasting through expiration,
the permittee is authorized to discharge from outfall(s) serial number(s) 007 I/ - Metal Cleaning Wastes from
Units 1 and 2 to OSN 001.
Such discharges shall be limited and monitored by the permittee as specified below:
Effluent Characteristic
Discharge Limitations
Other Units (mg/1)
kg (Ibs) per . (except as noted)
batch Daily Avg
Flovnn3/Day (MGD)
Total Suspended Solids
Oil and Grease
Copper, Total
Iron, Total
Phosphate as PO^
Chemical Oxygen Demand
Additional Monitoring
N/A
2/
21
21
V
21
21
N/A
30
15
1.0
1.0
N/A
N/A
See Part III.C.
:d)
!ily Max
N/A
100
20
1.0
1.0
1.0 3/
100 4"/
Measurement
Frequency
Continuous
I/Day
I/Day
I/Day
I/Day
I/Day
I/Day
I/batch
Monitoring Requirements
Sample
Type
Recorder or pump logs
24-hour composite
3-grab composite
24-hour composite
24-hour composite
24-hour composite
24-hour composite
24-hour composite
Metal cleaning wastes shall mean any cleaning compounds, rinse waters (including water wash operations), or any
other waterborne residues derived from cleaning any metal process equipment including, but not limited to,
boiler tube cleaning, boiler fireside cleaning and air preheater cleaning.
Metal cleaning wastes shall not be combined with other plant wastes for treatment, except for final
neutralization.
The pH shall not be less than N/A standard units nor greater than N/A standard units and shall be monitored by
continuous recorder as provided for OSN 006.
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts.
Samples taken in compliance with the monitoring requirements specified above shall be taken at the following
location(s): Discharge from the sand filter(s) treating metal cleaning wastes prior to combining with any
other waste stream.
CONTINUED
hd hrf
n> PJ
ro
rt M
I
O
O
00
~~J
CD
ON
ID
-------
A. EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
During the period beginning on start of discharge and lasting through expiration,
the permittee is authorized to discharge from outfall(s) serial number(s) 007 I/ - Metal Cleaning Wastes from
Units 1 and 2 to OSN 001. (Continued) ~ ^ *
S*3
—I
I/ Serial number assigned for identification and monitoring purposes. co
to
2j The total quantity of each pollutant discharged shall be reported. In no case shall the quantity discharged —j
exceed the quantity determined by multiplying the volume of the batch of metal cleaning waste generated £2
times the concentrations noted above [i.e., 3.8 kg (8.3 Ibs) of iron, copper, and phosphate; 57 kg (125 Ibs)
of oil and grease; and 114 kg (250 Ibs) of total suspended solids per million gallons of metal cleaning
waste generated]. Total volume of wastewater generated and discharged shall be reported.
3_/ Applicable to preoperational cleaning wastes and other cleaning wastes with high initial concentration of
phosphate.
4_/ Applicable to any cleaning operation containing organic acids, chelating agents or other compounds with high
oxygen demand.
fl> w PJ
3
-------
A. EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
During the period beginning on start of discharge and lasting through expiration,
the permittee is authorized to discharge from outfall(s) serial nuraber(s) 008 I/ - Oily Water Collection Basin
effluent to OSN 001. ~"
Such discharges shall be limited and monitored by the permittee as specified below:
Effluent Characteristic Discharge Limitations Monitoring Requirements
Dally Avg Daily Max Measurement Sample
Frequency Type
Flow-m3/Day (MGD) N/A N/A Dally Pump hour meter
Total Suspended Solids (mg/1) 30 100 2/week 3-grab composite
Oil and Grease (mg/1) 15 20 2/week 3-grab composite
The pH shall not be less than 6.0 standard units nor greater than 9.0 standard units and shall be monitored
2/week on a grab sample.
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts.
Samples taken in compliance with the monitoring requirements specified above shall be taken at the following
locatlon(s): Basin effluent prior to mixing with any other waste source.
to (» (o
tt> rt
O U)
O
o
GO
-------
A. EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
During the period beginning on start of discharge and lasting through expiration,
the permittee is authorized to discharge from outfall(s) serial number(s) 009 - Solid Waste Runoff
Sedimentation Pond overflow to Browns Creek.
Such discharges shall be limited and monitored by the permittee as specified below:
Effluent Characteristic Discharge Limitations Monltoring Rje quirements
Measurement Sample
Frequency Type
Flow-m3/Day (MGD) N/A During Occurrence Estimate
Monitoring (See Part III.C.) N/A During Occurrence Representative
Discharge to Browns Creek is not permitted except when flow results from a 24-hour rainfall event with a
probable recurrence interval of once in 10 years (10Q2A) or greater. All periods of discharge shall be
reported.
Any runoff settling pond shall be capable of containing the 10Q24 rainfall event from all tributary areas plus
all accumulated silt. Not less than once per quarter, permittee shall ascertain, that available settling
volume meets this requirement and shall report this finding when submitting Discharge Monitoring Reports.
The pH shall be monitored during discharge by representative grab samples*
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts.
Samples taken in compliance with the monitoring requirements specified above shall be taken at the following
location(s): Solid Waste Sedimentation Pond overflow.
n> pi IB
g m H
n H H
& H
O *-
o
O
CO
-^1
00
CTv
VO
-------
A. EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
During the period beginning on start of discharge from OSN 005 or 006, whichever occurs earlier, and lasting
through expiration, the permittee shall monitor serial number 010 I/ - Plant Intake from Northside Discharge
Channel.
Characteristic Monitoring Requirements
Measurement Sample
Frequency Type
Flow-m3/Day (MGD) Continuous Recorder or Logs
Additional Monitoring (See Part III.C) I/month 24-hour composite
Samples taken in compliance with the monitoring requirements specified above shall be taken at the following
location(s): Plant Intake.
I/ Serial number assigned for identification and monitoring purposes.
(D P> W
H 3Q H
9 IB rt
H-
rt M M
& M
O Oi
O
O
OJ
^J
oo
ON
VO
-------
A 1
A ^,
OCT291981 PARTI
Page 1-16
Permit No. FL0037869
B. SCHEDULE OF COMPLIANCE
1. The permittee shall achieve compliance with the effluent limitations specified for
discharges In accordance with the following schedule:
a. Achieve effluent limitations (001-009) - on start of
discharge
b. Excess Volume Control Report (004) - 12 months prior
to commercial operatio-n date of Unit 1
c. Flow reports (Part III.D.)
(1) First report - 15 months after commercial operation
date of Unit 1
(2) Second report - 15 months after commercial operation
date of Unit 2
d. Priority pollutant data (Part III.K.) - Submit by 12
months after commercial operation date of Unit 1
e. Solid waste landfill permeability (Part III.O.)
(1) Permeability Rate test - 90 days prior to use of
any solid waste landfill area(s)
f. FGD water supply assessment (Part III.R.)
(1) Report - 180 days after determination that gypsum
is not saleable (if such determination is ever
necessary)
g. Groundwater Monitoring Program (Part III.S.)
(1) Implement - 12 months prior to commercial operation
date of Unit 1
(2) Reports - Quarterly with DMR's
h. Effluent Bioassay Program (Part III.T.)
(1) Detailed Study Plan - six months prior to commercial
operation date of Unit 1
(2) Implement - commercial operation date of Unit 1
(3) Reports
(a) screening tests - quarterly with DMR's
(b) quarterly tests - quarterly with DMR's
2. No later than 14 calendar days following a date identified in the above schedule of
compliance, the permittee shall submit either a report of progress or, in the case of
specific actions being required by identified dates, a written notice of compliance or
noncompliance. In the latter case, the notice shall include the cause of noncompliance,
any remedial actions taken, and the probability of meeting the next scheduled
requirement.
-------
Part II
Page II-l
A. MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS
1. Discharge Violations
All discharges authorized herein shall be consistent with the terms
and conditions of this permit. The discharge of any pollutant more
frequently than, or at a level in excess of, that identified and
authorized by this permit constitutes a violation of the terms and
conditions of this permit. Such a violation may result in the
imposition of civil and/or criminal penalties as provided in Section
309 of the Act.
2. Change in Discharge
Any anticipated facility expansions, production increases, or process
modifications which will result in new, different, or increased
discharges of pollutants must be reported by submission of a new
NPDES application at least 180 days prior to commencement of such
discharge. Any other activity which would constitute cause for
modification or revocation and reissuance of this permit, as
described in Part II (B) (4) of this permit, shall be reported to the
Permit Issuing Authority.
3. Noncompliance Notification
a. Instances of noncompliance involving toxic or hazardous pollutants
should be reported as outlined in Condition 3c. All other instances
of noncompliance should be reported as described in Condition 3b.
b. If for any reason, the permittee does not comply with or will be
unable to comply with any discharge limitation specified in the
permit, the permittee shall provide the Permit Issuing Authority
with the following information at the time when the next Discharge
Monitoring Report is submitted.
(1) A description of the discharge and cause of noncompliance;
(2) The period of noncompliance, including exact dates and times
and/or anticipated time when the discharge will return to
compliance; and
(3) Steps taken to reduce, eliminate, and prevent recurrence of
the noncomplying discharge.
-------
Part II
Page II-2
c. Toxic or hazardous discharges as defined below shall be reported
by telephone within 24 hours after permittee becomes aware of the
circumstances and followed up with information in writing as
set forth in Condition 3b. within 5 days, unless this requirement
is otherwise waived by the Permit Issuing Authority:
(1) Noncomplying discharges subject to any applicable toxic
pollutant effluent standard under Section 307(a) of the Act;
(2) Discharges which could constitute a threat to human health,
welfare or the environment. These include unusual or extra-
ordinary discharges such as those which could result from
bypasses, treatment failure or objectionable substances
passing through the treatment plant. These include Section
311 pollutants or pollutants which could cause a threat to
public drinking water supplies.
d. Nothing in this permit shall be construed to relieve the permittee
from civil or criminal penalties for noncompliance.
4. Facilities Operation
All waste collection and treatment facilities shall be operated in
a manner consistent with the following:
a. The facilities shall at all times be maintained in a good
working order and operated as efficiently as possible. This
includes but is not limited to effective performance based on
design facility removals, adequate funding, effective management,
adequate operator staffing and training, and adequate laboratory
and process controls (including appropriate quality assurance
procedures); and
b. Any maintenance of facilities, which might necessitate unavoidable
interruption of operation and degradation of effluent quality,
shall be scheduled during noncritical water quality periods and
carried out in a manner approved by the Permit Issuing Authority.
c. The permittee, in order to maintain compliance with this permit
shall control production and all discharges upon reduction, loss,
or failure of the treatment facility until the facility is
restored or an alternative method of treatment is provided.
5. Adverse Impact
The permittee shall take all reasonable steps to minimize any
adverse impact to waters of the United States resulting from
-------
Part II
Page II-3
noncompliance with any effluent limitations specified in this
permit, including such accelerated or additional monitoring as
necessary to determine the nature of the noneomplying discharge.
6. Bypassing
"Bypassing" means the intentional diversion of untreated or partially
treated wastes to waters of the United States from any portion of a.
treatment facility. Bypassing of wastewaters is prohibited unless
all of the following conditions are met:
a. The bypass is unavoidable-i.e. required to prevent loss of life,
personal injury or severe property damage;
b. There are no feasible alternatives such as use of auxiliary
treatment facilities, retention of untreated wastes, or
maintenance during normal periods of equipment down time;
c. The permittee reports (via telephone) to the Permit Issuing
Authority any unanticipated bypass within 24 hours after
becoming aware of it and follows up with written notification
in 5 days. Where the necessity of a bypass is known (or should
be known) in advance, prior notification shall be submitted to
the Permit Issuing Authority for approval at least 10 days
beforehand, if possible. All written notifications shall contain
information as required in Part II (A)(3)(b); and
d. The bypass is allowed under conditions determined to be necessary
by the-Permit Issuing Authority to minimize any adverse effects.
The public shall be notified and given an opportunity to comment
on bypass incidents of significant duration to the extent
feasible.
This requirement is waived where infiltration/inflow analyses are
scheduled to be performed as part of an Environmental Protection
Agency facilities planning project.
Removed Substances
Solids, sludges, filter backwash, or other pollutants removed in
the course of treatment or control of wastewaters shall be disposed
of in a manner such as to prevent any pollutant from such materials
from entering wate-s of the United States.
-------
Part II
Page II-4
8. Power Failures
The permittee is responsible for maintaining adequate safeguards to
prevent the discharge of untreated or inadequately treated wastes
during electrical power failures either by means of alternate power
sources, standby generators or retention of inadequately treated
effluent. Should the treatment works not include the above
capabilities at time of permit issuance, the permittee must furnish
within six months to the Permit Issuing Authority, for approval, an
implementation schedule for their installation, or documentation
demonstrating that such measures are not necessary to prevent discharge
of untreated or inadequately treated wastes. Such documentation
shall include frequency and duration of power failures and an estimate
of retention capacity of untreated effluent.
9. Onshore or Offshore Construction
This permit does not authorize or approve the construction of any
onshore or offshore physical" structures or facilities or the
undertaking of any work in any waters of the United States.
B. RESPONSIBILITIES
1. Right of Entry
The permittee shall allow the Permit Issuing Authority and/or
authorized representatives (upon presentation of credentials and
such other documents as may be required by law) to:
a. Enter upon the permittee's premises where an effluent source
is located or in which any records are required to be kept under
the terms and conditions of this permit;
b. Have access to and copy at reasonable times any records required
to be kept under the terms and conditions of this permit;
c. Inspect at reasonable times any monitoring equipment or
monitoring method required in this permit;
d. Inspect at reasonable times any collection, treatment, pollution
management or discharge facilities required under the permit; or
e. Sample at reasonable times any discharge of pollutants.
-------
Part II
Page II-5
2. Transfer of Ownership or Control
A permit may be transferred to another party under the following.
conditions:
a. The permittee notifies the Permit Issuing Authority of the
proposed transfer;
b. A written agreement is submitted to the Permit Issuing Authority
containing the specific transfer date and acknowledgement that
the existing permittee is responsible for violations up to that
date and the new permittee liable thereafter.
Transfers are not effective if, within 30 days of receipt of proposal,
the Permit Issuing Authority disagrees and notifies the current
permitttee and the new permittee of the intent to modify, revoke and
reissue, or terminate the permit and to require that a new application
be filed.
3. Availability of Reports
Except for data determined to be confidential under Section 308
of the Act, (33 U.S.C. 1318) all reports prepared in accordance with
the terms of this permit shall be available for public inspection at
the offices of the State water pollution control agency and the Permit
Issuing Authority. As required by the Act, effluent data shall not
be considered, confidential. Knowingly making any false statement on
any such report may result in the imposition of criminal penalties
as provided for in Section 309 of the Act (33 U.S.C. 1319).
4. Permit Modification
After notice and opportunity for a hearing, this permit may be modified,
terminated or revoked for cause (as described in 40 CFR 122.15 et seq)
including, but not limited to, the following:
a. Violation of any terms or conditions of this permit;
b. Obtaining this permit by misrepresentation or failure to
disclose fully all relevant facts;
c. A change in any condition that requires either temporary
interruption or elimination of the permitted discharge; or
d. Information newly acquired by the Agency indicating the
discharge poses a threat to human health or welfare.
-------
Part II
Page II-6
If the permittee believes that any past or planned activity would
be cause for modification or revocation and reissuance under
40 CFR 122.15 et seq, the permittee must report such information to
the Permit Issuing Authority. The submission of a new application
may be required of the permittee.
5. Toxic Pollutants
a. Notwithstanding Part II (B)(4) above, if a toxic effluent
standard or prohibition (including any schedule of compliance
specified in such effluent standard or prohibition) is established
under Section 307(a) of the Act for a toxic pollutant which is
present in the discharge authorized herein and such standard
or prohibition is more stringent than any limitation for such
pollutant in this permit, this permit shall be revoked and
reissued or modified in accordance with the toxic effluent
standard or prohibition and the permittee so 'notified.
b. An effluent standard established for a pollutant which is
injurious to human health is effective and enforceable by the
time set -forth in the promulgated standard, even though this
permit has not as yet been modified as outlined in Condition 5a.
6. Civil and Criminal Liability
Except as provided in permit conditions on "Bypassing", Part II
(A) (6), nothing in this permit shall be construed to relieve the
permittee from civil or criminal penalties for noncompliance.
7. Oil and Hazardous Substance Liability
Nothing in this permit shall be construed to preclude the
institution of any legal action or relieve the permittee from
any responsibilities, liabilities, or penalties to which the
permittee is or may be subject under Section 311 of the Act
(33 U.S.C. 1321).
8. State Laws
Nothing in this permit shall be construed to preclude the
institution of any legal action or relieve the permittee from
any responsibilities, liabilities, or penalties established
pursuant to any applicable State law or regulation under authority
preserved by Section 510 of the Act.
-------
Part II
Page II-7
Property Rights
The issuance of this permit does not convey any property rights in
either real or personal property, or any exclusive privileges', nor
does it authorize any injury to private property or any invasion of
personal rights, nor any infringement of Federal, State, or local
laws or regulations.
10. Severability
The provisions of this perait are severable, and if any provision
of this permit, or the application of any provision of this permit
to any circumstance, is held invalid, the application of such
provision to othftr circumstances, and the remainder of this permit
shall not bn affected therebv.
11. Perait Continuation
A new application shall be submitted at least 180 days before the
expiration date of this permit. Where EPA is the Permit Issuing
Authority, the terms and conditions of this perait are automatically
continued in accordance with 40 CFR 122'.5, provided that the permittee
has submitted a timely and sufficient application for a renewal permit
and the Pertait Issuing Authority is unable through no fault of the
permittee to issua a new permit before the expiration date.
C. MONITORING AND REPORTING
1. Representative Sampling
Samples and measurements taken as required herein shall be
representative of the volume and nature of the monitored discharge.
2. Reporting
Monitoring results obtained during each calendar month shall be
summarized for each month and reported on a Discharge Monitoring
Report Form (EPA No. 3320-1). Forms shall be submitted at the end
of each calendar quarter and shall be postmarked no later than the
28th day of the month following the end of the quarter. The first
report is due by the 28th day of the month following the first full
quarter after the effective date of this permit.
-------
Part II
Page II-8
Signed copies of these, and all other reports required herein, shall
be submitted to the Permit Issuing Authority at the following
address(es):
Permit Compliance Branch
Environmental Protection Agency
Region IV
345 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
3. Test Procedures
Test procedures for the analysis of pollutants shall conform to all
regulations published pursuant to Section 304(h) of the Clean Water
Act, as amended (40 CFR 136, "Guidelines Establishing Test Procedures
for the Analysis of Pollutants").
4. Recording of Results
For each measurement or sample taken pursuant to the requirements
of this permit, the permittee shall record the following information:
a. The exact place, date, and time of sampling;
b. The person(s) who obtained the samples or measurements;
c. The dates the analyses were performed;
d. The person(s) who performed the analyses;
e. The analytical techniques or methods used; and
f. The results of all required analyses.
5. Additional Monitoring by Permittee
If the permittee monitors any pollutant at the location(s)
designated herein more frequently than required by this permit,
using approved analytical methods as specified above, the results
of such monitoring shall be included in the calculation and reporting
of the values required in the Discharge Monitoring Report Form
(EPA No. 3320-1). Such increased frequency shall also be indicated.
-------
Part II
Page II-9
6. Records Retention
The permittee shall maintain records of all monitoring including:
sampling dates and times, sampling methods used, persons obtaining
samples or measurements, analyses dates and times, persons performing
analyses, and results of analyses and measurements. Records shall
be maintained for three years or longer if there is unresolved
litigation or if requested by the Permit Issuing Authority.
D. DEFINITIONS
1. Permit Issuing Authority
The Regional Administrator of EPA Region IV or designee.
2. Act
"Act" means the Clean Water Act (formerly referred to as the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act) Public Law 92-500, as amended by Public
Law 95-217 and Public Law 95-576, 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.
3. Mass/Day Measurements
a. The "average monthly discharge" is defined as the total mass of
all daily discharges sampled and/or measured during a calendar
month on which daily discharges are sampled and measured, divided
by the number of daily discharges sampled and/or measured during
such motith. It is, therefore, an arithmetic mean found by adding
the weights of the pollutant found each day of the month and then
dividing this sum by the number of days the tests were reported.
This limitation is identified as "Daily Average" or "Monthly
Average" in Part I of the permit and the average monthly discharge
value is reported in the "Average" column under "Quantity" on
the Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR).
b. The "average weekly discharge" is defined as the total mass of
all daily discharges sampled and/or measured during a calendar
week on which daily discharges are sampled and/or measured
divided by the number of 'daily discharges sampled and/or measured
during such week. It is, therefore, an arithmetic mean found by
adding the weights of pollutants found each day of the week and
then dividing this sum by the number of days the tests were
reported. This limitation is identified as "Weekly Average" in
Part I of the permit and the average weekly discharge value is
reported in the "Maximum" column under "Quantity" on the DMR.
c. The "maximum daily discharge" is the total mass (weight) of a
pollutant discharged during a calendar day. If only one
sample is taken during any calendar day the weight of pollutant
-------
Part II
Page 11-10
calculated from it is the "maximum daily discharge". This
limitation is identified as "Daily Maximum," in Part I of the
permit and the highest such value recorded during the reporting
period is reported in the "Maximum" column under "Quantity".
on the DMR.
4. Concentration Measurements
a. The "average monthly concentration," other than for fecal
coliform bacteria, is the concentration of all daily discharges
sampled and/or measured during a calendar month on which daily
discharges are sampled and measured divided by the number of
daily discharges sampled and/or measured during such month
(arithmetic mean of the daily concentration values). The daily
concentration value is equal to the concentration of a composite
sample or in the case of grab samples is the arithmetic mean
(weighted by flow value) of all the samples collected during
that calendar day. The average monthly count for fecal coliform
bacteria is the geometric mean of the counts for samples collected
during a calendar month. This limitation is identified as
"Monthly Average" or "Daily Average" under "Other Limits" in
Part I of the permit and the average monthly concentration value
is reported under the "Average" column under "Quality" on the DMR.
b. The "average weekly concentration," other than for fecal coliform
bacteria, is the concentration of all daily discharges sampled
and/or measured during a calendar week on which daily discharges
are sampled and measured divided by the number of daily discharges
sampled and/or measured during such week (arithmetic mean of the
daily concentration values). The daily concentration value is
equal to the concentration of a composite sample or in the case of
grab samples is the arithmetic mean (weighted by flow value) of
all samples collected during that calendar day. The average
weekly count for fecal coliform bacteria is the geometric mean
of the counts for samples collected during a calendar week. This
limitation is identified as "Weekly Average" under "Other Limits"
in Part I of the permit and the average weekly concentration
value is reported under the "Maximum" column under "Quality" on
the DMR.
c. The "maximum daily concentration" is the concentration of a
pollutant discharged during a calendar day. It is identified
as "Daily Maximum" under "Other Limits" in Part I of the permit
and the highest such value recorded during the reporting period
is reported under the "Maximum" column under "Quality" on the
DMR.
-------
Part II
Page 11-11
5. Other Measurements
«. The effluent flow expressed as M^/day (MGD) is the 24 hour
average flow averaged monthly. It is the arithmetic mean of•
the total daily flows recorded during the calendar month.
Where monitoring requirements for flow are specified in Part I
of the permit the flow rate values are reported in the "Average"
column under "Quantity" on the DMR.
b. Where monitoring requirements for pH, dissolved oxygen or fecal
coliform are specified in Part I of the permit the values are
generally reported in the "Quality or Concentration" column on
the DMR.
6. Types of Samples
a. Composite Sample - A "composite sample" is any of the following:
(1) Not less than four influent or effluent portions collected
at regular intervals over a period of 8 hours and composited
in proportion to flow.
(2) Not less than four equal volume influent or effluent
portions collected over a period of 8 hours at intervals
proportional to the flow.
(3) An influent or effluent portion collected continuously
over a period of 24 hours at a rate proportional to the flow.
b. Grab Sample: A "grab sample" is a single influent or effluent
portion which is not a composite sample. The sample(s) shall be
collected at the period(s) most representative of the total
discharge.
7. Calculation of Means
a. Arithmetic Mean: The arithmetic mean of any set of values is
the summation of the individual values divided by the number
of individual values.
b. Geometric Mean: The geometric mean of any set of values is the
Nth root of the product of the individual values where N is equal
to the number of individual values. The geometric mean is
equivalent to the antilog of the arithmetic mean of the logarithms
of the individual values. For purposes of calculating the
geometric mean, values of zero (0) shall be considered to be one (1)
-------
Part II
Page 11-12
c. Weighted by Flow Value: Weighted by flow value means the
summation of each concentration times its respective flow
divided by the summation of the respective flows.
8. Calendar Day
a. A calendar day is defined as the period from midnight of one
day until midnight of the next day. However, for purposes of
this permit, any consecutive 24-hour period that reasonably
represents the calendar day may be used for sampling.
-------
DRAFT
OCT 2 9 1981
OTHER REQUIREMENTS
PART III
Page III-l
Permit No. FL0037869
A. No equipment containing polychlorinated blphenyl compounds shall be
placed on site.
B. The Instantaneous zone of thermal mixing for the cooling system shall
not exceed an area of 9.5 acres. The temperature at the point of
discharge Into the St. Johns River shall not be greater than 105
degrees P. The temperature of the water at the edge of the mixing zone
shall not exceed the limitations of Paragraph 17-3.05(l)(d).
C. Additional monitoring shall include: chloride; cyanide; sulfate;
total, dissolved, settleable and suspended solids; and total aluminum,
arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, iron, lead, mercury, nickel,
selenium, silver and zinc.
D. Subsequent to commercial operation dates of Units 1 and 2,
respectively, the permittee shall conduct a detailed evaluation of
actual water use and in-plant waste discharge to confirm design flow
data. Reports of this evaluation shall cover a one-year period after
start-up of each unit and shall be submitted not later than 15 months
after commercial operation date of each unit. In the event that actual
flow data are significantly different from design data, permit may be
modified by the Director, Enforcement Division.
E. Permittee shall institute an evaluation of waste sources which contain
or potentially contain high concentrations of oil and grease and by
administrative procedure of facility construction shall remove oil and
grease from such streams as close to the source as possible. Routine
evaluation and sampling of oil separator effluents shall be included in
this program.
P. Permittee shall maintain or obtain records of rainfall representative
of plant site conditions. All periods of rainfall which exceed the
10-year, 24-hour event shall be reported to EPA.
G. No direct discharge from any solid waste storage area to waters of the
U.S. is permitted by this Authorization to Discharge without prior
approval by the Director, Enforcement Division, except as provided for
OSN 009.
H. No direct discharge from the Blount Island Coal Handling Facility is
permitted by this Authorization to Discharge.
-------
DKAFT
PART III
page III-2
Permit No. FL0037869
I. All periods of bypass of the Central Wastewater Treatment Facility from
the Flow Splitter Box which result in a discharge to waters of the U.S.
shall be reported and sampling of the Pump Sump discharge shall include
all parameters noted in Part III.C, plus pH range. Written reports of
such bypass shall be submitted monthly, except as required by Part
II.A.3.C.
J. In accordance with Section 306(d) of the Clean Water Act (33 USC
Section 1251, et seq.) effluent limitations based on standards of
performance contained in this permit shall not be made any more
stringent during a ten year period beginning on the date of completion
of such construction or during the period of depreciation or
amortization of such facility for the purposes of Section 167 or 169
(or both) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, whichever period ends
first. The provisions of Section 306(d) do not limit the authority of
the Environmental Protection Agency to modify the permit to require
compliance with a toxic effluent limitation promulgated under BAT or
toxic pollutant standard established under Section 307(a) of the Clean
Water Act, or to modify, as necessary, to assure compliance with any
applicable state water quality standard. If an applicable standard or
limitation is promulgated under Sections 301(b)(2)(C) and (D),
304(b)(2), and 307(a)(2) and that effluent standard or limitation is
more stringent than any effluent limitation in this permit or controls
a pollutant not limited in this permit, this permit shall be promptly
modified or revoked and reissued to conform to that effluent standard
or limitation.
K. Not more than 12 months after the Commercial Operation Date of Unit 1,
Permittee shall submit representative data as Included in 40 CFR Part
122.53 (d)(7)(ii), (ill) and (iv). In the event that any pollutant is
present at an unacceptable level, this permit shall be modified, or
alternatively, revoked and reissued, to comply with any applicable
provisions of the Clean Water Act.
L. No herbicides shall be used in the initial clearing
operations of transmission line rights of way (ROW).
Thereafter the use of herbicides for maintenance shall be
minimized and shall be used in strict accordance with
EPA-approved products and procedures.
M. During ROW clearing operations and transmission line tower
construction, an undisturbed 25 feet wide buffer shall be
maintained adjacent to all streams, rivers or lakes.
Within this zone, selective topping of trees or removal of
conflict trees which topping would otherwise kill is
allowable but is to be done without disturbance of the
root mat.
N. The Permittee shall comply with terms of a Memorandum of
Agreement which will provide acceptable mitigation of
adverse impacts to archaeological resources on the SJRPP
site.*
* MOU to be negotiated and presented in Final EIS
-------
DRAFT
QCT 2 9 1981
PART III
Page III-3
Permit No. FL0037869
0. The Permittee shall line each on-site solid waste landfill
area prior to active disposal operation at the landfill.
If other than an impervious liner is employed, the
permeabilities of the liner shall be on the order of
IxlO"7 cm/second and a , minimum of three feet in
thickness. If a permeable liner material is selected,
results of permeability tests by an independent testing
laboratory are to be submitted to EPA no less than 90 days
prior to landfill operations to document compliance with
this requirement. Based on a minimum of two years of
testing data of waste produced by SJRPP, Permittee may
propose to EPA to use less stringent leachate controls.
P. The Permittee shall utilize solid waste disposal area "B",
north of Island Drive, prior to clearing and utilization
of disposal area "A".
Q. An undisturbed buffer zone approximately 200 feet in width
shall be maintained between all construction activity
areas and on-site wetlands contiguous with the St. Johns
River or its tributaries. The buffer zone is to be
defined by placement of a fence on the upland limit of
this buffer zone as depicted on Figure 3.5-1 of the
SAR/EIS. The buffer zone shall exist along the external
southeast side of the plant rail loop.
R. The use of groundwater from the wellfield for plant
service water for SJRPP shall be minimized to the greatest
extent practicable but in no case shall exceed 7.6 mgd on
a maximum daily basis or 5.1 mgd on an average basis. If
it is determined that the FGD sludge can not be
economically marketed as a gypsum product, the Permittee
shall assess the feasability of using non-potable
alternate water supplies to replace high quality
groundwater in scrubber operation. The assessment is to
be submitted to the EPA and must include specific water
quality requirements of the scrubbers and levels of
corrosive constituents in alternative water supplies.
S. After consultation with and approval from EPA, the
Permittee shall institute a groundwater monitoring program
as outlined in the State of Florida, Conditions of
Certification, Sections II. B.2 and II. F.6. Monthly data
shall be submitted quarterly to EPA commencing one year
prior to commercial operation of Unit 1.
-------
OCT 2 9 Ml ?ART
Page III-4
Permit No. FL0037869
T. A bioassay test program shall be performed on the combined
NGS/SJRPP discharge effluent (NPDES 001) commencing at the
start of commercial operation of Unit 1. One 96-hour
continuous flow-through test of the effluent is to be
performed each quarter of the year. Quarterly testing
reports are to be submitted ,to the EPA. Additionally, a
monthly screening test (96-hour continuous flow-through
bioassay) on the full strength effluent and a control is
to be performed during the first year and reported
quarterly. At the end of the first year, the monthly
screening test may be discontinued upon receipt of EPA
approval. Permittee shall submit a detailed study plan
for the bioassay to EPA for: review and approval at least
six months prior to beginning the test program. The study
plan shall propose methodology, indigenous test species,
appropriate quality control measures and test program
operators.
U. The Florida Department of Environmental Regulation has certified the
discharge(s) covered by this permit with conditions (see Attachment
B). Section 401 of the Act requires that conditions of certification
shall become a condition of the permit. The monitoring and sampling
shall be as indicated for those parameters included in the
certification. Any effluent limits, and any additional requirements,
specified in the attached state certification which are more stringent
supersede any less stringent effluent limits provided herein. During
any time period in which the more stringent state certification
effluent limits are stayed or inoperable, the effluent limits provided
herein shall be in effect and fully enforceable. (Note: Certification
to be provided prior to permit issuance.)
-------
• UMSHX I 1 >TTV -I oil/Mil H
fur ««f» f—ate—cy—1 Mr.««'i»
iOttja 1
1"^ ' /7\ J
r ' " VV T
ft,0I th-n I (•»'/"HfmMtQmLIIaiaii***
»tiin |JSg.|^yri_3 "»•« pg~X
ILI'UM; f~^ "^ ©
/T\ lnna JHIA«IHI
5 (2)—*).m. ^S.IM, |iAa fe/ *]gi«iu««
01 rt
i-i rt
e o>
H- O
rt rf
0
•Z n>
O O
f
O
O
C3
O>
VO
-------
OCT 2 9 1981
PERMIT RATIONALE
ST. JOHNS RIVER POWER PARK
UNITS 1 AND 2
JACKSONVILLE ELECTRIC AUTHORITY
October 29, 1981
I. Applicable Regulations
A. Federal performance standards for new sources for
the steam electric power generating point source
category (40 CFR 423) as promulgated on October
8, 1974, with proposed revisions published on
October 14, 1980. (See Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) Table 4.3-1)
B. Florida Water Quality Standards, Chapters 17-3
and 17-4, Florida Administrative Code. (See
EIS Table 3.2-1). The receiving waters are
classified as Class III - Recreation - Pro-
pagation and Management of Fish and Wildlife -
Surface Waters.
II. Effluent Limitations
A. Outfall Serial Number (OSN) 001 - Main Plant
Discharge to the Northside Generating Station
Discharge Channel).
1. Temperature: A maximum 24-hour average
discharge temperature of 33.9 C(93.0 F)
is included based on the application.
A mixing zone consistent with Northside
discharges is included in Part III.B.
2. Total residual oxidants* (total residual
chlorine): Limitation of 0.10 mg/1 is
based on Florida Water Quality Standards
(17-4.244(4)). This section precludes a
maximum pollutant concentration within an
assigned mixing zone which exceeds the
amount lethal to 50 percent of the test
organisms in 96 hours (96-hr LC50) for a
species significant to the indigenous
aquatic community. The 96-hr LC50 value
for Blue Crab of 0.10 mg/1 has been used
to establish the effluent limit.
*In salt water, addition of chlorine produces a rapid
oxidation of iodine, bromine and other chemicals as
it is converted to chloride. Therefore, in salt
water systems, proper reference is to total residual
oxidants (TRO) rather than total residual chlorine.
The analysis method is unchanged.
-------
OCT 2 9 1981
B. OSN 002 - Runoff Sedimentation Control Pond dis-
charge to Browns Creek (includes construction and
yard drainage, effluent from Concrete Truck Wash-
ing Settling Pond, and Sanitary Wastewater Treat-
ment Facility effluent).
1. Oil and Grease, Total Residual Chlorine and pH:
Limitations are from Chapter 17-3.061 and
-3.121 Florida Administrative Code.
2. Total Suspended Solids: Limitation is derived
as a best professional judgement to protect
sensitive benthic organisms in Browns Creek.
See EIS for further discussions.
C. OSN 003 - Sanitary Wastewater Treatment Facility
effluent. Limitations are generally based on sec-
ondary treatment requirements (40 CFR Part 102)
for domestic waste- However, the one-day maximum,
limitation of 60 mg/1 each for total suspended
solids and biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) pro-
posed is extrapolated from the seven-day average
limitation of 45 mg/1 presented in the regulations.
This extrapolation was made to conform with the
proposed monitoring frequency.
D. OSN 004 and 009 - Coal Pile Runoff Sedimentation
Pond overflow and Solid Waste Runoff Sedimentation
Pond overflow, respectively, to Browns Creek.
Overflows occur only during high intensity rain-
fall periods and requirements are based on best
professional judgement.
E. OSN 005 - Cooling Tower Slowdown.
Limitations are as required by promulgated
423.15(1) and (j), with proposed 423.I5U)'
and (k) requirements included as a best pro-
fessional judgement for control of toxic and
.priority pollutants. NOTE: Due to the present
design and proposed operation of the cooling
tower system, it does not appear that the ap-
plicant can comply with total residual oxidant
(chlorine) requirements of either the promul-
gated or proposed 40 CFR 423.15 without the use
of dechlorination facilities. Various options
are under consideration by the applicant (See
the EIS for further discussions); In the event
that compliance cannot be assured by the appli-
cant, dechlorination will be required by the
NPDES Permit when issued.
-------
_3_ OCT 2 9 1981
F. OSN 006 - Central Wastewater Treatment Facility
effluent.
1. Limitations are as required by promulgated
423.15(c) for low volume wastes and 423.45
for coal pile runoff and proposed 423.15(c)
and 423.15(1) and (m), respectively.
2. Concentration limitations:
a. Total Suspended Solids: Thirty day
average ("daily average") and 24-hour
average ("daily maximum") values of
30 and 50 mg/1 respectively have been
included due to the combination of low
volume waste and coal pile runoff (and
other area runoff) for treatment in the
Central Wastewater Treatment facility.
b. Oil and grease limitations: Daily aveV-
age and daily maximum values of 10 and 15
mg/1, respectively, have been included
since there is no allowance for oil and
grease in coal pile and area runoff
while low volume wastes are limited to
15 and 20 mg/1, respectively. Limi-
tations are based on a reduction in con-
centration which is approximately pro-
portional to pump design capacities:
15 or 20 mg/1 times 2400 divided by 3400
where 2400 gpm is the Flow Equilization Pond pump
capacity and 3400 gpm is the combined capacity
of the Flow Equilization Pond and Coal Pile Run-
off Sedimentation Pond pumps (See Attachment B).
3. Quantity limitations: Calculations are based on
the following formula:
pounds per day = mg/1 x MGD x 8.345
where, 8.345 is the appropriate conversion factor
0.454 pound/day = 1.0 kilogram/day (kg/day)
MGD= Million gallons per day = gpm x 0.00144
-------
OCT 2 9 1981
-4-
Flows MGD (gptn)
r low Equi Hzation Pond
Coal Pile Runoff Sedimentation Pond
Total
Total .Suspended Solids - Da.ily Average (P,
Kg/day ( Ib/day)
Use in Permit
TotaJ Suspended Solids -. Daily Maximum @
Kg/day (Jb/day)
Use in Permit
Oi.l and Grease - Da-ily Averag,e @ 15 mg/1
Kg/day (Ib/day)
Use in Permit
Oil, and Grease - Da,ily Maximum .@ 20. mg/1
Kg/day (Ib/day)
Use in Permit
One Unit
0.79(547
0..34(235
1.13(782
. 30 rag/1
128(282)
130(280)
50 mq/1
213(470)
210(470)
for Flow
45(99)
45(100)
for Flow
60(131)
60(130)
TWQ Units
) 1.58C1094)
) 0.34^(235)
) 1.91(132"9)
217(479)
220(480) -
362(799)
360(800)
.Equalization Pond Only
90(197)
90(200)
Equilization Pond Only
119(263)
120(260)
4. Variance. Ambient levels of several parameters
exceed Florida Water Quality Standards Criteria
in the St. Johns River. Therefore, the addition
of any of these pollutants (or concentration by
the cooling towers), regardless of how little the
concentration exceeds the ambient level and/or
the state criterion, would technically violate
the Water Quality Standards. The applicant has
requested a variance to certain criteria and a
mixing zone for others. The State of Florida
and EPA are considering these requests. Pend-
ing completion of the variance hearing(s) and
approval of any State variance by EPA, limita-
tions will be included in the NPDES Permit
when it is issued. Additional information on
ambient conditions, expected effluent quality
and variance discussions is included in the
Environmental Impact Statement.
G. OSN 007 - Metal Cleaning Wastes. Limitations are
as required by promulgated 423.1'5(f) and proposed
423.15(d), except that best professional judgement
limitations for phosphate and chemical oxygen de-
mand have been included.
H. OSN 008 - Oily Waste Collection Basin Effluent.
Limitations are as required for promulgated and
proposed 4.23.15 (.c) for low volume wastes. Quan-
tity 1 imitations have not been in-eluded due to
the highly variable nature of the area runoff
flows.
-------
APPENDIX C
SECTION 10/404 PEBMIT (DRAFT) (USCOE)
NOT AVAILABLE AT THIS TIME
-------
APPENDIX D
FDER CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION (DRAFT)
-------
10/5/81
State of Florida Department of Environmental Regulation
Jacksonville Electric Authority
SJRPP Units 1 & 2
PA 81-13 P»v |*^
CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION I JfT/J
I. Ai r
copy
The construction and operation of SJRPP Units 1 & 2 at the
Jacksonville steam electric power plant site shall be in accordance
with all applicable provisions of Chapters 17-2, 17-4, 17-5 and 17-
7, Florida Administrative Code. In addition to the foregoing, the
permittee shall comply with the following conditions of certifi-
cation:
A. Emission Limitations
6, IH-Lf
1. Based on a maximum heat input of 4,330 million BTU per
hour, stack emissions from SJRPP Unit 1 & 2 shall not
exceed the following when burning coal:
a. S02 - 1.2 Ib. per million BTU heat input, maximum
two hour average, 0.76 Ib/MMBtu on a 30-day rolling
average.
b. NOX - 0-60 Ib. per million BTU heat input.
c. Particulates - 0.03 Ib. per million BTU heat input.
d. Visible emissions - 20% (6-minute average), except
one 6-minute period per hour of not more than 27%
opacity.
2. The height of the boiler exhaust stack for SJRPP Unit 1 &
2 shall not be less than 640 ft. above grade.
3. Parti culate emissions from the coal handling facilities:
a. The permittee shall not cause to be discharged into
the atmosphere from any coal processing or conveying
equipment, coal storage system or coal transfer and
loading system processing coal, visible emissions
which exceed 20 percent opacity. Parti culate
emissions shall be controlled by use of control
devices.
b. The permittee must submit to the Department within
ten (10) working days after it becomes available,
copies of technical data pertaining to the selected
parti culate emissions control for the coal handling
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
3RANCH
f""1 <""*
i
GOT 14 1981
1
REGION. IV EPA
-------
facility. These data should include, but not be
limited to, guaranteed efficiency and emission
rates, and major design parameters such as air/-
cloth ratio and flow rate. The Department may, upon
review of these data, disapprove the use of any such
device if the Department determines the selected
control device to be inadequate to meet the emission
limits specified in 3(a) above. Such disapproval
shall be issued within 30 days of receipt of the
technical data.
4. Participate emissions from limestone and flyash handling
shall not exceed the following:
a. Limestone silos - 0.050 Ib/hr.
b. Limestone hopper/transfer conveyors - 0.65 Ib/hr.
c. Flyash handling system - 0.2 Ib/hr.
5. Visible emissions from the following facilities shall be
limited to 5% opacity: (a) limestone and flyash handling
system, (b) limestone day silos and (c) flyash silos.
6. Compliance with opacity limits of the facilities listed
in Condition 5 will be determined by EPA reference method
9 (Appendix A, 40 CFR 60).
7. Construction shall reasonably conform to the plans and
schedule given in the application.
8. The permittee shall report any delays in construction and
completion of the project to the Department's St. Johns
River Subdistrict Office.
9. Reasonable precautions to prevent fugitive particulate
emissions during construction, such as coating of roads
and construction sites used by contractors, will be taken
by the permittee.
10. Coal should not be burned in the unit unless both electro-
static precipitator and limestone scrubber are operating
properly.
11. Coal to be burned in the unit should be washed before it
is transported to the plant site.
Air Monitoring Program,
1. The permittee shall install and operate continuously
monitoring devices for each boiler exhaust for sulfur
dioxide, nitrogen fcoxide, oxy^ett-^nd opacity. The
-------
3.
monitoring devices shall meet the applicable requirements
of Section 17-2.08, FAC, and 40 CFR 60.47a. The opacity
monitor may be placed in the duct work between the electro-
static precipitator and the FGD scrubber.
The permittee or Jacksonville Bio-Environmental
Services Division shall operate the two ambient moni-
toring devices for sulfur dioxide in accordance with EPA
reference methods in 40 CFR, Part 53, and two ambient
monitoring devices for suspended particulates. The
monitoring devices shall be specifically located at a
location approved by the Department. The frequency of
operation shall be every six days commencing as specified
by the Department.
The permittee shall maintain a daily log of the
amounts and types of fuel used and copies of fuel anal-
yses containing information on sulfur content, ash
content and heating values.
4. The permittee shall provide stack sampling facil-
ities as required by Rule 17-2.23(4) FAC and shall
explicitly provide a safe and reliable elevator to the
platform. The sampling probe liner shall be fabricated
of material which can withstand flexing.
5. The ambient monitoring program may be reviewed by
the Department and the permittee annually beginning two
years after start-up of Unit 2.
6. Prior to operation of the source, the permittee
shall submit to the Department a standardized plan or
procedure that will allow the permittee to monitor
emission control equipment efficiency and enable the
permittee to return malfunctioning equipment to proper
operation as expeditiously as possible.
C. Stack Testing
1. Within 60 calendar days after achieving the maximum
capacity at which each unit will be operated, but no
later than 180 operating days after initial start-up, the
permittee shall conduct performance tests for partic-
ulates^SJLa-^JiQ^ and visible emissions during normal
operation!'near 445& MMBtu/hr heat input and furnish the
Department a written report of the results of such
performance tests within 30 days of completion of the
tests. The performance tests will be conducted in
accordance with the provisions of 40 CFR 60.46a, 48a, and
49a.
-------
2. Performance tests shall be conducted and data
reduced in accordance with methods and procedures out-
lined in DER's Standard Sampling Techniques and Methods
of Analysis for Determination of Air Pollutants From
Point Source. July 1975
3. Performance tests shall be conducted under such
conditions as the Department shall specify based on
representative performance of the facility. The per-
mittee shall make available to the Department such
records as may be necessary to determine the conditions
of the performance tests.
4. The permittee shall provide 30 days prior notice of
the performance tests in order to afford the Department
the opportunity to have an observer present.
5. Stack tests for particulates and SO? shall be
performed annually in accordance with conditions C. 2, 3,
and 4 above.
D. Reporting
1. For SJRPP, stack monitoring, fuel usage and fuel
analysis data shall be reported to the Department's St.
John's River Subdistrict Office on a quarterly basis
commencing with the start of commercial operation in
accordance with 40 CFR, Part 60, Section 60.7., and in
accordance with Section 17-2.08, FAC.
2. Utilizing the SAROAD or other format approved in
writing by the Department, ambient air monitoring data
shall be reported to the Bureau of Air Quality Management
of the Department quarterly. Commencing on the date of
certification, such reports shall be due by the last day
of the month following the quarterly reporting period.
3. Beginning one month after certification, the per-
mittee shall submit to the Department a quarterly status
report briefly outlining porgress made on engineering
design and purchase of major pieces of equipment (in-
cluding control equipment). All reports and information
required to be submitted under this condition shall be
submitted to the Administrator of Power Plant Siting,
Department of Environmental Regulation, 2600 Blair Stone
Road, Tallahassee, Florida, 32301.
-------
II. Water Discharges
Any discharges into any waters of the State during construc-
tion and operation of SJRPP Units 1 & 2 shall be in accordance with
all applicable provisions of Chapter 17-3, Florida Administrative
Code, and 40 CFR, 423, Effluent Guidelines and Standards for
Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source Category, except as
provided herein. Also, the permittee shall comply with the fol-
lowing conditions of certification:
A. Plant Effluents and Receiving Body of Water
For discharges made from the power plant the following con-
ditions shall apply:
1. Receiving Boby of Water (RBW)
The receiving body of water has been determined by
the Department to be those waters of the St. John's River
and any other waters affected which are considered to be
waters of the State within the definition of Chapter 403,
Florida Statutes.
2. Point of Dishcarge (P.P.P.)
The point of discharge will be determined by the
Department to be where the effluent physically enters the
waters of the State.
3. Thermal Mixing Zone
The instantaneous zone of thermal mixing for the
cooling system shall not exceed an area of 9.5 acres.
The temperature at the point of discharge into the St.
John's River shall not be greater than 105 degrees F-
The temperature of the water at the edge of the mixing
zone shall not exceed the limitations of Paragraph 17-
3.05(l)(d). Cooling tower blowdown shall not exceed
93° F as a 24 hour average.
4. Chemical Wastes
All discharges of FGD blowdown and low volume wastes
(demineralizer regeneration, floor drainage, lab drains
and similar wastes) shall comply with Chapter 17-3. If
violations of Chapter 17-3 occur, corrective action shall
be taken. These wasteswaters shall be discharged to an
adequately sized and constructed treatment facility. Low
volume wastes, boiler preoperational and operational
metal cleaning wastes, preheater wash, and stack wash
-------
shall be disposed of in an adequately sized treatment
facility.
During periods when treated wastewater does not
comply with pH discharge limitations, the treated waste-
water may be recycled to the coal pile runoff sedimen-
tation basin, except when the sedimentation basin has
insufficient capacity to retain the recycled wastewater
and the runoff from a rainfall event equal to or less
than a ten year, 24 hour storm.
5. Coal Pile
Coal pile runoff shall be disposed of in the waste-
water treatment system and shall not be directly dis-
charged to surface waters. Discharge of stormwater
runoff from the coal pile is allowed only during periods
of high rainfall in excess of the ten year, 24 hour
storm.
6. Chlorine
The concentration of total residual chlorine dis-
charged from Units 1 & 2 shall not exceed 0.1 mg/1 at the
POD nor 0.01 mg/1 beyond an instantaneous mixing zone of
l.,Q acre? Chlorine from either unit at SJRPP shall not
discharged more than two hours per day and no unit
shall be chlorinated simultaneously with any other unit
at SJRPP or at Northside Generating Station. Levels of
free available chlorine shall not exceed 0.5 mg/1 for an
instantaneous maximum nor 0.2 mg/1 on a daily average in
either cooling tower blowdown.
7. £H_
The pH of the combined discharges shall be such that
the pH will fall within, the range of 6.0 to 9.0.
8. Polychlorinated Biphenyl Compounds
There shall be no net discharge of polychlorinated
biphenyl compounds.
9. Combined Low Volume Wastes and Coal Pile Runoff
The low volume wastes and coal pile runoff shall be
treated to control pH, turbidity, solids and toxic metals
prior to being discharged into the cooling water system.
The following effluent limitations will apply:
-------
Effluent Daily Maximum Maximum 30-Day
Daily Average
TSS 50 mg/1 30 mg/1
Oil and Grease 15 mg/1 10 mg/1
pH 6-9 6-9
The design plans and specifications of the treatment
system shall be submitted to the Department for review
and approval prior to construction.
10. Metal Cleaning and Bottom Ash Sluice System Slowdown
Slowdown from the metal cleaning wastes and from the
bottom ash sluice system shall be treated as appropriate
prior to discharge to the cooling water system. The
following effluent limitations shall apply:
Effluent Daily Maximum Maxmimum 30-Day
Daily Average
TSS 100 mg/1 30 mg/1
Oil and Grease 20 mg/1 15 mg/1
pH 6-9
Iron 1 mg/1
Copper 1 mg/1
P04 1 mg/1
100 mg/1
P04
COD
11. Solid Waste and Limestone Storage Areas
There shall be no direct discharge of stormwater
runoff to surface waters from the solid waste and lime-
stone storage areas prior to treatment.
12. Storm Water Runoff
During plant operation, necessary measures shall be
used to settle, filter, treat or absorb silt-containing
or pollutant-laden stormwater runoff to limit the sus-
pended solids to 50 mg/1 or less at the POD during rain-
fall periods less than the 10-year, 24-hour rainfall, and
to prevent an increase in turbidity of more than 50
Jackson Turbidity Units above background in waters of the
State beyond 50 meters from the POD at Station E 4500 and
N 3712.
Control measures shall consist at the minimum of filters,
sediment traps, barriers, berms or vegetative planting.
-------
Exposed or disturbed soil shall be protected as soon as
possible to minimize silt - and sediment-laden runoff.
The pH shall be kept within the range of 6.0 to 8.5 at
the POD.
13. Coal Unloading Facility Percolation Pond Overflow
There shall be no direct discharge to surface waters
from the coal unloading facility wastewater treatment
system percolation pond. Any discharge from the facility
shall be reported to the Department and the Environmental
Protection Agency. The quantity of flow and duration of
flow shall be estimated.
14. Mixing Zones
The discharge of the following pollutants shall not
violate the Water Quality Standards of Chapter 17-3, FAC,
beyond the edge of the designated instantaneous mixing
zones as described herein.
Pollutants
Al uminum
Copper
Cyanide
Iron
Mercury
Silver
Oil and Grease
Selenium
Chlorides
15. Variances to Water Quality Standards
In accordance with the provisions of Sections
403.201 and 403.511(2), F.S., Jacksonville Electric
Authority is hereby granted variances to the water
Quality Standards of Chapter 17-3, F.A.C., for Aluminum,
Copper, Iron and Mercury but only at such times as the
natural background levels of the St. Johns River approach
or exceed those standards. In any event, the discharge
from the SJRPP shall comply with the effluent limitations
set forth in paragraph II.A.16. The variance for mercury
Mixing Zone
125.6002
125.6002
125,6002
125.6002
125.60Q2
125.6002
125,6002
802
802
31 Acres
31 Acres
31 Acres
31 Acres
31 Acres
31 Acres
31 Acres
0.02 Acres
0.02 Acres
-------
shall only be for two years, but may be extended by the
Secretary pending results of monitoring data on waste-
water treatment plant efficiency and ambient data.
16. Effluent Limitations
The following instantaneous maximum effluent limita-
tions shall apply for Aluminum, Copper, Cyanide, Mercury,
Silver, and'Oil and Grease at the locations specified:
a. Cooling Tower Slowdown - Concentrations shall not
exceed 1.5 times the concentrations present in the
intake of the applicant's Northside Generating
Station.
b. Wastewater Treatment Facility Discharge - Concen-
trations shall not exceed:
Aluminum 0.15 mg/1
Copper 1.0 mg/1
Cyanide 5. ug/1
Iron 1.0 mg/1
Mercury 41.1 ug/1
Silver 6.4 ug/1
Oil and Grease 20 mg/1
B. Water Monitoring Programs
The permittee shall monitor and report to the Department
the listed parameters on the basis specified herein. The
methods and procedures utilized shall receive written approval
by the Department. The monitoring program may be reviewed
annually by the Department, and a determination may be made as
to the necessity and extent of continuation, and may be
modified in accordance with Condition No. XXV.
1. Chemical Monitoring
The following parameters shall be monitored during
discharge as shown, discharge commencing with the start
of commercial operation of SJRPP and reported quarterly
to the Department's St. Johns River Subdistrict Office:
-------
parameter
Flow, Groundwater
Flow, Cooling
Flow, Cooling
Tower Slowdown
Wastewater Flow
Oily Wastewater
Flow
PH
Temperature
TSS
Chlorine .Total
Residual
Oil and Grease
Metals
Alumi num
Copper
Cyanide
Iron
Mercury
Location Sample Type
Well field Pipeline Recorder
Intake Pump Logs
Cooling Towers Recorders
Prior to Pump
Sump
Prior to Pump
Sump
Pump Sump
Outfall to NGS
Outfall to NGS
Oily Waste Basin,
Metal Cleaning
Waste Facility, •
and Sewage
Treatment Facility
Cooling Tower
Slowdown
Discharge to
Browns Creek
(During con-
struction only)
Oily Waste Basin
Metal Cleaning
Waste Facility
Wastewater Treat-
ment Facility
Intake and Sump
Pump
Recorder
Recorder
Recorder
Grab
Recorder
Grab
24 Hour Composite
Multiple Grab
3 Grab Composite
24 Hour Composite
3 Grab Composite
24 Hour Composite
Frequency
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
One/per week
Continuous
Two/per week
Two/per week
Monthly
Weekly
Two/week
One/day
Two/week
Once/week
for first six
months, two/month
for the next six
months, then
monthly there-
after
-------
Nieke]
Selenium
Silver
Zinc
BOD
P04
Copper
Iron
Cycles-of-con-
centration
III. Groundwater
A. General
STP Influent
and effluent
Metal Clean-
ing
Waste Facility
Metal Cleaning
Facility
Cooling tower
3 Hour Composite
24 Hour Composite
Monthly
Daily
24 Hour Composite Daily
Calcuation
2. Groundwater Monitoring
The groundwater levels shall be monitored con-
tinuously at wells as approved by the St. Johns
River Water Management District. Chemical analyses
shall be made on samples from all monitored wells
identified in Condition III. F. below. The lo-
cation, frequency and selected chemical analyses
shall be as given in Condition III.F.
The groundwater monitoring program shall be
implemented at least one year prior to operation of
SJRPP Unit 1. The chemical analyses shall be in
accord with the latest edition of Standard Methods
for the Analysis of Water and Wastewater. The data
shall be submitted within 30 days of collection/-
analysis to the St. Johns River Water Management
District and to the DER St. Johns River Subdistrict
Office.
Conductivity and heavy metals shall be mon-
itored in. wells around all solid waste disposal
sites, coal piles, and wastewater treatment and
sedimentation ponds.
The use of groundwater from the well field for plant
service water for SJRPP shall be minimized to the greatest
extent practicable, but in no case shall exceed 7.6 mgd on a
maximum daily basis from any new wells or 5.1 mgd on an
average annual basis.
-------
B. Well Criteria
The submission of well logs and test results and lo-
cation, design and construction of wells to provide plant
service water shall be in accordance with applicable rules of
the Department of Evironmental Regulation and the St. Johns
River Water Management District(SJRWMD). Total water use per
month shall be reported quarterly to SJRWMD commencing with
the start of construction.
C. Well Withdrawal Limits
JEA is authorized to make a combined average annual
withdrawal of 5.1 million gallons of water per day with a
maximum combined withdrawal rate not to exceed 7.6 million
gallons during a single day. Withdrawals may be made from a
well field consisting of up to four (4) wells whose locations
are described in Figure
After wells have been constructed, St. Johns River Water
Management District may evaluate the individual wells and may
recommend to the Department authorization of different with-
drawals based upon hydrologic characteristics for the in-
dividual wells. The Department pursuant to Section 403.516,
F.S. may modify the above withdrawal limitations with the
concurrence of SJRWMD.
D. Water Use Restriction
Said water is restricted to uses other than main stream
condensing. Any change in the use of said water will require
a modification of this condition.
E. Emergency Shortages
In the event an emergency water shortage should be
declared pursuant to Section 373.175 or 373.246, F.S., by St.
Johns River Water Management District for an area including
the location of these withdrawal points, the Department
pursuant to Section 403.516, F.S., may alter, modify, or
declare to be inactive, all or parts of Condition III. A.-G.
An authorized Water Management District Representative, at any
reasonable time, may enter the property to inspect the facilities
F. Monitoring and Reporting
JEA shall, within the time limits hereinafter set forth,
complete the following items, and if it fails to complete them
by the specified time, the Condition III. A.-G. shall auto-
matically become null and void.
-------
1. fPC" shall install flow meters in compliance with SJRWMD
specifications on all production wells.
2. JEA shall submit to SJRWMD, on forms available from the
District, a record of pumpage for each meter installed in
F.I. above. Said pumpage shall be provided on a monthly
basis, and shall be submitted by April 15, July 15,
October 15, and January 15 for each preceding calendar
quarter;
3. JEA shall maintain and operate a continuous water level
recorder on the standby production well located at the
test site in Duval County, Florida. Detailed hydrographs
of water level fluctuations shall be constructed with the
data collected from the water level recorder and shall be
submitted to SJRWMD by April 15, July 15, October 15, and
January 15 for each preceding calendar quarter.
4. Water quality analysis shall be performed on water
withdrawn from each production well. The water samples
collected from each of the wells shall be collected
immediately after removal by pumping of a quantity of
water equal to two casing volumes. The JEA and staff of
SJRWMD may determine and adjust the intervals to be
monitored in accordance with hydro!ogic conditions
determined from drilling logs. The water quality analyses
shall be performed monthly during the first year of
operation, four times (January, May, September, and
December) during the second year and twice each year (May
and September) thereafter. Results shall be submitted to
SJRWMD by the fifteenth (15th) day of the month following
the month during which such analyses were performed.
Testing for the following constituents is required:
Calcium Magnesium Sodium
Potassium Bicarbonate Sulfate
Chloride Nitrate Total Dissolved Solids
Specific con- Gross Alpha Total Phosphate
ductance
Radium 226 (only Radiation
if gross Al pha
is greater than
15 pci/1)
-------
The design and location of monitoring wells shall be as
indicated by the attached Figure or as modified by the
staff of SJRWMD.
5. In the event that SJRWMD determines there is a signif-
icant change in the water quality, the Department
pursuant to Section 403.516, F.S., may require the
permittee to reduce or cease withdrawal from these
groundwater sources.
6. After consolation with the DER and SJRWMD, JEA shall
install a monitoring well system as generally shown on
Figure 3 to monitor groundwater quality in the top 55
feet of surficial aquifer. One well shall be installed
to a depth greater than 55 feet, but less than 90 feet,
to monitor vertical dispersion or groundwater contam-
inants. Monitoring well locations and designs shall be
submitted to the Department and SJRWMD for review.
Monitoring wells shall be installed upgradient and
downgradient from each solid waste disposal area, each
liquid waste pond and each coal pile storage area. An
additional monitoring well will be placed immediately
downgradient of the first section of each solid waste
landfill to be utilized. Approval or disapproval of the
locations and design shall be granted within 60 days.
The water samples collected from each of the monitor
wells shall be collected immediately after removal by
pumping of a quantity of water equal to two casing
volumes. The water quality analyses shall be performed
monthly during the year prior to commercial operation and
two years after operation and quarterly thereafter.
Results shall be submitted to the Department and the
SJRWMD by the fifteenth (15th) day of the month following
the month during which such analyses were performed.
Testing for the following constituents is required:
TDS Cadmi urn
Conductance Zinc
pH Copper
Redox Nickel
Dissolved Oxygen Selenium
Temperature Chromium
Color Arsenic
-------
Turbidity Beryllium
Chloride Mercury
Iron Lead
Aluminum Gross Alpha
Minimum Water Level Restrictions
The Department and SJRWMD may, at a future date pursuant
to Section 403.516, F.S., establish a minimum water level in
the aquifer or aquifers hydrologically associated with these
withdrawals, which may require JEA to reduce or cease with-
drawal from these groundwater sources at times when water
levels fall below these minimums.
H. Leachate
1. Zone of Discharge
Leachate from the solid waste landfills, sludge
disposal test cells, coal storage piles, wastewater
treatment ponds, or sedimentation ponds shall not con-
taminate waters of the State (including both surface and
groundwaters) in excess of the limitations of Chapter 17-
3, FAC., beyond the boundary of a zone of discharge
extending 200 feet from the edge of the landfill or ponds,
2. Corrective Action
When the groundwater monitoring system shows a
violation of the groundwater water quality standards of
Chapter 17-3, FAC., the appropriate ponds, FGD landfill,
or coal pile shall be sealed, relocated or closed, or the
operation of the affected facility shall be altered in
such a manner as to assure the Department that no vio-
lation of the groundwater standards will occur beyond the
boundary of the site.
IV. Control Measures During Construction
A. Stormwater Runoff
During construction, appropriate measures shall be used
to settle, filter, treat or absorb silt-containing or pol-
lutant-laden stormwater runoff to limit the suspended solids
to 50 mg/1 or less at the POD during rainfall periods less
than the 10-year, 24 hour rainfall, and to prevent an increase
in turbidity of more than 50 Jackson Turbidity Units above
background in waters of the State beyond 50 meters from the
POD to Browns Creek. Oil and grease shall not exceed 5 mg/1
at the discharge from the runoff sediment control pond.
-------
Control measures shall consist at the minimum of filters,
sediment traps, barriers, berms or vegetative planting.
Exposed or disturbed soil shall be protected as soon as
possible to minimize silt- and sediment-laden runoff. The pH
shall be kept within the range of 6.0 to 8.5 at the POD.
Final drainage plans illustrating all stormwater treat-
ment facilities and conveyances for construction phases and
ultimate operations for both the entire St. Johns River Power
Park site and the Blount Island coal site shall be submitted
to the St. Johns River Subdistrict Manager and the St. Johns
River Water Management District for review and approval prior
to construction.
Stormwater drainage to Brown's Creek and Brown's Creek
proper shall be monitored as indicated below beginning twelve
(12) months prior to the commencement of construction and con-
tinuing throughout construction:
Monitoring Point
*Stonnwater drainage
to Brown's Creek from
existing borrow pit
in southeast portion
of site
*West Fork of Brown's
Creek at Point Down-
stream from entry of
of stormwater from
Power Park site by
way of a borrow pit
Parameters
BODS, COD, sus-
pended solids,
turbidity, dis-
solved oxygen,
pH, TKN, Total
phosphorus,
Fecal Coliform,
Total Col i form,
oil and grease
BODS, COD, sus-
pended solids,
turbidity, dis-
solved oxygen,
pH, TKN, Total
phosphorus, fecal
coliform, Total
col i form
Frequency
Twice
Monthly
Sample Type
Grab
Once/Week
Twice
Monthly
Grab
Grab
*Monitoring shall be conducted at suitable points for allowing a comp-
parision of the characteristics of pre-construction and construction
phase drainage and receiving waters.
B. Sanitary Wastes
Disposal of sanitary wastes from construction toilet
facilities shall be in accordance with applicable regulations
of the Department and appropriate local health agency. The
-------
sewage treatment plant shall be operated in accordance with
Chapters 17-3, 17-6, 17-16, and 17-19, FAC. The discharge of
total residual chlorine to Brown's creek shall not exceed 0.01
mg/1.
C. Environmental Control Program
An environmental control program shall be established
under the supervision of a qualified person to assure that all
construction activities conform to good environmental practices
and the applicable conditions of certification.
The permittee shall notify the Department by telephone if
unexpected harmful effects or evidence of irreversible environ-
mental damage are detected during construction, shall im-
mediately report in writing to the Department and shall
within two weeks provide an analysis of the problem and a plan
to eliminate or significantly reduce the harmful effects or
damage and a plan to prevent reoccurrence.
D. Construction Dewatering Effluent
Construction dewatering effluent shall be treated when
appropriate to limit surface water discharges of suspended
solids to no more than 50 mg/1. The discharge of construction
dewatering liquids shall not cause turbidity in excess of 50
Jackson Turbidity Units above ambient beyond a 20 meter radius
from the point of discharge. Weekly grab samples will be
collected and analyzed for suspended solids.
A program for controlling the groundwater impacts of
construction dewatering shall be submitted to the Department
and the St. Johns River Water Management District for review
prior to implementation.
V. Solid Wastes
Solid wastes resulting from construction or operation shall be
disposed of in accordance with the applicable regulations of
Chapter 17-7, FAC. The permittee shall submit a program for
approval outlining the methods to be used in handling and disposal
of solid wastes. Such program shall indicate at the least methods
for erosion control, covering, vegetation and quality control.
Open burning in connection with land clearing shall be in
accordance with Chapter 17-5, FAC. No additional permits shall be
required, but the Division of Forestry shall be notified prior to
burning. Open burning shall not occur if the Division of Forestry
has issued a ban on burning due to fire hazard conditions.
-------
Operation Safeguards
The overall design, layout, and operation of the facilities
shall be such as to minimize hazards to humans and the environment.
Security control measures shall be utilized to prevent exposure of
the public to hazardous conditions. The Federal Occupational
Safety and Health Standards will be complied with during con-
struction and operation. The Safety Standards specified under
Section 440.56, F.S., by the Industrial Safety Section of the
Florida Department of Commerce will also be complied with.
The permittee shall provide screening of the site through the
use of aesthetically acceptable structures, vegetated earthen walls
and/or existing or planted vegetation.
VII I. Potable Water Supply System
The potable water supply system shall be designed and operated
in conformance with Chapter 17-22, FAC. Information as required in
17-22.108 shall be submitted to .the Department prior to construc-
tion and operation. The operator of the potable water supply
system shall be certified in accordance with Chapter 17-16, FAC.
I*. Transformer and Electric Switching Gear
The foundations for transformers, capacitors, and switching
gear necessary to connect SJRPP Units 1 & 2 to the existing dis-
tribution system shall be constructed of an impervious material and
shall be constructed in such a manner as to allow complete col-
lection and recovery of any spills or leakage of oily, toxic, or
hazardous substances.
X. Toxic, Deleterious, or Hazardous Materials
The spill of any toxic, deleterious, or hazardous materials
shall be reported in the manner specified by Condition XV.
XI. Construction in Waters of the State
A. No construction on sovereign submerged lands shall commence
without obtaining lease or title from the Department of
Natural Resources.
B. Construction of intake and discharge structures, coal un-
loading wharf, and transmission towers shall be done in a
manner to minimize turbidity. Turbidity screens should be
-------
used to prevent turbidity in excess of 50 JTUs above back-
ground beyond 150 meters from the dredging, pile driving, or
construction site.
All spoil from connecting the SJRPP intake/discharge system to
the NGS, and the coal unloading wharf shall be piped hydrau-
lically or tucked to an upland disposal site of sufficient
capacity to retain all material. Spoil from construction
access canals shall be side cast and used for restoring
natural bottom contours upon completion of construction.
C. Variances
1. A variances to the provisions of Section 17-3.061(h) for
lead and Section 17-3.121(27) for silver for a period of
twelve months commencing on the start of dredging activities
are granted in accordance with Sections 403.201(l)(c) and
403.511(2), F.S. at the coal unloading facility wharf site
on Blount Island. Concentrations of at the boundary of a •
150 meter radius mixing zone shall not exceed the fol-
lowing:
Lead 62 ug/1
Silver 6.1 Ug/1
2. Variances to the provisions of Sections 17-3.121(9) for
Cadmuim, 17-3.Q61(h) for lead, 17-3.121(18) for mercury
and 17-3.121(27) for silver are granted pursuant to the
provisions of Sections 403.201(1)(c) and 403.511(2), F.S.
at the spoil area site overflow for a period of twelve
months starting with commencement of dredging activities
concentrations at the boundary of a 150 meter radius mixing
zone shall not exceed the following:
Cadmium 8.2 ug/1
Mercury 0.2 Ug/1
Lead 62 Ug/1
Silver 6.1 ug/1
D. Mixing Zones
During dredging activities mixing zone radii are designated
for the following parameters:
* Distance to Edge
of Mixing Zone
Parameter
Aluminum 15Q
Antimony 13
Cadmium T5Q
-------
Copper 150
Cyanide 19
Iron 150
Lead 150
Mercury 150
Oil and Grease 25
Silver 150
XI1- Solid Waste Landfill
A- The proposed solid waste landfill area shall be monitored and
studied pursuant to a detailed groundwater testing and mon-
itoring Program as defined in Condition III, F.G. The results
of the program will be used by the Department in determining
whether JEA has affirmatively demonstrated that Florida Water
Criteria (Chapter 17-3, F.A.C.) will not be violated.
B. JEA shall either provide an impermeable liner under the solid
waste disposal areas or shall utilize a chemical fixation
process, stablization br other approved methods to control
leachate from the solid waste. JEA may implement a test
program to demonstrate the quality and quantity of leachate
from an unlined or untreated waste. Upon an affirmative
showing that an uncontrolled solid waste facility will not
cause violation of groundwater quality criteria, the Depart-
ment may approve use of non-lined or non-chemically fixed
landfill cells.
C. JEA shall utilize solid waste disposal area "B", north of
Island Drive or the area previously designated for the bottom
ash pond, prior to using disposal area "A".
0. Construction of perimeter berms shall be in conformance with
the provisions of Chapter 17-9., F.A.C., regarding earthen
dams.
E. Prior to the commencement of operation of solid waste disposal
areas the following shall be submitted to the St. Johns River
Subdistrict Manager for review and approval:
(1) Plot plan - should be drawn on a scale not greater than
200 ft. to the inch showing the following:
a. Dimensions and legal description of the site.
b. Location and depth corrected to MSL of soil borings.
c. ' Proposed trenching plan.
d. Cover stock piles.
-------
e. Fencing or other measures to restrict access.
f. Cross sections showing both original and proposed
fill elevation.
g. Location, depth corrected to MSL and construction
details of monitoring wells.
(2) Design Drawings and Maps - may be combined with plot plan
and should be drawn on a scale not greater than 200 ft.
to the inch showing the following:
a. Topographic map with five foot contour intervals.
b. Proposed fill area.
c. Borrow area.
d. Access roads.
e. Grades required for proper drainage.
f. Typical cross sections of disposal site including
lifts, borrow areas and drainage controls.
g. Special drainage devices.
(3) Soil map, Interpretive Guide Sheets, and a report giving
the suitability of the site for such an operation.
(4) Contingency plan, including waste handling and disposal
methods, in case of an emergency such as equipment
failure, natural disaster or fire.
(5) Operation plans to direct and control the use of the
site.
(6) An indication by discussion or drawings or both of how
the site is designed to meet water quality standards of
Chapter 17-3 and 17-4 FAC at the waste site boundary as
the zone of discharge.
Based on the Department's reviews of the above, additions
to or modifications of the overall monitoring program may
be required for monitoring of runoff, groundwaters, and
surface waters which may be affected by the various
landfilling operations.
-------
XIII. Transmission Lines
A. General
1. Filling and construction in water of the State shall be
minimized to the extent practicable. No such activities
shall take place without obtaining lease or title from
the Department of Natural Resources where required.
Construction and access roads should avoid wetlands and
be located in surrounding uplands.
2. Placement of fill in wetland areas shall be minimized by
spanning such areas with the maximum span practicable.
3. Any fill required in wetlands for construction but not
required for maintenance purposes shall be removed and
the ground restored to its original contours after
transmission line placement.
4. Where fill in wetlands is necessary for access, keyhole
fills from upland areas should be oriented as nearly
parallel to surface water flow lines as possible.
5. Sufficient size and number of culverts or other struc-
tures shall be placed through fill causeways to maintain
substantially unimpaired sheet flow.
6. Turbidity control measures, including but not limited to
hay bales, turbidity curtains, sodding, mulching and
seeding, shall be employed to prevent violation of water
quality standards.
7. The Right-of-Way shall be located so as to minimize
impacts in or on stream beds such as the removal of
vegetation, to the extent practicable. Within 25 feet of
the banks of any streams, rivers, or lakes, vegetation
shall be left undisturbed, except for selective topping
of trees or removal of trees which topping would kill.
If it is necessary to remove such trees within 25 feet of
the banks of streams, rivers, or lakes, the root mat
shall be left undisturbed.
8. For all construction activities in waters of the state to
their landward extent as defined in 17-4.28 which are
also within the jurisdiction of the Corps of Engineers,
the permittee shall file a copy of its Dredge/Fill
application with the Corps of Engineers and with the DER,
Bureau of Permitting, Power Plant Siting Section. For
construction activities in waters of the State which are
not also subject to the Corps, the permittee shall file
-------
substantially similar information. In either case,
within 45 days of filing DER shall determine whether or
not a probable violation of the conditions of certi-
fication would occur if the plans were executed as
filed. If DER determines that a probable violation would
occur, it shall so notify the permittee. Construction
shall not commence without a written statement of com-
pliance. Since certification is the only form of permit
required by the State, it is understood that the per-
mittee and DER shall strive to resolve such matters by
mutual agreement. If mutual agreement cannot be reached,
as determined by the permittee, then the matter shall be
referred to a Hearing Officer for disposition in ac-
cordance with the provisions of Chapter 120, Florida
Statutes, within 60 days. Referral of an issue to a
Hearing Officer pursuant to this condition shall not
affect other conditions, nor shall it operate as a stay
on any other portion of the line.
9. Any necessary water quality certifications which must be
made to the Corps of Engineers shall be made at the time
of a finding of compliance for specific work at specific
locations.
10. Construction activities should proceed as much as
practicable during the dry season.
B. Other Construction Activities
1. Maintenance roads under control of the permittee shall be
planted with native species to prevent erosion and
subsequent water quality degradation where drainage from
such roads would impact waters of the State significantly
2. Good environmental practices such as described in
Environmental Criteria for Electric Transmission
Systems as published by the U.S. Department of Interior
and the U.S. Department of Agriculture shall be followied
to the extent practicable.
3. Compliance with the most recent version of the National
Electric Safety Code adopted by the Public Service
Commission is required.
4. Fences running parallel to the transmission line which
may become conductive shall be grounded at appropriate
intervals; fences running perpendicular to the line shall
be grounded at the edge of the right-of-way.
-------
5. Field reconnaissance of rare and endangered species
shall be performed in order to maximize avoidance of
impacts on these species.
6. Open burning in connection with land clearing shall be in
accordance with the applicable rules of the Department of
Agriculture and Consumer Services. No additional permits
shall be required, but the Division of Forestry shall be
notified prior to burning. Open burning shall not occur
if the Division of Forestry has issued a ban on burning
due to fire hazard conditions.
C. Maintenance
1. Vegetative clearing operations for maintenance purposes
to-be carried out within the corridor shall follow the
general standards for clearing right-of-way for overhead
transmission lines as referenced in Sections XIII. A.7.
and XIII.B.2. Selective clearing of vegetation is pre-
ferred over clearing and grubbing or clear cutting.
2. If chemicals or herbicides are to be used for vegetation
control, the name, type, proposed use, locations, and
manner of application shall be provided to the Department
prior to their application for assessment of compliance
with applicable regulations.
D. Archaeological Sites
Any archaeological sites discovered during construction of the
transmission lines shall be disturbed as little as possible
and such discovery shall be communicated to the Department of
State, Division of Archives, History and Record Management
(DAHRM). Potentitally affected areas will be surveyed, and if
a significant site is located, the site shall be avoided,
protected, or excavated as directed by DAHRM.
E. Road Crossing
For all locations where the transmission line will cross State
highways, the applicant will submit materials pursuant to the
Department of Transportion1s (DOT) "Utility Accomodation
Guide" to DOT's district office for review and approval. All
applicable regulations pertaining to roadway crossings by
transmission lines shall be complied with.
-------
F. Emergency Reporting
Emergency replacement of previously existing right-of-way or
transmission lines shall not be considered a modification
prusuant to Section 403.5315, F.S. A verbal report of the
emergency shall be made to the Department as soon as possible.
Within fourteen (14) calendar days after correction of the
emergency, a report to the Department shall be made outlining
the details of the emergency and the steps taken for its
temporary relief. The report shall be a written description
of all of the work performed and shall set forth any pollution
control measures or mitigative measures which were utilized or
are being utilized to prevent pollution of waters, harm to
sensitive areas or alteration of archaeological or historical
resources.
G. Final Right-of-Way Location
A map of 1:24000 scale showing final location of the right-of-
way shall be submitted to the Department upon completion of
acquisition.
H. Compliance
Construction and maintenance shall comply with the applicable
rules and regulations of the Department and those agencies
specified in 17-17.54(2)(a) and (b), FAC.
XIV. Change in Discharge
All discharges or emissions authorized herein shall be con-
sistent with the terms and conditions of this certification. The
discharge of any pollutant not identified in the application or any
discharge more frequent than, or at a level in excess of, that
authorized herein shall constitute a violation of the certifi-
cation. Any anticipated facility expansions, production increases,
or process modification which will result in new, different or
increased discharges or expansion in steam generating capacity will
require a submission of new or supplemental application pursuant to
Chapter 403, F.S.
XV. Non-Compliance Notification
If, for any reason, the permittee does not comply with or will
be unable to comply with any limitation specified in this certi-
fication, the permittee shall notify the manager of DER's St. Johns
River subdistrict office by telephone during the working day in
which permittee becomes aware of said non-compliance and shall
confirm this situation in writing within seventy-two (72) hours
supplying the following information:
-------
a. A description and cause of non-compliance; and
b. The period of non-compliance, including exact dates and
times; or, if not corrected, the anticipated time the
non-compliance is expected to continue, and steps being
taken to reduce, eliminate and prevent recurrence of the
non-complying event.
XVI- Facilities Operation
The permittee shall at all times maintain in good working
order and operate as efficiently as possible all treatment or
control facilities or systems installed or used by the permittee to
achieve compliance with the terms and conditions of this certi-
fication. Such systems are not to be bypassed without prior
Department approval. The one exception is that during periods when
light oil is used for ignition, the FGD system may be bypassed.
XVII. Adverse Impact
The permittee shall take all reasonable steps to minimize any
adverse impact resulting from non-compliance with any limitation
specified in this certification, including, but not limited to,
such accelerated or additional monitoring as necessary to determine
the nature and impact of the non-complying event.
XVIII. Right of Entry
The permittee shall allow the Secretary of the Florida
Department of Environmental Regulation and/or authorized repre-
sentatives, upon the presentation of credentials:
a. To enter upon the permittee's premises where an effluent
source is located or in which records are required to be
kept under the terms and conditions of this permit; and
b. to have access to and copy all records required to be
kept under the conditions of this certification; and
c. to inspect and test any monitoring equipment or mon-
itoring method required in this certification and to
sample any discharge or pollutants; and
d. to assess any damage to the environment or violation of
ambient standards.
XIX. Revocation or Suspension
This certification may be suspended or revoked pursuant to
Section 403.512, Florida Statutes, or for violations of any
Condition of Certification.
-------
XX. Civil and Criminal Liability
This certification does not relieve the permittee from civil.
or criminal responsibility or liability for non-compliance with any
conditions of this certifiation, applicable rules or regulations of
the Department, or Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, or regulations
thereunder.
Subject to Section 403.511, Florida Statutes,
fication shall not preclude the institution of any
this certi-
legal action or
relieve the permittee from any responsibilities or penalties
established pursuant to any other applicable State Statutes or
regulations.
XXI. Property Rights
The issuance of this certification does not convey any property
rights in either real or personal property, tangible or intangible,
nor any exclusive privileges, nor does it authorize any injury to
public or private property or any invasion of personal rights, nor
any infringement of Federal, State or local laws or regulations.
The applicant will obtain title, lease or right of use to any
sovereign submerged lands occupied by the plant, transmission line
structures, or appurtenant facilities from the State of Florida.
XXII.Severabllity
The provisions of this certification are severable, and, if
any provision of this certification or the application of any
provision of this certification to any circumstances is held
invalid, the application of such provision to other circumstances
and the remainder of the certification shall not be affected
thereby.
XXIII. Definitions
The meaning of terms used herein shall be governed by the
definitions contained in Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and any
regulation adopted pursuant thereto. In the event of any dispute
over the meaning of a term used in these general or special con-
ditions which is not defined in such statutes or regulations, such
dispute shall be resolved by reference to the most relevant
definitions contained in any other state or federal statute or
regulation or, in the alternative, by the use of the commonly
accepted meaning as determined by the Department.
XXIV. Review of Site Certification
The certification shall be final unless revised, revoked or
suspended pursuant to law. At least every five years from the date
of issuance of this certification or any National Pollutant Dis-
-------
charge Elimination System Permit issued pursuant to the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 for the plant units,
the Department shall review all monitoring data that has been
submitted to it during the proceeding five-year period for the
purpose of determining the extent of the permittee's compliance
with the conditions of this certification of the environmental
impact of this facility. The Department shall submit the results
of its review and recommendations to the permittee. Such review
will be repeated at least every five years thereafter.
xxv- Modification of Conditions
The conditions of this certification may be modified in the
following manner:
A. The Board hereby delegates to the Secretary the authority
to modify, after notice and opportunity for hearing, any
conditions pertaining to consumptive use of water,
monitoring, sampling, groundwater, mixing zones, zones of
discharge, leachate control programs or variances to
water quality standards.
B. All other modifications shall be made in accordance with
Sections 403.516, Florida Statutes.
XXVI. Flood Control Protection
The plant and associated facilities shall be constructed in
such a manner as to comply with the Duval County flood protection
requirements.
XXVII. Effect of Certification
Certification and conditions of certification are predicated
upon design and performance criteria indicated in the application.
Thus, conformance to those criteria, unless specifically amended,
modified, or as the Department and parties are otherwise notified,
is binding upon the applicant in the preparation, construction and
maintenance of the certified project. In those instances where a
conflict occurs between the application's design criteria and the
conditions of certification, the conditions shall prevail.
XXVIII. Noise
To mitigate the effects of noise produced by the steam blowout
of steam boiler tubes, JEA shall conduct public awareness campaigns
prior to such activities to forewarn the public of the estimated
time and duration of the noise.
-------
XIX. Archaeological Sites
The following archaeological sites shall be preserved whenever
possible. If they must be altered by construction, then archae-
ological salvage excavation shall be performed prior to construc-
tion under the supervision of the Florida Department of State,
Division of Archives, History and Records Management.
Site - 3Du669 8Du670
8Du671 8Du673
8Du674 8Du675
8Du677 3Du678
XXXI. Blount Island Coal Unloading Facility
Area drainage and rainfall runoff from the lined coal pile on
Blount Island shall be directed to a lined treatment system designed
to process the runoff from the 24-hour, ten-year storm. Wastewater
treatment shall consist of as a minimum: removal of solids and
metals by precipitation and sedimentation followed by pH adjustment
to no less than 8.0 and final disposal by percolation. Sufficient
capacity shall be provided to allow for accumulation of settled
solids of up to 20 percent of the total pond volume. Solids
removed from the sedimentation pond shall be disposed in a properly
designed landfill.
The sedimentation pond liner shall be impervious and designed
for the life of the facility. The liner shall be installed in such
a manner as to prevent rupture during cleaning or removal of
solids.
-------
JOINT PUBLIC NOTICE
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION IV, CONSOLIDATED PERMITS BRANCH
345 Courtland St., N. E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
in conjunction with
Florida Department of Environmental Regulation
Twin Towers Office Building ;,
2600 Blair Stone Road \1--''
Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (/V\
Public Notice No. PH81FL196 October 29, 1981
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
ON
FLORIDA STATE ANALYSIS REPORT/DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
STATEMENT; NOTICE OF PROPOSED ISSUANCE OF NATIONAL POLLU-
TANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM PERMIT; NOTICE OF REVISED
PRELIMINARY DETERMINATION REGARDING PREVENTION OF SIGNIFI-
CANT DETERIORATION; AND NOTICE OF CONSIDERATION FOR STATE
CERTIFICATION OF THE HPDES PERMIT.
A jointly prepared Florida State Analysis Report and Draft
Environmental Impact Statement (SAR/EIS) on the proposed St.
Johns River Power Park will be made available by the Environ-
mental Protection Agency (EPA) to the public on or about
October 30, 1981. Jacksonville Electric Authority and Florida
Power and Light Company propose to jointly construct a 1200
megawatt coal-fired power plant on a 1,656 acre site in
northern Duval County. Although the project is jointly pro-
posed, Jacksonville Electric Authority is the applicant for
permits.
In order to solicit further public participation on the
proposed issuance of necessary permits and determinations for
the proposed project, a public hearing will be held. The
hearing is scheduled for December 1, 1981, and will begin at
7:00 p.m. in che Jacksonville City Health Department
Auditorium, 515 West 6th Street (corner of 6th and Broad
Streets). The hearing panel will include representatives from
EPA and the State of Florida.
Both oral and written comments will be accepted and a
transcript of the proceedings will be made. For the accuracy
of the record, written comments are encouraged. The Hearing
Chairperson reserves the right to fix reasonable limits on the
time allowed for oral statements.
-------
-2-
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency proposes to issue a
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit
to Jacksonville Electric Authority, 233 West Duval Street,
Jacksonville, Florida 32201 for the St. Johns River Power
Park, 11201 New Berlin Road, Jacksonville, Florida 32226,
NPDES No. FL0037869. The application describes two proposed
discharges from construction and operation of the plant, which
will generate and transmit electricity (SIC Code 4911), into
the St. Johns River and Browns Creek. The receiving waters are
classified as Class III - Recreation - Propagation and
Management of Fish and Wildlife - Surface Waters.
The proposed NPDES Permit contains limitations on the amounts
of pollutants allowed to be discharged and was drafted in
accordance with the provisions of the Clean Water Act (CWA, 33
U.S.C. Section 1251 et seq.) and other lawful standards and
regulations. The pollutant limitations and other permit
conditions are tentative and open to comment from the public
both in writing and at the public hearing.
A fact sheet which outlines the proposed discharges and EPA's
proposed pollutant limitations and conditions are available by
writing or calling the EPA. A copy of the draft Permit and
Permit Rationale is included as an appendix to the SAR/EIS and
is also available from EPA. The administrative record,
including the application and supporting information, draft
Permit, fact sheet, SAR/EIS, comments received, and other
information are available for review and copying at 345
Courtland Street, 2nd floor, Atlanta, Georgia, between the
hours of 8:15 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. A
copying machine is available for public use at a charge of 2Q&
per page.
The EPA also proposes to issue a Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD) Approval to Construct the Air Emissions
Source according to the rules for the Prevention of Significant
Deterioration of Air Quality (40 CFR 52.21). A public notice
on the Preliminary Determination was originally released on
January 28, 1981, and is renoticed in this public notice. A
copy of the revised Preliminary Determination is included as an
appendix to the SAR/EIS. It also may be obtained by contacting
EPA.
The Florida Department of Environmental Regulation has been
requested to certify the discharges in accordance with the
provisions of Section 401 of the CWA (33 U.S.C. Section 1251 et
seq.). Comments on issuance of certification must be submitted
to Mr. Hamilton S. Oven, Jr., Administrator of Power Plant
Siting at the State Agency address above within thirty (30)
days of the date of this public notice. The State Agency will
be represented on the hearing panel in order to receive
comments relative to State Certification.
-------
—3 —
Persons wishing to comment upon or object to the SAR/EIS, the
PSD, NPDES Permit issuance, the proposed NPDES Permit limita-
tions and conditions, or the State Certification of the NPDES
Permit are invited to respond in writing by December 14, 1981,
to the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, 345 Courtland
St., N. E., Atlanta, Georgia 30365, ATTENTION: Mr. John E.
Hagan, III, Chief, EIS 3ranch. The NPDES number FL0033869
should be included on the first page of comments. All comments
received by December 14, 1981, will be considered in the formu-
lation of final determinations regarding the Final EIS, the
NPDES Permit, NPDES Permit conditions and limitations, the PSD
Final determinations, and the State Certification of the NPDES
Permit.
A Final EIS will be published after the close of the public
comment period. The Final EIS will consist of a summary of the
SAR/EIS, the Agency's tentative decision on issuance of the
NPDES Permit on this project, responses to comments received on
the SAR/EIS, the transcript of the public hearing (or a summary
thereof), and any other relevant information or evaluations
developed after publication of the SAR/EIS. A copy of the
SAR/EIS should be retained if a complete evaluation of the
project is desired.
After consideration of all written comments and of the require-
ments and policies in the CWA and appropriate regulations, the
EPA Regional Administrator will make determinations regarding
NPDES Permit issuance. If the determinations are substantially
unchanged from those announced by this notice, the EPA Regional
Administrator will so notify all persons submitting written
comments. If the determinations are substantially changed, the
EPA Regional Administrator will issue a public notice indi-
cating the revised determinations. Requests for an evidentiary
hearing may be filed after the Regional Administrator makes the
above-described determinations. Additional information regard-
ing evidentiary hearings is available in 40 CFR Subpart E, 45
FR 33498 (May 19, 1980), or by contacting the Legal Branch at
the address above or at 404/881-3506.
Copies of the SAR/EIS, which includes the draft NPDES Permit
and revised Preliminary Determination for the PSD are available
for review at the following locations:
St. Johns River Sub-District Office Jacksonville, FL
Florida Department of Environmental
Regulation
3426 Bills Road
-------
-4-
Jacksonville Public Library
24 N. Ocean Street
University of North Florida Library
-Building 12, 4567 St. Johns Bluff Road
Clay County Public Library
57 West Ferris Street
Clay County Library (Orange Park Branch)
2054 Plain Field Avenue
St. Johns County Library
12 Aniles Street
Nassau County Library (Fernandina Branch)
24 North Fourth Street
Jacksonville, FL
Jacksonville, FL
Green Cove Springs, FL.
Orange Park, FL
St. Augustine, FL
Fernandina Beach, FL.
###
------- |