vbt'MMS:
K»Sf£
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
PiigJlS
I1 M
Region 4
345 Courtland Street, NE
Atlanta, GA 30308
EPA 904/9-81-056
January 1981
Environmental
Impact Statement
Final
Florida Power Corporation
Crystal River Units 4and 5
wlflili
.r ¦ .m
¦ ¦ h-' ¦¦¦%
S -;i
m
ma
¦\c f»;S\-, ¦ r rl - iSS;--
:C0$ML^'0
t. fM¦
-------
O V
S JB
^\l/2 ? UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
^ipro^ REGION IV
345 COURTLAND STREET
ATLANTA. GEORGIA 30365
EPA 904/9-81-056
NPDES Application Number:
FL 0036366
Final
Environmental Impact Statement
for
Proposed Issuance of a New Source National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit
to
Florida Power Corporation
Crystal River Units 4&5
Citrus County, Florida
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region IV, Atlanta, Georgia 30365
Florida Power Corporation proposes to construct and operate two
695 MW (gross) capacity coal-fired electric generating plants
at the existing Crystal River complex in northwest Citrus
County, Florida. The EIS examines project alternatives,
impacts, and mitigative measures related to groundwater, air,
surface water, ecological, and socioeconomic and cultural
systems.
Comments will be received until J
<5-
Comments or inquiries should be directed to*£ «/> -:}
^ % %¦
John E. Hagan, III ^ %
ts.
54.
Chief, EIS Branch ^ <£,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency &
Region IV
345 Courtland Street, N.E. "¦%
Atlanta, Georgia 30365 *¦£.
(404) 881-7458 Y* r
Approved by
U>- f42o; lift!
Date
Rebecca W. Hanmer
Regional Administrator
-------
Executive Summary
for
Environmental Impact Statement
Crystal River Units 4 & 5
Florida Power Corporation
( ) Draft
(X) Final
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV
345 Courtland Street, N. E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
1• Type of Action; Administrative (X) Legislative ( )
2. Description of Action
Florida Power Corporation (FPC) is proposing to construct and
operate two 695 MW (gross) capacity coal-fired steam electric
generating plants at the existing Crystal River complex in
Citrus County, Florida. The EPA Region IV Administrator has
declared the proposed plants to be a new source as defined by
Section 306 of the Clean Water Act. Operation of Crystal River
Units 4 & 5 would require a National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit. Issuance of this permit
would be a major Federal action significantly affecting the
quality of the human environment. In compliance with EPA's
responsibilities under the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA), an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) has been
prepared.
As a public utility Florida Power Corporation (FPC) is
obligated to efficiently provide adequate electric power to its
service area customers. Florida Power Corporation has
conducted an evaluation of its ability to fulfill future
electric power commitments and has determined the addition of
two generating units is essential to meeting projected future
demands.
In November, 1978, the Governor and Cabinet of the State of
Florida issued a Certification Order to FPC for Crystal River
Units 4 & 5.
i
-------
Testimony and reports entered in the certification hearings by
the Florida PuDlic Service Commission show that operation of
Units 4 & 5 as planned (1982 and 1984) is essential to avoid
extremely low generating reserve margins and unacceptably high
loss of load probability. Without these units FPC would not be
able to meet its responsibilities to the Florida peninsular
grid, and generation planning flexibility for the State of
Florida would be substantially reduced.
The proposed Units 4 & 5 are to be located on approximately 335
cleared acres at FPC's 4738 acre complex in Citrus County,
Florida. The complex is located adjacent to the Gulf of Mexico
and between Crystal River to the south and Witnlacoochee River
to the north. The City of Crystal River is approximately 8
miles southeast of the complex. Currently FPC operates 3
existing generating units (a 383 MW coal unit, a 498 MW coal
unit, and an 825 MW nuclear unit) at the complex on
approximately 319 cleared acres. The proposed Units 4 & 5 are
to be constructed north of the existing units and will be
operational for 30 years.
Major components of the proposed units include two 695 MW
(gross) electric generating plants, two 440 feet tali natural
draft salt water cooling towers, two 600 feet tall chimneys, a
wastewater treatment system, a coal storage area, and a
residuals disposal area. Approximately 335 acres will be
cleared to construct the plants and supportive facilities.
The project as proposed by FPC calls for expansion of the
Crystal River complex's existing coal handling facilities.
Additional coal storage area will De located adjacent to Units
4 & 5. The existing barge and rail loading facilities are
adequate to provide the support for the proposed expansion, a
50/50 design blend of Appalachian and western coal is proposed
to be used in Units 4 & 5.
MaJce-up cooling water for the proposed units will oe drawn from
an intake structure in the existing discharge canal for Units
1, 2 & 3. An average of approximately 98 million gallons per
day will be required for operation of Units 4 & 5. An average
of 0.6 million gallons per day of raw groundwater will be
required for plant freshwater uses. A well field located along
the FPC central Florida transmission line corridor will provide
the source of freshwater.
ii
-------
Cooling tower blowdown of approximately 88 million gallons per
day will be discharged into the existing discharge canal
downstream of the intake structure. Otner wastewaters
generated at the facility will be segregated as appropriate and
directed to a multi-component waste treatment and disposal
system. No discharge of these wastewaters to surface waters is
proposed as evaporation and exfiltration will exceed wastewater
influent flow.
An average of approximately 1,730,000 pounds of residuals will
be disposed of daily in a 95 acre, 40 feet high onsite storage
area. These residuals will include dewatered bottom asn,
pulverizer rejects, fly ash, economizer ash, and gas
recirculation ash. FPC is attempting to find a marKet for the
fly ash. Runoff from the residuals storage area, from the coal
pile and from the plant site will oe settled in two systems of
canals and ponds having a detention volume which exceeds the
ten-year, 24-hour rainfall event. Normally this detention
system will have no discharge to surface waters due to
evaporation and exfiltration. However, stormwater runoff whicn
exceeds the detention volume will overflow to the existing
discharge canal.
Air emissions will oe controlled Dy boiler design to 0.7 pound
NOx/million BTU, by electrostatic precipitators to 0.1 pound
particulates/million BTU, and oy low sulfur coal to 1.2 pounds
SC^/million BTU. The design sulfur content of the coal is
approximately 0.49%. Particulates generated tnrough coal and
ash handling are proposed to be controlled by bag filter units
for enclosed structures and by dust suppressing agents for open
areas.
Transmission line expansion will oe limited to the Crystal
River complex. No additional offsite transmission facilities
are proposed.
3. Major Alternatives Considered
A. Management alternatives including purchases of power,
reactivating and uprating older units, and joint projects were
considered. Alternatives were evaluated primarily with regard
to meeting projected FPC demands. As evidenced in the site
certification meetings, the addition of the proposed Units 4 &
5 has been determined to be essential for meeting generating
responsibilities and for maintaining an acceptable loss of load
probability for the Florida peninsular grid.
-------
B. Energy source alternatives including nuclear, oil, gas,
coal, hydroelectric, and solar sources were evaluated. Major
consideration was directed toward tne state of the art of these
technologies, fuel availability, application to the siting
region, and construction time constraints. The proposed coal
fired units were selected as desirable based on environmental
considerations (in conjunction with siting alternatives),
available technology, national fuel use policies, and
engineering, licensing, and construction lead times.
Hydroelectric facilities are not appropriate to the State of
Florida, the Powerplant and Industrial Fuel Act of 1978
generally prohibits the use of petroleum as the fuel source for
power plants, and nuclear based generating plants require
extremely long lead times for licensing and construction.
C. A detailed siting analysis was performed to assess tne
suitability of 11 prime locations for siting of two 695-MW
units. These 11 locations were selected for additional
evaluation based on an initial engineering and environmental
screening of identified potential locations. Siting
evaluations indicated that integration of the proposed
engineering strategy with the facilities and resources at tne
Crystal River complex would be environmentally preferable to
locating a power plant at an unindustrialized site.
D. Spatial arrangements of the units at the Crystal River
complex were evaluated to minimize loss to the ecological
systems and to utilize existing facilities as fully as
possible. Three arrangements were considered.
E. Cooling system alternatives were evaluated considering
environmental and economic factors. Cooling systems evaluated
included once-through cooling, natural draft wet cooling
towers, mechanical draft wet cooling towers, dry and wet-dry
towers, and power spray modules.
F. Water source and intake alternatives were evaluated in
conjunction with possible cooling system alternatives.
Evaluation included quantity/quality parameters, potential
entrainment/impingement factors, and economics of water
transport. Alternatives included freshwater sources (Crystal
River, Lake Rousseau, Withlacoochee River, groundwater) and
salt water sources (Gulf of Mexico, Witnlacoochee Reach of the
Cross-Florida Barge Canal, saline groundwater).
G. Wastewater treatment and discharge systems were evaluated
to assess meeting regulatory requirements and to maximize reuse
of water.
iv
-------
H. Air emissions control system alternatives were evaluated
considering the state of the art of emission control
technology, environmental impacts, and economics. Sulfur
dioxide (SO2) control alternatives included low sulfur coal,
coal beneficiation, and flue-gas desulfurization. Particulate
control alternatives included wet scruboers, faDric filters,
mechanical separators, and electrostatic precipitators.
Nitrogen oxides (N0X) control alternatives included
application of various combustion technology strategies. FPC
submitted a Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD)
permit application in 1977 and subsequent to review received a
PSD permit in 1978. Under provisions of the Clean Air Act in
effect in 1977 FPC was able to elect to use low sulfur coal
instead of installing SO2 scruobers.
I. Residual waste disposal alternatives were evaluated
primarily in conjunction with coal type strategies and air
emission controls. Alternatives included marketing of fly ash,
pond disposal, mine disposal, ocean disposal, and landfill
disposal. Evaluation focused on leachate formation and
contamination of ground and surface water.
J. Transmission line alternatives were evaluated in
conjunction with locating the units at the existing complex.
No offsice transmission corridors are proposed.
K. A no-action alternative was evaluated to consider the
effects and implications of not constructing Units 4 & 5.
4. Summary of Major Environmental Impacts
The project is an integration of elements from each group of
system alternatives (water source, cooling system, wastewater
treatment, fuel, air emissions control, residual waste
disposal). Once elements of the project were identified, the
environmental impacts of this collective action were assessed.
Primary emphasis of this assessment focused on identifying
potential impacts and determining means to minimize adverse
impacts.
The direct effect of constructing the proposed units and
attendant facilities would be the loss of 335 acres of
vegetation at the plant site. Major terrestrial systems
affected include 148 acres of slashpine flatwoods, 62 acres of
mesic hammock, and 55 acres of hydric hammocK.
v
-------
As a result, wildlife in these areas would be forced to
relocate or more liKely would be lost. Because of the high
transmissivity of the underlying aquifer a reduction in the
freshwater subsidy of nearby wetlands is unlikely. Early in
the planning stage the proposed plant location was shifted
eastward to avoid major areas of coastal salt marsh, coastal
hydric hammock, and hydric hammock.
Approximately 160 cubic yards of material would be dredged from
the existing discharge canal during placement of the iatajce and
discharge structures. This activity would increase turbidity
and mineralization in the discharge canal. These construction
activities would require less than one month for completion.
The Corps of Engineers is preparing to issue a dredge and fill
permit for construction of the intake and discharge structures
pending EPA's completion of the environmental review process.
Stormwater runoff would increase during construction due to
disruption of the existing vegetative cover and soil
structure. The potential for soil erosion would increase
during construction. Detention ponds, dikes, and use of mulch
and sod would be utilized to control soil loss. No point
source discharge to waters of the United States would result if
these measures are utilized.
Air quality would be affected principally by fugitive dust
(particulates) during heavy construction activities. Water,
oil, and dust suppression controls would be utilized to
minimize impacts. Additional air quality impacts can be
expected from on-site burning and vehicle emissions.
Acoustics impacts associated with construction are anticipated
to be minimal since the nearest noise sensitive area is 5 miles
distant. Impacts to the socioeconomic system include increased
vehicular traffic and the effects of a transient labor
population particularly on rental housing in the surrounding
area. Other public facilities (hospitals, services, schools)
appear adequate.
Major operational impacts would effect surface water, ground
water, air and land resources.
Groundwater withdrawal would average 0.6 million gallons per
day. Maximum withdrawal would be 3 million gallons per day
resulting in an immediate area drawdown of 2.5 feet and a
drawdown of 1.75 feet at the property boundary. Biological
communities associated with freshwater marshes in the cone of
depression could be affected by groundwater withdrawal.
vi
-------
Impacts to the groundwater regime could occur in the form of
leachate from the residuals disposal area, coal pile, and plant
drains collection pond. The primary constituents of leacnate
would include acidity, iron, manganese, other trace metals, and
dissolved solids. Movement of leachate would be toward tne
Gulf of Mexico due to natural groundwater flow. Mitigative
measures including lining of the residuals area are currently
being evaluated as part of a leachate testing and monitoring
program.
An average of 98 million gallons per day of water from tne
existing discharge canal for Units 1, 2, and 3 are to be used
as cooling water maJce-up for the proposed units. Impingement
impacts are anticipated to be minimal for several reasons: tne
manmade discharge canal offers only one outlet (the Gulf
outlet), the canal's fish population is predominantly that of
larger, more mobile species, the intake velocity and volume are
lower than that of Unics 1, 2, & 3, and the canal current is
seaward. Entrainment impacts resulting from Units 4 & 5 are
also anticipated to be minimal primarily since most water
withdrawn will already have been entrained by Units 1, 2 & 3.
Cooling system blowdown for Units 4 & 5 would be discharged to
the existing discharge canal during normal load conditions at
61,100 gallons per minute and during peaK load conditions at
56,7 00 gallons per minute. Blowdown would be in compliance
with provisions of the NPDES permit.
Thermal loading is predicted to increase winter temperatures in
the discharge canal 1.5° F above the increases resulting from
Units 1, 2, and 3 and to decrease summer temperatures. The
discharge canal would continue to be influenced by the existing
Units 1, 2, & 3 and as a consequence impacts from Units 4 & 5
should be negligible.
Other process wastewaters would be routed through a wastewater
treatment system to a plant drains collection pond. Discharge
from this pond would be not permitted by issuance of an NPDES
permit. Runoff from the residuals disposal area, coal piles,
and plant site would settle in two systems of canals and ponds
having a detention volume which exceeds the ten-year, 24-nour
rainfall event. Discharge of these wastes to surface waters is
not anticipated because evaporation and exfiltration rates
would exceed influent rates. However, stormwater runoff which
exceeds the detention volume would overflow to the existing
discharge canal.
vii
-------
Principal atmospheric emissions from the proposed facility
would be nitrogen oxides (N0X)/ particulates, and sulfur
dioxide (SO2). Dispersion of these emissions would be
assisted by use of 600 feet tall chimneys. A Prevention of
Significant Deterioration (PSD) review has been conducted for
this project. PSD analysis indicated that air quality changes
in the surrounding Class II area and at the Chassahowitzka
National Wilderness Area (a Class I area) approximately
thirteen miles distant would be within allowable PSD increment
levels. Based on this analysis, state and federal air quality
standards would not be violated. Fugitive dust emissions from
the coal handling and residuals disposal area would be
controlled through use of dust suppressing agents in open areas
and bag filters in enclosed areas. The PSD permit requires
that SO2 emissions from Crystal River Units 1 & 2 be reduced
from approximately 4.5 lb SC>2/million BTU to no greater than
2.1 Id S02/million BTU as Units 4 & 5 become operational.
Negligible effects on local air quality would be anticipated.
Extensive investigations are currently in progress toward
understanding the globally significant acid rain problem.
Sulfur dioxide emissions from Units 4 & 5 would potentially
contribute to this phenomenon. The long term effect on acid
rain production is unknown.
Modeling indicates a potential for fogging to occur
approximately 344 hours each year. Based on modeling this
impact would be highly localized to the immediate plant area
and of relatively brief duration.
Salt drift originating from the natural draft cooling towers
would be deposited over the surrounding area and could impact
nearby vegetation. A monitoring program will be initiated
prior to commencement of plant operation to assess potential
impacts. This program will oe continued through the initial
years of plant operation.
Barge traffic associated with transport of coal will tranverse
waters jcnown to be within tne range of the Florida manatee, an
endangered species. Additionally, manatees are Jcnown to
congregate at the intake canal during spring and fall
movements. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service of the
Department of the Interior rendered a oiological opinion
stating these activities would likely jeopardize the continued
existence of the manatee. The draft NPDES permit. Part ill
conditions require that mitigative measures as expressed Dy the
USFWS in their biological opinion oe implemented to avoid
impacts to the manatee.
viii
-------
Operation of Units 4 & 5 would generate consideraole residual
wastes that must be disposed. The proposed onsite landfill
that would be utilized to dispose of these wastes represents a
long-term commitment of this land and reduces the potential
future uses of the land.
Operational impacts on the socioeconomics of the area are
generally considered beneficial. Operation of Units 4 & 5
would employ 132 workers. The di-rect economic effects would
yield approximately $3,400,000 in annual payroll, $300,000
annually for contractural services, and about $5,200,000
annually in property tax. The proposed facility is compatible
with current area land-use plans. No occupied residences are
located within four miles of the complex. The existng public,
medical, recreational, and cultural facilities within the
surrounding area would not be significantly impacted. Because
of the remoteness of the site no noise impacts would be noted.
5 . Draft Environmental Impact _S_ta teme n t Comments
A Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) was made
available to the Council of Environmental Quality (CEQ) and
the public on September 26, 1980. A public hearing on the
DEIS was held in Crystal River, Florida on October 28, 1980.
Several comments on the Draft EIS were received during the
comment period and at the public hearing. Major concerns
were expressed in regard to impacts to tne groundwater and
impacts from salt drift, chlorination, acid rain, fly ash
disposal, and entrainment/impingement. All comments and
questions have been addressed in Chapter 4 to the Final
EIS, "Puolic Participation".
6. Agency Decision
The Crystal River Units 4 and 5 Draft EIS examined the
electric generating strategy proposed by Florida Power
Corporation (FPC) and the associated environmental
impacts. The Draft EIS also examined several alternatives
relative to siting, potential fuel source, heat dissipation
(cooling system), air emission control, and residual waste
disposal.
Pursuant to provisions of the Clean Water Act of 1977, EPA
intends to issue an NPDES permit to Florida Power
Corporation (FPC) for Crystal River Units 4 and 5.
ix
-------
The decision to issue the NPDES permit was Dased upon EPA's
review of the project and associated environmental
implications and comments raised by other Federal and State
agencies, local interest groups, and concerned citizens.
Several measures designed to mitigate potential
environmental impacts are included as conditions to the
NPDES permit (Part III conditions).
A salt drift monitoring program designed to evaluate the
operational effects of Units 4 & 5 on the surrounding
vegetation will be implemented prior to plant operation.
Additionally, cooling tower drift eliminators will be
inspected frequently to assure proper operation,
A ground water monitoring program designed to assess
whether leachate from the coal pile, plant drains
collection pond, and ash disposal areas is contaminating
groundwater will be implemented prior to plant operation.
The NPDES permit conditions require that a leachate testing
and monitoring program be conducted to evaluate the
environmental acceptability of potential ash disposal
strategies. Such a program is presently in progress. The
NPDES permit conditions specify an environmental assessment
of the proposed action be performed in consultation with
EPA and the State should additional ash disposal site(s) or
coal storage areas be needed.
The NPDES permit contains a condition for the protection of
the Florida manatee, an endangered species. This condition
was developed as a result of the Endangered Species
Consultation Process with the Department of the Interior.
FPC submitted a Prevention of Significant Deterioration
(PSD) permit application in 1977 and, subsequent to review,
received a PSD permit from EPA in 1978.
In November 1978, the Governor and Cabinet of the State of
Florida issued a Certification Order to FPC for Crystal
River Units 4 & 5.
x
-------
FPCR4/5-FEIS.1/SUM/TOC.1
1/9/81
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
FLORIDA POWER CORPORATION, CRYSTAL RIVER UNITS 4 AND 5
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY i
LIST OF TABLES xiii
LIST OF FIGURES xiv
Chapter Page
1.0 SUMMARY OF THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 1-1
1.1 PROJECT BACKGROUND 1-1
1.1.1 Introduct ion 1-1
1.1.2 Company, Service, and System Description 1-2
1.1.3 Need for Power 1-2
1.2 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES 1-5
1.2.1 Management Alternatives 1-5
1.2.2 Siting Alternatives l-5
1.2.3 Design Alternatives 1-11
1.3 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT AREA 1-17
1.3.1 Water Resources 1-17
1.3.2 Air Resources 1-20
1.3.3 Land Resources 1-21
1.3.4 Human Resources 1-24
1.4 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT 1-26
1.4.1 General Site Area 1-26
1.4.2 Process and Cooling Water Systems 1-28
1.4.3 Solid Waste Disposal and Control 1-35
1.4.4 Air Emissions and Control 1-36
1.5 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATIVE MEASURES 1-38
1.5.1 Water Resources 1-38
1.5.2 Air Resources 1-43
1.5.3 Land Resources 1-46
1.5.4 Human Resources 1-49
2.0 ERRATA 2-1
2.1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 2-1
2.2 TECHNICAL SUPPORT DOCUMENT, VOLUME I 2-7
2.3 TECHNICAL SUPPORT DOCUMENT, VOLUME II 2-12
xi
-------
FPCR4/5-FEIS.1/SUM/TOC.2
1/13/81
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
FLORIDA POWER CORPORATION, CRYSTAL RIVER UNITS 4 AND 5
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter Page
3.0 SUPPLEMENTAL ANALYSES AND MONITORING PROGRAMS 3-1
3.1 GROUNDWATER MONITORING PROGRAM 3-2
3.2 SALT DRIFT MONITORING 3-6
3.3 CIRCULATING WATER MAKEUP AND BLOWDOWN
SYSTEM DESCRIPTION 3-27
4.0 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 4-1
4.1 WRITTEN COMMENTS TO DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
STATEMENT AND RESPONSES TO WRITTEN COMMENTS 4-8
4.2 TRANSCRIPT OF HEARING ON DRAFT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT AND RESPONSES
TO TRANSCRIPT COMMENTS 4-79
5.0 LIST OF PREPARERS 5-1
6.0 COORDINATION LIST 6-1
APPENDIX A
FINAL DRAFT NPDES PERMIT, CRYSTAL RIVER UNITS 4 AND 5
xii
-------
FPCR4/5-FEIS.1/SUM/LOT.1
1/8/81
Table
1-1
1-2
1-3
1-4
1-5
1-6
41a-R
48-R
50-R
3.3^1R
5.4-1R
5.4-2R
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Florida Power Corporation Sales Growth Rates 1-52
Environmental Assessment of Alternative Water Sources 1-53
Sources of Wastewater and Their Characteristics 1-54
Maximum Baseline Levels (Air Quality) 1-55
Projected Water Consumption 1-56
Combustion Products 1-56
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Standards of
Performance for New Sources: Maximum Allowable
Discharge Concentrations by Waste Source 2-4
Effluent Monitoring Programs 2-8
Groundwater Quality Paramaeters 2-9
Crystal River Units 4 and 5 Site and Plant Water Use 2-10
Summary of Significant Deterioration Analysis,
Class II Areas, Florida Power Corporation, Crystal
River Units 4 and 5, Citrus County, Florida 2-13
Summary of Significant Deterioration Analysis,
Class I Areas, Chassahowitzka National Wilderness
Area, Florida Power Corporation, Crystal River
Units 4 and 5, Citrus County, Florida 2-14
Xlll
-------
FPCR4/5-FEIS.1/SUM/LOF.1
1/7/81
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1-1 Site Location 1-57
1-2 Historical and Predicted Peak Demands and
Available Generation Capacity of Florida
Power Corporation, 1958-1988 1-57
1-3 Peninsular Florida Percent Reserves 1-58
1-4 Florida Power Corporation Percent Reserves 1-58
1-5 Annual Wind Rose for Tampa, Florida,
1971-1975 1-59
1-6 Present Land Use (5-Mile Radius) 1-59
1-7 Conceptualized Plant/Soil/Water Relationships
of the Proposed Plant Site 1-60
1-8 Archaeological Site Inventory 1-60
1-9 Units 4 and 5 System Layout 1-61
1-10 Cooling Tower Makeup Intake Structure 1-61
1 — 11 Effluent Samp1ing Locat ions 1-62
1-12 Location of Observation Wells for Leachate
Monitoring Program for Crystal River
Units 4 and 5 1-62
23-R Units 4 and 5 System Layout 2-2
3.5-3R Fuel Oil Recovery 2-11
xiv
-------
FPCR4/5-FEIS.1/SUMl.1
1/7/81
1.0 SUMMARY OF DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
NOTE: Several design changes or modifications have been made since
promulgation of the DEIS. Portions of the text that are affected by
these revisions are indicated by underlining. Refer to Chapter 3 of
this document for full discussions of the indicated passages.
1.1 PROJECT BACKGROUND
1.1.1 INTRODUCTION
Florida Power Corporation, St. Petersburg, Florida, proposes to
construct and operate two 695 Megawatt (Mw) gross capacity electric
generating facilities in Citrus County, Florida, near the City of
Crystal River (see Figure 1-1). The proposed facilities will occupy
part of an established generating site where Florida Power currently
owns and operates three power plants, Crystal River Units 1, 2, and 3,
and their associated production and transmission facilities. The new
power plants will be known as Crystal River Units 4 and 5, and are
planned for commercial operation in December 1982 and December 1984,
respect ively.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has determined that water
discharges from the proposed facilities will be subject to the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) new source effluent
limitations and permit requirements. As a prerequisite, EPA is required
by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) to evaluate all
potential environmental impacts. In order to fulfill NEPA requirements,
a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) was prepared and distrib-
uted to local, state, and federal agencies and to the public. This
chapter of the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) summarizes
the DEIS and technical support documents, describing the proposed
project, the need for power, practical alternatives, and expected
effects on the natural and social environment.
Pursuant to NEPA, Florida Power Corporation retained an independent,
third-party consultant, Environmental Science and Engineering, Inc.
(ESE), Gainesville, Florida, to prepare the plan of study, DEIS, and
technical support documents under EPA supervision. Prior to commencing
work, the objectivity and qualifications of ESE were approved by EPA,
with comments received by interested agencies and other parties. All
work completed by ESE in the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) pro-
cess was reviewed, approved, and modified where appropriate by EPA prior
1-1
-------
FPCR4/5-FEIS.1/SUMl.2
1/7/81
, • • «? Florida Power Corporation
to publication. During this review pro >
and federal agencies provided comments for consideration by
In addition to EPA requirements, Florida Power Corporation must obtain
state governmental approval pursuant to the Florida Power Plant Siting
Act, Chapter 403 Florida Statutes. This requirement supersedes a
other state or local regulations and permits. Accordingly, F ori a
Power Corporation filed an Application for Certification of a Propose
Fossil Fuel Electrical Power Generating Plant Site with the Florida
Department of Environmental Regulation (FDER). The FDER assessed the
potential effects upon the environment and ecology by the propos
plant. State hearings were held, and approval for the project was
granted by the Governor and by the Cabinet in November 1978.
1.1.2 COMPANY, SERVICE, AND SYSTEM DESCRIPTION
Since 1909, Florida Power Corporation, an investor-owned company, has
generated, distributed, and sold electricity in Florida. The company
service area presently comprises approximately 20,600 square miles in
the west—central portion of the Florida Peninsula and in the eastern
half of the Florida Panhandle and covers the total area or portions of
32 of the 67 counties in the state.
As of December 31, 1977, the total net generating capacity of the
Florida Power Corporation system was 4,120 Mw in the summer and 4,452 Mw
in the winter. The system was comprised of 12 generating stations which
included 14 heavy oil-fired steam units, one coal-fired steam unit, one
nuclear unit, 20 light oil combustion turbine units, and six heavy oil
combustion turbine units.
Aside from its installed capacity, Florida Power Corporation has
transmission interconnections and interchange agreements with several
electric utilities to purchase or exchange power for emergency, mainte-
nance, or other purposes on an as-available basis. All of the Florida
Power Corporation generating capacity, including transmission system, is
connected to the Peninsular Florida Electric Power Grid system. Within
the grid system, Florida Power Corporation currently has various types
of power interchange agreements.
1.1.3 NEED FOR POWER
The government of the State of Florida, under which Florida Power
Corporation operates as a public utility, requires the corporation to
1-2
-------
FPCR4/5-FEIS.1/SUM1.3
1/6/81
supply adequate electric power to fill the residential^ industrial, and
commercial demands of customers within its service area. To fulfill its
basic obligations, Florida Power Corporation has carefully evaluated the
future requirements of its customers in relation to its present system
generating capacity and to historical and anticipated trends in electric
usage. Based on these evaluations, Florida Power Corporation has
developed a generation expansion plan for its system through 1988 which
will meet its forecasted requirements. Florida Power Corporation has
determined that a key component of its expansion plans is the addition
of Crystal River Units 4 and 5 to its system, beginning service in 1982
and 1984, respectively.
The historical growth in energy demands is determined by arriving at a
set of assumptions concerning the effect of historical trends, and of
factors affecting demand, on future demand. Florida Power Corporation
developed the following set of assumptions upon which its forecasts of
energy use are based:
1. Normal weather conditions will prevail.
2. The service area economy will continue to improve at a slow,
steady rate.
3. No significant loss of energy sales to solar energy will occur
until the late 1980's.
4. Personal income will increase at a rate equal to or greater
than the Consumer Price Index (CPI); rate increases, if any,
will be equal to or less than the CPI. No rate increase
effects will be included in the forecast.
5. Florida Power will continue to serve all of the wholesale load
which they now serve, including the energy required for the
load growth of the existing wholesale customers, except the
load and energy responsibility which will be assumed by
Seminole Electric Cooperative, Inc., which has announced plans
to build two 600-Mw units in the mid-19801s and to take
responsibility for its own load.
6. Unavailability of fossil fuels will cause an increase in
electricity used for space heating.
7. The population projections made by the Bureau of Economic and
Business Research of the University of Florida in Population
Studies, Bulletin No. 41, July, 1977, are reasonably accurate.
8. No load management impacts will be reflected in the forecast.
9. Improvements in insulation and in equipment efficiency, and
increased emphasis on conservation will result in reduced
sales, beginning in the mid-1980's.
1-3
-------
FPCR4/5-FEIS.1/SUM1.4
1/6/81
FORECASTED DEMANDS
After total sales and total average annual customer forecasts had been
determined, annual kilowatt-hour sales per customer were calculated.
Statistical equations, based on annual kilowatt-hour sales and kilowatt
demand per customer, were used to forecast the seasonal demand. The
annual load factor was then calculated to check the forecast for reason-
ableness. A summary of Florida Power Corporation energy sales is given
in Table 1—1. Figure 1-2 shows similar information for peak demands.
Florida Power Corporation forecasts that the net winter peak demand for
its system can reasonably be expected to increase from 3,899 Mw in the
winter of 1976 and 1977 to 6,580 Mw in 1987 and 1988 which represents a
compound annual growth rate of 4.9 percent.
Using a method which calculates loss of load probability (LOLP), Florida
Power Corporation evaluated alternative generation expansion plans in
terms of system reliability. For generation capacity planning purposes,
a criterion of 2.5 days per year including dependency upon interruptible
loads and interconnections was determined to be equivalent to an
acceptable LOLP value of 1 day in 10 years for firm loads. This LOLP
value indicates that a 15-percent reserve generating margin is adequate
for the reliability of the Florida Power Corporation system. Florida
Power Corporation also evaluated alternative expansion plans from the
standpoint of production costs.
Based on these reliability and cost evaluations, Florida Power
Corporation developed a generation expansion plan that includes addition
of two 695-Mw base load generating facilities, to begin service in
December 1982 and December 1984. The need for these new facilities was
evaluated further with respect to the Florida Power Corporation system,
peninsular Florida LOLP, and reserve margins if one facility or the
other were omitted or delayed. Figures 1-3 and 1-4 demonstrate the
effects, on the Florida Power Corporation system and on the Florida
peninsula, of adding one 695-Mw gross capacity coal unit in 1982 and '
another in 1984, or of not adding either unit. Without the proposed
generating unit scheduled for completion in 1982, the LOLP would rise to
between 5 and 9 days per year in 1983, 1984, and 1985. If the 1984 unit
were also excluded, the LOLP would reach approximately 14 days per year.
In both cases, the system would have negative reserve capacity by 1984.
Firm capacity purchases from other utilities and potential joint-
ownership of planned facilities of other utilities were also examined as
1-4
-------
FPCR4/5-FEIS.1/SUMl.5
1/7/81
possible alternatives to the new facilities. Based on these
evaluations, Florida Power Corporation determined that the two 695-Mw
(gross capacity) generating facilities as scheduled are needed to meet
the accepted reliability goal of its system, and that cancellation or
delay of either facility would result in unacceptable reserve margins
and would increase the probability of blackouts and brownouts within the
company service area.
1.2 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
1.2.1 MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES
The information required for evaluation of the no-project alternative
has been presented in the earlier discussion of need for power. As
discussed previously, an acceptable design criterion is that there
should be no more than 2.5 days' dependency upon interruptible loads and
interconnections per year. Based on these results, it is clear that the
no-project alternative would threaten Florida Power Corporation's
ability to meet the energy needs of consumers in its service area.
Florida Power has long maintained a policy of participating in mutually
advantageous power exchanges with other electric companies, and is
currently negotiating or has firm purchase contracts with four municipal
utilities. The excess capacity in nearby utility service areas is
limited, however, and without the proposed units by 1982, the reserves
for peninsular Florida will be approaching the 15-percent level, which
is commonly considered minimal for maintenance of reliable service.
Only limited benefits could be obtained by a program of uprating older
plants or reactivating retired units. Florida Power has engaged m
joint projects on a limited basis in the past, and is investigating this
possibility for the post-1985 period. However, there are no
opportunities for joint projects that would fulfill Florida Power's
additional capacity needs in the years prior to 1985.
1.2.2 SITING ALTERNATIVES
CONSTRAINTS
The site selection process for the proposed 695-Mw facilities considered
the entire state of Florida north of 27°00' north latitude and east of
85°30' west longitude. A series of site selection studies yielded a
list of 185 potential sites, later reduced to 30 sites. Eleven sites
were identified as the most promising in the final stages of the
selection process. Criteria for screening potential sites are grouped
1-5
-------
FPCR4/5-FEIS.1/SUM1.6
1/6/81
into three categories: general siting criteria, engineering criteria,
and environmental criteria.
General Siting Criteria
Preliminary computations indicated that a minimum of 130 hectares
(320 acres) of land would be needed to accommodate the proposed units if
cooling towers were utilized, versus approximately 730 hectares
(1,800 acres) using cooling ponds. Flood hazard, geologic suitability,
and access to transportation and power transmission facilities were also
considered in site selection. Access to highway, rail, and waterway
facilities was considered important, although not absolutely necessary.
Any new transmission or transportation corridors required as part of a
site alternative were considered integral elements of project cost and
environmental impact.
Engineering Criteria
The most important engineering siting criteria pertained to water supply
and wastewater disposal. Based upon general engineering design criteria
for two 695-Mw units, the required supply of cooling system make-up
water was estimated at 76 million liters (20 million gallons) per day.
Saltwater cooling towers would require substantially greater withdrawal.
Other water uses could add as much as 11 million liters (3 million
gallons) per day.
Environmental Criteria
Environmental criteria included air quality, water resources, aquatic
and terrestrial ecology, population and land use, archaeological/
historical sites, and other socioeconomic considerations. Federal air
quality limitations affecting power plant locations include the National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and the Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD) regulations. The federal government and the state
of Florida have promulgated regulations pertaining to water resource
management in Florida. Federal water quality limitations include the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) regulations, and
new source effluent guidelines for steam electric generating facilities.
Site selection criteria for aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems involved:
impingement and entrainment of aquatic organisms by intake structures,
detrimental effects of thermal discharges and wastewater effluents,
disruption of terrestrial habitats by construction of power plant
facilities, air quality degradation and cooling tower drift, and all
factors affecting the existence of plant and animal species that are
1-6
-------
FPCR4/5-FEIS.1/SUM1.7
1/6/81
endangered or otherwise given special status. Also important in site
selection was proximity to parks, archaeological/historical sites,
wildlife refuges, areas of high natural productivity, and land and water
bodies used intensively for recreation.
DESCRIPTION OF POTENTIAL SITES
Gulf County
The Gulf County site is located on the south side of the Gulf County
Canal near its confluence with the Intracoastal Waterway. A once-
through cooling system utilizing water from the Intracoastal Waterway
was considered, although off-stream cooling would also be possible. The
site has favorable roadway access, and coal barges could reach the site
via the Gulf County Canal. Rail access could be provided. Extensive
improvements to the existing power transmission system, and line
transmission losses during operation, would be substantial due to the
distance of the site from Florida Power's load center. The site is
favorable or adequate in terms of topography, geology, existing
vegetation, land ownership, and nearby land uses. However, thermal and
saline effluents from an open-cycle cooling power plant at this location
could have serious effects on St. Joseph Bay. Air quality impacts also
could present problems.
St. Marks
The St. Marks site is located in Wakulla County about 1.2 kilometers
(0.7 mile) south of Newport and 3.2 kilometers (2 miles) northeast of
St. Marks. The St. Marks River could be utilized for cooling, but there
might be an undesirable degree of hydroperiod alteration. The site is
favorable in terms of road and railway access. Barge access would
require extensive dredging, however, and the site is relatively unfavor-
able in terms of electric power transmission losses. Other liabilities
of the site include its location in a flood plain and its proximity to
the St. Marks National Wilderness Area, a Class I area for PSD.
Levy County (2 Sites)
The two potential power plant sites in Levy County are located on the
east bank of the Suwannee River and north and south of Manatee State
Park approximately 10 kilometers (6 miles) apart. The Suwannee River
flow is adequate for cooling purposes at either site. The increase in
coal barge traffic could constitute a significant environmental dmpact.
The use of either site would require construction of a new power
transmission corridor at least 40 kilometers (25 miles) in length. The
1-7
-------
FPCR4/5-FEIS.1/SUM1.8
1/6/81
southern site may impact some freshwater marsh, whereas the northern
site lacks these aquatic habitats. The Suwannee River sites would be
among the most sensitive in terms of possible public and governmental
reaction, especially if the area is designated as a Wild and Scenic
River. The sites would be among the most favorable for air quality
permitting of power plant facilities.
Crystal River
The Crystal River property in Citrus County is owned by Florida Power,
which operates three power plants at the site using once-through,
saltwater cooling. Cooling options for the proposed units include
freshwater and saltwater sources and freshwater open- and closed-cycle
cooling systems. Highway and rail facilities are available with minor
modifications, and barge access and unloading facilities are already
available. No new power transmission corridors would be required. The
Crystal River site is favorable in terms of nearby land use and public
acceptance of new power generation facilities. However, air quality
permitting could present problems because of emissions produced by
existing facilities, and because of the Class I air quality status of
the Chassahowitzka Wilderness Area located 21 kilometers (13 miles)
south of the site.
Anclote
The Anclote site is located in the extreme southwest portion of Pasco
County on the north shore-of the Anclote River estuary. Florida Power
presently operates an oil-fired power generating facility at this site.
A new power plant at the site probably would require saltwater cooling
towers. Barge access to the site is possible, but docking and unloading
facilities would have to be constructed. The principal advantage is its
proximity to the Pinellas County load center and existing transmission
facilities. The major disadvantages are water supply, limited land
area, proximity to urban development, and existing air quality problems.
Phosphate Mining Area
The site is the 4,500-hectare (11,000-acre) International Minerals
Corporation property located 8 kilometers (5 miles) southwest of Bartow
in the Polk County phosphate mining zone. This alternative has the
potential of reusing two valuable resources: (1) land that has been
severely disrupted by mining; and (2) water from the City of Tampa
sewage disposal plant. Wastewater could be pumped to the site via a
64-kilometer (40-mile) pipeline. Development of this site would involve
1-8
-------
FPCR4/5-FEIS.1/SUM1.9
1/6/81
little impact on terrestrial ecosystems, although pipeline construction
could have significant impacts. The site has good highway and rail
access, but no direct barge access. The location is highly favorable
with regard to future power demand. Wastewater disposal iat the site
could present problems, given the contaminants present in the sanitary
effluent used for cooling. Air quality would represent perhaps the most
serious problem at the site, because of existing degradation related to
the phosphate industry.
Lake Jessup
The Lake Jessup site is located in Seminole County on the southeastern
shore of Lake Jessup about 19 kilometers (12 miles) northeast of
Orlando. Municipal wastewater from two City of Orlando sewage treatment
plants is available for cooling system makeup. The site is moderately
favorable in terms of highway and rail transportation, but barging of
coal may not be feasible. The site is fairly well located relative to
Florida Power's load centers. Disposal of concentrated wastewaters from
a power plant could pose significant problems. The Lake Jessup site is
as favorable as any other site in terms of air quality considerations.
The DeBary site is located on the east bank of the St. Johns River in
Volusia County near the town of DeBary. Since 1976, Florida Power has
operated a 336-Mw combustion turbine plant at the site, and moreNthan
l,250(Mw of additional generating capacity are located in the vicinity.
The DeBary site is favorable in terms of transportation since a rail
line crosses the site, and barge access is possible via the St. Johns
River. Barge traffic and disposal of wastewater into the river could
have significant impacts. The DeBary site is well-situated relative to
anticipated Florida Power service area needs. A significant
disadvantage is that a substantial area is subject to flooding under
extreme conditions.
Water withdrawals from the St. Johns River could involve alteration of
hydroperiod when defined in terms of extreme low flows of record,
although the requirement for cooling system makeup would amount to only
about 1 percent of the long-term average discharge of the river. The
site is only moderately favorable in terms of air quality, due to
existing power plants in the area.
1-9
-------
FPCR4/5-FEIS.1/SUM1.10
1/6/81
Palatka North and Palatka South
Two sites in Putnam County near the City of Palatka were considered in
the final site evaluation; one about 8 kilometers (5 miles) northeast of
Palatka and one approximately 5.6 kilometers (3.5 miles) southeast of
the city. Both sites border the St. Johns River, and both would have
the advantage of barge access and relatively low-cost rail transporta-
tion from points outside Florida. A major disadvantage is that use of
either site would require construction of a transmission corridor
exceeding 64 kilometers (40 miles) in"length. The St. Johns River has
adequate flow in this vicinity for cooling system makeup water, although
entrainment of aquatic life could pose problems. The possibility of
water quality and thermal impacts due to wastewater discharges also
exists, given the present use of the St. Johns River for commercial and
recreational fishing. Air quality conditions would be relatively
unfavorable at Palatka North, but somewhat better at Palatka South.
SELECTION OF PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE SITES
The site selection process involved screening the 11 sites according to
cost, followed by final selection based primarily on environmental
considerations.
The cost comparison outcome was a grouping of sites into four
categories. The "unacceptable" category (annual cost differentials of
more than $15 million relative to Crystal River) contained the Gulf
County and St. Marks sites. The two Levy County sites and the two sites
near Palatka formed the "marginal" category (annual cost differentials
of $7 million to $9 million). The "moderately favorable" category
(differentials near $5 million) included the Anclote, Lake Jessup, and
phosphate mining sites. The two "highly favorable" sites (zero cost
differentials) were Crystal River and DeBary.
The two sites in the "unacceptable" cost category were eliminated from
further consideration. The four sites in the "marginal" category were
not ruled out on a cost basis alone, but subsequently were eliminated
due to a lack of compensating factors and to serious liabilities.
Two of the remaining five sites were eliminated on the basis of
"pairwise" comparisons. The Anclote site was judged inferior to Crystal
River because of the severe physical, limitations of the Anclote proper-
ty, proximity to urban development, the less satisfactory transportation
arrangements, and water quality sensitivity. Lake Jessup, likewise, was
1-10
-------
FPCR4/5-FEIS.1/SUMl.11
1/7/81
eliminated based on a comparison with the,phosphate mining site. The
problems involving land acquisition, land use compatibility, and
possible water supply at Lake Jessup outweighed the air quality problems
expected at the phosphate mining property.
The remaining locations, Crystal River, DeBary, and the phosphate mining
site, were compared based on fresh and saltwater closed-cycle cooling
options available at Crystal River. The three options were evaluated in
terms of water supply, wastewater discharge, ambient air quality, and
terrestrial ecology. Overall, new power plant facilities at Crystal
River with saltwater cooling towers would have only one major
liability—air quality—whereas the other options each would involve two
or more general liabilities. The Crystal River site, therefore, was
selected as the preferred alternative since all applicable air quality
regulations could be met.
1.2.3 DESIGN ALTERNATIVES
The information contained in this section reflects the preliminary
engineering design data available when alternatives were evaluated.
Design information contained in Chapter 3 of the Technical Support
Document is the most current data available for the proposed units.
PROCESSING ALTERNATIVES
Energy Source Alternatives
Coal is considered the best fuel alternative for steam electric
generation at the Crystal River site. The availability of coal nation-
ally on a long-term basis, higher efficiency of newer generation units,
shorter lead time to on-line generation, and the existing coal handling
facilities on the site, make coal-fired units the desired alternative.
Florida Power has chosen low-sulfur coal (less than 0.6 pounds sulfur
per MBtu) as the most economical fuel for the proposed units.
Alternative energy sources such as nuclear, reactivation of older units,
or purchase from other sources were considered. Management alternatives
were also considered.
Cooling System/Alternatives
It is not possible to use all of the heat energy transferred from the
fuel source to steam in the generation of. electrical energy. Cooling
systems considered to remove this excess heat from the plant site on a
continuous and operational basis were: (1) once-through cooling,
1-11
-------
FPCR4/5-FEIS.1/SUM1.12
1/6/81
(2) power spray modules, (3) natural draft wet cooling towers, (4) mech-
anical draft wet cooling towers, and (5) dry and wet-dry cooling towers.
The reliability of each of these systems is high enough to make all of
them technically feasible and available. Significant differences in
cooling system operation and maintenance exist depending on the source
of cooling water.
Studies associated with the three existing units have determined a
number of impacts associated with once-through cooling. Generally, the
major environmental effects of once-through cooling fall into three
groups:
1. Impingement, or the impacts associated with screens which
strain larger organisms from the incoming water—8 percent of
biomass was determined to be of economic importance (Snedaker,
1972 to 1974);
2. Entrainment, or the impacts associated with passage through the
power plant of organisms smaller than those affected by
impingement—2,700 to 6,950 kilograms per day estimated biomass
for Units 1, 2, and 3; alnd
3. Impacts associated with organisms which are exposed to the
heated plume from the plant, i.e., lower productivities.
Other environmental alterations may be brought about by changes in
existing circulation patterns and biocide treatments.
The general effects of cooling towers on the environment include:
(1) fogging, (2) ice caused by cold weather fogging, (3) deposition of
chemically-laden drift particles, (4) consumptive use of water,
(5) climate modification due to atmospheric discharge of heat and water
vapor, (6) effects on receiving water as a result of blowdown discharge,
(7) acid rainout due to mingling of cooling tower and stack gas plumes,
and (8) noise.
Comparative Analysis of Economic, Technical, and Environmental
Considerations
Based upon economic and environmental factors, once-through cooling and
natural draft (fresh and saltwater) cooling towers present the most
favorable alternatives. Once-through cooling systems, however, process
large volumes of water (high heat impact), have high impingement and
entrainment rates, produce changes in circulation patterns, and require
1-12
-------
FPCR4/5-FEIS.1/SUM1.13
1/6/81
more biocide treatment. Economic costs are lower, partially due to less
technical development.
Water Source Alternatives
Water source alternatives include fresh water for plant service use and
salt water for cooling purposes. Freshwater source alternatives
include: (1) Crystal River, (2) Withlacoochee River, (3) Lake Rousseau,
and (4) freshwater aquifer (shallow wells). Saltwater source
alternatives include: (1) Gulf of Mexico, (2) Withlacoochee Reach of
Cross-Florida Barge Canal, and (3) saline aquifer (deep wells). Fresh
water would be feasible only if cooling towers are used. The Gulf
serves as a cooling source for existing Units 1, 2, and 3 which use a
once-through system. Underlying the freshwater aquifer is water of
higher salinity.
Site-specific estimates for the most apparent cost-effective source
alternatives were developed. A relative ranking of alternatives
according to lowest estimated cost (or in cited cases, speculated cost)
is: (1) Gulf of Mexico, (2) Lake Rousseau, (3) shallow wells (fresh-
water), (4) Withlacoochee Reach of Barge Canal, (5) Crystal River,
(6) Withlacoochee River, and (7) deep wells (saline water). The Gulf of
Mexico as a source of cooling water is the cheapest alternative. There
is a small energy penalty associated with using discharge water as
cooling water, due to the necessity for precooling. However, capital
costs for piping water from the existing discharge canal would be
significantly lower than for other sources.
All water sources considered would exhibit some impacts if drawn upon by
the proposed power plant. Impacts are intimately connected to the type
of cooling system used; therefore, additional impact summary can be
found in the alternative cooling system section. Impacts on water
sources include: (1) entrainment of organisms, (2) impingement of
organisms, (3) water use, (4) water quality, (5) water consumption,
(6) circulation pattern alternation/disruption, (7) horizontal salinity
intrusion, (8) vertical upwelling effects on quality, (9) lowering of
surface water tables, and (10) construction impacts of intake struc-
tures. A summary of environmental assessments of alternative water
sources is given in Table 1-2.
If salt water is used as a source for cooling, a separate freshwater
source is needed for plant services such as: boiler makeup, ash
1-13
-------
FPCR4/5-FEIS.1/SUM1.14
1/6/81
handling, boiler tube lancing, and miscellaneous station needs. These
sources are relatively small in comparison to condenser cooling.
Intake Alternatives
Cooling water intake locations were considered for Crystal River, Lake
Rousseau, and the Gulf of Mexico. Crystal River was considered with an
intake structure approximately 4 kilometers (2.5 miles) downstream
(west) of the town of Crystal River. For Lake Rousseau, an area of the
lake east of the Inglis Dam extending from the dam upstream about
2.4 kilometers (1.5 miles) was considered. Intake locations proposed
for estuarine cooling water from the Gulf of Mexico are near the
existing intake for the existing units. Drawing intake water for the
proposed units from the discharge canal of the existing units to reduce
impingement and entrainment was also considered.
Technical aspects of intake location include physical placement on
shoreline, depth of placement, and type of structure required. Types of
structures considered for surface water sources are: (1) conventional
vertical traveling screens, (2) double-entry vertical traveling screens,
(3) perforated pipe, and (4) double open water. Environmental consider-
ations of intake systems include construction impacts; reduction or
alteration of current patterns and velocities (siltation problems);
impingement of marine algae and organisms; and navigational hazards.
These impacts are considered to be potentially greater for Crystal River
than for other surface water sources. Increased siltation can impact
benthic organisms, and reduced river flow may have impacts on sessile,
filter-feeding, and drifting organisms.
An intake placed in the existing discharge canal would reduce the
impacts of cooling water withdrawal. Most of the water taken in would
already have been entrained by Units 1, 2, and 3. In addition, the
currents in the existing discharge canal would help to keep down
impingement by sweeping the screens.
Water Discharge Options
Sources of water discharge include: (1) cooling water, (2) ash and
sludge handling water, (3) rainwater runoff, (4) water pr'etreatment,
(5) ion-exchange regeneration, (6) metal cleaning, (7) plant drains,
(8) sanitary waste, and (9) boiler blowdown. Discharges into surface
waters of the plant site and surrounding area could occur from all of
1-14
-------
FPCR4/5-FEIS.1/SUM1.15
1/6/81
the sources listed. Any discharge would be subject to compliance with
existing effluent guidelines and water quality standards.
Considered alternatives can occur at several levels. Water discharge
options can be (1) evaporative, (2) surface water, (3) ground water, and
(4) recycle, or combinations of these. At this level of application,
the existing alternatives are: (1) lining/no lining of ponds or
retention basins, and (2) treatment/no treatment before discharge. A
variety of technical variations on any of these options is feasible.
Kinds of constituents that could potentially be discharged are given in
Table 1-3.
Impacts from discharge of such constituents into surface and/or coastal
receiving waters generally are related to human and organism health/
toxicity, and ecological changes in production, structure or function.
The trend is to avoid discharge to receiving waters as much as possible
and apply dewatering (evaporative) and settling procedures. If
accumulated solids are introduced into landfills, the potential for
re-introduction of wastewaters into receiving waters is possible,
depending upon subsurface flow conditions.
Air Emission Control Technologies and Evaluation
Sulfur dioxide control alternatives may be categorized as follows:
1. Burning of low-sulfur coal, whether naturally occurring or
upgraded.
2. Burning high-sulfur coal with removal of sulfur dioxide from
the flue gas. Flue gas desulfurization (FGD) can be
accomplished through non-resource recovery methods or by
regenerative processes.
3. Burning high-sulfur coal with removal of sulfur dioxide at the
combustion stage.
Alternatives for the control of particulate emissions include
electrostatic precipitation, fabric filtration, wet scrubbing, and mech-
anical separation. Electrostatic precipitation was chosen because high
removal efficiencies could be achieved at the best cost/benefit ratio.
Control of nitrogen oxides (N0X) from coal-fired power plants presently
is accomplished by using low nitrogen fuel or by modified combustion
techniques. Flue gas recirculation is considered ineffective as an
N0X control method when applied at coal-fired units. Reduced
1-15
-------
FPCR4/5-FEIS.1/SUM1.16
1/6/81
combustion-air preheating and steam or water injection are considered
noncompetitive compared with the other alternatives.
Solid Waste Alternatives and Evaluation
Primary sources of solid waste are: (1) bottom ash from furnace,
(2) fly ash from flue gas dust control equipment, (3) sludge disposal
from non-regenerative sulfur dioxide removal system, (4) coal pulverizer
rejects, and (5) facilities maintenance and operation wastes.
The expected quantity of solids for disposal based on both units
operating will be approximately 784,000 kilograms (1,730,000 pounds) to
1,187,000 kilograms (2,620,000 pounds) per day, depending on average or
peak generation.
Proposed disposal of both bottom ash and fly ash is by landfill;
however, selling bottom ash for base material, aggregate, or grit is
also proposed. Construction alternatives for the proposed disposal area
were lining/no lining. Lining could be accomplished by either an
impermeable clay layer or a PVC liner overlain with earth cover.
Capital costs (1978) would be $958,320 for a clay liner and $1,742,400
for a PVC liner. Both liners would accomplish essentially the same
purpose. Environmental impacts of an unlined pond would consist of ash
leachate cohtaminants, such as iron and sulfate, formed by oxidation and
reduction reactions taking place in the ash. Unlined ponds do not
present as large a problem of stormwater runoff control as do lined
ponds, due to exfiltration. A leachate testing and monitoring program
is being performed to determine the best waste disposal strategy for the
site.
If an FGD system is used, there is a potential for the generation of
tremendous quantities of solid waste. Pond, landfill, and mine disposal
alternatives are similar and all share potential problems with settling.
Leachate problems must also be considered. Ocean disposal is a consid-
eration but ocean floor sedimentation, suspended solids, high sulfates,
COD wastes, and trace contaminants all present potential problems
similar to those posed by leachate for the land disposal alternatives.
SELECTED ALTERNATIVES
Tentatively, the following alternatives were selected based on
environmental and economic considerations:
1-16
-------
FPCR4/5-FEIS.1/SUMl.17
1/7/81
Cooling water system
Cooling water intake
Plant service water source
Plant service water source
locat ion
Discharge location
Cooling water source
Cooling water source location
Selected Alternative
Saltwater
Units 1, 2, and 3 discharge
canal
Natural draft cooling tower
Traveling screens
Freshwater (ground)
Particulate control
Sulfur dioxide control
Nitrogen oxides control
Solid waste handling
Discharge methods
Well field 5 miles east
Units 1, 2, and 3 discharge
canal
Neutralization and retention
(10 yr/24 hr)
Electrostatic precipitator
Low-sulfur coal
Boiler controls
Dry handling; compaction
1.3 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT AREA
1.3.1 WATER RESOURCES
The major surface water features in the proposed plant vicinity include
the Withlacoochee River-Cross Florida Barge Canal complex to the north,
Crystal River to the south, and the Gulf of Mexico to the west. Numer-
ous small ponds and wet depressions, as well as several small unnamed
intermittent streams, are scattered about the area. The major lake in
the area is Lake Rousseau, an artificial impoundment on the
Withlacoochee River.
There is no known consumptive use of fresh water from surface bodies in
the project area. However, both freshwater and saltwater surface bodies
constitute substantial recreational and economic resources for the
region.
In 1976, total groundwater withdrawals in Citrus County totaled
87.8 million liters per day (23.2 million gallons per day). Approxi-
mately half of this amount is used for irrigation and only 14.9 million
liters per day (3.9 million gallons per day) is used for municipal water
supply purposes. There are no public water supply systems within an
8-kilometer (5-mile) radius of the plant site.
1-17
-------
FPCR4/5-FEIS.1/SUM1.18
1/6/81
Surface water in the proposed plant site area is classified by Florida
DER as Class III (Recreation, Propagation, and Management of Fish and
Wildlife). There are no exceptions to the Class III water
classification in the area of the proposed plant site.
The upper surface of the Floridan Aquifer, which would constitute both
the potable water source for the plant and the receiving body for
possible leachates, lies at a depth o£ 1.2 to 2.7 meters (4 to 9 feet)
under the wellfield site and 0 to 1 meters (0 to 4 feet) under the plant
site. In the vicinity of the wellfield, the confined Floridan Aquifer
appears to be separated from the unconfined surficial (water table)
aquifer by a somewhat impermeable layer.
Water from the Floridan Aquifer also discharges in an upwelling fashion
in the coastal wetlands, estuaries, and springs of the region. Dis-
charge of springs, such as those creating Crystal River, and the health
and survival of the coastal forests are all dependent upon the flow of
this aquifer.
Water quality in the Gulf waters of this area is relatively good,
although some turbidity does occur at times of strong wind or tidal
flows. Total solids are markedly lower in the discharge basin than at
the mouth of the discharge canal. Nitrogen, chlorophyll a, and silica
concentrations tend to increase near sources of freshwater or runoff
inflow and/or following rainfall. Highest phosphorus levels are reached
in the outer bay.
In the immediate vicinity of the proposed power plant site are three
major aquatic-related habitat types: salt marsh, coastal hydric
hammock, and freshwater marsh. The coastal zone is dominated by salt
marsh. Within the salt marsh, Juncus roemerianus (black needlerush) and
Spartina alterniflora (cordgrass) are the two principal floral types
present. These grasses are of major importance in primary production,
the initial link of any food web—the capture and conversion of energy
from the sun to chemical-bond energy which, in turn, can be used by
other organisms. There are two major food webs these grasses support;
one involves those organisms which feed on the living plant (herbivores)
and the second are those which feed on the detrital material produced by
the plant (detritivores) (Keefe, 1972). The marsh also plays a major
role as a nursery ground for fish and is an important habitat for
various invertebrates, a major food source for some fish species.
1-18
-------
FPCR4/5-FEIS.1/SUM1.19
1/6/81
Studies of impingement and entrainment due to the operation of Units 1,
2, and 3 show that the impingement of aquatic organisms on intake
screens is a function of habitat, area, season, time-of-day, tide, and
other factors. Results of the NUS studies conducted in 1977 and 1978
indicated that slightly less than 8 percent of the impinged biomass was
composed of species of economic importance. NUS estimated that impinge-
ment at all three existing units amounted to about 0.5 percent of the
number of blue crabs taken commercially in the Citrus-Pasco County area
in 1976. Impingement of pink shrimp was estimated to be about 1 percent
of the number caught commercially in the Citrus-Pasco County area.
Information is limited concerning fishes and other nekton found in the
discharge canal near the site for the new intake structure. The species
composition of fishes appears to be less "rich" than in the existing
intake canal, with a predominance of larger, schooling forms. The
discharge canal constitutes a physical "dead end"'for upstream swimmers.
!
The entrainment of plankton populations (i.e., organisms that are small
enough to pass through intake screens) can involve several types of
impacts: (1) loss of biological production; (2) alteration of the
trophic structure of the biological community; and (3) losses of
commercially important species that spend part of their life cycle as
members of the plankton community. Studies of entrainment at Crystal
River Units 1, 2, and 3 and at other power plants suggest that elevated
temperatures may be more important than mechanical damage in producing
zooplankton mortality, whereas the reverse may be true for young/small
fish. Regarding temperature effects, the rate of change in temperature
may be more significant to survival than the amplitude of temperature
change.
The Florida manatee is classified as "endangered" on both state and
federal lists. Personnel with the Gainesville Field Station National
Fish and Wildlife facility have been collecting data concerning the
presence of manatee over a larger area which includes the power plant
site. The Gainesville Fish and Wildlife laboratory also collects the
bodies of dead manatees which are found. No manatee bodies have been
collected from the power plant area, nor have any of the bodies found in
the Citrus County area shown signs of power plant-related injuries
(Scott, 1978).
1-19
-------
FPCR4/5-FEIS.1/SUMl.20
1/7/81
The alligator is classified as "threatened" on the federal list. A few
alligators were sighted in the existing fly ash pond, but none were
encountered in the other wetlands on Florida Power property.
1.3.2 AIR RESOURCES
The Florida Power site is characterized by dry winters and rainy
summers, high humidity, and seasonal patterns of wind direction. The
mean annual temperature is 21.0°C (69.8°F). In summer the climate is
influenced^primarily by sea breezes from the Gulf of Mexico and convec-
tive heating, while in winter, frontal activity dominates the weather.
Rainfall in the year 1975 was 1,078 mm at the site, with 62 percent of
the rainfall occurring between June and September, when thunderstorm
activity is at a peak. Thirty-year averages at nearby Cedar Key
indicate that the mean yearly rainfall is 1,020 mm. Thunderstorms are
the most frequent severe storms affecting the site, occurring on an
average of 80 days per year, nearly 60 percent of which occur from June
through August.
On an annual basis, winds at the site prevail from the east to east-
northeast. However, substantial seasonal deviations occur as appreci-
able sea breezes blow from the west and southwest in summer, and more
northerly winds occur during frontal activity in the cooler months (see
Figure 1-5).
The ambient air quality of an area can be described in terms of quanti-
tative standards. These standards, called Ambient Air Quality Standards
(AAQS), were promulgated by regulatory agencies to protect the health
and welfare of the general public. The major AAQS's to be evaluated for
a fossil-fuel-fired steam electric plant, located in a rural area, are
those for total suspended particulate matter (T^P) and sulfur dioxide.
Monitoring results at four stations ranging from about 5 kilometers
(3.1 miles) to 14 kilometers (8.7 miles) indicate that both TSP and sul-
fur dioxide levels are currently within AAQS standards, and that any new
sources of air emissions would have a considerable margin of compliance.
References to "endangered" and "threatened" species: Refer to federal
publications (United States List of Endangered Fauna, 1974; Threatened
Wildlife of the United States, 1973; Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants, 1977) and the proposed listing (Proposed Endangered Status
on Some 1700 U.S. Vascular Plant Taxa, 1976); and state publications
(Florida Game and Freshwater Fish Commission, 1974; the Florida
Committee on Rare and Endangered Plants and Animals, 1976).
1-20
-------
FPCR4/5-FEIS.1/SUMl.21
1/7/81
Air quality dispersion modeling was performed to establish baseline
levels for sulfur dioxide and TSP to meet the requirements for
Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD). This baseline determined
the maximum (highest) possible concentrations which currently would
exist, including the fossil fuel-fired units, Crystal River Units 1
and 2. Baseline concentrations for the annual average, 24-hour and
3-hour periods at the plant site and at the Class I area Chassahowitzka
National Wilderness Area are shown in Table 1-4.
1.3.3 LAND RESOURCES
The geomorphology of the proposed plant site area is defined by two
well-developed coastal marine terraces which parallel the coast and mark
the landward extent of two Pleistocene seas, the Pamlico and Wicomico,
with shorelines at the 7.6-meter (25-foot) and 30-meter (100-foot)
contours above mean sea level, respectively. The site is located within
the Pamlico marine plain, which extends about 13 to 16 kilometers (8 to
10 miles) inland.
The surface of the proposed site is comprised of a thin layer (less than
3 meters) of sands (Broward-Boca Association) overlying a broad, greatly
fractured limestone shelf which is the top of the Floridan Aquifer.
The Floridan Aquifer is the upper sequence of rock formations underlying
the study area and contains large volumes of fresh water, which give
rise to numerous springs scattered throughout the coastal hammock, and
feed most of the streams in the area.
The Floridan Aquifer in the study area is composed of the Ocala Group,
Avon Park Limestone, and Lake City Limestone, with extensive solution
cavities. The most extensive solution zones are in the Ocala Group and
at the contact between the Ocala Group and the Avon Park Limestone.
Because of the thin soils, extreme flatness of the site, and the
proximity to the Gulf of Mexico, the area is subject to flooding. The
"mean annual flood" elevation is about 1 meter (3 feet) above mean sea
level, and the 100-year flood elevation at the site is approximately
3.4 meters (11 feet) above mean sea level.
Figure 1-6 shows the present land use within an 8-kilometer (5-mile)
radius of the proposed plant site. This 8-kilometer radius lies
primarily within the unincorporated area of Citrus County, with only a
1-21
-------
FPCR4/5-FEIS.l/SUMl.22
1/6/81
small portion extending into the incorporated areas of Yankeetown and
Inglis in Levy County. Present land use within a 6.4-kilometer (4-mile)
radius consists largely of undeveloped areas (74 percent), about one-
half of this area being the Gulf of Mexico. Pine plantation comprises
15 percent; other agriculture (mainly pasture), 5 percent; and residen-
tial and commercial uses combined, less than 1 percent. Industrial uses
cover about 6 percent of the area, with the Florida Power Corporation
property accounting for about 1 percent of the 6 percent, and the Cross
Florida Barge Canal another 2 percent.
The present land uses of the area influence both the distribution and
abundance of the vegetation and the wildlife. The primary natural
factors affecting existing ecosystems are soil and moisture factors and
the proximity to the coast (see Figure 1-7). Numerous areas occur
throughout the Florida Power property where the top layer of limestone
shelf has been dissolved or has subsided and left depression-like sinks
up to two feet in depth. About half of the site has recently been
timbered and is in an early successional growth. The remainder of the
site has been modified by construction of logging roads, some land
clearing, and construction of power line corridors; however, the extent
of these disturbances is not considered irreversible.
Vegetation composition of the Florida Power property generally is
typical of the region and includes freshwater marsh, pine plantation,
pine flatwoods, upland and wetland hardwood hammocks, evergreen oak
scrub, and ruderal (cleared) areas. The western section of the property
is bordered by a belt of coastal hydric hammock, which is an extension
of the coastal wetland forest south of the existing units. These
forests have received the least disturbance of any in the area and are
fairly old-age stands.
Most of the northern half of the site is slash pine flatwoods with
scattered areas of evergreen oak scrub and small freshwater marshes.
Most of the on-site pine flatwoods were cut over about 15 years ago.
Natural reseeding in these areas has produced a young dense regrowth.
The southern half of the site is dominated by hammock communities of the
southern mixed hardwood association (Monk, 1965). In these areas, a
large amount of interspersion occurs between hydric and mesic hardwoods
hammock. The hydric hammock variant occurs in areas where the surface
1-22
-------
FPCR4/5-FEIS.1/SUM1.23
1/6/81
layer of limestone has been dissolved or has subsided and has left
depression-like sinks up to a few feet deep.
Of the wetlands occurring on the Florida Power property, the coastal
hydric hammock and saltwater marsh which border the plant site to the
west are of greatest value in a regional sense. No salt marsh is
present on the proposed plant location. The coastal hydric hammock acts
as a buffer system between the estuary and the upland terrestrial
systems. During storm events and hurricanes, the hammocks reduce
seawater flooding into inland areas. They also reduce sudden influxes
of freshwater runoff into the estuary, thereby reducing salinity
fluctuations.
The small pothole marshes on the site are associated with the surficial
groundwater aquifer, so that flooding is a seasonal occurrence dependent
upon rainfall levels. These marshes are generally small, isolated, and
lacking the organic soils, productivity, and stability usually associ-
ated with wetlands. Consequently, they are of only localized value, and
are less significant than the forested wetlands on a regional level.
The animal community of the property is characterized by ubiquitous
types as well as a number of exclusives (species occurring in a single
habitat). Ubiquitous forms (e.g., mourning dove, raccoons, and
armadillo) occur throughout the site. Larger mammals such as white-
tailed deer, feral swine, river otter, and gray fox are found in the
vicinity and many utilize the various ecosystems.
The eastern indigo snake, classified as "threatened" on both state and
federal lists, occurs locally in peninsular Florida. This snake
occupies a wide variety of habitat types. The indigo snake is a species
of high humidity requirements; however, it can survive in xeric
environments if gophe(r tortoise burrows are present (Kochman, 1976).
During ecological surveys of these types of habitats on the property,
the indigo snake was not observed; however, it has been reported to
occur on the site. The proposed site is considered good habitat for
indigo snakes because of the diversity of habitat, the numerous areas of
thickets, brush piles, and other organic debris, and the apparently
large populations of rodents and other herptiles.
1-23
-------
FPCR4/5-FEIS.1/SUMl.24
1/7/81
The coontie, a plant listed as "threatened" on the state list, occurred
in scattered locales in the hardwood hammocks on Florida Power property.
The Florida Game and Freshwater Fish Commission reports this species is
common to abundant in several habitats throughout the coastal part of
the state.
The short-tailed snake is classified as "threatened" on the state list.
The snake is a burrowing animal, seldom occurring above ground except
during the spring and fall. In some instances, thermal stress caused by
removal of overstory in sandhills communities has extirpated certain
populations of this snake (Campbell, 1975). The only confirmed record
of this species in Citrus County is several miles east of the proposed
site in a more xeric habitat (Campbell, 1976).
Three other state "threatened" species (gopher tortoise, American
osprey, and Florida mouse) are known to occur on the site. Eight active
gopher tortoise burrows were found, six in the scrub and two in early
successional communities. One osprey nest was located on the south-
western portion of the property. However, the dead tree in which this
nest occurred has since collapsed due to decay. The Florida mouse was
live-trapped in an evergreen oak scrub community.
1.3.4 HUMAN RESOURCES
The only incorporated areas lying within 5 miles of the proposed facili-
ties are small portions of Yankeetown and Inglis, which are both located
in Levy County. Construction and operation of the proposed facilities
will have little effect on these two municipalities due to their small
size and lack of any significant support services and facilities.
The effects of the construction and operation of the proposed facilities
will be centered primarily in Citrus County, particularly in the area of
the City of Crystal River, located approximately 8 miles (13 kilometers)
southeast of the site. In the proximity of the proposed site, Crystal
River is the only municipality of sufficient size to offer supportive
services and facilities such as food stores, restaurants, gasoline
service stations, retail shopping establishments, and housing.
Citrus County has been experiencing substantial population growth over
the past 27 years, primarily due to in—migration. From 1960 to 1970,
the population in Citrus County increased from 9,268 to 19,196 persons,
representing an increase that is almost three times faster than the
1-24
-------
FPCR4/5-FEIS.1/SUM1.25
1/6/81
state's overall population increase of 37 percent during the same
decade. Since 1970, Citrus County has been the fastest-growing county
in the state in terms of percentage population change. Projections
indicate that the county's population will reach 47,400 persons by the
year 1980, 71,000 persons by the year 1990, and 82,200 persons by the
year 2000.
The 5-mile (8-kilometer) radius area surrounding the proposed facilities
currently is sparsely populated with small farms, a few clusters of
mobile homes, and some single-family residences along the Withlacoochee
River in the extreme northern fringe of the area. Based on a housing
unit survey conducted in the area, no people were living within the
3-mile (4.8-kilometer) radius of the proposed site. It is estimated
that approximately 500 persons presently reside within the 3- to 5-mile
(4.8- to 8-kilometer) radius from the proposed stack locations.
Employment in the county is concentrated primarily in the service-
related industries, wholesale and retail trade, government, miscellan-
eous services, and construction. Although per capita income in the
county has increased since 1970, income levels in the county are well
below those in the overall state income levels (State of Florida, 1977).
The stretch of land between the north bank of the Crystal River and the
south bank of the Withlacoochee River has a well-authenticated history.
Shell mounds and artifacts found along both rivers and along the Gulf of
Mexico coastline attest that the area was inhabitated by the Timucuan
Indians, possibly as early as 2000 BC.
No cultural or historical landmarks exist on the proposed plant
location. All known archaeological sites on the plant property are
shell middens ranging from possibly as early as 2000 B.C. to
approximately 1000 A.D. and occur along the coastline and river banks of
the northwestern and southwestern portions of the property (see
Figure 1-8). These sites are recorded in the archaeological site files
of the Florida Division of Archives. Of the 20 archaeological sites on
the Florida Power property, only four are relatively close to the
location of the proposed facilities. One site (8Cil05) is badly
deteriorated such that it is no longer likely to yield any meaningful
data (Rutto and Steinen, 1972), and no cultural artifacts were
retrieved. Sites 8Cil08 and 109 both are very small, undisturbed
1-25
-------
FPCR4/5-FEIS.1/SUM1.26
1/7/81
middens, but yielded no cultural artifacts in the survey. Site 8CillO
yielded only one artifact.
1.4 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT
1.4.1 GENERAL SITE AREA
The proposed Crystal River Units 4 and 5 are to be 695-Mw (gross) coal-
fired units lying north of existing Crystal River Units 1, 2, and 3.
Cooling will be accomplished with saltwater towers (one tower per unit)
using make-up water from the existing discharge canal. Figure 1-9 shows
the location of the proposed units in relation to the existing units,
and the details of the arrangement of Units 4 and 5 and associated
f ac 11 it ies .
The total cleared area for Units 1, 2, and 3 is about 129 hectares
(319 acres). About 135 hectares (333 acres) will be cleared for the
construction of Units 4 and 5. The cooling towers will be located west
of the units. Existing coal handling will be expanded, and a storage
area east of the proposed units will be constructed. Solid waste pro-
ducts (ash) will be stored in an area located east and southeast of the
proposed units.
Plant complex buildings will be similar architecturally to Units 1
and 2. The steam generator will be partially enclosed within a building
while the turbine will be completely enclosed. When Units 4 and 5 are
completed, there will be four stacks on the site. The stacks of Units 1
and 2 are about 152 meters (500 feet) high, while those proposed for
Units 4 and 5 will be about 183 meters (600 feet) in height. The
cooling towers will be about 134 meters (440 feet) tall and 113 meters
(370 feet) in diameter.
CONSTRUCTION
The 135 hectares (333 acres) of land cleared for construction of Crystal
River Units 4 and 5 will include the permanent ash storage area and rail
spur. Approximately 0.6 meters (2.0 feet) of organic muck and silt
overburden will be removed in the vicinity of these structures, and
roughly 140,000 cubic meters (180,000 cubic yards) of limestone fill
will then be added. The plant area will be raised approximately
1.5 meters (5 feet) to an elevation of 3.4 meters (11 feet) above mean
low water. The plant foundation will be supported by approximately
1,570 drilled piers of reinforced concrete. A small amount of dredging
1-26
-------
FPCR4/5-FEIS.1/SUM1.27
1/6/81
[less than 125 cubic meters (160 cubic yards)] will be required in the
existing discharge canal for construction of a saltwater make-up intake
structure and a cooling tower blowdown structure.
A 48-month construction period for each of the two units is anticipated.
Assuming a 24-month separation in commercial opening dates, the period
of intensive construction activity (more than 100 employees) will
persist for 5.5 years, during which time there will be an average of
664 construction workers on-site. Construction employment will exceed
1,000 persons for 1.5 years and will peak at 1,275 workers in early
1982.
The perimeter runoff collection ditch system will be constructed as soon
as site work is initiated. A temporary drainage system will be provided
and maintained in the vicinity of the generating complex and laydown
area. This system will be designed to hold construction runoff until
permanent drainage facilities are completed and operational. Detailed
erosion and sedimentation control plans for the construction phase have
been developed.
RAW MATERIALS HANDLING, STORAGE, AND TRANSPORTATION
The proposed design coal for Units 4 and 5 is an approximate 50/50
design blend of typical Appalachian and western coals. A portion of the
coal, one million tons per year at 12,500 Btu/lb and less than 0.75 per-
cent sulfur, has been contracted. At the rated gross output (695 Mw)
and the design, blend heating value of about 23,923 kilojoules (KJ) per
kilogram (10,285 Btu per pound), the coal consumption will be approxi-
mately 294,000 kilograms (648,000 pounds) per hour per unit and
1,700,000 metric tons (1,870,000 tons) annually at a 0.66 annual average
capacity factor.
Fuel oil (2,800,000 average gallons per year) will be used as auxiliary
fuel for furnace warm-up and coal ignition during start-up. Diesel fuel
and gasoline will be used to power the emergency fire pumps and mobile
coal and ash handling equipment.
A portion of the coal will be delivered to the Crystal River site by
train. This coal will be transported in 70- to 110-car unit trains with
100—ton capacity"1 cars. Four to six trains per week will be required.
Western coals will be transported by unit rail trains to the Mississippi
River, by river barge to New Orleans, and by ocean-going barge to the
1-27
-------
FPCR4/5-FEIS.1/SUMl.28
1/7/81
Crystal River site. Barge unloading facilities in existence at Crystal
River will be used. An average of three barges per week will be needed.
Auxiliary fuels will be delivered by truck or rail, depending on the
supplier.
The proposed storage areas provide approximately 39,000 metric tons
(43,000 tons) of active storage and 776,300 metric tons (885,000 tons)
of inactive storage in an area of aboyt 111,000 square meters
(27.5 acres). An additional storage of 80,000 square meters (20 acres)
will be located adjacent to the stacker-reclaimer system. Active
storage will provide about an eight-day supply of fuel for both units
generating at 90-percent capacity. Fuel oil storage will be in two
steel, cylindrical-plate storage tanks located within two clay-lined
areas north of Unit 4.
1.4.2 PROCESS AND COOLING WATER SYSTEMS
WATER SOURCES
Water required to operate Crystal River Units 4 and 5 will be drawn from
ground water for plant service uses and from the Gulf of Mexico for
cooling purposes. The peak water use occurs when both generating units
are generating at 100-percent load factor and maximum atmospheric
evaporative conditions exist [32.8°C (91°F) dry bulb temperature and
55-percent relative humidity]. Normal water use occurs when both units
are generating at 66-percent load factor under average evaporative
conditions [21.7°C (71°F) dry bulb temperature and 77-percent relative
humidity]. Raw ground water for plant freshwater uses will be obtained
from a well field along the Florida Power Central Florida transmission
line right-of-way, 6 kilometers (4 miles) east of the plant complex.
Seven wells are planned, based on the results of test drilling. Results
from these tests indicate that four of the seven planned wells are
adequate to supply the plant service water. The well field will meet
the rules and regulations of the Southwest Florida Water Management
District. Well water will provide plant service water and make-up to
the ash handling system.
Make—up water for the cooling towers will be obtained from the existing
discharge canal. The intake structure serving both units will be
located on the north bank of the existing cooling water discharge canal.
Views of the structure are presented in Figure 1-10. The structure will
be designed to supply a constant flow of 4,289 dm^/s (68,000 gpm).*
It will be about 15.2 meters (50 feet) wide and will be divided into
1-28
-------
FPCR4/5-FEIS.1/SUM1.29
1/6/81
3 cells. Each inlet cell will be equipped with a half-capacity
2,145 dm3/s (34,000 gpm) pump*, a 4-meter (13-foot) traveling screen, and
a high-pressure screen wash pump. Entrance water velocity at low water
level and maximum flow will not exceed 0.15 meters (0.5 feet) per
second. *(See Florida Power Corporation comment FPC-10 and EPA's
response to FPC-10 in Chapter 4. See note on pagel—1.)
WATER TREATMENT
Ground water which has been lime-softened and chlorinated will be used
as plant service water. Demineralized plant service water will be used
as makeup to the condensate—feedwater—steam cycle. Demineralization
will consist of ion exchange by three cation-anion exchanger pairs with
degasification after the primary anion exchanger. A condensate polish-
ing system is planned for removal of suspended and dissolved solids from
the condensate. This system will consist of three mixed-be^ (cation and
anion) exchangers per generating unit.
CONSUMPTIVE USES
Consumptive use of fresh and salt water results from evaporation,
blowdown, and drift from the plant processes, from storage losses in
wastes, from steam—cycle losses, and from evaporation and exfiltration
from impervious surfaces and storage areas. Projected water consumption
is shown in Table 1-5.
COOLING SYSTEM
Each generating unit will have a main turbine and an auxiliary equipment
cooling system with a common water system utilizing a natural draft
cooling tower for heat dissipation. The main steam cycle for each unit
will reject 3.5 x 1012 joules (3,300 x 106 Btu) per hour, and the
the auxiliary equipment will reject approximately 0.2 x 1012 joules
(200 x 10^ Btu) per hour at full-load operating conditions. Total
heat load for both units at full-load operating conditions will be 7.4 x
1012 joules (7,000 x 106 Btu) per hour.
Cooling tower blowdown (NPDES 009 and 010) will be taken from the cold
side of the circulating water system and will be discharged directly
into the existing discharge canal but downstream of the intake for the
new units. NPDES numbers refer to discharge serial numbers as listed in
the draft NPDES permit for Units 4 and 5.
1-29
-------
FPCR4/5-FEIS.1/SUM1.30
1/6/81
Preliminary calcium hardness data indicate that the cooling towers can
be expected to operate at 1.1 to 1.2 cycles of concentration. Makeup
and blowdown in gpmCdm^/s) for this range of operation are as
follows:
Nermal Peak
(66% load) (100% load)
B1owdown 61,142 (3,856)* 56,727 (3,578)*
Makeup 68,000 (4,289)* 68,000 (4,289)*
Quality of the cooling tower blowdown will be approximately 1.2 times
natural concentrations. The predicted temperature range of cooling
tower blowdown will be 35.6°C (96°F) to 28.3°C (83°F) and 30°C (86°F) to
9.4°C (49°F) for summer and winter conditions, respectively. Maximum
temperatures refer to 2-hour averages. *(See Florida Power comment
FPC-10 and EPA's response to FPC-10 in Chapter 4. See note on page 1-1.)
CHEMICAL AND BIOCIDE WASTES
EPA has promulgated maximum allowable discharge standards for new steam
elec.tric power generating units (40 CFR 423). These regulations set
forth specific discharge limitations for separate plant processes (e.g.,
cooling tower blowdown, low volume wastes). The parameters covered in
this regulation are pH, suspended solids, and oil and grease for most
processes. Metal-cleaning wastes and boiler blowdown have additional
standards for copper and iron. Cooling tower blowdown standards cover
residual chlorine and corrosion inhibitors.
Cooling tower blowdown will not contain chemical corrosion inhibitors or
compounds containing toxic priority pollutants. Makeup water will be
treated by an alkaline-organic phosphate method of conditioning that
will conform to the following quality control limits:
pH 8.0 to 8.5
M-Alk as CaC03 200 mg/1
Calcium Hardness as CaC03 1,200 mg/1
A proprietary organic phosphate scale inhibitor will be used to prevent
excess scale. A residual phosphate concentration of up to 10 mg/1 will
be present in the blowdown as a result of the phosphate scale inhibitor.
Mechanical condenser tube cleaning systems will also be employed.
Sulfuric acid treatment will be used periodically for descaling.
1-30
-------
FPCR4/5-FEIS.l/SUMl.31
1/7/81
The circulating water will be shock chlorinated to control the growth of
fouling organisms, algae, and bacterial slimes in the condenser and
cooling tower. Shock chlorination will be limited to one to three
periods per day per unit of chlorine solution feed. Actual solution
feed will be limited to 20 minutes or less per period. The chlorine
feed rates will be controlled to meet the NPDES limitation of 0.10 mg/1
total residual chlorine in the blowdown, and/or dechlorination
facilities will bg required. (See Florida Power comment FPC-1 and EPA's
response to FPC-1 in Chapter 4. See note on page 1-1).
The following is a summary of the anticipated chemical dosages for scale
and biological control:
Peak Operation Normal Operation
kg/day lb/day kg/day lb/day
Scale Inhibitor 5,121 11,289 3,118 6,875
Chlorine 212 466 212 466
66 Baume1 Intermittent use to be determined based on
Sulfuric Acid operational experience.
No additional treatment of cooling tower blowdown is planned prior to
its discharge into the existing discharge canal.
Hydrazine, ammonia, and trisodium phosphate will be fed to Units 4 and 5
condensate-feedwater-steara cycles to minimize scaling and corrosion.
Hydrazine consumption is estimated at 1.8 kilograms (4 pounds) per day
at peak load and 1.4 kilograms (3 pounds) per day at normal load.
Ammonia consumption is estimated to be 41 kilograms (90 pounds) per day
at peak plant load and 27 kilograms (60 pounds) per day at normal plant
load. Trisodium phosphate consumption is estimated to be less than
0.5 kilograms (1 pound) per day at all plant loads.
Wastewater resulting from metal-cleaning and low-volume wastes, and
boiler blowdown containing principally phosphates, iron, copper,
ammonia, suspended solids, and high pH, will be discharged to the plant
drains collection pond which will not discharge to surface waters.
Water used to sluice and transport bottom ash and pyrites will be
reclaimed where possible and recycled. Some water used in the system
will evaporate or accumulate in the ash. Ash transport water will not
be discharged to surface waters.
1-31
-------
FPCR4/5-FEIS.1/SUMl.32
1/6/81
The plant service water pretreatment system will produce about
43.6 cubic meters (11,520 gallons) of wastewater per day. This waste-
water will be pumped to the bottom ash dewatering equipment where the
suspended solids will be separated from the fluid and disposed with the
bottom ash solids to a landfill. The liquid portion will be used as
make-up to the bottom ash sluice system. Water pretreatment wastewater
will not be discharged to navigable waters.
Wastewater will also be produced from"preoperational and operational
metal cleaning. Preoperational metal cleaning will use acidic and
alkaline chemicals. Acid metal cleaning will use a solution of
hydroxyacetic-formic acid for the preboiler system and inhibited hydro-
chloric acid for the boiler system, a neutralizer step, and flushing
with demineralized water. Alkaline metal cleaning will use a sodium
phosphate solution and subsequent flushing with demineralized water.
These processes will produce about 4,500 cubic meters (1,200,000 gal-
lons) of wastewater over a period of several days to be discharged to
the neutralization basin. Periodic metal cleaning will be performed at
3- to 5-year intervals. About 1,400 cubic meters (360,000 gallons) of
wastewater will be discharged to the neutralization basin over a period
of 5 days per event.
Condensate polishing system wastewaters will be similar to those
produced in the demineralization system. These waters will also be
routed to the neutralization basin and, after pH adjustment, to the
plant drains collection pond.
Chemical laboratory wastes are expected to be less than 0.40 cubic
meters (100 gallons) per day. The principal chemical reagents will
include sodium and ammonium hydroxide; hydrochloric, nitric, sulfuric
and ethylenediaminetetraacetic acids; and sodium carbonate. Chemical
laboratory wastes will be collected and discharged to the neutralization
basin.
Wastewater from the demineralization system will consist of unreacted
sulfuric acid and sodium hydroxide, along with sodium and sulfate salts
of the ions removed from the ion-exchange resins during regeneration.
Wastewater is expected to average less than 1.0 liter per second. It
will be routed to the neutralization basin where the pH will be adjusted
to between 6.5 and 9.0, Neutralized water will then be discharged to
1-32
-------
FPCR4/5-FEIS.1/SUMl.33
1/6/81
the plant drains collection pond. There will be no discharge of
wastewaters from the plant drains collection pond.
RUNOFF
Runoff from material storage areas (NPDES Oil, 012, and 013) will be
segregated from general site drainage and will only discharge runoff
which exceeds storage pond capacity which is in excess of that produced
by the 10-year, 24-hour storm event.
The proposed coal storage area will be diked and drained by a
1.2-hectare (3-acre) perimeter drainage ditch. The ditch will not be
lined with impervious material. Stored rainfall up to 8.37 inches
(10-year, 24-hour rainfall event) will be disposed of by evaporation and
exfiltration. Rainfall in excess of the design criteria (NPDES Oil)
will be discharged to the runoff collection ditch system.
The active ash storage will be compacted and sloped to ensure minimum
infiltration. A toe canal will be constructed along the perimeter of
the active storage segment to receive surface stormwater runoff.
Storage of the stormwater will be designed to retain a quantity of water
in excess of the 10-year, 24-hour storm event. Water in excess of the
design criteria will be diverted to the canal retention system
(NPDES 012).
General site runoff will be segregated through a canal retention system.
The system is designed to contain a quantity of water equivalent to a
10-year, 24-hour storm. A flow control structure (NPDES 013) with an
overflow spillway will be provided.
Fuel-oil storage tanks will be diked sufficiently to contain the entire
volume of the tank plus the quantity of rainfall resulting from a
10-year, 24-hour storm rainfall. The dike will be clay-lined and
drained by a buried pipe. The truck unloading area will be drained to
the dike. Oil-water separators will be used to recover any oil spills.
WASTE TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL SYSTEMS
Segregation and re-use of waste streams is the primary concept behind
the design of the waste treatment and disposal systems for the proposed
facility. Wastewater from the plant drains collection pond is used for
ash dust suppression and compaction; low-volume wastes and metal-
cleaning wastes are segregated and pretreated; material storage pile
1-33
-------
cr _
/ \
I SSE2/ UN,TED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
% mkt^ REGION IV
345 COURTLAND STREET
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30369
February 20, 1981
REF: 4SA-EIS
All Citizens, Public Groups, and Government Agencies
The Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for Florida
Power Corporation's proposed Crystal River Units 4 & 5 located
near the City of Crystal River in Citrus County, Florida, will
be made available to the public on or about February .a#?1 1981.
This document has been prepared pursuant to Section 102 (2)(c)
of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) and the
applicable Council on Environmental Quality and EPA regulations
(40 CFR 1500-1508 and 40 CFR 6, respectively). A copy of tne
proposed National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) Permit, NPDES Number FL0036366, is included in the
Final EIS.
The Draft EIS on the proposed project was made available for
public review and comment on September 26, 1980. A public
hearing on the proposed project was conducted on October 28,
1980, in Crystal River, Florida.
Copies of the Final EIS can be obtained from Mr. John E. Hagan
III, at the EPA address below. Copies of the Final EIS are
available at the following locations:
Crystal River Public Library
688 N.W. First Avenue
Inverness Public Library
108 N. Seminole
Homosassa Public Library
Yankeetown Public Library
Lake-Sumter Comm. College Library
Highway 411
City Library, City Hall
Hernando Public Library
Ocala Public Library
15 S.E. Osceola
Gainesville Public Library
220 E. University Avenue
Dunnellon Public Library
St. Petersburg Public Library
3745 2th Avenue, North
St Petersburg Municipal Reference
Library, 175 5th Street, North
Tampa-Hillsborough County Public
Library, 900 N. Ashley
Tampa College Library
2501 W. Kennedy Boulevard
City of Crystal River
Inverness
Homosassa Springs
Yankeetown
Leesourg
Bronson
Hernando
Ocala
Gainesville
Dunnellon
St. Petersburg
St. Petersourg
Tampa
Tampa
-------
Comments on the Final EIS may be submitted in writing to.
Mr. John Hagan III
Chief, EIS Branch
U.S. Environmental protection Agency
Region IV
345 Courtland Street, » B.
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
Any comments received by March ®^1981, will be considered
EPA's record of decision on the project.
Please bring the foregoing to the attention of persons wfto
know will be interested in this matter.
-------
FPCR4/5-FEIS.1/SUMl.34
1/6/81
runoff is segregated from general site runoff; oil-water separators are
used to recover oil spills, treat rainfall runoff, and pretreat process
wastewaters.
A neutralization basin with a volume of 380 cubic meters (100,000 gal-
lons) is planned for pretreatment of metal-cleaning wastes, ion exchange
regeneration wastes, and laboratory drains. This basin will be used for
neutralization of wastes on a batch basis. The basin will be sized to
contain the largest volume of chemical cleaning solution wastes expected
in one batch and will be constructed of reinforced concrete with a
chemical-resistant membrane overlaid with acid-resistant brick and
mortar. A mixer will be mounted on a walkway spanning the open-topped
basin. Sulfuric acid and sodium hydroxide will be available from the
demineralizer system regeneration equipment for neutralization of basin
contents.
Batch neutralization of preoperational chemical-cleaning wastes will
produce approximately 3,200 kilograms (7,000 pounds) of precipitated
metal hydroxides. Acid cleaning will produce about 950 kilograms
(2,100 pounds) of precipitate every 3 to 5 years. The neutralization
basin will discharge to the plant drains collection pond. A determina-
tion will be made prior to discharge of metal-cIeaning precipitates to
the plant drains collection pond as to whether this material is
hazardous. If it is determined that this material is hazardous, it will
be disposed of in an approved hazardous waste landfill If not
hazardous, it will be discharged to the plant drains collection pond.
The plant drains collection pond influents wiu includg neutrali2atiori
basin wastewaters, steam-cycle liquid losses (leaks from pump8j piping
and valves in the cycle, plus boiler blowdowxi), and other low_voiume
wastes carried via the miscellaneous plant drains. The plant drains
collection pond will not require chemical additions for further
treatment of the wastewaters introduced. The r,ianf. j n . .
<= plant drains collection
pond is designed to contain all wastewater infiuents and direct
rainfall. There will be no discharge from th
, pond, as evaporation and
exftitration exceed the wastewater influents anH j -en
and expected rainfall.
The sewage treatment plant will be an 11.3 Cubic ^
per day, packaged, activated aludge unit ^ ^ extended
aeration process method of treatment. The f.-...
__i. • Qn __ j clllty will be designed to
achieve 90-percent reduction of BOD and sUsd c°
Ponded solids. Chlorine
1-34
-------
FPCR4/5-FEIS.1/SUM1.35
1/7/81
consumption is estimated to be 0.9 kilograms (2 pounds) per day. The
secondary treatment effluent will be discharged to a percolation-
evaporation pond. There will be no discharge to surface waters from
this plant. The pond will have a capacity of 1.12 acre-feet. Waste
sludge fwill be disposed of either off site by a contract service or on
site in the ash disposal area.
1.4.3 SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL AND CONTROL
Bottom ash will be collected in a water-sealed hopper and hydraulically
sluiced to an intermediate transfer tank. Coal pulverizer rejects
(pyrites) will be collected in small hoppers adjacent to each
pulverizer. The pyrites will be conveyed hydraulically from each
pulverizer hopper to the same intermediate transfer tank used for bottom
ash. The bottom ash and pyrites will then be pumped with centrifugal
slurry pumps to the ash dewatering bins. The water pretreatment sludge
will be pumped directly to the ash water settling tank. Fly ash will be
conveyed by a vacuum system to a storage area located on the plant site.
Dewatered bottom ash (324,000 pounds/day), pulverizer rejects
(103,000 pounds/day), economizer ash (65,000 pounds/day), pretreatment
system sludge (1,500 pounds/day), and dry, precipitator fly ash
(1,234,000 pounds/day) produced during the operating life of Units 4 and
5 will be transported by truck or conveyor to an on-site storage area.
An average of 528 cubic meters (18,630 cubic feet) per day will be
generated. The total storage development will consist of approximately
380,700 square meters (95 acres) at a total depth of 12 meters
(40 feet). The storage area will be developed in eighty 8-hectare
(20-acre) segements. Each segment will be filled to a height of
12 meters (40 feet) above existing grade. The storage pile slopes will
be dressed with soil material of sufficient depth to support vegetation.
At the time the segment is developed to design height, the top surface
will be sloped for drainage, and dressed with soil materials.
The on—site ash storage area will be sufficient for the storage of all
solid wastes produced for 24 years of the 30-year operating life of
Units 4 and 5. This conclusion is based on the average generation
capacity using the proposed design coal which is a blend of typical
eastern and western coals. Fly ash from these units will be handled
dry. This will allow sale of fly ash for such purposes as: mineral
filler in asphalt paving, additive in concrete and concrete products
Pozzolin insoil stabilization, raw material in lightweight aggregate,
1-35
-------
FPCR4/5-FEIS.1/SUMl.36
1/7/81
grouting agent, fill for development, and agricultural applications. If
26.5 percent of fly ash from Units 4 and 5 is sold, then the on-site
storage area will be sufficient for the storage of all ash and
pretreatment system sludge for 30 years operation at average capacity.
1.4.4 AIR EMISSIONS AND CONTROL
Each unit will burn approximately 294,000 kilograms (648,000 pounds) per
hour of coal based on the typical coal analysis. Combustion at this
load will produce approximately 3,277",209 kilograms (7,224,887 pounds)
per hour of combustion gases which will consist primarily of nitrogen,
carbon dioxide, water vapor, oxygen, particulate matter, sulfur dioxide,
and nitrogen oxides. The major air pollutants emitted at peak load
conditions are listed in Table 1-6.
CONTROL SYSTEMS DESCRIPTION
Oxides of Nitrogen Control
N0X from Units 4 and 5 steam generators will be controlled to meet
emission standards (0.7 pounds N0x/106 Btu) by utilizing features to
minimize N0X formation during combustion. The large furnace and widely
spaced burners increase the burner firing zone absorption area and de—
crease peaking combustion temperatures, thus minimizing NOx formation.
Particulate matter generated during combustion will be removed in the
electrostatic precipitator. At full load, the maximum design ash con-
tent of the coal, more than 99.6 percent of the fly ash will be removed
from the combustion gases leaving the furnace. This level of control
will achieve the emission standards of 0.1 pound particulate/10^ Btu
heat input and less than 20-percent opacity (except for 40-percent
opacity for no more than 2 minutes in any hour).
A stack height of approximately 183 meters (600 feet) and a diameter of
6.86 meters (22.5 feet) for each unit is adequate to satisfy dispersion
requirements. Each stack will be capable of discharging approximately
1,038 m3/s (2,200,000 ACFM) of flue gas at 127°C (260°F) and
28.1 m/s (99.2 f/s).
The coal and ash handling system will generate particulate matter from
handling western coal and dry fly ash. The major emission points will
be the coal conveyor transfer points (2.5 pounds/hour), crusher house
(1.7 pounds/hour), coal silos (2.1 pounds/hour), fly ash silos
1-36
-------
FPCR4/5-FEIS.1/SUMl.37
1/7/81
(4.4 pounds/hour), fly ash vacuum pump discharge (0.6 pound/hour) and
emergency reclaim hopper (0.8 pound/hour).
Coal transfer will be by covered conveyor from the existing coal
handling area to Units 4 and 5 storage. At the storage area, coal will
be blended and transferred to the crusher house by covered conveyor. A
total of four transfer points is designed.
The fly ash will be handled dry to enable possible commercial sale. As
a consequence, possible fly ash emission may occur in the storage and
transfer. Two points of discharge that have been identified are the fly
ash silo and fly ash discharge system.
Regulated emission limitations for coal and fly ash handling are
contained in the EPA Regulation 40, Code of Federal Regulations, part 60
subpart Y, and the Florida Department of Environmental Regulations'
rules contained in Chapter 17-2 FAC.
Control of dust will be accomplished using either of the following
methods:
1. Dust suppression by application of a wetting agent,* or
2. Dust collection in a dry state by air transport to a bag filter
un it.
Wetting agent dust suppression systems consisting of pre-engineered
modules which incorporate both water handling components and automatic
spray controls are available. A typical spray solution contains 3,000
parts of water to one part of an organic ether detergent. The rate of
spray application is about 3.4 liters per metric ton (1.2 gallons per
ton) of coal which increases total surface moisture by about 0.5 per-
cent. (*See Florida Power comment FPC-12 and EPA's response to FPC-12
in Chapter 4. See note on page 1-1).
Dry dust collection is accomplished by removal of dust-laden air from
enclosed transfer points into a duct system which terminates into a bag
filter unit. The collection process creates a slight negative pressure
within enclosed transfer points.
Bag filters operate by passing dust-laden air through a fabric at low
velocity. Removal (99.9-percent efficiency) is obtained by buildup of a
cake or mat on the fabric dirty air surface. Good collection efficien-
cies can be maintained for dust particle sizes to 1 micron and smaller.
1-37
-------
FPCR4/5-FEIS.1/SUMl.38
1/7/81
Low-sulfur coal will be utilized to meet sulfur dioxide emission
limitations of 1.2 pounds SO2/IO6 Btu heat input. Sufficient space will
be provided in the design for flue gas desulfurization (FGD) systems.
The use of FGD will require a minimum of 800 additional acres for sludge
disposal. In the event FGD is necessary, alternate sludge disposal
sites will be provided.
1.5 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATIVE MEASURES
1.5.1 WATER RESOURCES
CONSTRUCTION
Clearing, grading, and filling of the plant site area will decrease the
percolation rate and thus increase storm runoff. A variety of
mitigative measures will be employed to prevent sedimentation and
turbidity effects, including the construction of detention ponds, diking
of cleared and filled areas, and other state-of-the-art erosion control
techniques such as berms, mulch, and sodding.
The small amount of dredging activity in the discharge canal will
increase turbidity in the canal and adjacent areas, but this impact will
be less than one month in duration. Construction may lead to some minor
changes in surface water chemistry, such as increased pH and mineraliza-
tion due to contact of runoff with the limestone fill, but there should
be no violations of any promulgated water quality standards. Sanitary
wastes at the construction site will be handled by portable chemical
facilities and later by a sanitary sewage system (with secondary
treatment and discharge to an evaporation/percolation pond). No point-
source discharges will occur during construction. Other chemical and
petroleum wastes will be disposed of in accordance with state and
federal regulations. No environmental impacts are expected as a result
of these waste disposal activities.
OPERATION
Cooling system blowdown (NPDES 009 and 010) from Units 4 and 5 will be
released to the existing discharge canal at a rate of 3,578 dm^/s
(56,727 gallons per minute) during peak operating conditions and
(61,142 gallons) per minute during normal operations.* This water will
be diluted by once-through cooling flow from Crystal River Units 1, 2,
and 3, so that the blowdown from Units 4 and 5 will amount to only about
8 percent of the total flow in the canal on the average. The blowdown
1-38
-------
FPCR4/5-FEIS.I/SUMl.39
1/7/81
constituents having potential for ecological impact will be chlorine, *
organic phosphates, sulfuric acid* and thermal loading. *(See note, page 1-1).
Shock chlorination of the cooling system will yield a total residual
chlorine concentration in the blowdown which will not exceed 0.1 milli-
grams per liter at any one time, in compliance with the draft NPDES
permit. Dechlorination facilities may be required. Instantaneous
concentrations of total residual chlorine in the discharge canal at the
edge of the 150-meter mixing zone are not expected to exceed the Florida
Water Quality Standards criterion of 0.01 mg/1 of total residual
chlorine.* The use of an organic phosphate scale inhibitor will
generate a phosphate residual in the blowdown of up to 10 parts per
million. Periodic sulfuric acid treatment will be used for descaling.
The required dosages and the resulting sulfuric acid concentrations in
blowdown are unknown at present. (*See Florida Power comment FPC-1 and
EPA's response to FPC-1 in Chapter 4. See note on page 1-1).
Although low chlorine concentrations can produce adverse effects on
phytoplankton, it is expected to be low in both magnitude and
significance. The phosphate residual and periodic sulfuric acid content
of the blowdown are likewise expected to have negligible impact on
aquatic ecosystems. An important factor in all cases is the very high
degree of dilution received in the discharge canal. (See Florida Power
comment FPC-2 and EPA's response to FPC-2 in Chapter 4. See note on page 1-1).
Six operational scenarios for the existing and proposed power generating
units at Crystal River have been evaluated in order to establish the
worst-case thermal effects and other impacts of blowdown from Units 4
and 5. Cooling tower makeup and blowdown are expected to yield a net
increase in thermal energy (and therefore in temperature) in the
discharge canal in the coldest winter months. During the hottest summer
months, however, cooling tower makeup and blowdown should lower the
temperature in the discharge canal (effect a net decrease in thermal
energy) for all but one scenario. For five of the six scenarios, dis-
charge canal temperature should neither be increased by ^ny more than
0.83°C (1.58F) in winter nor decreased by more than 0.44°C (0.80aF)
during summer. The remaining scenario [with increases of 5.8°C (10.5°F)
in winter and 2.1°C (3.7'F) in summer] involves a permanent shutdown of
Units 1 and 2, and a temporary shutdown of Unit 3. The analysis thus
indicates that the thermal impacts of Units 4 and 5 under steady state
conditions will be insignificant for all but one scenario unless all
1-39
-------
FPCR4/5-FEIS.1/SUMl.40
1/6/81
existing units are inoperative. The design features (mitigative
measures) responsible for achieving this result are the use of closed-
cycle cooling, the reuse of cooling waters from Units 1, 2, and 3 as
cooling tower make-up, and the withdrawal of blowdown from the cold side
of the circulating water system.
Due to the location (on existing discharge canal), design (flush-mounted
with canal wall, low intake velocity), capacity (cooling towers minimize
usage), and construction plans {minimal dredged volume over a short time
period with control of turbidity) of the intake system, EPA has
tentatively determined that the proposed cooling water intake structure
reflects the best technology available for minimizing adverse
environmental impacts i*T accordance with Section 316(b) of the Clean
Water Act.
Stornwater runoff exceeding Che design criteria for th, canal retention
system (NPDES Oil, 012, and 013) may be discharged into the discharge
canal by a drop inlet structure with a skimmer. This overflow would
contain runoff from the coal and ash storage areas. Violation, of water
quality criteria or impacts on aquatic ecosystems are not expected,
however, because of the short duration of overflows, the dilution of
runoff by rainwater, the treatment provided in the form of temporary
detent ion storage, and the dilution of the ultimate effluent in the
discharge canal.
Groundwater resources, and possibly surface waters, could be affected by
leachate from the ash storage area coal n;io« i
, * a' coai Piles, plant drains collection
pond, and/or the canal retention system. The potential for leachate
contamination will depend upon the precise characteristics of materials
present and other factors such as soil absorption properties soil
transmsaivlties, and groundwater flow patterns. Studies of'coal pile
runoff/leachate suggest that there may be elevated concentrations of
acidity, suspended solids, total dissolved solids, iron, manganese, and
various trace metals. Flv ash whirh ,,,'n „
. . . y ' h Ch wlU constitute a major proportion
of material contained in the ash storage area, is Known t„ enriched
in a variety of metal,. Some of the leached metals from fly ash may
form insoluble precipitates, however, and others may be adsorbed by
soils and thus not widely distributed.
A leachate testing and monitoring program is presently being conducted
to evaluate adequate residual waste disposal strategies. Any leachates
1-40
-------
FPCR4/5-FEIS.1/SUMl.41
1/6/81
are expected to move west and south towards the Gulf of Mexico because
of the natural flow pattern, but some movement in all directions around
the storage areas may occur. Most outward movement is likely to take
place at shallow depths (i.e., less than 15 meters [50 feet] below
natural grade).
To mitigate potentially significant contamination of the groundwater
regime, the permitting conditions require that all coal piles containing
coal with a pyritic sulfur content greater than 0.2 percent be lined.
The cone of depression from pumping at the well field has been computed
on the basis of available data in order to estimate the effect of
groundwater withdrawal on the potentiometric surface of the upper Flori-
dan Aquifer. The maximum estimated drawdown at the highest projected
pumping rate is 0.76 meters (2.5 feet), which complies with the rules
and regulations of the Southwest Florida Water Management District.
Maximum drawdown at the property boundary of the FPC transmission
corridor is expected to be approximately 0.53 meters (1.75 feet) at
maximum pumpage. The cone of depression associated with normal usage of
the well field would be substantially less pronounced, however, since
the average pumping rate will be only one-fifth of the peak rate.
The proposed well field will have little effect upon overall groundwater
availability in the area since the maximum pumping rate will equal only
about 1 percent of the total flow to the Gulf of Mexico between Crystal
River and the Withlacoochee River (Geraghty and Miller, 1977). Surface
waters in the vicinity of the well field consist of karst-type depres-
sions and scattered, small wet areas. The water surface in the area
lakes and ponds is at approximately the same level as, or slightly
above, the level of the Floridan Aquifer in the area. In the absence of
clays or other low-permeability materials underlying these water bodies,
their levels could respond to well field pumpage.
Impingement is expected to be much less for Units 4 and 5 than for the
existing units because of the lower intake velocity and volume involved,
and because the seaward current in the discharge canal will tend to
limit the available species to the larger, faster-swimming fishes that
can escape entrapment.
The zooplankton and fish eggs and larvae in the discharge canal will
have already been subjected to a rapid temperature change of as much as
I -4 J
-------
FPCR4/5-FEIS.1/SUMl .42
1/6/8*.
8*C. It is anticipated that nearly 100 percent mortality will occur
among the individuals that are entrained by Units 4 and 5 and subjected
to additional temperature stress (plus the effects of increased salinity
and biocide use in the towers). One hundred percent mortality is also
expected to occur for all fishes of unscreenable size that enter the
Unit 4 and 5 intakes. The overall entrainment impacts of Units 4 and 5
are not considered significant.
The Florida manatee, a protected species, is thought to frequent the
Withlacoochee and Crystal rivers. The only possibility of impact on the
manatee population by Crystal River Units 4 and 5 would be the increased
risk of injury to these animals by barge traffic in the intake canal or
adjacent waters. This risk is considered low because of the relative
infrequency of barge movements (roughly one arrival or departure per
day) and the fact that the principal attraction of the plant area for
manatees would be the heated discharge canal rather than the intake
canal.
MONITORING
The water quality monitoring program will consist of sampling at the
following five potential discharge sources during plant operation:
#009 and 010 Cooling Tower Blowdown, Units 4 and 5, respectively.
Monitoring of the plant intake is also required. All sampling and
analytical procedures will be those contained in 40 CFR 136. Locations
of the discharges are as shown in Figure 1-11.
Groundwater monitoring is incorporated into a leachate monitoring and
testing program designed to comply with requirements of the FDER Special
Conditions of Certification, revised in May 1980, and the requirements
of the EPA Environmental Impact Statement and draft NPDES permit for
Crystal River Units 4 and 5. Although it is specifically concerned with
leachate from the Units 4 and 5 ash landfill, the program will
effectively monitor shallow ground water throughout the project site.
#011
#012
#013
Coal Storage Area
Ash Disposal Area
General Plant Runoff
1-42
-------
FPCR4/5-FEIS. 1/SUMl.43
1/7/81
1.5.2 AIR RESOURCES
CONSTRUCTION
The most significant air pollutant generated by heavy construction
operations will be suspended particulate matter, in the form of fugitive
dust. The quantity of dust emitted will depend on a large number of
factors. A general estimate of emissions is 3.0 metric tons per hectare
(1.2 ton per acre) per month of activity (EPA, 1975). The majority of
dust particles generated will settle near the source, although some will
remain suspended. To mitigate fugitive dust impacts, Florida Power
Corporation will take all reasonable precautions such as using water,
oil, or dust-suppression chemicals where practicable on cleared areas
and dirt roads.
Vegetative wastes from land clearing operations will be burned on-site.
To limit air quality impacts, burning will be conducted only during
periods of excellent atmospheric dispersion and will comply with other
State of Florida regulations. Burning will emit particulate matter,
carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, sulfur oxides, and nitrogen oxides, in
quantities that depend upon factors such as the moisture content and
arrangement of the debris. The resulting impacts on air quality will be
minor and short-term. Exhausts of heavy equipment and truck traffic
will also constitute sources of carbon monoxide and other combustion
products, but will have low importance because of the isolation of the
construction site and the low volume of existing traffic on local
roads.
Noise will be created during the construction project by the operation
of heavy equipment on-site and by traffic to and from the project area.
The distance from the center of the construction site to the nearest
noise-sensitive receptors is approximately 8 kilometers (5 miles). This
distance will reduce the maximum sound level to 39. dBA, and the
intervening vegetation will cause a further reduction to 29 dBA, tftiich
is indiscernible. The corresponding Noise Pollution Level (NPL) will be
20 dBA below the maximum that is "clearly acceptable."
OPERATION
The analysis of air quality .impact has been conducted as part of the
Prevention of Significant Peterioration (PSD) review process. The PSD
analysis of impacts on ambient air quality has necessarily considered
two geographic areas: the vicinity of the Crystal River site,
designated a Class II air quality area; and the Chassahowitzka National
1-43
-------
FPCR4/5-FEIS.1/SUM1.44
1/6/81
Wilderness Area, which is located nearly 21 kilometers (13 miles) south
of the site and is designated a Class I area. Because of the much
smaller sulfur dioxide increments allowed at the Class I area (equaling
5 percent to 10 percent of the corresponding Class II increments), the
PSD analysis>, for the Chassahowitzka National Wilderness Area has
determined the overall fuel strategy to be utilized by Florida Power
Corporation at Crystal River. This strategy win involve limitation, on
the sulfur content of fuel, burned in.the existing Crystal River Unit. 1
and 2.
The CI... II PSD an.ly.is indicate, only small changes in the annual
average sulfur dioxide and suspended particulate matter concentration.
VI TauiT "" betUeC° 19"'' the ka"UM yw- »"d 1** with both
4 5 kln °pe"tlOT' greatest utilU.tion of a cla.a II
increment 18 the maximum 3-hour .ulfur dioxide increa.e of , 3
wh"h *°,ount" t0 39 P««nt of the allowable increment Ml other"
increases and concentrations are well below the ' .°ther
the Class I analysis pertaining to the Chasi h • lgnated Umits- In
„es. .rea, the maximum ,-hour
which exactly equal, the allowable increment '
increa.e is not expected to have detrimental eff. 0t
the wilderness area. The other air qualitv „ Che eco>ogy of
below the allowable limit,, the PSD analyst, !!"""! <'g4i,> Wel1
compliance with ,tate and federal air quality regu^""""'
Coal handling and solid waste management activities
sources of particulate matter emissions in th. f Potential
These sources are not expected to degrade ai °f fugitive dust •
site, however, because of controls incoroorJ T* 7 the pUnt
design. Emissions from the transfer and m- 6 ^ th* proP°8ed facility
controlled by the use of wettins t!_OCe881n8 of coal will be
for enclosed -—^ESILareas and
crushers). The use of sluices and pneumat ' 8Uo8'
n^nimize dust emissions from the handling of bot^0* 8y8tem8 wiU
wetting agents will be applied during fil.1 d£ ^ fly "h' 8nd
Florida Power comment FPC-6 and EPA's respons P°9al °peration8¦ *(See
e to FPC—6. See note, page 1-
Cooling towers can c
condense in the
rlndi— • -i:;;:;8 ::lc::ritiM- -
8 xists approximately 344 hours a c°olmg tower
year. Because
1-44
-------
FPCR4/5-FEIS.1/SUMl.45
1/6/81
prevailing winds during these periods, fog is most likely to occur in
the southwestern quadrant from the cooling towers, and thus its impact
will be directed primarily toward the Gulf of Mexico.
Fogging associated with the proposed Crystal River Units 4 and 5 is
unlikely to have significant negative impacts on air or highway
transportation. When it occurs, fogging will be highly localized,
extending no more than 1.5 kilometers (0.9 miles) from each cooling
tower. The only highway that could be affected other than the Florida
Power access roads would be U.S. Route 19-98, which is located more than
5 kilometers (3 miles) east of the proposed plant site. The fog plumes
will not reach a sufficient height to affect aircraft. Fogging could
possibly affect water navigation on the Florida Power intake canal,
however. It is projected that hazards can be kept to minimal levels
through the exercise of prudent vessel control during the infrequent
periods when fogging occurs.
The major noise sources associated with' operation of the proposed
generating facilities are the cooling towers, coal transfer and crushing
operations, and turbine and boiler functions. The noise effects of the
new facilities will represent increments relative to existing noise
sources. The worst-case noise impacts of the new units have been com-
puted on the assumption that a sound pressure level of 90 dBA will occur
at a distance of 15.2 meters (50 feet) from the center of sound pressure
at the project site. The impact at 6 kilometers (3.7 miles) from the
site is estimated at 46 dBA, which is comparable to urban predawn
background noise. There are presently only six occupied dwellings
within this distance of the site, and little noise-sensitive development
is expected in the future. For the areas closest to the site iftiich
might be expected to develop, the noise levels attributable to the
proposed units would be eclipsed by traffic noise on U.S. 19-98. Thus,
the noise, effects of Units 4 and 5 are not considered a significant
impact due to the lack of receptors near the plant site.
MONITORING
Three sampling stations are proposed as the construction and operation
air monitoring network. These stations are the sane as three of the
baseline monitoring programs. Each station will measure ambient con-
centrations total suspended particulate matter and sulfur dioxide
(sulfur dioxide monitoring will be required only during operation). A
minimum sampling will be scheduled once every sixth day, and monitoring
1-45
-------
FPCR4/5-FEIS.l/SUMl.46
1/7/81
will continue for the life of the units. The meteorological monitoring
data available from the existing meteorological station will continue to
be used by Florida Power.
1.5.3 LAND RESOURCES
CONSTRUCTION
The construction project at Crystal River will affect terrestrial
ecosystems in two ways: loss of existing plant communities on
135 hectares (333 acres) of land at the plant site; and certain on* and
off-site effects on wildlife. The plant communities lost will include
2.4 hectares (6 acres) of coastal hydric hammock, 22 hectares
(55 acres) of hydric hammock, and 25 hectares (62 acres) of mesic
hammock. The project will also take 60 hectares (148 acres) of slash
pine flatwoods, 4.5 hectares (11 acres) of evergreen oak scrub,
10 hectares (25 acres) of freshwater marsh, and 11 hectares (26 acres)
of ruderal land. In the early design stages of the project, the
location of the plant site was shifted eastward to avoid substantial
areas of coastal salt marsh, coastal hydric hammock, hydric hanmock, and
mesic forest. This design change is considered an important mitigative
measure. Overall, the loss of natural vegetative communities is an
impact of low significance because of the early successional status and
disturbed state of most of the land to be cleared, and because the
community types are widely represented in the region.
The disruption of vegetative communities at the construction site will
affect wildlife populations directly and indirectly. The more motile
species of wildlife (e.g., opossum, raccoon, and deer) will leave the
immediate vicinity of construction, whereas the clearing process will
destroy other populations such as small mammals and various herpeto—
fauna. Since most lands in the vicinity are alYeady at or near carrying
capacity for wildlife, the animals displaced from the construction site
will be forced to compete with established populations elsewhere. The
long-term result is that regional wildlife populations will decline
roughly in proportion to the reduction in habitat.
A biological opinion has been issued (March 16, 1979) by the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service concerning the impacts of the Florida Power project
on the eastern indigo snake and the Florida manatee. They concluded
that "the siting of Units 4 and 5 is not likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of the indigo snake or the habitat which has been
determined to be essential to the species." The agency recommended that
1-46
-------
FPCR4/5-FEIS.1/SUM1.47
1/6/81
the manatee be protected by imposing navigation limitations on coal
barge transport.
OPERATION
The artificial landform created by solid wastes should not detract from
the aesthetic character of the area so long as the tree cover is main-
tained on land to the east. However, the ash storage will preclude many
potential future uses of the land and will represent a long-term
commitment of resources.
Solid wastes generated by the operation of Units 4 and 5 will include
office wastes, trash, garbage, and scrap lumber and metal. Scrap lumber
and metal will be recycled. Other wastes will be landfilled in approved
areas near the new units, or disposed of by an outside contractor.
Some impacts on vegetation near the storage areas may occur if
pollutants such as heavy metals reach the root zone. There could be
reductions in plant growth, community productivity, and detrital
production. If concentrations reach toxic levels, there might be an
elimination of various floral components of the community, and a
situation in which new seedlings could not become established. However,
this eventuality is considered unlikely to occur over a large area,
since leachate concentrations will decrease with distance and will be
diluted by groundwater flow.
Heavy metals could pass into faunal organisms through ingestion of
detritus or vegetation. Accumulation could occur at the higher trophic
levels, although this.effect would be insignificant for organisms with
wide feeding ranges. Overall, the ecological impacts of leachate should
have low significance because of the limited area of leachate
interaction with surface conditions.
Salt drift from cooling towers that are fed by saline water involves the
escape of drift droplets that contain roughly the same concentrations of
chemicals as found in the circulating water. The drift is deposited in
the form of droplets or solid particles, and leaves chemical precipi-
tants on surfaces downwind from the tower. Salt drift from the proposed
cooling towers should have minimal influence on off-site land uses
because of the isolation of the site, but nearby vegetation could be
affected. Based on mathematical modeling, the maximum salt deposition
expected is 10.6 kilograms per hectare per month (114 pounds per acre
1-47
-------
FPCR4/5-FEIS.1/SUMl.48
1/6/81
per year), occurring at a point 0.3 kilometers (0.2 miles) west of the
cooling towers. Salt deposition will exceed 2.6 kilograms per hectare
per month (28.1 pounds per acre per year) on a total of approximately
200 hectares (500 acres) of land, but will become minor at distances
greater than 1.3 kilometers (0.8 miles) from the towers. The most
extensive study of vegetative response to salt drift identified only one
species (dogwood) that was highly sensitive to drift conditions (Curtis,
et al., 1976). Injuries occurred irfabout 5 percent to 40 percent of
the leaves at a deposition rate of 20 kilograms per hectare per month
(216 pounds per acre per year). The threshold leaf injury level was
placed at 7.46 kilograms per hectare per month (80.6 pounds per acre per
year) (Curtis, et_ al^., 1978). Florida Power Corporation will conduct
monitoring of salt drift to determine impacts.
There may be some possibility of injury lo sensitive plant species at
the Crystal River site due to salt drift, but widespread damage is
unlikely. The experience of the two existing power plants in the United
States with salt water cooling towers suggests that the significance of
this impact will be low; however, monitoring of drift impacts is
required by the NPDES permit.
Drawdown of the water table as a result of withdrawals at the proposed
Florida Power Corporation well field could affect those biological
communities associated with freshwater marshes. Present aquifer charac-
teristics indicate a separation of water table and water source
aquifers. However, changes such as transition from permanent marshes
(pickerelweed, waterlily) to seasonally flooded marshes (smartweed,
arrowhead, sawgrass) to wet prairies may occur where the water table
drops below ground surface temporarily due to water withdrawal. The
consequence would be changes in species composition, productivity, food
web relations, wildlife habitat, and possibly habitat for rare and
endangered plants (e.g. sundews). Minor effects on wildlife could
result from a reduction in seasonal wetlands. If the character of the
marshes and ponds is changed, a shift from aquatic species (turtle, pig
frog) to prairie forms (cranes, rails) will occur. The significance of
such changes will depend upon the area of wetland affected, tfiich is
presently uncertain. It appears likely that long-term changes such as
those just described will be limited in extent and therefore low in
overall significance because the drawdowns are predicted to be rela-
tively small.
1-48
-------
FPCR4/5-FEIS.1/SUMl.49
1/7/81
The existing transmission lines serving Crystal River Units 1, 2, and 3
at the site will be adequate to transmit the power generated by Units 4
and 5. The only additions necessary will be the interconnects from
Units 4 and 5 to the existing site substation. Ozone generated by the
power lines will not occur in sufficient ground-level concentrations to
affect vegetation.
The operation of Crystal River Units 4 and 5 will involve an increase in
"road-kills*1 of some wildlife species due to traffic on the access road.
The effect on wildlife populations should be negligible, however. Air
quality controls will prevent any damage to vegetation as a result of
pollutant emissions at the site. The noise generated by power plant
operation may cause some noise-sensitive wildlife species to avoid the
area, thus reducing the range of these animals. This impact is con-
sidered low in significance due to the abundance of similar habitat
elsewhere.
MONITORING
Selection of saltwater as the cooling medium vastly reduces the consump-
tion of firesh water from nearby surface or ground sources and thereby
reduces associated impacts. Groundwater monitoring will be required.
Salt drift originating from the natural draft cooling towers may impact
the surrounding vegetation. Widespread damage is unlikely; however, a
monitoring program to assess the impacts of salt drift will be
implemented.
1.5.4 HUMAN RESOURCES
CONSTRUCTION
During the peak construction period, the project will generate
approximately 2,000 trips by personal vehicles and 100 truck trips
(equivalent to 50 round trips). U.S. Highway 19, which is four-lane
near the project site, vill be the major public roadway receiving this
additional traffic. Except for some minor slowdowns caused by turning
at the access road during peak hours, the additional traffic should have
minimal effect on highway conditions, given the large excess capacity
that now exists. Deliveries of materials to the plant site by rail will
involve traffic stoppages on Route 19 of less than two minutes per
arrival or departure.
1-49
-------
FPCR4/5-FEIS.1/SUMl.50
1/6/81
Transient labor related to the project may place minor strains on the
Citrus County community. One effect could be inflation in the price of
rental housing. However, public facilities such as schools, hospitals,
and water and sewer facilities appear adequate to serve the anticipated
population influx. The construction of Crystal River Units 4 and 5
should have fewer adverse social effects than were produced by construc-
tion of Unit 3, since the scale of the local.economy has increased and
the construction activity will be moTe spread out over time. Given that
the effects of Unit 3 were not serious, the social impacts of Units 4
and 5 should be of low significance. In particular, there should not be
labor shortages during construction, or unemployment after the project.
Substantial economic benefits will result from the wages paid to
construction workers, which will exceed $73 million for the project as a
whole, and the purchases of construction inputs from suppliers.
Many of the potential archaeological site locations considered for
facilities associated with Crystal River Units 4 and 5 would have
affected one or more of these sites. However, the layout ultimately
chosen will restrict all construction activity to inland areas where
there are no known archaeological sites. The proposed project thus will
have no impact on archaeological/historical resources.
OPERATION
The operation of Crystal River Units 4 and 5 will yield substantial
economic benefits to Citrus County. The operation and maintenance of
Unit 4 will create 112 jobs with a payroll of $3,024,000 per year, and
the start-up of Unit 5 will add 20 additional jobs and $420,000 in
payroll. Starting in 1985, approximately $300,000 will be spent per
year on contract labor and specialized labor services. Florida Power
Corporation intends to utilize the local labor market to the maximum
extent possible. Property tax payments to the Citrus County government
will amount to approximately $2,900,000 per year for Unit 4 and
$2,280,000 for Unit 5. These figures are averages for the first five
years of operation beginning in 1983 and 1985, respectively.
The proposed power generating units are compatible with existing land
use patterns in the area.
The proposed facilities will have a minor impact on transportation, in
that traffic on U.S. Route 19-98 will be stopped to permit the arrival
and departure of approximately one unit train per day. Each stoppage
1-50
-------
FPCR4/5-FEIS.1/SUMl.51
1/6/81
will require less than 2 minutes. Approximately three barges will
arrive at the plant site per week to deliver coal for Units 4 arid 5,
which should have no impact on existing transportation facilities. The
scenery of the site area will be altered slightly by the addition of the
proposed power generating units, stacks, and cooling towers, which will
be visible from some points on U.S. 19-98.
The proposed project will not affect existing recreational or cultural
facilities. The site area to be developed is without notable scenic,
recreational, historic, or cultural value. The lack of value for
recreation is related to the absence of attractive beaches or convenient
water access., The nearest cultural facility is the Crystal River
Archaeological Site, which is located approximately 8 kilometers
(5 miles) southeast of the power plant complex and which should not be
affected by the two additional units. The proposed project should have
no significant impacts on commercial or recreational fishing in the Gulf
of Mexico.
MONITORING
During construction activities, normal archaeological monitoring and
safeguards will be followed to protect possible discoveries. The state
historic preservation officer will be notified if a potential historical
site or find is discovered. Work will be stopped in the immediate area
and will not be resumed until the approval of the Florida Division of
Archives, History, and Records Management is received.
1-51
-------
FPCR4/5-FEIS.1/SUMlVTBl-l.1
12/6/80
Table 1-1. Florida Power Corporation Sales Growth Rates
Sales Growth Rates* (Z)
1977-1987
1987-1997
1977-1997
Residential
4.91
2.41
3.54
Commercial
5.52
2.31
3.70
Industrial
5.64
2.83
4.31
Total (before Seminole adjustment)
5.59
2.56
3.97
Total (after Seminole adjustment)
4.29
2.43
3.26
*Growth rates are computed as compound annual percent changes.
Source: Florida Power Corporation, 1978.
1-52
-------
FPCR4/5-FEIS.1/SUM1HTB1-2.1
12/6/80
Table 1-2. Environmental Assessment of Alternative Water Sources
Water Source Advantages Disadvantages
Gulf of Mexico through
existing canals
Withlacoochee Reach of
Cross Florida Barge Canal
Crystal River
Lake Rousseau
Well Fields
1. Lower costs.
2. No consumptive use of fresh
water for cooling.
3. If existing discharge canal
is used as makeup, entrain-
ment effects could be reduced
1. Systems altered would be of
lower value.
2. No consumptive use of fresh
water for cooling.
1. Water of lower salinity than
above sources.
1.
2.
3.
1.
2.
1.
2.
3.
4.
1. Entrainment may be reduced
by placing intake in waters
of low biological
productivity.
2. Percentage of water used is
lower than at Crystal River.
3. May improve circulation in
southwestern arm of the lake.
4. Dissolved solids lower than
for Crystal River or well,
fields would mean less water
required for cooling towers.
1. No entrainment or
impingement.
1.
2.
Entrainment of important species.
Impingement of important species
(for once-through or PSM).
If cooling towers are used
salinity contributes to technical
problems and larger volume of
water needed than fresh sources.
Uncertainty of future plans for
the area.
If cooling towers are used, a
lower volume of water will be
needed than for freshwater sources
but technical problems may arise.
Consumptive use of fresh water.
Entrainment of important species.
Requires alteration of wetlands.
Percentage of water to be used is
higher than for Lake Rousseau.
Consumptive use of fresh water.
Potential for fouling problems
from Asiatic Clam, Oorbicula.
Potential for salt water
intrusion not clear.
Water availability not clear.
-------
FPCR4/5-FEIS. 1/SUM1VTB1-3.1
12/6/80
Table 1-3. Sources of Wastewater and Their Characteristics
Source
Volume
Content
Cooling blowdown,
fresh water
Cooling blowdown,
salinity range
Demineralizer, con-
densate polisher
Boiler cycle losses
Plant floor and equip-
ment drains, all mis-
cellaneous cleaning, etc
Roof drains
Ash handling if
20 acres, 680 GPM
exfiltrates, net rain
gain 12.4 GPM
Coal runoff—Area 1
—Area 2
Sewage
Metal cleaning
3,400-11,000 crad*
(0.9-3 mgd)
333,100 cmd*
(88 mgd)
0.079 crapmt
(21 gpm)
0.31 cmpmt
(81 gpm)
0.19 crapmt
(50 gpm)
Average 0.08 cmpmt
(Average 20 gpm)
0.07 cmpmt
18 gpm entrained
in ash
Average 0.3 crapmt
(Average 80 gpm)**
Average 0.16 cmpmt
(Average 43 gpm)
Average <0.05 cmpmt
(Average <13 gpm)**
1,200,000 gallons
at start up
360,000 gallons
every 3-5 years
pH 6-7, TDS, low level organic
phosphates and chlorine
Salts 32-50 ppt, phosphates,
chlorine
H2SO4, N2OH, concentrated
minerals from freshwater infldw
High pH but low poise, still
rather pure water
Oils, grease, pH, metals,
phosphates, TSS
TSS, rather clean
TSS, pH, metals, oil and grease
TSS, pH, metals, oil and grease
Nutrients, BOD, TSS
pH, TSS. oil and grease, metal*
* crad = cubic meters per day.
tcmpm = cubic meters per day.
gpm = gallons per minute.
Source: Black and Veatch, 1976,
**
1-54
-------
FPCR4/5-FEIS.1/SUM1VTB1-4.1
1/7/81
Table 1-4. Maximum Baseline Levels (Air Quality)
Averaging Time
Pollutant
Locat ion
Annual
24-tfour
3-Hour
Sulfur Dioxide
Near Plant
Chassahowi tska
Wilderness Area
5
1
46
30
583
95
AAQS for SO2
60
260
1,300
Particulate Matter
Near Plant
Chassahowitska
Wilderness Area
30
30
32
31
NA
NA
AAQS for TSP
60
150
1-55
-------
FPCR4/5-FEIS.1/SUMlVTB1-5/6.1
12/6/80
Table 1-5. Projected Water Consumption
Source
Peak
dm3/s
(gpm)
Normal Temporary Shutdown
dm3/s (gpm) dm3/s (gpm)
Sea Water
Fresh Water
712 (11,293)
34.2 (543)
434 (6,878)
24 (381)
0
4.8
(0)
(77)
Table 1-6. Combustion Products
Total (Units 4 and 5)
Major Pollutant kg/h (lb/h)
Sulfur Dioxide 5,760 (12,700)
Nitrogen Dioxide 4,236 (9,340)
Particulates 606 (1,334)
1-56
-------
/•
OAVTORA
¦EACH
DISTANCES IM KILOMETERS (MILES)
Figure 1-1
SITE LOCATION
, im
FLORIDA POWER CORPORATION
PROPOSED
CRYSTAL RIVER UMTS 4*5
CITMS COUNTY. FUMM
Figure 1-2
HISTORICAL AND PREDICTED PEAK DEMANDS AND
AVAILABLE GENERATION CAPACITY OF
FLORIDA POWER CORPORATION 195« - IMS
SOURCE: FLORIDA POWER CORPORATION, IMS.
' FLORIDA POWER CORPORATION
PROPOSED
CRYSTAL RIVER UNITS 4& 5
. CITRUS COUNTY. FLORIDA
-------
STATE RESERVE PERCENTAGE WITH
60TH PROPOSED UNITS INCLUDED
STATE RESERVE PERCENTAGE
WITH CR *4 UNIT OMITTED AND CR*S
UNIT INCLUDED
STATE RESERVE PERCENTAGE WtTH
CR*4 AND C*5 UNITS OMITTED
—I—
«0
—r~
01
—r-
63
TIME - YEARS
—I-
04
"T-
05
—r—
00
—I
07
Figure 1-3
PENINSULAR FLORIDA PERCENT RESERVES
9QUftCt: FLORIDA POWER CORPORATION , \VTt
FLORIDA POWER CORPORATION
PROPOSED
CRYSTAL RIVER UNITS 4 & 5
CITRUS COUNTY. FLORIDA
40
32
FPC RESERVE PERCENTAGE WITH
BOTH PROPOSED UNITS INCLUDED
FPC RESERVE PERCENTAGE WITH
CR'4 UNIT OMITTED AND CR'S
UNIT INCLUDED
FPC RESERVE PERCENTAGE WITH
CR'4 AND CR'SUNITS OMITTED
TIME ¦ YEARS
Flgora 1-4
FLORIDA POWER CORPORATION PERCENT RESERVES
tOURCC: FLORIDA POWER CORPORATION. im.
FLORIDA POWER CORPORATION
PROPOSED
CRYSTAL RIVER UNITS 4 & 5
CITRUS COUNTY. FLORIDA
-------
7.1
nnr mm< mi nrm win win ««.
mo m KMonw awn km each wmd hctm .
Flgum t-5
ANNUAL WHO ROSE FOR TAMPA, FLORIDA,
iim - im
FLORIDA POWER CORPORATION
PROPOSED
CRYSTAL RIVER UNITS 4*5
CXTBOS COUNTY. FLORIDA
Flgw* l-«
PRESENT LAND USE (5 MILE RADIUS)
WTI&ACOOCMK RCQIOMM. PLANMNQ COUNCIL
ML KBCt AMD BUMEBMNQ. MC„ 1(77
f ^
FLORIDA POWER CORPORATION
PttOPOSEO
CRYSTAL RIVER UNITS 4ft S
CITRUS COUNTY. FLORIDA
-------
-------
WATER LEVEL CONTROL SPILLWAY-
a* c. ao *;(5
MAJOR PLANT RELATED ORAINAGE AREAS
(o OtMEAAL COMPLEX fllL A»EA
(T) ADJACENT ACTrVC COAL HANDLING ABC A
(7) ADJACENT INACTIVE COAL STOPAOE AREA
ffl ASH DISPOSAL AREA
(5) CONSTfflXTtON KELATEO A*EA
(•) TEMPORARY SOIL fTOCKPtf
(7) ANT (MAINS COLLECTION PONO
© run. oil iroffACc
LOCATIONS
ri.ow owecriON
i" = 1000'
i" = ^05 VIETE9S
1*#
UNITS 4 AND 5 SYSTEM LAYOUT
FLORfM POWER CORPORATION
PROPOSED
CRYSTAL RIVER UNITS 4*5
CITRUS COUNTY, FL0RHM
-------
PROPERTY BCUNOART
UNIT 4.
COOLINO TOWER —p
- Tt*mUftV SOIL STOCXPlLE ^ i
UNIT 5
COOLiNO TOWER-
COMsrmxricN
RELATED AREA"
o
t% ^*oi2
AS* STORAGE
W~^+?i=r
ftARGE o*-CADE«' yV
CA« 'w'NLO*;fcc>
Flgura 1-11
ffFLUBIT SAMPLMQ LOCATIONS
N
0
tOUME; HACK AMD VMTCH, ItM.
1000
KALE M FM
2000
T
FLORIDA POWER CORPORATION
PROPOSED
CRYSTAL RIVER UNITS 4ft 5
CITRUS COUNTY. FLORIDA
PROPERTY BOUNDARY
RUNOFF COLLECTION AND*
RETENTION SYSTEM CANAL
COOLING TOWERS
• 1
• 14
EXISTING
ASH PONO
ISCHARGE STRUCTURE
INTAKE STRUCTURE
PLANT DRAINS
COLLECTION POND
a q
• «
0 SHALLOW WCLL
00 OtVWBX
O bottom w*u.
IM
SCAL£ IN FEET
Figure 1-12
LOCATION OF OBSERVATION WELLS FOR LEACHATE
MONITORING PROGRAM FOR CRYSTAL RIVER
UMTS 4 AND S
NC.. 1M0.
FLORIDA POWER CORPORATION
PROPOSED
CRYSTAL RIVER UNITS 4ft 5
CITRUS COUNTY. FLORIDA
-------
FPCR4/5-FEIS.1/ERR.1
1/7/81
2.0 ERRATA
2.1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
Page Paragraph Line(s) Correction
ii 4 5 "A 50/50 blend" should be "A
50/50 design blend". NOTE: PSD
approval requires an SOg emis-
sion limit of 1.2 lb/10® Btu
to be met. A blend other than
50/50, i.e., 30/70, 60/40,
etc., can also be used to meet
requirements.
iii 2 2 "40 feet deep" should read
"40 feet high."
iii 3 4 Second sentence should begin
"The design sulfur content..."
1-1 1 9 Commercial operation dates
should both be December.
I-29 1 4 Commercial operation dates
should both be December.
II-57 Table 27 In the third group under "con-
tents," N2OH should be NaOH."
11-68 4 8 and 9 The costs quoted for clay liner
and PVC liner are capital costs
only.
IV-1 3 8 and 9 The steam generator building
will be about 265 feet tall.
IV-5 3 1 FPC may receive coal from
sources other than Appalachia.
V-9 Figure 23 See Figure 23-R. The following
call-outs have arrows added to
link them with the appropriate
facility: DISCHARGE COLLECTION
STRUCTURE, INTAKE STRUCTURE,
and DISCHARGE STRUCTURE.
2-1
-------
WATER LEVEL CONTROL SPILLWAY
?1
BARGf UNLOADfR
rail car UNLOADERj \
MAJOR PLANT RELATED DRAINAGE AREAS
(V) GENERAL COMPLEX FILL AREA
(2) ADJACENT ACTIVE COAL HANDLING AREA
(T) ADJACENT INACTIVE COAL STORAGE AREA
(4) ASH DISPOSAL AREA
(T) CONSTRUCTION RELATED AREA
® TEMPORARY SOIL STOCKPILE
(j) PLANT drains collection pond
FUEL OIL STORAGE V/jsj
1000' 500' 0
LOCATIONS
FLOW DIRECTION
1000'
I" = 1000'
= 305 METERS
2000'
Figure 23R
UNITS 4 AND 5 SYSTEM LAYOUT
SOURCE: Stack and Vfcaloli, 1900
FLORIDA POWER CORPORATION
PROPOSED
CRYSTAL RIVER UNITS 4 & 5
CITRUS COUNTY. FLORIDA
-------
FPCR4/5-FEIS.1/ERR.2
1/9/81
Page Paragraph Line(s)
V-17 Table 41a
V-22 2 5
V-25 3 1
V-25 4 6 and 7
V-26 Table 42
V-31 2 6
V-35 Table 45
VI-9 2 4
VII-5 2 All
VII-7 5 2
VI1-9 2 3
Correction
Table 41a has been revised
since publication of the Draft
EIS. Please see revised
Table 41a-R. Changes reflect
October 14, 1980 revisions to
effluent standards. Bars on
margins denote changes.
"the containment dike" should
be changed to "the dike."
"storage site" should be
"storage silo."
The third sentence is revised
to read "the storage area will
be developed in 8-hectare
(20-acre) segments.
Column subheadings are revised
to show 1,000 lb/day (10^ lb/day).
In list of emission rate limi-
tations, "Nitrogen Dioxide" is
revised to "Nitrogen Oxides."
Parentheses are added on
pounds/hour under "Particulate
Emissions."
The parenthesis after "gallons"
should be moved to follow
"minute."
The impacts discussed in this
paragraph are construction
impacts rather than plant
operation impacts and should
have been included in Chap-
ter VI of the DEIS in the
section called "Construction
Impacts."
This sentence is revised to
read "Part III, Conditions,
requires that all coal piles
directly associated with
Units 4 and 5 containing coal
with a pyrific sulfur content
greater than 0.2 percent be
lined.
The most recent Conditions of
Certification were issued in
May 1980. (See comment DER-1
in Chapter 4 of this FEIS.)
2-3
-------
FFCRA/5-FEIS. 1/KHDB-4JA-R. 1
12/8/80
Table Ala-R. U.S. Enviromiental Protection Agency Standards of Perfoimance for New Sources:
Concentrations by Waste Source1*2
Maximm Allowable Discharge
Effluent Characteristics
Total Suspended
Solids
Oil & Grease pH
Free Available
PCE^ Copper, Total Iron, Total Chlorine^
Zinc, Chranion,
Phosphorus,
and Other
Corrosion
Inhibitors Heat
Waste
Source
Daily
Max.
Daily
Ave.
Daily Daily Allow. Daily
Max. Ave. Range Max.
Chi or i-
Max. nation
Daily Daily Daily Tristan- Period Daily Daily
Ave. Max. Ave. taneous Awe. Max. Ave.
1. All discharges 6.0-9.0
2. low volune 10Ctag/l 3Qng/l 20rog/l 15mg/l
wastes?*
3. Bottan ash 10Qng/l 3Qng/l 2Qog/l 15mg/l
transport
water®*
4. Fly ash NI^9
transmit
water13*
5. Metal cleaning
wastes and
boiler
blonriown^* 10Qng/l 3Cfag/l 2Qng/l 15nqg/l 1 rag/1 1 mg/1 1 mg/1 1 mg/1
6. Cooling touer
blowdowniO 0.5n«/l O.^l NDfcM^ NDfc6,14
7. Main Condenser* I© 6,9,11
8. Goal Pile
runoff12 5Qng/l 50r«/l 6.0-9.0
9. Construction
runoff12* 5Q^/l9 5Cta«/l9 6.0-9.0
-------
FPCF4/5-RSLM.2/RHIBr-41A-R.2
12/8/80
FOOUD£ES FOR TAfLE 41a-R.
^The quantity of pollutants discharged fran waste sources 1-6 shall not exceed the quantity determined by multiplying the
flow fran the waste source times the concentration in the t Ale,
o
In the event that waste streans fran various sources are ca&ined for treatment or discharge, the quantity of each
pollutant or pollutant property attributrf>le to eadi controlled waste source shall not exceed the specified limitation for
that waste source.
^Daily Maximun: Maximum 24-hour value: Daily Average: Arerqge value for 30 consecutive days.
^PCB: Ftolychlorinated bipheiyl ccmpoinds.
^Neither free available chlorine nor total residual clorine may be discharged fran any unit for more than.two hours in aiy
one day and not more than one in it in aiy plant may discharge free available or total residual chlorine at any one tine
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: Instantaneous maximun concentration of total residual chlorine (total residual
oxidants) of 0.14 mg/1 included in October 14, 1980, proposal.
^NDA: No detectable anoint and ND: No discharge.
^Include, but are not limited to wastewaters fran wet scni>ber air pollution control systans, ion exchange water treatment
systems, water treatment evaporator blowdown, laboratory and sanpling streans, floor drainage, cooling tower basin cleaning
wastes, and blowdown fran recirculating house service water systans. Boiler blowdown is included in October 14, 1980,
proposal.
®The quantity of pollutants discharged in bottan ash transport water shall not exceed the quantity determined by
multiplying the flow of bottom ash transport water tines the above concentrations and dividing the product by 20.
Elimination of this requiranent is included in the October 14, 1980, proposal.
^Limitations remanded and set aside by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit on July 16, 1976.
^^Blowdown shall mean the mininun discharge of recirculating cooling water for the purpose of discharging materials
contained in the process, the further buildup of vhich would cause concentrations or amounts exceeding limits established by
best engineering practice.
Inhere shall be no discharge of heat fran the main condensers except heat may be discharged in blowdown fran recirculated
cooling water systans provided the taaperatire at tfiidi the blowdown is discharged does not exceed at aiy tine the lowest
tanperature of recirculated cooling water prior to the addition of the makeup water.
l2Any untreated overflow fran facilities, constructed and operated to treat the volune of material storage rimoff and
construction ruioff Which results fran a 10-year, 24~hour rainfall event, shall not be sibject to the pH and total suspended
solids limitations stipulated for this waste source.
T)ry fly ash handling requiranent included in October 14, 1980, proposal (i.e., no discharge of copper, nickel, zinc,
arsenic, and selenium).
^No discharge of cooling tower mainenance chemicals thich contain the 129 priority pollutants is included in the
October 14, 1980, proposal.
-------
FAii4/>R3JM -2/KHTB-4 iA-R. 3
12/9/80
FOOTNOTES FOR TABLE 41a-R (Contimed, Page 2 of 2).
pH measured in standard units
mg/1—milligrans per liter
*lhese standards do not apply to the Crystal River Units 4 and 5 plant, as designed.
Sources: U.S. Qwironnental Protection J^ency (EPA), "Stean Electric Power Generatiig Point Source Category: Effluent
Guidelines and Standards," Federal Register, Voltne 39, lb. 196, October 8, 1974. 40 CFRPart 423 (Promulgated).
U.S. EPA, "Effluent Limitations Guidelines, Pretreatment Standards and New Source Pexfonnance Standards Under Clean
Water Act\ Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source Category," Federal Register, Volune 45, Ifo. 200,
Ottober 14, 1980. 40 CFR Part 423 (Proposed).
ho
i
-------
FPCR4/5-FEIS.1/ERR.3
1/7/81
Paragraph Line(s) Correction
Table 48 Table 48 should be switched
with Table 50. Table 48 should
be "Effluent Monitoring Pro-
gram." In addition, the table
is revised (see revision of
Table 48, Table 48-R).
Table 50 Table 50 should be switched
with Table 48. Table 50
should be "Groundwater Quality
Parameters" (see revision of
Table 50, Table 50-R).
2.2 TECHNICAL SUPPORT DOCUMENT, VOLUME I
Paragraph Line Correction
1 4 The references to Sections 2.5
and 2.7 should be to
Section 2.7.2 only.
1 2 The term "wetland" used here
and throughout the DEIS and TSD
designates areas not
necessarily covered by DER or
C0E regulations.
2 1 Insert "or sodded" after
"seeded."
2 3 Insert "or sprigged" after
"seeded."
Table 3.3-1 Stream numbers 15 through 22
were left out of this table.
Please see Table 3.3-1R.
Figure 3.5-3 See revised Figure 3.5-3R. The
catch basin drain for the truck
apron is now shown as piped to
an oil separator.
1 8 Oil-water separators are used
only for runoff from areas that
may be subject to oil spills,
not for runoff from all areas.
-------
FPCR4/5-FEIS. 1/RHIB^8^. 1
1/9/81
Table 48-R. Effluent Mxiitoring Programs
Frequency of Monitoring
Potential Continuous Chee Per Once Per Once Per
Discharge Day Week Month Other
Cooling Tower
(NEVES 009
and 010)
Coal Storage
Area Rinoff
(NPEES Oil)
Ash Disposal
Area Runoff
(NPDES 012)
Runoff Cbllec-
tion System
(NPEES 013)
Flow
Temperature
Conductivity
Total residual
oxidants(TRO)
P«
PH
Cycles of con-
centration
Phosphorus as P
Calciun
TRO
TSS
TSS
Heavy Metals,*
As
Heavy Metals,*
As
Oil and grease Heavy Metals ,*
As
Flow once per week
during discharge
overflow event
Flew once per week
during discharge
cverflow event
Flow once per day
during discharge
overflow event;
TSS twice per week
~Includes caAnium, chromium, copper, iron, lead, mercury, nickel, selenium, and zinc. Monitored once per
month during discharge; otherwise, at end of the 3-month sampling period.
TSS = Total Suspended Solids
Source: Environmental Science and Engineering, Inc., 1980.
Environmental Protection Agency, August 28, 1980, Etaft NTOES Permit.
-------
FPCR4/5-RSUM.4/RVTB50-R. 1
12/09/80
Table 50-R. Groundwater Quality Parameters
Key Water Quality Indicators (Monthly)
Specific Conductivity* Iron
Color Nickel
Turbidity Selenium
Chloride Chromium
Sulfate Arsenic
Dissolved Organic Carbon Beryllium
Total Dissolved Solids Mercury
Total Suspended Solids Lead
Monitored During Aquifer Analysis
PH
Redox Potential
Specific Conductivity*
Dissolved Oxygen
Temperature
Extended Water Quality Indicators (Quarterly)
The key indicators listed above plus:
Aluminum
Barium
Calcium
Magnesium
Sodium
Cobalt
Gross Alphat
Vanadium
Molybdenum
*Monitored in all wells during aquifer analysis; monthly water quality
program monitors specific conductivity in only four wells,
tlf Gross Alpha > 15 pic/1, the following elements will be analyzed:
Radium 226
Uranium
Thorium
Source: Environmental Science and Engineering, Inc., 1980.
2-9
-------
FPCR4/5-TSD3.1/RHIB3-3-1R.1
12/09/80
Table 3.3-lR. Crystal River Units 4 and 5 Site and Plant Water Use
Stream Peak. Normal Temporary Shutdown
Number Description dm3/s (gpm) dm3/s (gpm) dm3/s (gpm)
1
Raw Well Water Supply
34.2
(543)
24.0
(381)
4.8
(77)
2
Water Pretreatment System
Makeup
29.3
(465)
20.8
(330)
4.8
(77)
3
Solids Contact Basin Sludge
0.2
(3)
0.1
(2)
0
(0)
4
Solids Contact Basin Effluent
29.1
(462)
20.7
(328)
4.8
(77)
5
Filter Backwash Wastewater
0.4
(6)
0.4
(6)
0
(0)
7
Gravity Filter Effluent
28.7
(456)
20.3
(322)
4.8
(77)
9
Ash Handling System Service
(0)
Water Uses
0.3
(4)
0.3
(4)
0
10
Miscellaneous Station and
Potable Water Uses
3.5
(56)
3.5
(56)
3.5
(56)
11
Demineralizer Makeup
24.9
(396)
16.5
(262)
1.3
(21)
12
Demineralizer Regeneration
(11)
Wastes
1.0
(16)
0.7
(ID
0.7
13
Condensate-Feedwater-Steam
(10)
Cycle Makeup
23.9
(380)
15.8
(251)
0.6
14
Steam Cycle Evaporative Losses
(0)
15
Steam Cycle Liquid Losses
7.8
(123)
5.1
(81)
0
16
Condensate Polisher Wastes
0.7
(12)
0.6
(10)
0.6
(10)
17
Neutralization Basin Effluent
1.7
(28)
1.3
(21)
1.3
(21)
18
Cooling Towers Makeup (saltwater)*
4,289
(68,000)
4,289
(68,000)
0
(0)
19
Cooling Towers Evaporation
711.5
(11,280)
433.4
(6,870)
0
(0)
20
Cooling Towers Drift
0.8
(13)
0.5
(8)
0
(0)
21
Cooling Towers Blowdown
3,577
(56,707)
3,855
(61,122)t
0
(0)
22
Raw Well Water to Ash
Handling Systems
4.9
(78)
3.2
(51)
0
(0)
-------
Figure 3.5-3R
FUEL OIL RECOVERY
FLORIDA POWER CORPORATION
PROPOSED
CRYSTAL RIVER UNITS 4 & 5
CITRUS COUNTY, FLORIDA
-------
FPCR4/5-FEIS.1/ERR.4
1/7/81
Page Paragraph Line(s) Correction
3-98 Figure 3.9-2 Administration Building is
referenced on Page 3-96 as
being shown in Figure 3.9-2.
It is not shown in this figure,
but is correctly shown in
Figure 3.1-4. The same is
true for the Maintenance Build-
ing referenced on Page 3-99.
4-1 2 6 No grouting will be used for
any structures. Load-bearing
fill will be added on top of
the Inglis Formation or drilled
piers will be used.
4-2 1 4 Change "200" to 1,570."
4-9 2 4 ".064 millimeters to .76 milli-
meters" should be "6.4 milli-
meters to 76 millimeters."
5-28 2 3 "1,300" should be "1,200."
5-46 3 7 Sentence is revised to read
"...unless the confined
rainfall runoff exceeds the
volume of runoff resulting from
a 10-year, 24-hour storm."
5-52 l i The well monitoring program has
been revised. See Chapter 3 of
this FEIS.
5-78 1 9 "583" should be "363."
5-78 1 17 "198" should be "194."
5~79 Table 5.4-1 Table 5.4-1 is revised. See
Table 5.4-1R.
5~82 Table 5.4-2 Table 5.4-2 is revised. See
Table 5.4-2R.
2.3 TECHNICAL SUPPORT DOCUMENT, VOLUME II
6~38 3 4 The reference to Figure 2.9-1
should be to Figure 2.8-1.
2-12
-------
FPC4/5-TSD5.1/RHTB5-4-1R.1
12/9/80
Table 5.4-1R. Summary of Significant Deterioration Analysis, Class II Areas, Florida
Power Corporation, Crystal River Units 4 and 5, Citrus County, Florida
Maximum Concentration (ug/rn^)
Total Suspended
Sulfur Dioxide Particulate*
Scenario Average 24-Hour 3-Hour Average 24-Hour
Incremental Impact
Crystal River Units
4 and 5
Maximum in Area
1974 Baseline
1984 with Units
4 and 5
Maximum Increase Over
Baseline at Worst
Receptor
5
6
44
46
109
63
363
583
777
194
<1
30
36
State of Florida AAQS's 60 260 1,300 60 150
Allowable Federal
Increment 20 91 512 19 37
* Concentrations include a background level of 30 ug/m^.
Source: Environmental Science and Engineering, Inc., 1977.
-------
FPCR4/5-TSD5.1/RHTB5-4-2R.1
1/9/81
Table 5.4-2R. Summary of Significant Deterioration Analysis, Class I Areas—Chassahowitzka National
Wilderness Area, Florida Power Corporation, Crystal River Units 4 and 5, Citrus County,
Florida
Scenario
Maximum Concentration
(ug/m^)
Sulfur Dioxide
Total
Suspended
Particulate*
Annual Average
24-Hour
3-Hour Annual
Average
24-Hour
Crystal River Units 4 and 5
«1
12
51
«1
1
Incremental Impact
Maximum in Class I Area
1974 Baseline
1
30
95
30
32
1984 with Units 4 and 5
1
31
120
30
32
Increase Since Baseline
«1
<1
25
«1
1
Allowable Federal Increment
2
5
25
5
10
* Background TSP concentration of 30 ug/m^ added to modeling results.
Source: Environmental Science and Engineering, Inc., 1977.
-------
FPCR4/5-FEIS.1/ERR.5
12/9/80
Page Paragraph Line
6-39 1
7-2 2 4 2 and 4
8-29 2 1
9-1
Correction
The water quality monitoring
program also includes the
makeup water intake, Serial
Number 014.
The total operating workforce
is 132 (DEIS, Page ix, mentions
workforce of 162).
"250 mmBtu/hr" should be
"250 million Btu/hr."
The following paragraph is
added: NOTE: The information
contained in this chapter
reflects the preliminary engi-
neering design criteria data
available when alternatives
were evaluated. Design infor-
mation contained in Chapter 3
of the TSD is the most current
data available for the proposed
units.
2-15
-------
FPCR4/5-FEIS.1/MON.1
1/9/81
3.0 SUPPLEMENTAL ANALYSES AND MONITORING PROGRAMS
Under the State of Florida Conditions of Certification and the Draft
NPDES permit conditions, Florida Power is required to perforin two major
studies. These are:
1. Groundwater monitoring program.
2. Study of salt deposition from natural draft cooling towers,
Crystal River Units 4 and 5.
Draft Plans of Study for these programs are presented in this chapter.
Approval of these programs is required by the Draft NPDES permit
conditions and by the State Conditions of Certification.
Florida Power has elected to install and operate dechlorination
facilities. As a result, dye studies discussed in the DEIS intended to
determine the dilution of chlorine discharges will not be necessary.
Effluent monitoring for surface water discharges required by the first
draft (October 28, 1980) of the NPDES permit has remained the same
except for monitoring of total residual chlorine (better termed total
residual oxidants). Along with continuous monitoring of total residual
oxidants (TRO), manual monitoring for TRO and auditing of the continuous
monitor will be required once per week.
3-1
-------
GROUNDWATER MONITORING PROGRAM
A groundwater monitoring program will be implemented to detect
significant groundwater contamination.
The monitoring system will consist of the wells depicted in Figure 1.
Details of well construction consistent with specifications in the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement are shown in Figure 2. A list of the
wells with their diameters and depths is presented in Table 1.
Each well will be sampled monthly according to the following procedure:
An equivalent of three times the volume of water in each well will be
evacuated from each well to obtain representative water quality samples.
The well will then be allowed to recover. The samples will be drawn
from the wells using an all-plastic hand pump to minimize contamination
from any metal components of a centrifugal pump. Water will be pumped
through the hand pump for approximately 30 strokes to prevent cross
contamination from previous wells. The sample bottles will then be
filled, preserved and placed on ice for shipping. All samples will be
delivered to an analytical laboratory for analyses within 24 hours.
The samples will be analyzed for those parameters addressed in Florida
Department of Environmental Regulation (DER) Class IB groundwater
criteria: arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury, selenium,
and silver. The analyses will be conducted according to Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) Method 600/4-79-020. Results will be reported
quarterly.
3-2
-------
-------
r~
PROTECTIVE CASING
2-INCH OR 4-INCH WELL CASING
OVERBURDEN
LIMESTONE
CRUSHED LIMESTONE
GRAVEL
CAVITIES IN LIMESTONE
WELL SCREEN LENGTH
5 TO 40 FEET
\
til
Hi
u.
o
in
o
CM
Q.
LU
a
LU
5
SOURCE: ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING,
Figure 2
WELL CONSTRUCTION
1980
FLORIDA POWER CORPORATION
GROUNDWATER MONITORING
CRYSTAL RIVER UNITS 4 & 5
3-4
-------
Table 1. List oi Wells--FPC Crystal River
Well Number
Well Diameter
Well Depth
Casing
(inches)
(feet)
(feet)
1
2
20
18.5
2
4
20
18.5
2D
2
58
53.8
3
4
20
18.5
4
2
23
23
5
2
20
18.5
6
2
20
18.5
7
4
20
18.5
7D
4/2*
45
42.4
8
2
20
18.5
9
2
20
18.5
10
2
20
18.5
11
2
20
18.5
12
4
20
18.5
12D
2
53
47.3
13
2
20
18.5
14
2
20
18.5
15
4
20
18.5
*Upper 17.4 feet of hole has 4-inch casing: 2-inch casing from
17.4 feet to bottom of hole.
Source: Environmental Science and Engineering, Inc., 1980.
3-5
-------
Plan of Study
for
Salt Deposition from
Natural Draft Cooling Towers
Crystal River Units 4 and 5
Submitted by
Environmental and Licensing Affairs Department
Florida Power Corporation
August, 1980
3-6
RE V.1-12/2/80
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
1.0 Introduction 1
1.1 Objectives 1
1.2 Regulatory Requirements 1
1.2.1 State of Florida Regulations 1
1.2.2 National Environmental Protection Agency 1
2.0 Study Area 2
2.1 Research Site Layout 2
3.0 Methodology 6
3.1 Research Site Selection 6
3.1.1 Seaward Sites 6
3.1.2 Landward Sites 6
3.2 Support Data Collection 6
3.2.1 Meteorological Station 6
3.2.2 Substation Maintenance 6
3.3 Sampl ing Techniques 7
3.3.1 Vegetation 7
3.3.1.1 Field Procedures 7
3.3.1.2 Laboratory Procedures 7
3.3.2 Dust Fall Collector 8
3.3.2.1 Field Procedures 8
3.3.2.2 Laboratory Procedures 8
3.3.3 Aerial Survey 9
3-7
-------
PAGE
3.4 Equipment 9
3.4.1 Oust Fall Collector 9
3.5 Analysis & Assessments 9
3.5.1 Plant Tissues 9
3.5.2 Oust Fall Collector 10
3.5.3 Dust Fall vs. Vegetatation Data 10
3.5.4 Aerial Survey 10
4.0 Reports 14
4.1 Final Report 14
5.0 Schedule 15
5.1 Field Sampl ing 15
5.2 Analysis 15
5.3 Reports 15
6.0 Appendix 17
3-8
REV.1-12/2/80
-------
1.0
Introduction
Florida Power Corporation (FPC) requires new generation in order to provide
electrical power in its service area. This need is to be met by the
construction of two new 695 gross megawatt coal-fired steam electric units
at Crystal River, Florida. These two new units, Crystal River Units 4 and
5, will utilize saltwater off-stream cooling with natural draft cooling
t owers.
1.1 Objectives
The objectives of the program are:
1. To characterize the physical and chemical properties of vegetation
surrounding the cooling tower for the purpose of obtaining a baseline
for future comparison.
2. To monitor salt deposition levels emitted from Crystal River Units 4
and 5 cooling towers.
3. To study the effects of fallout on the surrounding vegetation.
4. To study the effects of fallout on the surrounding FPC equipment.
1.2 Regulatory Requirements
1.2.1 State of Florida Regulations
Pursuant to Chapter 403, S.403.506, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 17-7,
Florida Administrative Code, all electrical power plants constructed after
October 1, 1973, must obtain state regulatory certification.
Florida Department of Environmental Regulation (FDER) issued a site
certification for Crystal River Units 4 and 5, case number PA 77-09, on
November 21, 1978. Within this certification, special conditions were
assigned as part of the approval. The condition associated with this
program is listed below:
"Special Condition
1. Air
B. Air Monitoring Program
/. Salt drift deposition, accumulation, vegetative effects and effects
on equipment shall be monitored and reported to the department 1n a
manner and frequency approved by the department prior to the
operation of the first cooling tower."
1.2.2 United States Environmental Protection Agency
Condition III.M of the United States Environmental Protection Agency's
(USEPA) NPDES draft permit contained in Appendix A of the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement requires submittal of this program prior to
issuance of the Final Environmental Impact Statement.
3-9
RE V.1-12/2/80
-------
2.0 Study Area
The property owned by FPC consists of 1,917 hectares (4,738 acres) located
in Range 16 East, Township 17 South, and includes portions of Sections 28
through 37. The location of the units lies within the southern one half of
Section 28 and southeast one quarter of Section 29, Range 16 East, Township
17 South. This location does not include the access road. Approximately
129 hectares (319 acres) are presently occupied by Crystal River Units 1, 2,
and 3 and support facilities. The use of an additional 136 hectares (335
acres) of the property is proposed for the construction of Crystal River
Units 4 and 5, support facilities, and another access road. With the
exception of the access road to the existing units, the remaining area is
undeveloped.
Figure 2-1 shows the proposed site on a topographical map of the area.
Figure 2-2 shows the site layout for all facilities at Crystal River.
Crystal River Units 4 and 5 generating plants will each have a natural draft
cooling tower. Each tower will be approximately 110 meters (370 feet) in
diameter and 134 meters (440 feet) high. Each is designed to reject to the
atmosphere the total heat load for each unit at full load operating
conditions. The following design conditions have been selected:
Cooling Range 14.2°C (24.6°F)
Approach 6.7°C (12°F)
Wet Bulb 26.1°C (79°F)
Cooling tower make-up will be at a constant rate regardless of generating
unit load. The cycles of concentration of the circulating water will,
therefore, vary, depending on the operating load of the units. The make-up
water will be taken from the Crystal River Units 1, 2, and 3 discharge
canal.
2.1 Research Site Layout
Each plot of land selected for collecting data will have a similar layout,
and will include vegetation and dust fall sampling locations.
The size of each site will be approximately 0.0929 hectares (0.2296
acres, 100 feet square).
Figure 2-3 shows a typical research site layout.
3-10
REV.1-12/2/80
-------
Figure 2-1
TOPOGRAPHIC MAP OF FLORIDA POWER CORPORATION, CRYSTAL RIVER
PROPERTY FOR PROPOSED SITE
WITH SALT DRIFT SAMPLING
AREAS WITHIN ONE KILOMETER
SOURCE: FROM U8QS SURVEY RED LEVEL, FLORIDA 1M4 *
ft
(CM.IMHC1
FLORIDA POWER CORPORATION
PROPOSED
CRYSTAL RIVER UNITS 4 & 5
CITRUS COUNTY. FLORIDA
REV.1-12/2/80
-------
T'Jl_ :il STO^AGC
©
- :CCC
Figure 2 ~2
CRYSTAL RIVER FACILITY LAYGU"
SOURCS: 5LACX AND VEATCH, 1976.
FLORIDA POWER CORPORATION
PROPOSED
CRYSTAL RIVER UNITS 4 4 5
CITRUS COUNTY.'. FLORIDA
J \ /
-------
gure 2-3 Typical Research Site Layout
- Salt Drift Study
ot Size
= 100' x 100'
= 0.2296 Acres
» 0.0929 hectare
©
Underarush
Underbrush
Type #3J
©
100'
® Dust fall collector
3-13
REV.1-12/2/80
-------
3.0
METHODOLOGY
A systematic approach is being used to determine research sites.
3.1 Research Site Selection
There are three areas of major concern regarding impact to vegetation
communities: freshwater marsh, hydric harrmock, and pine plantation. During
our site certification evaluation, on-site vegetation species lists were
compiled. Potential species for study are shown in Table 3-1.
The selection of research sites will be performed by careful analysis of
aerial color and infrared photographs and actual field survey to confirm
vegetation types and accessibility. The sites will lie within the areas
shown in Figure 2-1.
In order to obtain adequate representation based on wind patterns shown in
the wind roses in Figure 3-1, two seaward sites and three landward sites
will be selected.
Each site will also have three dust fall collectors as shown in Figure 2-3,
Typical Site Layout.
3.1.1 Seaward Sites
The two seaward sites will be located within one half kilometer west of the
natural draft cooling towers for Crystal River Units 4 and 5.
3.1.2 Landward Sites
The three landward sites will be located within one kilometer east of the
natural draft cooling towers for Crystal River Units 4 and 5 and,
preferably, in the areas of concern occuring closest to the cooling towers
and along significant wind vectors.
3.2 Support Data Collection
3.2.1 Meteorological Data
Meteorological data will be obtained from the Crystal River Unit 3
Meteorological System located in the northeast one quarter of section 32,
Range 16 East, Township 17 South. Wind speed and direction, ambient air
temperature, and dew point air temperature will be collected at 10 meters
(33 feet) and rainfall collected at ground level. This data will be
provided on magnetic tape for further reduction and analysis. Annual wind
Roses are shown in Figure 3-1.
3.2.2 Substation Maintenance
Maintenance performed during the study year on the existing 230 KV and 500
KV substation equipment will be evaluated to determine if any damage and/or
operational problems are directly associated to salt loading.
3-14
REV.1-12/2/80
-------
3.3
Sampling Techniques
Selected sampling techniques to measure salt drift and any resultant effects
to the vegetation consist of sampling leaves of selected species, observing
plants for damage, quantifying salt deposition rates, and using aerial
photography.
3.3.1 Vegetation
3.3.1.1 Field Procedures
The concentration of sodium and chloride ions in plant tissues will be
monitored at each of the five sites being studied. Samples will consist of
10 to 15 grams (dry weight) of leaves or needles taken from each of three
similar-aged plants of each of three to six species-age groups, at least one
of which will be herbaceous. A listing of potential species to be sampled
is provided in Table 3-1. Juvenile trees should be sought out for sampling,
and in all cases samples should be taken from areas of the experimental
plant that would be exposed to salt drift. All plants should be marked and
tagged for a permanent record. Sampling should be conducted monthly for one
year before operation and for one year after operation.
Monthly samples should be completed in a two to three day period. Sampling
should never be attempted on rainy days or immediately thereafter, but
rather one or two days later. Sampling is to be done with the collector
wearing plastic surgical gloves to minimize the risk of contamination from
perspiring hands. Samples are to be collected in labeled, brown paper
bags. 1/
At the time leaf samples are taken, the sampling site will be surveyed for
dead and injured vegetation. Especially noted will be curling, browning or
splotching of leaves, particularly if other Individuals of the same species
in the surrounding area are similarly affected. Photographs will be taken
of each site each month.
3.3.1.2 Laboratory Procedures
The leaves will be washed quickly in distilled water which will be analyzed
for ion salts that were on the leaf. The leaves will then be dried in a
forced-draft oven for 48 hours at 95°C. Upon drying, samples should be
individually ground in a Wiley Mill, passed through a 20-mesh screen, and
placed into screw-cap bottles for storage until analysis.
1/ Lauver, T. L., et al., 1978. Effects of Saline Cooling Tower Drift on
~ Seasonal Variations of Sodium and Chloride concentrations 1n native
perennial vegetation. _In: Cooling Tower Environment - 1978. Water
Resources Research Center Special Report No. 9. University of Maryland,
College Park. 1-49-1-63.
3-15
REV.1-12/2/80
-------
Chloride ion concentration in leaf tissues is to be determined by a method
equivalent to the modified potentiometric titration method outlined by
LaCroix, et al., (1970). 2J In this methodology, an orion chloride ion
electrode and double junction reference electrode is used in combination
with an Orion model 701 digital pH meter. A 0.5 gram leaf sample is shaken
in 50 mililiters of 0.1N HNOo on a wrist action shaker for 15 minutes.
The solution is then titrated, while stirring, with 0.01 N AgNOg:0.1 N
HNO3. T^e end point is determined as the millivolt reading of an aliquot
of the 0.1 N HNO3 used for chloride extraction. Standard procedures for
this analysis require the preparation and analysis of three replicates for
each sample. Chloride standards are titrated at the beginning of each run
and a standard curve determined through regression analysis.
Sodium ion concentration in leaf tissues will be determined by atomic
absorption spectrophotometry as described herein, or by an equivalent
technique. In the suggested technique, a 0.5 gram leaf sample is weighed
into a 15 milil iters crucible and heated in a muffle furnace at 475°C for a
minimum of 12 hours. The resultant ash is dissolved in five mililiters of
20% (weight/volume) HC1 and then gently heated (not boiled) to insure
dissolution of the ashed sample. The mixture is washed through Whatman
number 40 ashless filter paper and the filtrate diluted to 100 milil iters
with distilled water. Three blanks are routinely run with every 24
replicates. A Perkin-Elmer model 303 atomic absorption spectrophotometer
and sodium lamp is set up according to standard conditions for sodium. A
standard curve is generated through regression analysis. Standard
procedures require the analysis of three replicates for each sample. V
3.3.2 Dust Fall Collector
3.3.2.1 Field Collection Procedures
During the collection of vegetation samples, the three dust fall collectors
will be serviced. Each contains two liters of demineralized distilled
water. The removed unit will be capped and returned to the laboratory for
analysi s.
3.3.2.2 Laboratory Procedures
Each container of liquid collected from a dust fall collector will be
analyzed as follows:
2/ LaCroix, R. L., D. R. Kenney, and L. M. Walsh, 1970. Potentiometric
"" titration of chloride in plant tissue extracts using the chloride ion
electrode. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 1: 1-6.
3/ Mulchi, C.L., D.C. Wolf, and J.A. Armbruster, 1978. Cooling Tower
Effects on Crops and Soils. University of Maryland Water Resources
Research Center Special Report No. 11.
3-16
REV.1-12/2/80
-------
1. Insoluble material is removed by vacuum filtration through a Whatman
number 41 filter paper after pre-weighing. After filtration has been
complete, the filter containing insoluble material is dried in a
forced-air oven at 70°C (158°F) overnight. Upon removal from the oven,
the filter paper is placed in a desiccator for cooling to room
temperature (same temperature at which filter paper was pre-weighed).
Then final weight is obtained. The difference in weights represents the
insoluble material fraction and is expressed as grams per square meter
(g/m).
2. After filtration, a one liter sample of solute is kept for analysis of
sodium ion (Na ) and chloride ion (CI"). Sodium and chloride
analysis is performed by standard analyzer procedures. Deposition of
sodium and chloride is expressed as miligrams per square meter-month
(mg/nr month). 4/
3.3.3 Aerial Survey
An aerial survey will be performed on a seasonal basis—fall, winter, spring
and summer. Color infrared photographs will be taken. Care will be taken
to insure that all aerial photographs taken in one year are taken from the
same film dye batch.
The center of the photograph will be the midpoint between Crystal River
Unit 4's cooling tower and Crystal River Unit 5's cooling tower on the
north-south centerline and will cover an area of at least a two mile radius
at a scale of 1"=2240 feet.
3.4 Equipment
The dust fall collector will be similar to Model 170, Research Appliance
Company, Gibsonia, Pennsylvania 15004. Each unit will include a stand,
dust fall jar, and bird ring. The bird ring is used to reduce contamination
of samples by birds roosting on the edge of the jar. Each dust fall
collector will be field-assembled as shown in Figure 3-2.
3.5 Analysis and Assessments
3.5.1 PI ant Tissues
Results of chloride and sodium analyses are to be reported in micrograms per
gram leaf dry weight. The term "ion load" adequately describes both
internal and external foliar salt concentrations under natural conditions.
Means, standard deviations, coefficients of variation, and standard errors
of the mean are to be routinely determined for the three replicates of each
4/ Mulchi, C. L., D. C. Wolf, and J. A. Armbruster, 1978. Cooling Tower
Effects on Crops and Soils. University of Maryland Water Resources
Research Center Special Report Number 11.
3-17
RE V.1-12/2/80
-------
leaf sample. Multi-year comparisons of data are to be made on the computer.
Monthly trends, site comparisons, and year comparisons are to be made by an
analysis of variance (Manova) program. Further definition of significant
differences between means require Student-Newman-Keuls (SNK) test (P=.05) of
significance or a similar test. 5/
3.5.2 Dust Fall Collector
Data obtained by analysis of dustfall collector for particulate, sodium ion
(Na+), and chloride ion (CI-) will be compiled; and monthly highs, lows,
means, standard deviation, and coefficient of -variation will be computed.
Average monthly values obtained from all replicate samples will be shown in
tabular and graphic form.
Both pre- and post-operational data will be treated in the same way and
compared to determine impact.
3.5.3 Dust Fall vs. Vegetation Data
Data collected from dust fall collector will be compared to data collected
from vegetation species.
Overall salt loading (sodium and chloride ions) wil be compared.
3.5.4 Aerial Survey
The seasonal aerial infrared photographs will be compared by pre- and post-
operational conditions.
Salt drift effects, if any, shall be noted and reported.
5/ Sokal, R. R. and R. J. Rohlf, 1969. Biometry. Freeman, San Francisco.
3-18
REV.1-12/2/80
-------
Table 3-1 Potential Study Species
Ref: Crystal River Units 4 and 5 Site Certification Application,
Volume 1, revised edition.
I. Freshwater Marsh Species
Woody
Herbaceous
Scientific Name
Acer rubrum*
Nyssa biflora
Pinus elliotti
Cladium jamaicense*
Juncus repens
Rhynchospora sp.
Juncus effusus*
Saururus cernuus
Common Name
(Red maple)
(Black gum)
(Slash pine)
(Sawgrass)
(Creeping rush)
(Beak rush)
(Soft rush)
(Lizards tail)
11. Hydric Hammock Species
IISI
Woody
Herbaceous
Scientific Name
Pinus el 1iotti
uercus laurifolia
uercus Virginian!*
N^ssa biflora
Tilia americana
uercus nigra
cer rubrum
Zamia integrifol1a**
Ilex cassine*
Cladium jamaicense*
Polypodium polypodioides
Common Name
(Slash pine)
(Diamond leaf oak)
(Live oak)
(Black gum)
(Basswood)
(Water oak)
(Red maple)
(Coontie)
(Dahoon holly)
(Sawgrass)
(Resurrection fern)
III. Pine Plantation Species
Type Scientific Name
Woody Pinus elliotti*
Herbaceous Andropogan virqinicus*
Juncus effusus
Common Name
(Slash pine)
(Broomsedge)
(Soft rush)
* These species are suggested for study on the basis of frequency and
distribution in the region.
**Coontie will always be sampled if it occurs on the site to be sampled.
3-19
-------
33 ft
Y 1, 1975 - DECEMBER 31, 1975)
175 ft
(JANUARY 1. 1975 - DECEMBER 31. 1975)
ssoqebb WIND DIRECTION FREQUENCY i PERCENT )
MEAN WIND SPEED ( MI/HR)
CRYSTAL RIVER ANNUAL WIND ROSES WITH
ASSOCIATED AVERAGE WIND SPEEDS FOR
THE 33- AND 175-FOOT LEVELS
-------
Figure 3-2 Dust Fall Collector Station Arrangement
Bird Ring and jar support
X RAC#995003 •
-------
4.0 Reports
On a monthly basis, monthly summaries will be prepared for inclusion in the
final report.
Included in this report will be:
1. Any abnormal occurance
2. Any abnormal weather condition
3. Summary of vegetation data
4. Summary of dust fall data
4.1 Final Report
A final report comprised of monthly summaries will be compiled. This report
shall include the following:
1. Any abnormal occurance
2. Any abnormal weather condition
3. Comparison of dust fall data
4. Comparison of vegetation data
5. Aerial infrared survey data
6. Comparison of weather conditions
7. Assessment of pre- and post-operational data
8. Pre- and post-operational data comparison
The final report will include information on both the pre- and
post-operational sampling periods for submittal to USEPA and FDER.
3-22
-------
5.0 Schedule
Summarized in Table 5-1 and Figure 5-1 are schedules of events surrounding
the plan of study.
5.1 Field Sampling
On a monthly basis, field samples will be collected during pre and post
operational periods.
5.2 Analysis
Analysis of data collected by field crews shall be analyzed within 30 days.
5.3 Reports
Final report is due within four months after completion of post-operation
data collection.
3-23
-------
Table 5-1 Milestone Dates - Salt Drift Plan of Study
Date
Activity
Dec.
1980
File Plan of Study - EPA and FDER
Jan.
1981
EPA and FDER Approval
Jan.
1981
Request for Proposals
Mar.
1981
Select Vendor(s)
May
1981
Commence Pre-Operation Study
May
1982
Complete Pre-Operation Study
June
1982
CR 4 Cooling Tower Heat Testing
Dec.
1982
CR 4 Commercial Operation
Dec.
1982
Commence Post-Operation Study
Dec.
1983
Complete Post-Operation Study
Apr.
1984
File Report With FDER and EPA
3-24
RE V.1-12/2/80
-------
Appendi x
3-25 RE V.1—12/2/80
-------
UUST-FALL
AND S02 STANCHION
09
c
is>
u>
N>
(a>
Stanchion with Dust Fall Jar Holder Only
Stanchion with Dust Fall Jar Holder and SO*
Candle Shelter
Stanchion with the bird-ring support complies with
Air Pollution Control Association (APCA) recommended
specifications for dust fall holders. Suitable for sup-
porting the RAC No. 170 or No. 190 dust fall jars and
the SO2 (lead candle) shelter. Bird ring recommended
to reduce contamination of sample by birds roosting
on edge of jar.
Stanchion made to position top of jar 48" above
floor level of base. Construction is such that entire
stanchion can be assembled and dis-assembled by
using small alien wrench. Base may be anchored by
screws or sand bags. Jar holder is aluminum. Upright,
cross members and fittings are aluminum, the base is
painted steel. S02 candle shelter is black polyethlene.
Complete stanchion (Fig. 2) includes all pipes, cross
member base, jar holder (including bird ring), No. 170
dust fall jar (including snap-on lid and carrying handle),
and complete SO2 lead peroxide candle station catalog
number 2282 (includes louvered shelter, candles, trans-
porting tubes, lead peroxide, and gauze).
Meets ASTM D1739 (for Dust Fall) and 02010 (for
S02)
ORDERING INFORMATION
Please specify:
Dust Fall and SO2 Stanchion Catalog Number 2323-A
Dust Fall less SO* Stanchion Catalog Number 2323-B
Dust Fall less SO2 Stanchion and Dust Fall Jar Catalog
Number 2323-C
Extra Dust Fall Jars Catalog Number 170 or Catalog Number 190
Extra SO* Louvered Shelters Only Catalog Number 2282-IA
RESEARCH APPLIANCE CO., Gibsonia, Pa., U.S.A. 15044 (412) 443-5935
3-26
-------
ATTACHMENT 2
SYSTEM DESCRIPTION
FOR
CIRCULATING WATER MAKEUP AND BLOWDOWN SYSTEM
FLORIDA POWER CORPORATION
CRYSTAL RIVER PLANT
UNITS 4 AND 5
FUNCTION
The function of the Circulating Water Makeup and Blowdown System is to provide
isakeup water to the Circulating Water Systems of Units 4 and 5 and to provide
the means for removal of the blowdown water from the same systems. Makeup
water is required to replace circulating water lost due to evaporation, drift,
and blowdown. Blowdown from the Circulating Water Systems is required to
ir.aintain circulating water quality.
SYSTEM COMPONENTS
The Circulating Water Makeup and Blowdown System is comprised to two sets of
pu:r.ps and two channels. The first set of pumps, identified as the Circulating
Water Intake Pumps in Figure 2, are located in the circulating water discharge
canal for the existing Units 1, 2, and 3. The intake pumps transfer sea water
from the existing discharge canal to the intake channel for Units 4 and 5.
There are three full-capacity intake punps with each pump capable of supplying
the required makeup water flow for one unit's circulating water system.
The second set of uu=ps, identified as the Circulating Water Makeup Pumps in
7igure 2, are located between the Unit 4 and 5 cooling towers. The makeup
transfer sea water from the intake channel to the circulating water pump
suction flumes where t'ne water enters the circulating water system. There
arc three full-capacity makeup pumps with each pvmp capable of supplying the
required makeup water flow for one unit's circulating water system.
The intake channel, as indicated in Figure 2, conveys the makeup water from
the intake pump structure to the makeup pump structure. The intake channel is
a concrete lined flume approximately seven (7) feet deep. The channel bottom
is twenty (20) feet wide and is at a constant elevation of 93'-0".
The blowdown discharge channel, as indicated in Figure 2, conveys the blowdown
water from the Unit 4 and 5 cooling towers to the Units 1, 2, and 3 Circulating
Water Discharge Canal. The blowdown discharge channel is a concrete lined
flume approximately seven (7) feet deep with a twenty (20) feet wide sloping
bottom. The bottom slopes from an elevation of 93'-0" at the cooling towers to
an elevation of 90'-0" at the inlet to the discharge structure. The blowdown
discharge channel is designed to convey the maximum Circulating Water System
blowdown flows plus the plant retention canal overflow resulting from a 50 year,
24 hour, occurrence rainfall event.
3-27
110380
-------
To prevent overflowing the intake channel during situations such as a makeup
pump trip when one or two intake pumps are still operating, an overflow channel
connecting the intake and blowdown discharge channels is provided. The overflow
channel, as indicated in Figure 2, is located just ahead of the makeup pump
structure. The overflow channel is concrete lined, approximately two (2) feet
deep, and has a fifteen (15) feet wide bottom at a constant elevation of 98*-0"«
SYSTEM OPERATION
.Normal operation of the Circulating Water Makeup and Blowdown System consists
of the continuous operation of one intake and one makeup pump for each unit in
operation. If both Units 4 and 5 are in operation then two intake pumps and
two makeup pumps are required. Any two of the three intake pumps may be used
to provide the makeup water requirements for both Units 4 and 5. The remaining
intake pump isastandby to be used in the event one of the operating pumps fail.
The three makeup pumps are arranged such that one pump is dedicated to Unit 4,
one is dedicated to Unit 5, and the remaining pump can serve either Unit 4 or 5.
The Circulating Water Makeup and Blowdown System design is based on a constant
rate of makeup concept, but the intake pumps take suction from the Units 1, 2,
and 3 Circulating Water Discharge Canal and, therefore, are subject to the
effects of the tide. Each pump is designed to provide the one unit design
makeup flow of 34,000 gallons per minute when the Units 1, 2, and 3 discharge
canal is at the design or normal low tide water level elevation. The design
water level elevation at low tide is 88'-0". When the water level elevation
in the Units 1, 2, and 3 discharge canal is above 88'-0", the intake pumps will
supply more than the 34,000 gallons per minute due to the reduced suction lift.
The maximum flow from the intake pumps will occur when the discharge canal is at
high tide. The design or normal high water level elevation at high tide is 92'-0"
Under these suction conditions, each intake pump will transfer 36,500 gallons per
n-.ir.ute into the intake channel. The total design fluctuation of the water level
at the intake purap suction is four (4) feet.
The makeup pumps take suction from the intake channel and, therefore, are subject
to the effects of a fluctuating water level in the channel. Each makeup pump
is designed to provide the one unit design makeup flow of 34,000 gallons per
minute when the water level elevation in the intake channel is 96'-0". Opera-
tion of the makeup pumps with the intake channel water level below elevation
96'-0" would damage the pumps due to cavitation. As the intake pump flow fluc-
tuates. the level in the intake channel will also vary. This will effect the
makeup pump flow. The maximum flow from the makeup pumps will occur when the
intake pumps are at their peak delivery point because the maximum water level
in the intake channel occurs in this situation.
When the maximum intake channel water level occurs and the two intake and two
makeup pumps are operating at maximum flow the hydraulic gradient as indicated
in Figure 1 will occur over the length of the intake channel. Under these
conditions, the channel water level at the makeup pumps will be at elevation
98.18' and each makeup pump will be pumping 35,750 gallons per minute into the
3-28
-------
circulating water systems. At the same time, each intake pump will be pumping
36,500 gallons per minute into the intake channel. Therefore, total flow into
the intake channel will be 73,000 gallons per minute and the total flow pumped
out of the channel will be 71,500 gallons per minute. The excess 1,500 gallons
per minute will flow directly through the overlfow channel and into the blow-
down discharge channel. The excess makeup water flowing through the overflow
channel will decrease as the water elevation in the Units 1, 2, and 3 Discharge
Canal drops below 92,-0". The excess makeup water flow rate through the over-
flow channel will be zero, unless the Units 1, 2, and 3 Discharge Canal water
elevation is above approximately 90'-0".
The makeup water entering the circulating systems produces the continuous
blowdown from the Unit 4 and 5 cooling towers. The quantity of the blowdown
flow is dependent upon the makeup water flow, the cooling tower drift, and the
evaporation losses. The design blowdown flow is 61,122 gallons per minute from
both the Unit 4 and 5 cooling towers. This flow rate produces a hydraulic grad-
ient in the blowdown discharge channel as indicated in Figure 1.
110380
3-29
-------
u>
(
u>
o
g9*°--
miMt sr*vcto>c
IN1UI ANO imCMARf.f
ChANNE I HVIIRAUL«. f.PIDIfNI
r iGirtf t
110380
-------
-------
FPCR4/5-FEIS.1/WR.
1/13/81
4.0 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
The Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) was published in
September 1980 and was made available to the public on September 26,
1980. The Federal Register, Volume 45, Page 63914, dated September 26,
1980, announced the availability of thp DEIS and the proposed issuance
of an NPDES Permit. The DEIS was provided to various federal, state,
and local agencies, as well as concerned individuals, interest groups,
and public officials. A public notice of the document's availability
and of a public hearing on the DEIS appeared in the Suncoast Sentinal
(September 24, 1980) and the Tampa Tribune (September 25, 1980).
The public hearing was held in Crystal River, Florida, on October 28,
1980. In addition to the public input afforded by the hearing
'
(transcript provided herein), many letters were received and are
included in this Final EIS.
The designations in the margins of the letters identify specific
comments for which responses have been developed. These responses
follow the letters. In a similar manner, the designations in the
margins of the hearing transcript identify comments vftiich have received
responses. Many of the transcript comments were similar or identical to
the written; consequently, some transcript responses refer to responses
to written comments already presented.
Those items referenced in paragraph 3 of Florida Power Corporation's
letter of November 10, 1980 (page 4-33), are included in Chapter 3 of
the Final EIS. These items include the Groundwater Monitoring Program
(letter of November 5, 1980) and the Circulating Water Makeup and
Blowdown System Description (letter of October 31, 1980).
4-1
-------
FPCR4/5-FEIS. 1/I1CEX. 1
1/9/81
INDEX 10 OOM€NTS CN FPC CRYSTAL RIVER UNITS 4 & 5 EEIS
CCMCNT RESPONSE
OMENT PACE PAX
NUMBER NUMBER NUMBER
CCM-ENIER
DATE
NATURE CF GCMCNT
DER-1 4-8 4-60 Dept. of Bnwirotmental Regulation 10/7/80
DER-2 4-8 4-60 Dept. of Environmental Regulation 10/7/80
Conditions of certification modified 5/22/80
Chlorine—State has stricter requirements than EPA
Draft NPDES permit
AF-1
4-19
4-60
Dept. of Air Force
9/24/80
No impact to Air Force operations
SCS-1
4-20
4-60
Soil Conservation Service
10/9/80
No cannents
FS-1
4-21
4-60
Forest Service
10/15/80
Forest management plan
FS-2
4-21
4-60
Forest Service
10/15/80
Compliance with Resource Conservation aid
Recovery fict
HUD-1
4-22
4-61
Dept. of Housing and Urban
Development
10/27/80
Acid rain from plant operations
HUD-2
4-22
4-61
Dept. of Hausing and Urban
Development
10/27/80
Housing of construction workers
HLS-1
4-23
4-62
Helen L. Spivey
11/5/80
Disposal of fly ash
HLS-2
4-24
4-63
Helen L. Spivey
11/5/80
Impact of salt drift fran cooling towers
HLS-3
4-25
4-64
Helen L. Spivey
11/5/80
A/ail ability of low sulfur aoal
HLS-4
4-25
4-64
Helen L. Spivey
11/5/80
Acid rain from plait operations
DI-1
4-27
4-65
Dept. of Interior
11/5/80
Impact on visibility fran stack missions
Florida trail (SW corner of Inverness)
-------
YKStU/ 3-FEIS. 1/I1BEX. 2
1/9/81
INDEX TO CEMENTS CN FPC CRYSTAL RIVER UNITS 4 & 5 EE IS
(Continued, Page 2 of 6)
OOftENI
NUMBER
OCMfNT
PAGE
NUMBER
RESPONSE
PAX
NUMBER
CUtENIER
DAIE
NAIURE CF CEMENT
CDC-1
4-28
4-65
Center for Disease Control
11/5/80
Objection to open burning daring construction
CDC-2
4-28
4-65
Center for Disease Control
11/5/80
Groundwater monitoring programs
NRC-1
4-29
4-66
Nuclear Regulatory Coranission
11/7/80
Impact frcm potential leachate (radioactive and
heavy metals)
NRO-2
4-29
4-66
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
11/7/80
Air emission impacts-greenhouse effect aid health
impacts
NRC-3
4-30
4-67
Nuclear Regulatory Coranission
11/7/80
Coal fuel cycle impacts-mining
NRC-4
4-30
4-67
Nuclear Regulatory Coranission
11/7/80
Effects of Crystal River (CR) Units 1, 2, and 3
going closed-cycle cooling
NRC-5
4-30
4-68
Nuclear Regulatory Coranission
11/7/80
Impingement an CR 1, 2, and 3 screens due to
increased coal barge traffic
1BC-6
4-31
4-68
Nuclear Regulatory Conmission
11/7/80
Impacts of chlorination
WB-7
4-31
4-68
Nuclear Regulatory Coranission
11/7/80
Toxic vapors frcm CR 4 and 5 operation on Unit 3
operators
NRC-8
4-31
4-68
Nuclear Regulatory Qxnnission
11/7/80
CR 4 and 5 structures an local meteorology
FPC-1
4-34
4-69
Florida Power Corporation
11/10/80
De-chlorination to be used. Recommended changes to
NPIES permit
FPC-la 4-34 4-70 Florida Power Corporation
FPC-2 4-34 4-70 Florida Power Corporation
11/10/80 Proposed changes to NPDES peimit
11/10/80 Eliminate cooling tower drift testing every two
years
-------
BPO&/5-FEIS. 1/INDEX. 3
1/9/81
INTEX TO CUfEOTS CN FPC CRYSTAL RIVER UNITS 4 & 5 IE IS
(Continued, Page 3 of 6)
OOMNr
NUMBER
OOMfiNT
PAGE
NUMBER
RESPONSE
PAGE
NUfrfiER
CXMCNTER
DATE
NAUJRE CF CEMENT
FPC-3
4-35
4-70
Florida Power Corporation
11/10/80
Revise coal lining requirement consistent with
Florida site certification
FPC-4
4-35
4-71
Florida Power Corporation
11/10/80
Revise condition an correcting groundwater
contamination to 90 days
FPC-5
4-35
4-71
Florida Power Corporation
11/10/80
Delete overflow event recorder for plant drains
collection pond
FPC-6
4-36
4-71
Florida Power Corporation
11/10/80
Nd wetting agents planned for fugitive dust
FPC-7
4-36
4-71
Florida Power Corporation
11/10/80
Delete reference to acid rain
fpc-s
4-36
4-71
Florida Power Corporation
11/10/80
Reference mean annual and 100-year flood to plant
da tun
FPC-9
4-36
4-71
Florida Power Corporation
11/10/80
Five puqps to be used for groundwater make tp
FPC-10
4-37
4-72
Florida Power Corporation
11/10/80
Inclusion of by-pass canal for cooling tower nake
up and blowdown
FPC-11
4-72
Florida Power Corporation
11/10/80
De-chlorination facilities to be added
FPC-12
4-38
4-72
Florida Power Corporation
11/10/80
No wetting ggents planned
FPC-13
4-38
4-72
Florida Power Corporation
11/10/80
No free l^SQ^ in blowdown contrary to wording
in DEIS
FPC-14
4-38
4-72
Florida Power Corporation
11/10/80
Inclusion of bypass canal for cooling tower make
up and blowdown
-------
raS4/5-FEIS.L/E«HL4
1/9/81
INDEX 10 OfENTS CN BPC CRYSTAL RIVER INITS 4 & 5 DEIS
(Continued, Page 4 of 6)
GOttENI
NUMEER
OCMENT
PACE
NICER
RESPONSE
PACE
NUMBER
OCMGNIER
DATE
NAIURE (F 0Ctt£NT
FPC-15
4-38
4-72
Florida Power Corporation
11/10/80
Constant rate make xp/discharge changed by by-pass
canal
FPC-16
4-38
4-73
Florida Power Corporation
11/10/80
De-chlorination facilities to be installed
FPC-17
4-39
4-73
Florida Power Corporation
11/10/80
Dechlorination facilities to be installed
FPC-18
4-39
4-73
Florida Power Corporation
11/10/80
Water balance does not include water loss frcm
dewalering bins
FPC-19
4-39
4-73
Florida Power Corporation
11/10/80
Low flow of 330,500 gpm for Units 1, 2, aid 3
unconfirmed
FPC-20
4-39
4-73
Florida Power Corporation
11/10/80
Rewording suggested - "cooling tower make up water
intake structures...."
FPC-21
4-39
4-73
Florida Power Corporation
11/10/80
Five wells to be used
FPC-22
4-40
4-73
Florida Power Corporation
11/10/80
Revision of well monitoring progran
FPC-23
4-40
4-73
Florida Power Corporation
11/10/80
Revise chlorine monitoring frequency
FDArl
4-47
4-74
Food and Drug Adninistrat ion
11/13/80
Waters adjacent to plant are Class II rather than
Class III
FBA-2
4-47
4-74
Food and Drug Administration
11/13/80
Operation of sewage treatment plant
OG-1
4-50
4-74
Office of the Governor
11/13/80
Referral of ocoments frcm DEH, K5 & F cuniussion
ani HRS
-------
rTCaA/5-FEIS. 1/IHEX.5
1/9/81
INDEX TO (mEOTS CN FPC CRYSTAL RIVER IKTTS 4 & 5 DEIS
(Continued, Page 5 of 6)
OOMENT
NUMBER
COMM
PAX
NUMBER
RESPONSE
PACE
NUMBER
OCMEN1ER
DAJE
NA2URE (F CEMENT
PGPC-1
4-51
4-74
Florida Gane and Freshwater
Fish Gcnmission
10/29/80
Cooling water intake location
FGPC-2
4-51
4-74
Florida Game and Freshwater
Fish Ctranission
10/29/80
Salt drift monitoring progran
PGFC-3
4-51
4-75
Florida Gane aid Freshwater
Fish Qmnission
10/29/80
Groundwater monitoring progran
HRS-1
4-53
4-75
Dept. of Health and Rehabilitative 10/14/80
Services
ffo comments
CCC-1
4-54
4-75
Citrus County Civic Association
11/5/80
Objection to use of freshwater from groundwater
aquifer
OCO-2
4-54
4-75
Citrus County Civic Association
11/5/80
Concern ever fly ash adisposal
FWS-1
4-55
4-75
Fish and Wildlife Service
11/12/80
Cooling make if} does not significantly affect
impingement and entrainnent
FWS-2
4-55
4-75
Fish and Wildlife Service
11/12/80
Siltation and turbidity from construction
activities
FWS-3
4-56
4-76
Fish and Wildlife Service
11/12/80
Biological opinion of March 16, 1979
FWS-4
4-56
4-76
Fish and Wildlife Service
11/12/80
Drainage alteration
FWS-5
4-56
4-76
Fish and Wildlife Service
11/12/80
Salt drift impacts
-------
EPCHA/5-FEIS. 1/DCEX.6
1/9/81
INDEX TO CEMENTS CN FPC CRSfSIAL RIVER UNITS 4 & 5 EEIS
(Continued, Page 6 of 6)
CCMENT RESPONSE
OOWCNT PAGE PAGE
NUMffiR NUMBER NUMBER OMENER EAIE NAIUFE CF OCM-ENI
FWS-6 4-56 4-76 Fish and Wildlife Service 11/12/80 Diked wetland area west of Units 1, 2, and 3
NOAA-1 4-58 4-77 National Oceanic and Atmospheric 10/27/80 Severe weather
AAninistration
OOE-1 4-59 4-77 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 10/22/80 Wetlands; and construction of intake and outfall
Jacksonville District
OOE-2 4-59 4-77 U.S. Anny Corps of Engineers, 10/22/80 Elevation of Lake Rousseau
Jacksonville District
OCE-3 4-59 4-77 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 10/22/80 Lake Rousseau hydroelectric power
Jacksonville District
T-l 4-109 4-122 Helen L. Spivey 10/28/80 Fly ash disposal
T-2 4-115 4-122 Helen L. Spivey 10/28/80 Sinkhole formation due to drawdown of well field
-------
TWIN TOWERS OF PICE BUILDING
2800 BLAIR STONE ROAD
TALLAHASSEE. FLORIDA 32301
JACOB O. VARM
secretary
BOB GRAHAM
GOVERNOR
STATE OF FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION
October 7, 1980
John E. Hagen, III.
Chief, EIS Branch
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency
Region IV
345 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
Dear Mr. Hagen:
Re: Draft EIS for Crystal River 4 & 5 and DRAFT NPDES Permit
SAI No. 81-0449E
We have reviewed the drafts and have no objections to them. Two points
should be called to your attention however.
First, the Conditions of Certification for Crystal River 4 and 5 were
qed.1 again modified on May 22, 1980. A copy of the order modifying the conditions
and the new language for those conditions are attached for Inclusion 1n the
Final EIS.
Second, although the NPDES permit does state the State requirements which
are stricter than the NPDES permit shall prevail, you may wish to review the
conditions pertaining to the discharge of chlorine from cooling tower blowdown.
ncR.o NpDES permit allows continuous discharge of chlorine, while the State's
~ conditions (Special Condition II.A.7) restrict discharge to two hours 1n any
one day from either unit, and also prohibits discharge from #4 or #5 while
any other unit 1s discharging chlorine.
For your information DER 1s planning to send a representative to the
hearing on the 28th in Crystal River.
Sincerely,
Hamilton S. Oven, Jr., P.E.
Administrator
Power Plant Siting Section
HSOjr: jb
Attachment
cc: Mickey Bryant
Walt Kolb
original typed on 100% recycled paper
4-8
-------
BEFORE THE 5TATS CF rLCRXCA
DEPAatMCr? or SHVIRONMEWTAt REGULATION
IS RE: )
)
FLORIDA POWER CORPORATION, )
CRYSTAL RIVER ONITS 4 fc S, ) ?A 77-09
MODIFICATION Of CONDITIONS )
OF CERTIFICATION, )
CITRUS COUNT*, FLORIDA. )
)
OROER MODIFYING CONDITIONS Cf CERTIFICATION
This aattir cuae en to tM heard by the Secretary of the Depart-
Mat of Environmental Regulation at a duly noticed public hearing
on Hay 22, 1980. Saving reviewed the evidence and all necessary
docuaents, and otherwise being fully advised in the premises, the
Departaent hereby enters this Order and finds:
1. The Secretary of the Department of Environmental Regulation
has the authority to enter this Order pursuant to Special Condition
III C. to the Certification Order entered by the Governor and Cabinet
of the State of Florida on Movsaber 21, I9?t.
2. The RecB—endatlon of the Southwest Florida Water Manageaent
District, Order No. 10-22# copy attached as Exhibit 9, is in accordance
with all applicable statutes and. rules and regulations of the Depart-
ment, the Findings of Fact contained therein are based on competent,
substantial evidence, and the Conclusions of Law contained therein
are correct.
Therefore be it OROEPSD
1. The aforesaid Reccoaendation of the Southwest Florida Mater
Management District, Order No. 90-22, be adopted by the Department,
and
4-9
-------
2. Tii* aforeaaid Certification Order be :nodi2ied in accordance
wis^i Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein.
DONE ABC OJUJSJtSO this lay of May, 1980.
rlUNG #*iC ACC:OViL£OG£MPlT
RUED. on tt««s data, pursuant to S 120.52 (31.
Honda 3tatu«a. *«tr» m# da»grat«d Depart-
ment Dark, rtcaipt of wnteti >• iwaby sc*now-
tatfgad.
Oat* Oats
iW^1^
Secretary
Department of Snvironmental
Regulation
2600 Blair Stone Road
Twin Towara Office Building
Tallahassee, Florida 32301
cc: All partiea
-2-
4-10
-------
C5/C5/30
3£?CR£ T-iS SCVEWtr.NG 3CAPO
SCUTnUEST PmSRZZA *A73 MMA6&0T ::niCT
PURXM WW© C5HP0W7T0JI )
CRYSTAL RIVER UNITS 4 15 )
NOTIFICATION OF COMJITIONS )
cf csrr.FicATicit no. ?a 77-09. ) c*ca ho. a0-22
crraus ccuirrr, florid )
?swnra. |
RSCCWCNOATICN CF SOV&MIXB iOfiKO TO
Ttt StCZFAtr, 2E?ARTME1T OF PWHCWC17AI.
afaiUTICN, CN MCOIFiCAriCN OF
special ccNoncN rrz of
CStTIFIIATICN CRCE3.
TTi1» Mattar cut on to b« hurd ay tfta Scvarnlng 2c«rl af Sou?J*Mt
Florida tfatar ttanaganant 31str1ct it & ?uol1c rtaaring 3/1 April i, ;J9Q. Sa'd
ftttllc Haarlng, ftalitg duly and pnpirly iot1cad. *as csnductaa it District
Haadduartars, SCM U. S. Highway *t SouCA. irooltavllTa. Florida, *nd all partial
homo MT9 prmrnit or |1v«n am opportunity » M prasant, Md. tsgathar *itii
tin gantri! public, war* glvan *n opportunity a prtsant tastlmny *nd avidanca.
Tha Board. Having rcr1«w«d Ma ippHcatlon and all oocuaants In tiia FUa of
Racsrd, having haard eaattaony, M hiving raealvad *nd axuitiad *11 dceawntary
a*1danc«. wkas tl* following
FIiOINSS OF FACT:
1. Tha Southeast Florida watar Managaaant Of strict rtcalvad en
Jtavtaoar 2f. 1979. « '¦aquast fraa Florida ?omt Corporation 'or aoolflcatlon
of Spaelal Condition of Car%lflestlon III-C for tts Cry*tal Rivar Units t and
5. Tha Raomt for Modification taaiu raductlon of sua nuaoar of «alls in tha
ArashMtar wall f1«1d naar Acuta 19, Crystal Rlvar, Florida, from 21 walls to
7 ««!*i (* production wan* and 3 ftard-fty vails). Tha mdlflcation Mid
tncraasa tna «varaga dally withdrawal frgn tha production «#11s +n* M.COQ
gallons par day ta 2*2,100 gallons par day on ivaraga and ft-aa l-u.oco gil'ors
par day ta me aora than 754,000 gallons jar day par 4*11 during iny t:ngla
aay. Thara Is <10 Ineraas# in tfta tstil «1t!wrji»al *raa i** ««17 fla!« :«ing
raquastad. „
t. Soaciat Condition 111-C icacnao 3 tSa Cartelcatlcn Crtar
of tla Sovamor and Citimat fir Zrjtt*' *1var Jnlts 1 in« s iutScr*;M -*»a
Saflarsrant of Lw^fsnrantal Ifj'iZ'tn zj aaai'y -*t ./izr.anM', 1 '.mtat*:rs
*s?i : :
4-11
-------
CS/C5/3C
on :fca fr«f:waear *tll flald lssoclatsd *irn :!tut i«w jn:rs previa*! tht
Soutm»«st 'Torfda Watar lanagamtnt 31 strict concurs ind jrsvidtd tin n«»
«1tiidV»a'. rttas 3o rat :iusa t violation of SoutJiwtst Florida Watar *anag»-
oant 01 strict ragulatlont.
3. Tha 3aqu«st for modification from Florida Pcwor is
to in Incrtasa froa an avarago withdrawal rat# of 10,300 gallant por day ptr
*•11 ts 252,300 gallon* par day par day ;ar m11 ind art Irtcrsasa an mxlmum
wltMrval rata* froa 144,300 gallons par day par **11 to 756,CC0 gallons par
day p«r *aJl. Ails ftaquut for *odl ft cation Ms baan nandlad by Olstrlct saf4
u tftougft ft war* a raouost for modification of a consumptive jst parotic.
4. Tha prqpostd aodldtd locations /or autfiorliad withdrawals
1 r* .ft* quantltlas of 1,000,COO gallons par day (avtnga annual) at cuantltlts
not to «xct*4 3,300,000 gallons par day >iav* stan assassaa ss a soawcslt*
«1 v'wnwa. slta acarlanea with tha Soutm.*st F'crla* uatar fenagamnt
District Consuaptlva Usa Panrtttlng crltarl* sac forw 1n Sactlon 16J-2.11,*
rlorlda Ad»1n1strat1vt Codas; and. basad upon supporting ^ceuncntatlsn
jufiartttad by n or Ida ?swar Corpcritlon, and -"it tvalaation of such data by
staff of :.ia 01 strict:
(a) Tha propose withdrawal win not causa tia ita of flew of a
itraa* or othar aatareoursa ta im 'owand Safow tha Minimum rata of flow
aatabHshad by tha Soard.
(b) Tha proposad withdrawal will not causa tna laval of tha potantlo-
arorfc surfaca ts b* lowarad balow tha ragulatery laval astabllshad by tfta 3card.
(c) Th« proposal w1thom»*l *111 not causa I?.* laval of tha surfact
of watar to ba la war ad bale* tha slnlmua ia*a1 aatabHshad by tha Soard.
(d) Tha propaaad withdrawal will net significantly induct salt
«atar ancoacTawt.
(a) Tha proposad withdrawal *111 not causa tha watar tab la to sa
Towarad so that th* lak» $taga» or vagatatlon *111 ba advarsaly and significantly
affactad on lands othar than thosa swnad, lauad or stharvfsa zmzri) 1 ao by
tha applicant.
(f) 7?t* oroposad »ftMrt»a! «1T1 not iaus« ;.t« lav«I of ^
xtantlcawtr-'c sur'aca oncar Taraa iQt 3«m«a, Taasad or ;3ntr3**M
by z!rt apotlcsnt to bo iowar* iwr* taan *lva f«at {?').
-V}9 Z 5f :
4-12
-------
SS/05/30
(}} 7J»a ;ropoaad «taanwil not :auia :»• l«v«t of ;*• 4ur
taola undar land* net awnad, taasad or atharnlsa ssntrollad by the applicant
to ta lc*«r*d aor* t.lan thrat feet {3').
(h) The propose *ithdr»al -in not causa the lavel of the surface
of aatar In any laJta or oWtr inpoundsiartt ta te lowerad nor* than on* foot (!')
unless the lake or lapoundaant ft wholly owned, Teased or otherwise control lad
by the applicant.
(1) TIm propose withdrawal will net causa the potwtloaietr!c surfaca
to be lowered balow sae level.
U) TIm proposed wttMm*: m<17 not exceed z?i* *atar crop if
lands owned. Teased or otherwise controlled by the applicant.
S. A capy of • proposed Modified Special Condition in ij attached
hereto as !xhlb1t 1. tnd aeda a part hereof by reference. Conditions «r,lc.n have
be«i ^illy executed fceve been aalatad and scaa wording has been clarified.
Special Condition III-C he* baaii wd1 fled u authorize withdrawals froa my of
seven (7) walls designated ?W-l Otrsufh ?V-T, *lth each well If ml tad nevertheless
to an ivtnti wlthdrewel rata of "SZ.500 jallons par Uy (ivariga annual} and
a wlu withdrawal rata of 756,330 gallons during any single day. Tha total
authorized eaained withdrawal raaatns unchanged at an aversga withdrawal
rata if l,XG,QCQ 99II0M par iay (average annual) with a mxlmm eaafelned rata
net to exceed J.OOO.OCO jallons par day.
j. In light of the fact that modification of Condition III-C
win shift the center of withdrawals, It Is appropriate that modification
to Speelal Condition 111-*, relating to lonltsrfng and Hapcrt be alio
accoaelfshad. It Is proposed that Special Condition IIJ-F.a. b* «od1f1ad
to provide that Malts KZ-Z1, W-20 and PW-7 b« «a1nta1nad as continuously
recording watar level aonltor walls, and that Malts *Z-2S, Ml-IS, tt-ll and
KZ-lfl ba Mnually eeastired monthly. Reports win be ntartttad aonthly
fnxtaad of quartarly.
7. It ft ftirthar appropnata ttat Spaciat Condition III-J.l.
ba «d1fiad ta currant flow aaasur-fn? itandartt a PrsvMa for jraatar
accuracy of data, and that both Soaeial Condition III-*.2. and TII-4. ba •
aodlflad to srjvlda for iwthly rapartlng of wtarad ?iaea«* and total
aonthly is*.
'ifli 2 ;f :
4-13
-------
OS/CS/SO
8. rt'l* further appropriate that Special Condition [II-f.4.
be aod1f1«d. {(i light 3f now tncwn actuai « 1 t.**lrjv»a 1 points, ia reduce the
nuflbfr of water quality ujnlwring wells and to specifically designate Wells
MI-2I and MZ-20, in addition tg all production wells, for water quality
taapllng.
9. Two Objections have been reeetvad in response to notice of
tills pending application for modification of Special Condition III-C of
Certification. ZacJ\ of. the Objectors own property approximately one-half
•lie south of f?C's property line. It hex been calculated that the potentio-
•etrfc surface at F?C's south property line will be lowered less than two
feet as a result of PC's withdrawals at the average authorized withdrawal
rate and less than three feet at the taxlnun withdrawal rate. The resultant
lowering af the static water levels In the Objectors water wells will ^e
less then three inches during avenge withdrawals and lass than one foot
during sulm withdrawals. The change proxloate!/ resulting froa the
reduction In the mtffter of withdrawal points previously authorized and the
consequent increase If withdrawal rate per well, as this change ts related
to potential for Interference *lth the Objector's legal use of water, fs
less than one-half foot.
In accordance with the foregoing, and in consideration of applicable
Taws and regulations* the Soar* aekest the following
CONCLUSIONS OF UW:
10. The Applicant has estetllshed that the Intended consuaptlve use:
a) fa a reasonatole-Jww'ltl*'
a) 1s consistent with the pu&He interest; and
c) «m not interfere with any legal use of water
existing at the r1«e of the *PPl ication.
11. TTw Intended consumptive use Is in coapllance with the resuire-
»wts of Chapter 373, Florid* Statutes, and Chapter 1SJ, Florida Ad»1nistrat!v«
Code.
'therefore, upon ansloertdcn, ft Is
COT £33
12- That arts Order :nd £*mbft I ittacned *er«a :• and ft ts
heresy afiocrMd and approved ay this 3°«rt " r«csnaenoation :p the
Secretary, r.ortds Oepartaent vf Snvirwrnantal *aguiatton. 'or ¦Hsdlflcatljn
3f Special Concision ".I of Car^fWion for Zwuj *iver Units i »na S.
?sge i 3f s
4-14
-------
C 5/05/30
13. That S«n«r*T lounstl 1s lutnorlstd tnd iirjcttd to do ill
legal icts nKUUry to acsaapllstt :i>1s action of :!-.t Hort, inclualng suci
Stipulations as my jucfi ."oalfleatlens.
OATS: »*'/ «< 1980
SOUTOWRT P.CRIIA «A7El JWIM6EWEMT 0I$7*:CT
01r«ct8P Ad^ulttaryH fr* ^
iff y
::r; &jsz.
FILOWr™ OflU. WM
OR /,rr „
O.// * 7'
C7»i
0S/QS30 O*
Pift S of S
4-15
-------
\rzunc*tzar
A
\
The use of jroundwatar fraw i :'n«r «el!f1e!d *ar alint
service -«ater for Units i ind 5 shall be ulnlmlted to the
greatest extant sractlciDla, sut fn no cast snail exceed 3 Ttga
on a maximum dally iasls frsm my new xells or 1.3 ngd an an
average annual Stsls.
3.' Well Criteria
The jufcmlssion zf *ell lags and :sst ""suits ind location Assign
and construction of wells to aroviae ?lant service water snail
be in accordance with applicable rjlas if the Seaarwent af
Env1rtnmenta 1 Regulation and the Southwest noriaa Water Manage-
ment District (SWrW®).' Total *atar use per month shall ie
reported .monthly to SyPWMD csmneitcing »1tn t.ie start
zf construction.
•C. 'Well 'Withdrawal Limits
r?C 1s authorized ta sake i canoined average annual withdrawal
of 1,000,OCO gallons af wwr :«r ia/ with a naxlsum combined
withdrawal rata not to exceed 3,300,300 gallons during a single
lay. Withdrawals .na/ S« nade frae a linear wellf«eld consisting
of op U iwemy-ene-TS^ seven '71 wells whose locations are
artscribed in the table oelaw.
PC well '<«.
WITHDRAWAL ?C!MT
WTITUBE ICNGI-^e
36
16
36
-W-
•4.
-4-
-Z-
-5-
28 57 2*
29 57 25
23 57 36
23 57
23 57
23 S7
23 57 36
a 57 37
U-!V^
3S-*3^£
32 37 H
32 37 42
37 36
37 30
32
32
SAU.3NS ?S3 3AY
JWXIMUH
9 756.QCO
1U.W8 7H !M
fSJS" v
sulcus ?za zxi
x mxGi *
252.500
252. :id
32 37 2*
32
32
13
13
as -sz-u
tt-55-it
IS-rr-U
t3-5»-43
»-1 i»W 7?oT3!PT
*11,3C0
IUtHK
'.UyMQ
144^366
;<4t;8c
m-rsea
t4*r»9
~TSSSrewF
i«^M0
H-r-MO
%9rt99
13*368
WtW®
Mti99
MtW3
Mt3«Q
ifl. ?00
»t4C0
i0fMO
»tMS
W-riW
HtMS
H-^ee
SdTMfl
^Jj2j22L
VtSSCtSW
fcit i
HZ .sCO
2£ 211(33
;« ice
i,:ri.aa
Wltr 'wel T-5eeehwes»*i;Te^4ee-Htawm<-ia«JWi'4tef4«n-<*"4wer^efer«y—«Be^-»e 'teee^e^T
»eeoe'^4eMrewel ¦*;
-------
3. «'atar ,ii 'aatr'ctlon
Said «eter (s restricted :3 jiii jz.ntr nan naln sraam
t condensing. Any change fn :*e .ise jf said *etar -ill require
x * soalflcation af tMs condition,
Snercenc/ Shortage*
In the event in mi yuncy water shortage should be declared
pursuant ta Seetlan 373.ITS or 272.2*6, f.5., oy ioutnweet
rlorlda Water Managaawit Cistr1;t *or jn ini including the
location of chese withdrawal joints, :h« 2#pen»ent pursuant
to Section *03.515, " 3., My alter, wdlfy, or ieclare to Ut
Inaetlvt, all or part* of Special :-nd1t1on ill, A-G. An
authorized Water Management Jistrfct ?eor««ntative, at my
reasonable tine, my uitar the precerty ta Impact the facilities.
?. .*enltare1w<.^Mwtl.tti->*»ii.,Jt
WWW, taperta will )• sent ta:
Oilef, Teelwle*; UUm**L**-U**U* P-acassIn?
and Hecards
SouBRSSfTTlenda Water "inagapent 31 strict
SQCO U.S. Highway 41, South
IroomvIHe, Florida 33312
3. ffC shall Maintain and operate continuous wear level re-
carder* ait wells saw. > i 'C-l1 i»« /?¦* M2-2I, ^g-20. and
»-7 located at Florida «r Corporation pu«p cast st^
CTtfia Caunty,^rior1da.^'**aa«».*^Me>
¦edi#iaasi4ea»«ee»eM#4»a»-»a».aF*K «^a«T.aa >e laeased
«ay-«*¦
¦a*a 'iM «m>ih.mm< mm—awU
-------
*. »acar quality analysis snail 5e par'oraad an witar «1tSdrawn
fro® ««cn snauczion <•«) ? md '-m :Sa~»ai-~;w-^iZ«1S inc-
HZ~2Sl*,-iaZtoa*4iM--XI. i i-wa-JX-i ;;T-ioa_:«»o- U-»ad
fl.tii-5eMt-la^leBittS-*»imaui.£»« .ST«aaa.a<31 -tea 2iii.SaU*.laafl»t4cfica JiUt
^UMIIIW ¦ f—i .*ailt-UZ«^-afld~4Z«31-taa^-i>a-wsal' »d tam
that .pnTtlna ~)£-Siu.«lsciSM-leu'-»B-aaC*aaa .SMl-iad-IIH
*aUw.1.iaaiitarfKa.—iiti»^ttMnMJMfcinmc»18 »e4 .HZ.>3.
fall >r.*—*• '"i* ir**"* •"* r-»^ni-^ft«».-^«M
<171! .md t181 ?«1hw tad-sac-fis*.. walls M2-2I *no *2-23.
Tha Mtttr Jimplts ca11«ctad from «acn br uii rartrancao <•«! 1 s
stall 5a callactad fumadlitaly if.tr ramovjl by puaiplaq of i
quantity of witar tgual ta mo casing volunaa. At-aaaitas
wall .«¦? .Is .Siing ,;aatttu6t»4-SSa-;SC~md..tUi*-ai.5,4rjfl3 iiji
4ataeiae-Ae4-»44i«.5-;3e-latar»*l*-4a-aa^sc6iss«8dUa-a6sa8y4wl4946-<3aai;iaa*«4e6aee4o«4-iieea-4sil-i39^s^t-
Tha watar quality tnal/tts shall b« Darfarrad nonthly during
lha first ji«r nf ooararion, fsur tlmaa {January, *ay, Saptamtoar,
ind Dacamoar) during tna se;cna y«ir «nd r*1ca «ch /sir ;r»ay
snd Saptssfiar) trwrwrtar. aasu'ta shall b« juianltttd to S«F«W0
By tha fifteenth (1E tn) day af the nonth f;1lc*»1ng t.l« ncnth
during whlci such irulysita «ara sar'sntd. "astl.ig for :ha
following constituents is raoulrad:
Caldum .'"agnaslian Sodium
3otiss1uai 31«r3anita Sulfas*
Oilarlda sitrata To til Olssal'/ad Solids
Soac1f1c Conductanca Sross Aloha Totil 'hospnita
iUdli* 223 (only If SadUtion
grass Alpha is graatar
Wan IS pcl/I)
^«uvim if oil!
as IndlTStaa-ay-Ua .*frmaa4.g-ky»Ma-l-ai»«-3-«asaa«ai»a«y-a*
is w
-------
DEPART AE>I7 OF
REGIONAL CIViU ING^'EEP.
52«» TITLE Eluil 3'W\ i
ATLANTA i
l"
i'L>*CV TO
\TTN OF
R0V2
2k September 1980
Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) - Florida Power
Corporation, Crystal River Units U and 5
Environmental Protection Agency-
Region IV
ATTN: Mr. John E. Hagan, III
Chief, EIS Branch
3^5 Courtland Street, N. E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
1. The subject DEIS will have no adverse environmental impact on AF-1
Air Force operations.
2. Thank you for giving us the opportunity to review this DEIS.
THOMAS D. SIMS
C lief
E nvironmental Planning Division
4-19
-------
United States Soil ,-,rt0
Department of Conservation P. 0. Box 120o
•/ Agriculture Service Gainesville, FL 32602
October 9, 1980
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency
345 Courtland Street, NE
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
ATTN: Mr. John E. Hagan, III
Chief, EIS Branch
Dear Mr. Hagan:
RE: Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Florida Power Corporation
Crystal River Units 4 and 5
We have reviewed the subject draft environmental impact statement and
SCS-1 we have no constructive comments to offer.
We appreciate the opportunity to review and comment.
Sincerely,
William E. Austin
State Conservationist
J\ T^e Soil Conserval'cn Service
• f}. s an agency of tne
Ceoartmenf 31 Agnc-jlture
4-20
SCS-AS-I
10-79
-------
United States Department of Agriculture
FOREST SERVICE
1720 Peachtree Street, N.W,
Atlanta, Georgia 30367
October 15, 1980
1950
Mr. John E. Hagan
Chief, EIS Branch
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
345 Courtland Street, N.W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
FS-1
Dear Mr, Hagan:
We have reviewed the draft E I S of Florida Power's proposed Crystal
River Power Plant Units 4 and 5 and offer the following comments.
We commend the writers of the draft EIS and the 2 volumes of technical
support documents for the thorough and in-depth data collection and analysis,
especially Volume 1 , Chapter 2.0. It is suggested that Florida Power contact
the Florida Division of Forestry, Florida Departmenfof Agriculture and
Consumer Services, Collins Building, Tallahassee, Florida 32304 and request
the services of a County service forester to evaluate and prepare a forest
management plan and prescription for the Citrus River property. There is a
wide diversity of ecosystems found in this area with a large number of trees,
plants, fish, animals, and aquatic ecosystems. With proper forest, wildlife,
water, and other resource management, the property could be improved
environmentally from both the aesthetic and biological standpoint. Since
the area supports the growth of slash pine and eastern red cedar, silvicul-
tural measures should be employed to encourage the growth of these tree
species on the property.
It is assumed that the law and regulations of RCRA (Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act PL 94-580, section 4C01 solid wastes) will be complied FS-2
with in the treatment and disposal of wastes and waste water from these gen-
erating units.
We appreciate the opportunity to review this draft EIS and look forward to
receiving a copy of the final EIS.
Sincerely,
"ic^r
\ ROBERT D. RAISCH
Area Director
4-21
6200-11 -1 Ml
-------
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
ATLANTA REGIONAL OFFICE
RICHARD B. RUSSELL FEDERAL BUILDING
75 SPRING STREET, S.W.
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303
u ft inN IV „ O. u 1-r inon IN REPLY BEFERTO:
region iv October 27, 1980
4C
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Attn: Mr. John E. Hagen, III
Chief, EIS Branch
345 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
Gentlemen:
Subject: FL0036366
The Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed construction
of two 695MW coal-fired electric generating plants, at the existing
Crystal River complex in Citrus County, Florida, has been reviewed by
the appropriate HUD offices in Region IV. The review has indicated
that the proposed construction would not generate a direct impact on
existing or proposed HUD projects.
However, HUD does consider the acid rain created as a result of the
plant operation to be an important consideration. What impact would
there be upon the individuals living and working in the area surrounding
the proposed site? Also of concern would be the impact of the acid rain
upon plant and animal life, and more specifically the agricultural crops
in the area. Although this phenomenon is being studied extensively, the
effects should be well considered and discussed.
The housing of the workers during construction is an additional concern
that should be addressed. Will these workers be from the immediate area,
or will they come from long distances, and require housing for their
work? More discussion should be included concerning these construction
workers, and the socioeconomic impact that the proposed project will
have upon the community during and after construction.
We appreciate the opportunity of reviewing and commenting on this DEIS.
Sincerely,
Geraldine G. Thompson
Regional Administrator
AREA OFFICES
AN'A. 3E:='5iA . i'SMiNOHAM, ALA3A'U CSLwMB'A, SO'JTh CifiO'. NA ¦ JPEEMS90S0. SORTV CAROLINA - JACKSON,
-ACKJONVIL.t, - LCRICA.
-------
November 5th, 1980
9^0 EJW 5th Terrace,
Crystal River, Florida 32629
Jo hn 2. Hagan, III,
Chief, EIS Branch,
Enviornmental Protection Agency,
Region IV,
3^5 Courtland Street, N,E. Re: Draft EIS, NPDES Permit for
Atlanta, Georgia 303^5 Florida Power Corporation
Crystal River Units 4&5
Dear Sir:
I would like to make the following comments on the above
mentioned EIS statement and register objections to several
oortions of the proposed NPDES permit draft.
PLYASH I found conflicting statements in a number of places
in the EIS regarding flyash disposal. I also found statements that
were not consistant with the precautions being taken for disposal
at the Florida Power Corporation (FPC) site, as opoosed to off-
site disposal.
In one place it states all ash will be contained on a 95 acre
site at the FPC property. In another it states FPC will dedicate
it's remaining acerasre , in the event the 95 acres is not enough.
In other places it speaks of having to market 26^ of the flyash
and if it cannot, then disposal "off-site" will be sought.
An extensive monitoring program is described in the EIS and the
draft oermit. for the on-site ash disposal area, yet elsewhere in
the EIS text it speaks to PPC's selling the flyash and lists
as market possibilities, among other things, "fill for deve- HLS-1
lopement". (Chap 3-80) I find this lnconsistant with the pre-
cautions being taken to monitor the leachate "on-site" because
it is uncertain how harmful It will be, yet no precautions are
being taken for however much FPC gives away or pays to have
hauled away "off-site". Granted there is a lot of flyash In
a 20 acre pile 40 feet high, but at least It Is above ground.
In the 50 years I've lived in Florida (born in Orlando) I've
seen some mighty big holes "filled for developement", including
about half the bays in the state, I spoke at the hearing a few
weeks ago about an incident where a fill contractor filled a
cyuress swamp at Hall's River with fly ash and then covered It
with sand so that it appeared to be a normal fill when the Fla.
DER Inspector arrived in response to complaints. He did discover
evidence of fly ash about the fill, and the man lacked a permit
of any kind to fill, so the ash was removed. FPC contends that
the matter has nothing to do with this permit because the fly
ash was from units 1+2. If, as is stated in the EIS, they
can accomodate the flyash from 1,2,^45 for 26 years of the
oroposed 30 year l^fe of units *H"5» how come they're trucking
away the ash for 14'2 now? And what of the U years left when
they run out of room ? If they can sell it or give it away for
fill for "developement" and it's perfectly safe, then I see no
need for the extensive on-site monitoring program that will
attempt to assess the harm from the flyash leachate.
This area of Florida has an abundance of surface groundwater,
easily contaminated by waste, and I would like to see regulations
governing the Dermit specifically speak to off-site disposal of
4-23
-------
-2-
flyash, particularly for "fill for developement", unless or until
your leachate monitoring program determines it is harmless. If
FPC needs off-site disposal areas, then I feel that the same
monitoring program should be carried out and that if it proves
harmful it becomes their responsibility to relocate, not the
taxpayers of this county and state. Besides off-site disposal,
I feel sales of or give-aways of fly ash for "fill for developement"
or land fill should'be heavily regulated for enviornmental
orotection and the responsibility for it's use or mis-use fixed
with FPC. I would strong]y object to the permit not covering
this possibility of off-site disposal and uses of flyash.
SALT DRIFT I would like to express my concern that FPC could
not locate freshwater sources for it's proposed cooling towers.
I spoke to a woman a few months ago, who moved here because she
lived near a saltwater cooling tower up north. She said the
drift killed everything for ^ or 5 miles surrounding the towers.
I also feel the corrosive effects at the plant itself and on
the cars of employees will be extremely costly for FPC. I do hope
that they will continue to try and secure ample freshwater,
without resorting to groundwater as they continue construction
and get into operation. One thought I had, after reading that
they considered an alternate site near Tampa and using the
effluent from that city for their cooling towers, was prehaps
they could encourage the cities of eitrus County, though they
are small now, into seeking grant aid to pipe their effluent
from their sewer systems to the FPC site for incorporation
into their cooling towers. At present the effluent from these
cities goes Into the lakes, bays and rivers, giving nutrients
to the freshwater aquatic weed growth, allowing them to grow
bigger, better and faster. I realize pipe and pumping stations
are expensive, but so is the chemical control of aquatic weeds.
It would be an enviornmental plus to have this effluent removed
from public waters, and if this effluent disposal could be extended
Dast the 30 year life of units would be a boon to the area,
allowing added developement through expanded sewer systems.
I live 7 miles south-west of the Droposed cooling towers, putting
my home in the path of strong north-east storm winds and possible
salt drift and other emissions from the plant, I have a large
collection of bonsai trees that must, becausejthough they are
dwarfedjthey are still trees, remain out-of-doors, I have one
tree styled by world-renowned bonsal-culturlst, author John
Naka that is valued at close to a thousand dollars. It is 32
inches high. Pollution can kill bonsai trees the same as other
trees, but salt drift can be much more deadly because of the
small size of the tree. These little trees are the only work
of art that is alive and our home site was selected for their
Drotection,along with other reasons,
I realize the EIS states the salt towers are a new design which
should eliminate the problem of salt drift, but a tremendous
amount of harm to the habitat of a lot of wildlife, as well as
my little dwarf trees, will occour if they do not work as
predicted. I hooe that FPC *111 continue to avidly locate
4-24
-------
-3-
and identify potential freshwater sources that may prove to
be enough to convert the salt towers to fresh sometime during
the life of units
LCW 5ULFER COAL'S AVAILIBILITY and CONSEQUENCES CF MOT BEING
AVAILABLE
The EIS mentions in a number of places the possibility that
low sulfer coal may not be available, but does not go to any
length to assess the enviornmental impact should it prove a
reality. It states the stacks are designed to have scrubbers
installed should the low sulfer coal not be available J the
oermit (draft) states, I think, that FPC must show a contract
for the low sulfer coal for the life of the permit, 5 years.
Table 9.£-9, Chap 9-19^. states one of the disadvantages of .J+.
using low sulfer coal Is Ltml 1L"availifeility questionable".
Throughout the text one can find bits and pieces suggesting uig-a
the problems that will come about as a result, but nothing rlLo-o
is really put forth as enviornmentally safe solutions.
For instance scrubbers. If they are Installed, it is estimated
in the text, that there would be an additional 800 acres of
sludge to dispose of. It does mention briefly the possibility
of manufacturing gypsum from it^if it is of the proper content,
through a process not quite perfected yet, or dumping it way
out in the ocean, but then goes on to discuss the lengthy EIS's
that would have to be made and the uncertalnity of permits
required, etc. If low sulfer coal's availlbility is "questionable"
now, what will it be like 5t 10, 15» 20, 25 years from howT,
Cne of the disadvantages stated for not using the cooling
towers was the oossibillty of "acid Rain". But then it goes on
to say that t^e-climate, plus the use of low sulfer coai with
no scrubbers would allow a much higher plume, negating the
possibility of the stack emissions mingling with the cooling
tower fog. But nowhere does it really assess the Impact of
FPC having to install scrubbers, lowering their plume and
risking acid rain. When one sits on a bedrock of limestone HLS-4
one views the prospect of acid rain with fear. I have read
horror stories of people at a football game in Ohio running
in Danic because the rain falling from the skies was so caustic
it burnt their skin. I have seen the films on public television
showing the destruction of forests in parts of New England,
that lay in the path of emissions from Canadian power plants.
Forests whose trees lay dead, and even the termites that normally
eat downed timber were dead. Lakes and rivers changing their
oH and no longer able to support their aquatic life.
The very backbone of the EIS is based on the thing that appears
to be least certain, the availlbility of low sulfer coal.
I liken it to my going to the bank tc borrow a million dollars
to attempt to Drocess gold from turquoise and telling the
bank that the one disadvantage to my olan is the availlbility
of turquoise is questionable.
ur enviornment here is worth far more than a mere million
ollars, yet we are being asked to lend it on a process
S
4-25
-------
-4-
that can use only low sulfer coal with O-ibility
of that particular coal is questionable. I do not consider it
an envioenmentally safe or sound investment and I object.
PPC should be required to demonstrate that low sulfer coal will
be available to it ,in all probability, over the life of units
or demonstrate an enviornmentally safe method of disposing
of it's scrubber sludge, said to be far more dangerous than
flyash. h jisty?
In the ODening statements of the EIS it says that there is (j
an uncertainity as to what causes acid rain.^Cooling towers
minfflinc: with stack emissions is suspect and in one place is
stated to be a cause of acid rain. But nowhere does it give
even a hint of the impact of acid rain on an enviornment like
ours.
I hoDe with all my heart that FPC can get every chunk of low
sulfer coal it needs for units ^&5. I know they have no desire
to
-------
h United States Department of the Interior
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20240
ER 80/1Q73
NCV
5 >980
Mr. John E. Hagan, III
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region IV, Water Enforcement Branch
345 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
Dear Mr. Hagan:
The Department of the Interior has reviewed the draft
environmental statement for Crystal River Coal Fired
Generating Station, Units 4 and 5, Citrus County, Florida.
We have the following comments.
An analysis of prevailing winds and potential effects of
stack emissions on visibility and scenic integrity along
sections of the proposed Florida National Scenic Trail
should be analyzed and addressed in the final statement. A
section of- the proposed Florida National Scenic Trail is
located in Citrus County approximately 15 miles southwest of
the Crystal River site.
For additional consultation on the above subject matter please
contact Dr. Jay Gogue, Chief Scientist FTS 242-3643 and/or
Ms. Sharon Keene, Chief, Division of Scenic Rivers and Trails
FTS 242-5835, National Park Service, Southeast Region, Atlanta,
Georgia 30303.
Sincerely,—^
")6aam I ^
Jaaei H. Rathl»3berger
4-27
-------
department of health and human services
PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE
CENTER FOR DISEASE CONTROL
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30333
November 5, 1980
Mr. John E. Hag an, HI
Chief, EIS Branch
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region IV
345 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
Dear Mr. Hagan:
We have reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for Units 4
and 5, Crystal River, Florida Power Corporation. We are responding on behalf
of the Public Health Service.
We do not have any major objections to the project as proposed. However, we
do have specific concerns. In Part II-3, we object to tha plans for on-site
open burning of vegetative waste from land clearing operations. Every
effort should be made to encourage maximum commercial utilization (saw logs,
farm posts, pulpwood, etc.) of all timber resources that are cut. The
remaining debris could possibly be chipped and mulched onto soil to prevent
erosion. We believe open burning poses an unnecessary insult to air quality
which Impacts human health and, therefore, other viable alternatives need
to be considered for disposing of cleared vegetative waste.
In Part VI-11, we have concerns with the possible contamination of ground-
water by leachates from the ash storage area, coal piles, plant drains
CDC-2 collection pond and/or the canal retention system. We hope the monitoring
programs for groundwater protection in Part VII-9 of the document will
prevent all possibilities of groundwater contamination.
Thank you for the opportunity of reviewing this document. We would appreciate
receiving a copy of the Final EIS when it is issued.
Sincerely yours,
"fc—1^ c<- ¦-
Frank S. Lisella, Ph.D.
Chief, Environmental Affairs Group
Environmental Health Services Division
Bureau of State Services
4-28
-------
UNITED STATES
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
NOV 7
1980
Docket No. 50-302
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
ATTN: Mr. John E. Hagan, III, Chief
EIS Branch
345 Courtland Street, NE
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
Dear Mr. Hagan:
Subject: NPDES Number FL 0036366
This 1s in response to your September 25, 1980 Public Notice Inviting comments
on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) relating to the proposed
issuance of a New Source National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit
Number FL 0036366 for Crystal River Units 4 and 5.
It is our opinion that the DEIS is deficient 1n several areas. It is not clear
whether or not you must discuss all of the impacts of the coal fuel cycle or
even Units 4 and 5 Tngranting an NPDES Permit under the Clean Water Act.
However, it 1s obvious that as a minimum you must discuss potential Impacts
on man through the environmental liquid pathways resulting from granting the
NPDES Permit. This you have not done.
Notably absent are discussions of potential long-term impacts from leaching
toxic, radioactive and carcinogenic heavy metals (e.g., Cd, Cr, N1, Ra-226,
natural uranium, Th-230) from the 95-acre on-site disposal area which is to
receive 1,730,000 lbs of residual wastes daily (dewatered bottom ash, fly NRG
ash, etc). By long-term, we mean over a period of centuries during which
time leaching of these metals and other chemicals to ground and surface water
appears probable unless heroic efforts (e.g., clay pits and caps, with
solidification and stabilization of wastes) are taken. It is our opinion a
permit should not be granted without a prior commitment by the utility to
employ state-of-the-art disposal pit design which will assure long-term
stability of the wastes. A secondary concern 1s the radiological Impact of
Rn-222 emissions from the decay of Ra-226 (particularly If the Ra-226 1s
eventually leached from a vitrified state to a mob11 state 1n the Interstices
of the ash pile).
Since you do discuss atmospheric releases (even.though:they are not directly
related to the NPDES Permit), for completeness you should provide estimates NnC-
of the potential effects of those releases on man and the environment. The
potential for environmental impacts from the "Greenhouse Effect" due to
4-29
-------
NOV 7 1980
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency - 2 •
incremental fossil fuel combustion should be discussed. In addition, health
impacts from S0X releases and TSP could be provided by using models EPA has
used as the basis for current S0X and particulate release standards as well
as BACT. Radiological health impacts could be estimated based on EPA Report
520/7-79-006. "Radiological Impact Caused by Emissions of Radionuclides Into
Air in the United States" (pp. 4.4-1 through 4.4-27, August 1979).
Also for completeness, your statement should present discussions of the impacts
of the balance of the coal fuel cycle (mining, processing, transportation,
etc.) in support of Units 4 and 5. Such discussions should include the follow-
ing:
1. Deaths, injuries, and Illness to occupational workers and the public
resulting from mining, processing, and transportation, combustion,
and waste disposal. This should include discussion of acute disease
and death, and chronic disease and latent health effects (e.g., cancer
and genetic defects).
2. Estimated effects from short-term (e.g., SOx) and long-term releases
(e.g., Rn-222, toxic and carcinogenic trace metals) to air and water.
3. Impacts of acid mine drainage and acid rain on the public and the
environment over extended periods of time (e.g., decades and centuries).
In addition, we recommend that the preparers of the EIS review a recent NRC
study entitled, "Activities, Effects and Impacts of the Coal Fuel Cycle for
a 1000 Mw Electric Power Generating Plant" (NUREG/CR-1060) and consider
including its salient points in the Final EIS to present a balanced assessment
of coal-produced electricity.
Other Impacts
Minimal aquatic environmental effects are predicted for operation of CR Units
4 and 5 because makeup and blowdown will be from and to the existing CR 1, 2
and 3 discharge canal. However, we are aware that 316(a) and (b) determina-
tions have not been completed for CR 1-3. A negative outcome of these
determinations could change the present intake and discharge design. The
FEIS should address this as an alternative and consider the aquatic and
terrestrial effects of operation using makeup water from sources other than
the CR Units 1, 2, and 3 discharge canal. If, for example, closed-cycle
cooling is required at Units 1-3, their combined discharge flow may be
inadequate«to serve the needs of Units 4-5.
The direct impingement effects from operation of Crystal River Units 4 and 5
are predicted to be negligible due to the low water flow used and because the
intake will be located in the existing discharge canal. However, the DEIS
failed to consider the indirect effect the coal barges for Units 4 and 5 will
4-30
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency
HOV1
have on Impingement at Units 1-3. The NUS study referred to in the DEIS found
that the number and biomass impinged of 11 species or groups were significantly
greater when coal or o11 barges (for Units 1 and 2) were moving in the Intake
canal. They also determined that the biomass of the entire group of finflsh
and of the commercially important stone crab was significantly higher 1n
samples taken when barges are moving. The barges supplying coal for Units 4
and 5 will use the present intake canal three times per week. The additional
impact the barge traffic will have on impingement at CR 1-3 should be addressed
1n the FEIS for Units 4 and 5.
The DEIS predicts little aquatic Impact from chlorlnatlon of Units 4 and 5.
The major factor 1n reducing impacts from chlorine to the biota 1n the
discharge vicinity 1s the dilution effect of the once-through cooling water NRC-6
from Units 1-3. The DEIS, however, does not Indicate what concentration of
residual chlorine 1s already present 1n the existing discharge flow. Under
some conditions of flow through Units 1-3 the chlorine demand of the discharge
water could already be satisfied. The additional discharge of chlorinated
wastes from Units 4 and 5 could result 1n higher concentrations in the mixing
zone than predicted 1n the DEIS. The final EIS should consider the total
Impact of chlorlnatlon of all Crystal River units.
Since Units 4 and 5 will be using one or more types of biocides in treating
the cooling water, their supply, handling, and storage (e.g., chlorine) can-
pose a hazard to the safe operation of the nearby nuclear plant (Unit 3).
Accidental spillage of volatile toxic materials, 1f allowed to evaporate and wnc-7
become airborne, can lead to the Incapacitation of the Unit 3 control room
operators 1n the event that the vapors reach the control room in sufficient
concentrations. This type of hazard was reviewed and evaluated prior to
licensing Unit 3 and a finding was made at that time that there were no
toxic gas sources 1n the vicinity of the plant. The proposed Units 4 and 5
may create an environmental impact in terms of compromising the safe operation
of Unit 3 through the introduction of toxic gas sources in the vicinity of
Unit 3. This possibility should be addressed.
The presence of some of the proposed major Units 4 and 5 structures (e.g.,
cooling towers, steam plant buildings) may have the potential of affecting Mnr ¦
the local Unit 3 site meteorology. An evaluation of the potential local nnu-o
meteorological changes due to Units 4 and 5 should be made to determine if
the dispersion of the Unit 3 accidental releases of airborne radioactivity
would be affected.
4-31
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency - 4 -
NOV 7 1390
Thank you for providing us with the opportunity to review this Draft Envi
mental Impact Statement.
Sincerely*
r ,/*
,7 - : —'
Daniel R. Muller, Assistant Olrector
for Environmental Technology
Division of Engineering
4-32
-------
Florida
Power
CQR PO HA f IQIU
November 10, 1980
Mr. John E. Hagan, III
Environmental Protection Agency
345 Court! and Street NE
Atlanta, GA 30308
Dear Mr. Hagan:
Subject; Crystal River Unit Nos. 4 and 5
Comments on Draft NPDES Permit and DEIS
We are pleased to submit comments on the Draft NPDES Permit and the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for Crystal River Unit Nos. 4 and 5.
Attachment A contains the comments on the draft permit, and Attachment 8
contains the comments on the DEIS.
You will note that several of our comments regarding chlorination reflect our
decision to install dechlorination facilities. The permit and EIS documents
should be revised to reflect this change. You will also note that several
comments are purely of an editorial nature and are offered solely for your
convenience.
In the interim since the public hearing in Crystal River, we have sent
additional information to Mr. C. H. Kaplan in EPA. Enclosed are copies of our
October 31, 1980, and November 5, 1980, submittals to him.
We are of the opinion that there exist no substantive issues in regards to the
NPDES/EIS process for Crystal River Unit Nos. 4 and 5, and we look forward to
its expeditious conclusion.
Sincerely,
bJjJLoZ* S 0
Will iam S. O'Brien
Director
Environmental and Licensing Affairs
W SO/dd
Encl osures
General Office 3201 Thirly-tourih Street South. PO Box 14042 St PetersOurg Florida 33733 •813—866 5151
-------
ATTACHMENT A
Page 1 of 2
CRYSTAL RIVER UNIT NOS. 4 AND 5
COMMENTS ON AUGUST 28, 1980 DRAFT NPOES PERMIT
1. Part I, page 2, and Part III, page 14. item E
Those portions concerning chforination need to be changed to reflect the
foil owing:
a. No detectable total residual chlorine (TRC), or total oxidant
residual (TOR), at the POO for Unit 4 and 5 combined cooling tower
blowdown.
b. Detectable TRC or TOR subject to continuous monitoring by
amperometric titration type monitor with a limit of detection of
0.05 mg/1.
c. Continuous monitoring values to be augmented by grab samples
FPC-1 analyzed in situation by amperometric titration.
d. Reduction of TRC will be accomplished by sulfur dioxide
dechlorination of each cooling tower blowdown from Units 4 and 5.
This would eliminate the need for modeling of the mixing zone and the dye
dilution studies.
Florida Power Corporation would reserve the right to operate Units 4 and 5
without running the dechlorination facilities as long as the monitoring
system showed compliance at the mixing zone boundary.
Additionally, the operation of Units 1, 2, and 3 and the operation of
Units 4 and 5 should not be tied together as is referenced in Part III,
page 14, item E.
In part III, page 14, E and the permit rationale, reference is made to a 150
meter mixing zone for chlorine. Chapter 17.24(1)(F) of the Florida
FPC-10 Administrative Code provided for chemical mixing zones in canals, rivers and
streams of 800 meters in length. Mixing zones up to 150 meters for dredge
and fill are also provided in Chapter 17-2.44(6), FAC.
2.
Part III, Page 15 and 16, M, last paragraph
This should be changed to read as follows:
"Cooling towers shall be designed and operated to assure a maximum drift
rate of 0.0005% of the circulation water rate as indicated in the Draft
EIS. The applicant shall submit written evidence that this performance
is guaranteed by the cooling tower manufacturer. Tests showing
FPC-2 compliance with this requirement shall be submitted within twelve months
of the commercial operation of each unit. Subsequently, Florida Power
Corporation will inspect each tower every two years and certify to EPA
that the drift eliminators are properly installed and in good working
order."
4-34
-------
ATTACHMENT A
Page 2 of 2
The present requirement of testing the drift elimination performance every
two years is not reasonable. The drift rate test is complicated, requiring
multiple measurements throughout the internal area of the cooling tower.
The entire test program including development of a test procedure,
measurement and interpretation of results would cost approximately $60,000.
Since the fill material and drift eliminators are static components not
subject to wear, there is no reason to believe that operating
characteristics such as drift would change with time. Therefore, it is not
economically feasible to perform this test after initial testing and
acceptance.
3. Page 14, Part III, J
This should be revised as follows, "The Permittee shall line the area of
any coal pile directly associated with Units 4 and 5 if the coal FPC-3
contains more than 0.2% pyritic sulfur. This requirement shall be in
conformance with Special Condition XII.B of Order."
This language is consistant with Florida's Conditions of Certification.
4. Page 15, Part III, K
The second paragraph should be revised to allow 90 days for FPC to
develop and submit plans for corrective actions for review by Florida FPC-4
agencies. Special Condition II. H. 3 of the Order requires corrective
action of some type, but does not require immediate action.
5. Page 14, Part II, G
Delete the requirement for an overflow event recorder for the plant
drains collection pond since no overflow point exists for this facility.
FPC-5
4-35
-------
ATTACHMENT B
Page 1 of 5
CRYSTAL RIVER UNIT NOS. 4 AND 5
COMMENTS ON CRYSTAL RIVER 4 AND 5 DRAFT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT AND TECHNICAL SUPPORT DOCUMENTS
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
Page iii. first full paragraph
ERRATA • -40 feet deep. . should read .• .40 feet high1'.
Page iii, second paragraph
ERRATA Second sentence should begin "The design sulfur content. .
FPC-6 Last sentence should end after . .enclosed structures." (No wetting
agents are planned.)
Page viii, first paragraph
On lines 15, 16, and 17, the sentence "Extensive. . .problem." should be
__c, deleted since it has no relevance to Crystal River Units 4 and 5. The
following sentence on lines 17 and 18 should also be deleted in view of the
final sentence of the paragraph.
Page 111-21, third paragraph
a the elevations of "mean annual flood" and the "100-year flood" should be
FPC-o related to the plant elevation datum (PED).
Page IV-1, third paragraph
The last sentence in this paragraph is incorrect. The steam generator
ERRATA building will be about 265 feet tall.
Page V-6, first paragraph (partial)
In the first line, "four" should be changed to "five". The text should also
>rpc.9 be revised to state that four pumps could supply the plant, but the fifth
one will provide added reliability and back up.
Page V-9, Figure 23
cbdata ^ollowinQ call-outs need arrows to link them with the appropriate
cHnAia facility.
DISCHARGE COLLECTION STRUCTURE
INTAKE STRUCTURE
DISCHARGE STRUCTURE
4-36
-------
ATTACHMENT B
Page 2 of 5
Page V-12, first paragraph
Insert new paragraph ahead of first paragraph and after last paragraph on
page V-8.
"Normal operation of the makeup and blowdown system will consist of
continuous operation of one intake pump and one makeup pump for each
unit in operation. The system design is based on a constant rate of FPC-10
makeup concept, but the intake pumps' discharge rate will vary with the
water level (tide) in the existing cooling water discharge canal. When
the tide elevation equals or exceeds 92.0 ft PED, the cooling tower
makeup water intake channel will overflow to the cooling tower blowdown
discharge channel. At high tide, with both units operating, the
overflow will not exceed 1,500 gpm."
Page V-19, third paragraph
This paragraph should be revised to reflect Florida Power Corporation's
decision to install and operate dechlorination facilities. This comment is FPC-11
also appropriate whenever the discharge of chlorine is discussed in the
environmental documents.
Page V-22, second paragraph
In the third sentence, "the containment dike" should be changed to "a catch
basin".
ERRATA
Page V-25, fourth paragraph
The third and fourth sentences (lines 6, 7, and 8) discuss solid waste
storage area development in confusing terms. Metric/English conversion
units may have been the cause. For correction, refer to page VI-16 which
indicates that the 95 acres will be developed in 8-hectare plots (about 20 ERRATA
acres each). Suggest that the third sentence be revised to read, "The
storage area will be developed in 8-hectare (20-acre) segments."
Page V-2fir Table 42
Column subheadings should be revised to clearly show "10^ Lb/Day" or ERRATA
"1,000 Lb/Day."
Page V-31, second paragraph
List of emission rate limitations, "Nitrogen Dioxide" should be "Nitrogen ERRATA
Oxides".
Page V-35. Table 45
Parentheses missing on pounds/hour under Particulate Emissions. ERRATA
4-37
-------
ATTACHMENT B
Page 3 of 5
Page V-36, third paragraph
Item 1 mentions a wetting agent, and the last part of the paragraph
FPC-12 discusses such agents. No wetting agents are planned, and the text should be
revised to delete references to them.
Page VI-10, partial paragraph and first full paragraph
Both the partial paragraph at the top of the page and the next-to-the-1ast
sentence of the next paragraph state that, sulfuric acid will be a the last
FPC-13 constituent of cooling tower blowdown. This is not correct Sulfuric arid
may be added to control scale, but no free H,S3. will remain in the
blowdown. The acid will react with alkaline2constituents to fo™ other
compounds, mainly sulfates. e
Page VII-5. second paragraph
The second paragraph addresses impacts of dredging for the Intake anrf
ERRATA discharge structures and mitigative measures. These impacts are
construction .mpacts and shou d not be placed in the discussions of olant
operation impacts and mitigation measures. "«'uns or piani
Page VI1-7, last paragraph
The sentence should be revised to read, . Part rrr
errata requires that coal piles directly associated with Units 4 and S chaining
coal with a pyntic sulfur content greater than 0.2 percent be liwdf"
TECHNICAL SUPPORT DOCUMENT - VOLUME I
Page 3-7
ctddata Second paragraph should be revised to insert "nr c^hhqh11 .24, . ,
first line and "or sprigged" after seeded™ the thlrt line! °"
Page 3-36, third paragraph
FPC-14 See cownent for EIS, page V-I2, first paragraph.
Page 3-42, last paragraph
__ Based on tide-caused overflows, "constant rata" Shn„iH
FPC-15 reference to comments on page 3-36, etc. conditioned with
Page 3-48, first paragraph
?acmt?es!re'y' ^ h" deClded t0 inSta11 3n" dechlorination
4-38
-------
ATTACHMENT B
Page 4 of 5
Page 3-68, Figure 3,5-3
The catch basin drain for the truck apron should be shown as piped to an oil
separator.
ERRATA
Page 3-69, first paragraph
The description of the use of oil-water separators should be revised to
state that they are used only for runoff from areas that may be subject to
oil spills, not for runoff from all areas.
Page 4-1, second paragraph
The second sentence is incorrect. No grouting was used for any structures.
The paragraph should be expanded to reflect the addition of load-bearing
fill on top of the Inglis Formation or the use of drilled piers.
Page 5-21. last paragraph
This paragraph should be revised to reflect FPC's decision to install and
operate dechlorination facilities.
Page 5-25. Table 5.2-1
Water loss occurs when dewatering bins are emptied. This table should
include that quantity of water.
Page 5-28, first paragraph
The lower flow of 330,500 gpm for Units 1,2, and 3 once-through water has
not been confirmed as a minimum flow.
Second paragraph, third line
1,300 should be 1,200.
Page 5-37, first paragraph
The first sentence should be revised to read, "The cooling tower makeup
water intake structure is designed to maintain the velocity of water
entering the structure at less than 0.15 meters per second (0.5 fps). . ."
Page 5-39, second paragraph
In the fourth line, after . . service water.", insert "However, to
provide added reliability, five wells will be used."
ERRATA
ERRATA
FPC-17
FPC-18
FPC-19
ERRATA
FPC-20
FPC-21
4-39
-------
ATTACHMENT 3
Page 5 of 5
Page 5-46, second complete paragraph
The last part of the last sentence should be revised to read, "... unless
ERRATA confined rainfall runoff exceeds the volume of runoff resulting from a
10-year, 24-hour storm."
Page 5-52, first complete paragraph
FPC-22 monitoring program has been revised. The TSD is not correct.
TECHNICAL SUPPORT DOCUMENT - VOLUME II
Page 6-39, first paragraph
ERRATA ^he water quality monitoring program also includes the makeup water intake,
Serial Number 014.
Second paragraph
pp£_23 ^he chlorine monitoring frequency for blowdown should be updated if the
proposed revisions to the NPOES permit are accepted.
4-40
-------
Florida
Power
CO A PO RATION
December 1, 1980
Mr. John £. Hagan, III
Environmental Protection Agency
345 Courtl and Street, N.E.
Atlanta, GA 30308
Dear Mr. Hagan:
Since submitting our comments on the Draft NPDES and EIS for Crystal River 4
and 5, we have had several discussions with Mr. Kaplan of the Thermal Analysis
Branch. He has raised certain questions concerning our comments. This is to
respond to those questions .
We would modify and clarify our comments as follows:
A. Chiorination
1. The augmenting manual grab samples will be performed once per week at FPC-1
the POD utilizing EPA's approved manual amperometrlc titration method
to a limit of detection of 0.03 mg/1.
2. Florida Power Corporation would reserve the right to operate Units 4 FPC-1
and 5 without running the dechlorination facilities as long as the
monitoring system showed compliance at the POD.
B. Cool ing Tower Drift
1. The drift eliminators will be inspected every six months and FPC-2
certification made to EPA that they are in good working order.
2. Since the drift elimination system Is a static system and the NPDES
permit is renewed approximately every five years, no further tests
subsequent to the initial test should be required at this time. If the FPC-2
inspections reveal a problem and subsequent tests are needed, they can
then be performed. With the six month inspections and certifications,
EPA will have ample notice and opportunity to request a test. In fact,
this would provide a more flexible and responsive program should any
problems occur with the drift eliminators.
C. Mixing Zone, Paragraph E of Part III of Draft NPDES
1. Florida Power Corporation would accept the mixing zone provided in this
section. However, monitoring for the parameters of concern will be FPC-1a
done at the POD. Should 1t be found that the mixing zone will need to
be utilized, the required actions to show compliance at the mixing zone
boundary will be undertaken.
General Office 3201 Thirty-fourth street Souih • p O 8ox 14Q42. St Petersburg Florida 33733 • 813-866-5151
-------
Mr. John E. Hagan, III
Page 2
December 1, 1980
Attached, for your convenience, are marked up copies of the pages of the Draft
NPDES permit with our suggested changes.
These clarifications and modifications should resolve all the outstanding
concerns on the draft NPDES permit. We look forward to the issuance of the
final permit.
Sincerely,
6)xtuS-o'&i»
William S. O'Brien
Director
Environmental and Licensing Affairs
WSO/dd
Attachments
4-42
-------
EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
During the period beginning on start of discharge and lasting through expiration
the permittee la authorized to discharge from outfall(a) serial number(s) 009 and 010 - Cooling
tover blovdovn from Units 4 and 5, respectively.
Such discharge shall be United and monitored by the permittee as specified bilow: DRAFT
Effluent Characteristic Discharge Limitations Monitoring Requirements
Daily Average Two-hour Average
Measurement Sample
Frequency Type
Flow-n3/Day (HGD)
Temperature °C(°¥)rtrlAtl oxid^T
Phosphorus (mg/l as P)
Calcium (mg/l)
Conductivity JJ/
Cycles of Concentration
N/A
N/A
N/A
H/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
See Below
Continuous
35.6(96.0) ^^pfinliguous
e1/WCCK \J
¦10.0 1/week 2J
N/A 1/week
N/A Continuous
N/A 1/week
Recorder (totalizer)
Recorder
Multipla Crabai ^e«oi"d/«
Grab
Grab
Recorder
Calculat ion
Chlorine may be discharged continuously; however; discharge of total residual ihluilne ahull r»i;cgJ
a'maximum lnatantaueoua-c^nteittrafcion oi 0.10 f>g/l. i ^ *"/* t.
©*.•4***// moah'Arerf ,***/e*ee«s7$ <"i\) "Me t*l pr»o«~ 09-04
If During the flrrft tvoiMhonth/period a£ substantially full power ybperaticm of each /unit, analyses Bhaj.1 follow
each application of/chlorine to thjft condenser cooling/water system until sufficient operating exn/rlence
O*
c*
rUtl+M. AjetA.'i « d^'(w Jj 0.03W/. O^r.^n
.00, cJa-// «o;//
dc>k>*
-------
PART III
DRAFT
E. Effluent discharge shall be designed and operated to assure compliance withl eMOje
Florida Water Quality Standards limitations (pH-6.0 to 8.5, total residual^
chlorine 0«01 ag/lr, copper 0.015 mg/1, etc.) at a distance of 150 meters
(492 feet) from the point of discharge into the discharge canal under all
expected operating modes of Units 1-5. Subsequent to commercial operation
of each unit, field measurements (supplemented as necessary with modeling
results) shall be conducted to determine the three dimensional configuration
of the discharge plume, determine minimum dilution factor expected, and sub-
stantiate conformance with the 150-meter (492 foot) mixing zone. Reports
on this study shall be submitted not later than 15 months after the
commercial operation dates of Units 4 and 5, respectively.
F. Permittee shall maintain daily records of rainfall at the plant site.
G. There shall be no point source discharge of the following categories of wastes
to Waters of the United States or to any waste stream which enters such Waters:
construction runoff, low volume wastes (including, but not limited to wet scrubber
air pollution control systems, ion exchange water treatment systems, water treat-
ment evaporator blowdown, laboratory and sampling streams, floor drainage, cooling
tower basin cleaning wastes and blowdown from recirculating house service water
system), metal cleaning wastes (cleaning corrounds; rinse waters, or any other vater-
borne residues derived from cleaning any metal process equipment inclndinj, but not
limited to, boiler tube cleaning, boiler fireside cleaning and air preheater cleaning
and specifically Including such water wash operations as hosing down boiler fire-
side surfaces), sanitary wastetf'^d boiler -Slowdown.' Event recorders shall be
placed at all overflow points fron evaporation/seepage ponds receiving such wastes
to aasure compliance with this requirement.
H. The Permittee shall implement the leachate testing and monitoring program
for the ash disposal area as generally specified in Special Condition XII.A.
of the State Power Plant Site Certification Order issued by- the Governor and
Cabinet on November 21, 1978, (hereinafter "Order") and as submitted to EPA
on October 4, 1979. Status reports on the program shall be submitted monthly
in conformance with the requirements of the Order. Based on results of the
program, the Permittee shall select an environmentally sound ash disposal
strategy acceptable to EPA and the State, provided that the disposal strategy
shall meet any applicable EPA or State regulations whichever are more stringent.
The Permittee shall consult with and obtain EPA and State approval prior to
initiating changes in the ash disposal strategy.
X. The Permittee shall consult with EPA and the State at such time as the need
for additional ash disposal site(s) or new coal storage area(s) is identified.
Consultation shall be initiated at a sufficiently early time so as to provide
adequate opportunity for a thorough evaluation of the environmental impacts
of the proposed action. No site other than those described in the EIS shall be
used for Units 4 and 5 without prior approval of the Director, Enforcement
Division.
J. The Permittee shall line the area of any coal pile containing coal with a
pyritic sulfur content of greater than 0.2* in conformance with Special
Condition XII.B. of the Order.
Page 1of
Permit Ho. FL0036366
4-44
-------
DRAFT
The Permittee shall implement a groundwater monitoring program* designed to
assess whether leachate from the plant drains collection pond, ash disposal
area, and all coal piles necessary to support operation of Units 4 and 5 is
significantly contaminating the groundwater. The program approved by EPA
and the state shall be implemented not later than one year prior 'to receipt —
of coal for Units 4 or 5. Reporting shall be quarterly in conformance with
requirements of the Order and shall conmtence four months after operation of
the first unit.
Should the reports demonstrate significant contamination of groundwater
is occurring, the Permittee shall immediately institute reasonable corrective
measures acceptable to EPA and the State to mitigate the problem and to ensure
that no further significant leaching occurs. These measures may include but
not be limited toi sealing, relocating, or altering operations of the ash
disposal area, plant drains collection pond, or coal piles. If the reports
demonstrate no significant contamination is occurring, the Permittee after
consultation with and approval by the Director, Enforcement Division may
reduce or eliminate the monitoring program.
the event that changes in the monitoring program become necessary such
changes shall be approved by the Director, Enforcement Division and the State
Director prior to institution.
The Permittee shall ensure that contractors, whose activities may impact
manatees, instruct all personnel associated with such activities about the
potential presence of manatees in the area and that all vessels associated
with the project shall operate at^no wake" speeds at all times while in
shallow waters of channels where the draft of the boat provides less than
three feet clearance of the bottom. The Permittee shall ensure that all
personnel are advised that there are civil and criminal penalties for
harming, harassing, or killing manatees, which are protected under the
Endangered Species Act and that the contractor is notified it shall be held
responsible for any manatee harmed, harassed or killed as a result of any of
its activities.
The Permittee shall provide written documentation that all affected parties
have been informed of this condition.
The Permittee shall commence a salt drift monitoring program** approved by
EPA and the State at least one year prior to the operation of the first
cooling tower. The program shall be of sufficient scope to document ambient
levels and to allow for evaluation of the operational effects of Units 4 and
5 on vegetation in the area surrounding the Crystal River site. Program
progress reports and monitoring reports shall be submitted quarterly commencing
with implementation of the salt drift monitoring program. The program shall
be conducted for at least two years following operation of the second tower.
* A detailed program (including well description and location, sampling
procedures, paramaters to be assayed, and analytical methodologies) shall be
suJtmitted prior to issuance of the Final EIS and will be summarized therein.
•*A detailed program shall be submitted prior to issuance of the Final EIS
and will be summarized therein.
PART III
Page 15 of
Permit No. FL9036366
4-45
-------
PART III
Page 16 of
Permit No. FL0036366
If the reports indicate significant impacts are occurring to the nearby area,
the Permittee shall consult with EPA and the State and shall initiate reasonable
corrective measures acceptable to EPA and the State to mitigate these impacts.
Should the reports indicate no significant impacts are occurring .to the nearby
area, the Permittee after consultation with and approval by the Director,
Enforcement Division may reduce ojJ eliminate the monitoring program.
Cooling towers shall be designed and operated to assure a maximum drift rate
of 0.0005%of the circulation water rate as indicated in the Draft EIS. Tests
showing compliance with this requirement shall be submitted within three
months of the commercial operation of each unit.**Subaoquont teats of each
Luwtii shall Lie MJiwlwcted every eecond year with a L'cporfc submitted" to the-
Biyaetei, giifun-eumuL Division not late eg tehan-three months following -tehe
requiredidate ei taotlnj*
In accordance with Section 306(d) of the Clean Vater 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 begin-
ning 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 com-
pliance with any applicable 3C&ie Water Quality Standard. This permit shall be
modified, or alternatively, revoked and reissued, to comply with any applicable
effluent standard or limitation issued or approved under sections 301(b)(2) (C)»
and (D), 304(b)(2), and 307(a)(2) of the Clean Water Act, if the effluent standard
or limitation so issued or approved:
(1) Contains different conditions or is otherwise more stringent than
any effluent limitation in the permit; or
(2) Controls any pollutant not limited in the permit.
The permit as modified or reissued under this paragraph shall also contain any
other requirements of the Act then applicable.
• The State of Florida Department of Environmental Regulation has certified the
discharge(s) covered by this permit with conditions (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. Duringany 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.
R5o//o-
-fo Ai .oc^fciVUj ord«Lr*.
i^e-yuiV-cc* cjaJ// t'P" ''
C-4-d ,
DRAFT
-------
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION. AND WELFARE
PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE
FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION
November 13, 1980
Atlanta FWd Ottica
Rag Ion IV
11 tt Waat Paachtra* Straat. N. W.
Atlanta, Qagrgia 30309
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
345 Court!and Street, N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
ATTENTION: Mr. John E. Hagan, III
Chief, EIS Branch
Dear Mr. Hagan:
This letter pertains to EPA's Draft Environmental Impact Statement
(NPDES#FL0036366) regarding Florida Power Corporation Crystal River
Units 4 and 5.
The report incorrectly classifies the receiving waters for effluent
discharge as Class III. It should be designated as Class II because
shellfish are present and direct harvesting from the area for FDA-1
marketing purposes is approved by the Florida Department of Natural
Resources. Reference is made to the attached map which depicts the
"Approved" shellfish growing area adjacent to the existing power
plants.
It is recommended that the selected sewage treatment plant be
designed and operated in such a manner as to ensure maximum
protection for "Approved" shellfish growing waters adjacent to the
plant site. The description of the proposed sewage treatment plant
(page V-24 of the Draft EIS) states: "The secondary treatment FDA-2
effluent will be discharged to a percolation - evaporation pond.
The pond will have a capacity of 1.12 acre - feet." It is
recommended that no effluent be discharged to the shellfish growing
waters. Perhaps this facility has already been designed for no
effluent. This limits any concern for communicable disease in
shellfish areas which might be affected during periods of high
runoff rates.
4-47
-------
Page 2
An additional purpose of this letter is to advise EPA and the
Florida Department of Natural Resources that on construction of
the plant, new domestic waste water facilities and storage areas
(coal, fly ash, chemical retention and treatment basins) the
State will have to resurvey the shellfish areas to determine
actual types, quantities, and extent of pollutants flowing into
the growing area and relocate closure lines if necessary.
Enclosure (1)
ccw/encl: Ms. Karen A. Steidinger, Ph.D., Chief, Bureau of Marine
Science & Technology, FL Dept. of Natural Resources
George Morrison, Shellfish Sanitation Branch (HFF-217)
Robert Tucker, State Program Coord. Branch (HF0-320)
Douglas Tolen, Compliance Program Br. (HFF-323)
Adam Trujillo, DD, ORL (HFR-4300)
Sincerely,
Roger 0. Olmsted, M.P.H.
Program Manager
Shellfish Safety Program
4-48
-------
-------
STATE Of FLORIDA
(©fixtt of tl}z dotattor
THE CAPITOL
TALLAHASSEE 32301
Bob Graham
qovcrnor
Novanber 13, 1980
John E. Hagen, III
Chief, EIS Branch
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region IV
345 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
Dear Mr. Hagen:
This Office, as required by Office of Management and Budget Circular A-95
and Council of Environmental Quality guidelines, and functioning as the
State planning and development clearinghouse, has reviewed and coordinated
a review of your agency's Draft Environmental Inpact Statement for Crystal
River Units 4 & 5, SAI 81-0449E. Copies of this document were sent to
the Departments of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Camunity Affairs,
Cornierce, Environmental Regulation, Health and Rehabilitative Services,
Natural Resources, State, and the Game and Fresh Water Fish Ccrmissicn.
Attached for your consideration are review carments sufcmitted by the
Departments of Bwircnmental Regulation, Health and Rehabilitative Services,
and the Game and Fresh Water Fish Ccnmission. During the preparation of
your final environmental impact statement for this project, these ccnments
should be considered and responded to accordingly.
We are also advised that this project is subject to the State's Power
Plant Siting laws as administered by the Departments of Camunity Affairs
and Environmental Regulation. Itiis revia/ process has or may cause addi-
tional project modifications.
Thank* yc*i far the opportunity to review this project.
Sincerely,
Walter o. Kolb
Sr. Governmental Analyst
Office of Planning and Budgeting
WK/mew
Attachments
oo: John Outland
H. E. Wallace
James L. Keys, Jr.
An Affirmative Action/ Equal Opportunity Employer
-------
Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission
CECIL C. BAILBY ¦ , i ^rrvjiy^va f i
Chairmen. J«cksor*w4 • " v'ic* Chairman. Tampa . * i
U-v
6 1900
ROBERT VLjBfl^JttKExfctrtiVi Siractor
H.E. wMxAC§r^tyW!*&y^iil& Director
g;:;c^ Ct Ut: : •'
\tHOM
r ¦-.
¦ ; U\i
IRFfj?,H t i DONALD G. RHODES D.D.S. R. BERNARO PARRISH JR.
Talleha
C. TOM RAINEY D.V.M.
FARRIS BRYAnA- BUILDING
620 South Meridian Street
Tallahassee,
October 29, 1980
Mr. Ron Fahs, Director of
Intergovernmental Ccordination
State Planning and Development
Clearinghouse
Office of Planning and Budgeting
Executive Office of the Governor
The Capitol
Tallahassee, FL 32301
Re: SAI 81-0449E, DEIS, Florida
Power Corporation* Crystal River
Units 4 and 5
Dear Mr. Fahs:
The Office of Environmental Services of the Florida Game and Fresh
Water Fish Commission has reviewed the referenced document with regard
to fish and wildlife resources.
We feel the proposed cooling water Intake location and design
represent the best available technology to minimize Impingement and
entralnment of marine organisms. This will somewhat deduce the otherwise FGFC-1
substantial environmental impact associated with power plants. Wastewater
from these units will not-be discharged into surface waters but will be
treated and retained on site.
Emissions from the chimneys and the cooling towers will definitely
impact the surrounding flora and fauna, although the degree of impact is FGFC-2
difficult to determine at this point. The salt drift monitoring program
should pay particular attention to the effect of increasing salt loading
on the sensitive species and natural vegetation of the area.
The groundwater monitoring program proposal appears adequate to
detect contamination. There Is no mention of contingency plans which
would be implemented if excesses are found, however.' The close proximity
of the plant to the estuary and to the Florldan Aquifer make such plans
imperative, and a discussion of these should be included In the final
EIS.
4-51
-------
Mr. Ron Fahs
October 24, 1980
Page 2
We appreciate the opportunity to review this draft document.
Please call if we may be of further assistance.
Sincerely,
—
H. E. Wallace
Assistant Executive Director
2264dr/5/24-25
4-52
-------
A
DEPARTMENT OF
,H'!Vk Health & Rehabilitative Services
Bob Graham, Governor
1317 WINEWOOD BOULEVARD
TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32301
October 14, 1980
(0CT 14 1980
datura; P. ' '
Sarety ;-oiicy Unit
^ /*»r» -• rK ''-uVwfST^r
Mr. Walter 0. Kolb cr=-- '
Resource Management Clearinghouse Coordinator
State Planning and Development clearinghouse
Office of Planning and Budgeting
Executive Office of the Governor
The Capitol
Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Subject: DEIS - Florida Power Corporation
Crystal River Units 4 and 5
(SAI - 81 - 0449E)
Dear Mr. Kolb:
The above Environmental Impact Statement was reviewed and
we have no adverse comments on the proposed project.
¦.i Public''
HRS-1
Sincerely/
uames L. Keys, Jr., R.S.
Environmental Health1 Consultant
Environmental Health Program
JLK/lg
cc: Mr. Harold Davidson (PDHS)
4-53
-------
Citrus County Civic Assn.
P.O. BOX 1006 HOMOSASSA SPRINGS, FLORIDA 3264?
November 5» 1980
Mr. Earling Hanson
Environmental Regulation Agency
3*4-5 Courtjand, N.E.
Atlanta, Ga 30365
Dear Mr. Hanson,
There appeared recently in the St. Petersburg Times an account
of a request made by Florida Power Corporation for a permit to draw
800,000 gallons of fresh water from Citrus County wells for cooling in
Plants b and 5 under construction, or to be constructed, and a statement
that the flyash produced by these plants would be contained on 95 acre®
owned by Florida Power in that vicinity.
We, the Citrus County Civic Association, a large group of
concerned citizens w ould lilce to support your agency in your efforts
to do what is best for this area. Our greatest worry is that such a
great amount of water drawn down each day will result in greater salt
CCC-1 Intrusion. We already experience that in Homosassa, and it is a
terrible consequence. May we suggest that you explore all available
resources for water - one, we suggest, is the Withlacoochee River.
We are pleased to note flyash produced by these plants will
be retained by Florida Power on their property. We suggest that all
the flyash produced by Florida Power in this county be held there.
CCC-2 ^ Preserrt "tiro® "the flyash produced which is not used for concrete
products is hauled many miles, through cities on crowded roads to be
dumped in what is known as Parsons Pit on Grover Cleveland Boulevard in
Homosassa Springs.
Our club is pledged to do our best for the betterment of
our community, and we feel our objection to such a drastic draw down
of our fresh water is warranted.
We would appreciate your acknowledgment of our letter and
assurance that our interests are being protected.
jqXm
elson Darroch, President
WORKING FOR THE BETTERMENT OF THE COMMUNITY
-------
United States Department of the Interior
scatooicae eirm micS
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
19 NORTH LAURA STREET
JACKSONVILLC, FLORIDA 32202
Uaveaber 12, 1980
Environmental Protection Agency
Enforcement Division
345 Court!and Street, N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
Attention: Ms Earline Hansen
mEffiaEDBXEim
m N0V141980 I
JlIElijSinnsiJj/
epa-eeioj IV
iTLUCUu G4-
Dear Sir:
Vie have reviewed your public notice (No 80 FL 109) regarding the issuance
of a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit to the
Florida Power Corporation for the proposed Crystal River Power Plant
Units 4 and 5 in Citrus County, Florida. Our ocKments and concerns
relating the effects of the discharge and other project elements are
contained below. We have also reviewed your draft envirormental ixtpact
statement for this project. Our cements on the EEIS will be incorporated
into the Department of the Interior response which you will be receiving
in the near future.
Areas of significant biological productivity and controversy in this
vicinity include the seagzass flats and marsh north of the discharge
canal. These areas are the chief recipients of the heated effluent.
The grasses south of the intake and those contained within the diked
intake are nursery areas for standing crops of grail marine organisms.
These organisms are susceptible to being engulfed and swept into the
intake. This susceptibility of organisms is manifested in the large
infringement and entrainnent figures gathered by the operators of the
exi sting plant.
The use of cooling towers which require only make-up water should not
add significantly to impingement and entrainnent, particularly when the FWS-1
intake tor make-up water is located to accept only water that has already
passed through the other units.
There have been repeated adverse fish and wildife effects attributable
to excessive turbidity caused by the sloughing off of the intake and
discharge dikes as well as construction activities due to maintenance
dredging in the intake and/or deposition of spoil. This is particularly
true in reference to disposal of fine material in open-water areas.
Unless spoil material is suitably contained and fine material is disposed
of on the inland, it is distributed over large areas by the receiving
waters. Such material settles out of the water column and smothers FWS-2
benthic organisms. Siltation and turbidity will be further increased
due to the construction activities, particularly in reference to the new
discharge and intake structures. These activities should be closely
monitored.
4-55
-------
2
FWS-3
FWS-4
FWS-5
FWS-6
In a March 16, 1979, letter to your Regional Administrator, this Service
issued a Opinion regarding the potential impacts of this
project on t-hf* endangered Florida Manatee (Trichecfaus manatus) and its
critical habitat, and the threatened Eastern indigo~shake (Drymanchoai
oorasi oouperi). That opinion stated that jeopardy to the indigo sriake
as a result of the project is unlikely, and jeopardy to manatees oould
be avoided through the regulation of boat speeds, the installation of
varning signs, the education of contractor and their enployees to the
presence of manatees and their protection, and the enforcement of state
and federal water quality standards to prevent siltation of manatee
feeding areas. A similar Biological Opinion was sent to the Corps of
Engineers on February 9, 1979.
The major impacts of Units 4 and 5 are the direct displacement of the
land and changing drainage patterns in the vicinity.
The direct removal of 335 acres of vegetation due to facilities, parking,
and associated development will adversely affect wildlife species in the
area. Major wildlife species will be forced to seek refuge elsewhere.
This may not be easily aoocnplished, since adjacent areas may have
already reached their carrying capacity. Indirectly, the facilities
will alter drainage patterns of adjacent land areas, divert runoff,
change water regimens, and initiate vegetative changes. It would behoove
the applicant to assure that water patterns are not drastically altered,
and perhaps purposely divert flows in some instances to acccnplish same
benefit to fish and wildlife resourcs.
Salt drift from the salt water cooling towers spreading across large
areas and filtering- down through canopies and into terrestrial vegetation
caild precipitate sane long-term environmental changes.
Mitigation measures to condensate for suspected adverse environmental v
effects due to Chits '4" and "5" might focus on the diked wetland area
located between the discharge and intake canals. This predominantly
Juncus marsh area, which is replenished via an underground river, serves
as excellent bird habitat, and benefits small fish, shrimp, and crabs as
wril. The duping of large anouuts of trash on its eastern end should be
stopped and corrected. Installation of culverts or small openings in
the western dike will inprove the marsh all the way to the eastern end
"here the trash is now located. Such measures would a long way toward
mitigating the adverse ecological ispact incurred as a result of construction
and operation of Uhits 4 and 5.
Thank ycu for the opportunity to cciunaiL on this project.
Acting Area Manager
4-56
-------
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
The Assistant Secretary for Policy
Washington, D.C. 20230
NOV 1 « bdO
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
3^5 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
Attention: Mr. John E. Hagen III
Dear Mr. Hagen:
This is in reference to your environmental impact statement entitled,
"Florida Power Corporation, Crystal River Units 4 and 5." (NPDES number
FL0036366). The enclosed comment from the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration is forwarded for your consideration.
Thank you for giving us an opportunity to provide this comment, which we
hope will be of assistance to you. We would appreciate receiving six
(6) copies of the final statement.
Sincerely,
Robert T. Miki
Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Regulatory Policy (Acting)
Enclosure: Memo from Mr. Kenneth Hadeen
Center for Environmental
Assessment Services - NOAA
Chief, EIS Branch
4-57
-------
TO:
FKOM:
k-Wj
P.r/EC - Joyce Wood
0A/D2xl - Keni^etty "Hadeen
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
ENVIRONMENTAL DATA AND INFORMATION SERVICE
Washington. O.C. 20235
Center for Environmental Assessment Services
October 17, 198U
'( '.A
¦ -J)
%!f!i
SUBJECT: DEIS 80U9.24 - Florida Power Corporation Crystal River Units 4 and 5
General Comments: None.
Specific Comments: Pg. 111-13; paragraph 3:
The DKIS states that "thunderstorms are the most frequent severe storms
affecting the site. These storms occur on an average of 80 days per year," and
the probability of other forms of severe weather occurring at the site is quite
NOAA-1 low* The DliIS woui(i be °°re concise if it stated that thunderstorms are the
most frequent storms to affect the site, occurring, on the average, 80 days
each year. Occasionally, these storms can develop to severe levels, producing
damaging winds, hail, torrential rains, and/or tornadoes.
10TH ANNIVERSARY 1970-1980
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
A young agency uvith a nistonc
tradition of service to the Nation
to
-------
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
JACKSONVILLE DISTRICT. CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P. O. BOX 4970
JACKSONVILLE. FLORIDA 32232
SAJEN-EE
22 October 1980
|r. John E. Hagan» III,
\Cljiief, EIS Branch
fteggpn IV
U.ST Environmental Protection Agency
345 Courtland Street N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
Oear Mr. Hagan:
We have reviewed the Draft/Environmental Impact Statement on Florida Power
Corporation Crystal River Wnits 4 and 5.\ Our comments follow:
a. Wetland areas affected by the construction of Units 4 and 5, mentioned
in the DEIS on page VI-4, are isolated wetlands and meet the criteria for COE-1
nationwide permits, established under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.
Pending permit number 79Q-1184 for the construction of an intake and outfall
structure awaits state approval and EPA-NPDES permits.
b. Reference Technical Support Document, Volume I, page 2-52, second coc-a
paragraph. The average Lake Rousseau pool elevation is 27.5 feet m.s.l. rather wc-z
than 27 feet m.s.l.
c. Reference Technical Support Document, Volume II, page 8-11, Alternative
Energy Sources. There is hydroelectric power potential nearby at Lake COE-3
Rousseau. However, the potential capacity is only several megawatts.
Sincerely,
%
frfakAMES L. GARLAND //
Chief, Engineering division
CF: HQDA (DAEN-CWP-P)
WASH DC 20314
SAD
4-59
-------
FPCR4/5-FEIS.1/WR.2
1/9/81
RESPONSES TO WRITTEN COMMENTS
RESPONSE DER-1
The modifications to the Conditions of Certification made on May 22,
1980, were inadvertently omitted from the DEIS. They have been included
as part of the Florida DER comment letter (pages 4-8 through 4-18).
These modifications, which pertain to groundwater withdrawal, are
acknowledged by EPA to correspond to recent data obtained from aquifer
testing and final wellfield design. Water withdrawal impacts affected
by these modifications will meet the requirements of the Southwest
Florida Water Management District.
RESPONSE DER-2
EPA acknowledges the prerogative of the state to establish requirements
more stringent than those made by EPA. Refer to Comment FP-C-1 (page
4-34), which pertains to a discussion of chlorination.
RESPONSE AF-1
Comment acknowledged.
RESPONSE SCS-1
Comment acknowledged.
RESPONSE FS-1
The Crystal River 4 and 5 site was located to mitigate impacts to the
coastal hydric hammock (refer to Page VII-2 of DEIS). It is presently
planned that the coastal hydric hammock, which is located west of the
site, will be left in its natural state. Florida Power Corporation
considers this approach to be preferred over silvicultural management.
RESPONSE FS-2
The facilities associated with Crystal River 4 and 5 will comply with
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (PL 94-580). A potential
source, neutralization precipitate (refer to Page V-22 of DEIS), will be
required to be analyzed for hazardous materials prior to disposal to the
Plant Drains Collection Pond. If it is determined that this material
4-60
-------
FPCR4/5-FEIS.1/WR.3
1/9/81
is hazardous, it will be disposed of in an approved hazardous waste
landfill.
RESPONSE HUD-1
Measurements of the acidity of precipitation reveal that in parts of the
eastern United States, particularly the northeast, and in western
Europe, the acidity has increased in the last several decades to a
dilute solution of sulfuric and nitric acids (Likens, ^t jil., 1979;
JAPCA, 1980). Research performed at the University of Florida showed
that the acidity of precipitation found in Florida has also increased.
Analyses indicate that sulfuric and nitric acids account for nearly all
the acidity in Florida. The component of sulfuric acid is 2.0 to 2.5
times the nitric acid rain portion (Brezonik, 1980). Because of the
complexity of acid rain formation and transport, it is not known how
individual sources such as Crystal River Units 4 and 5 might influence
acid precipitation (JAPCA, 1980). However, as indicated in the DEIS,
sulfur dioxide limitations were placed on Crystal River Units 1 and 2
due to the impacts of Crystal River Units 4 and 5 on the Class I area
(Chassahowitzka National Wilderness Area). This strategy will limit the
total emission of sulfur dioxide from the plant complex to an emission
level less than if Units 4 and 5 were not constructed. The annual
estimated sulfur dioxide emissions are:
Crystal River Units 1 and 2 174,000 tons/year
Crystal River Units 1, 2, 4, artd 5 114,000 tons/year
Emissions Decrease 60,000 tons/year
While there will be an approximate increase in nitrogen oxide emissions
(also a precursor to acid rain) of 34,000 tons/year, the decrease in
sulfur dioxide emissions will probably more than offset this increase.
RESPONSE HUD-2
In order to focus on the issues pertaining to the construction and
operation of Crystal River Units 4 and 5, the socioeconomic aspects were
discussed in limited scope in the DEIS (refer to Page VI-6 of the DEIS).
4-61
-------
FPCR4/5-FEIS.1/WR.4
1/9/81
Volume II of the Technical Support Documents (TSD) to the DEIS contained
a complete analysis of the economic and social effects' of Crystal River
Units 4 and 5 (refer to Chapter 7 of TSD). A discussion on construction
labor force makeup and housing can be found on Pages 7-21 and 7-22.
Other construction and operational socioeconomic impacts can also be
found in this chapter.
RESPONSE HLS-1
The ash disposal design presented in the DEIS and Technical Support
Documents specifies a total development of approximately 38 hectares
(95 acres) at a total height of 12 meters (40 feet). This area is
solely dedicated for disposal of fly ash from Units 4 and 5. Based upon
this design, there is sufficient capacity to accommodate a quantity of
ash equivalent to 24 years of operation for Units 4 and 5. Fly ash,
which should not be confused with boiler bottom ash, coal pulverizer
rejects, and economizer ash, can be a useful product used in construc-
tion. Specifically, fly ash is useful in the construction trades as:
an additive in cement and concrete, a mineral filler in asphalt paving,
and/or a lightweight aggregate. To use fly ash in this way, it must be
handled dry. If 26.5 percent of the fly ash is sold for these purposes,
the design would allow on-site disposal of all solid wastes for
30 years.
It is not the intent of the DEIS and NPDES special conditions to allow
for indiscriminate disposal of Units 4 and 5 fly ash as fill material.
Both EPA and Florida DER require, through operational conditions, that
Florida Power obtain prior approval for disposal of fly ash in any
method other than that previously approved. These requirements include
prior approval for disposal of fly ash off-site. Alternate disposal
will require Florida Power to meet the same criteria, i.e., compliance
with State of Florida water quality standards, as the approved method.
In addition, disposal of fly ash in a way that would circumvent the
conditions established by the NPDES Permit and Site Certification
conditions, as well as rules and regulations established by EPA and the
4-62
-------
FPCR4/5-FEIS.1/WR.5
1/9/81
State, would be considered a'violation and would be appropriately
enforced. (Refer to Part III Conditions H and I of the NPDES permit and
Site Certification Conditions III.H.3.)
Florida Power Corporation is presently studying disposal alternatives
for ash from Units 1 and 2. Ash from these units is not approved for
disposal in the area designated for Units 4 and 5. Chapters 17-7 (Solid
Waste Disposal) and 17-2 (Water Pollution), Florida Administrative Code,
are the regulatory requirements presently applicable to Crystal River
1
Units 1 and 2 fly ash disposal.
RESPONSE HLS-2
The potential impacts of salt drift from Crystal River Units 4 and 5 are
of considerable concern to both the environment and structures
associated with the units. As a consequence, the cooling towers will be
designed for a maximum drift rate not to exceed 0.0005 percent of the
circulating water rate. This level of control will assure that, under
normal and peak load conditions, drift will not exceed 8 gpm and 13 gpm,
respectively. Natural draft cooling towers presently operating have
drift rates lower than guaranteed, and equivalent to 0.0005 percent of
circulating water rate.
Salt drift deposition has been analyzed using computer models. The max-
imum salt drift is expected to be 10.6 kilograms per hectare per month
(114 pounds per acre per year) at a location 0.3 kilometers (0.2 miles)
west of the cooling towers. This concentration is approximately 47 per-
cent lower than that concentration known to cause vegetative injury in a
species highly sensitive to salt drift. At a distance less than
2 kilometers (1.2 miles), salt drift is estimated to be 1.3 kilograms
per hectare per month (14.1 pounds per acre per year), or 12 percent of
the maximum impact. At a distance of over 11(kilometers (7 miles), it
is not expected that salt drift would be measurable over a background.
The background level at the coast is expected to be 2.6 kilograms per
hectare per month (28.6 pounds per acre per year).
4-63
-------
FPCR4/5-FEIS.1/WR.6
1/9/81
EPA and Florida DER recognize the uncertainties associated with computer
modeling of a complex phenomenon such as salt drift deposition. To
ensure no adverse impacts, a salt drift monitoring program is required.
Refer to Chapter 3.0 of this FE1S for further discussion of salt drift
monitoring.
RESPONSE HLS-3
The Technical Support Documents to the DEIS were written prior to
promulgation of revisions to New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for
steam electric plants. These standards require new facilities to uti-
lize sulfur dioxide removal from 70 to 90 percent. Prior to these NSPS
revisions, only an emission limit was established. This limit could be
met through the use of low-sulfur (compliance) coal. Crystal River
Units 4 and 5 were approved under the older NSPS allowing for meeting
emission limitation standards through the sole use of low-sulfur
(compliance) coal. The revised NSPS removes the advantage of using
low-sulfur coal in other plants constructed after Crystal River Units 4
and 5 since SO2 removal equipment is required. Low-sulfur coal is thus
more available for the Crystal River units. If low-sulfur (compliance)
coal cannot be obtained, conditions of Florida's Site Certification
Conditions and EPA's Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD)
permit (refer to DEIS Appendices D and E, respectively) require flue gas
desulfurization equipment if SO2 emission standards cannot be met.
If scrubbers are needed, FPC will have to provide for approved sludge
disposal and analyze any changes in air quality.
Florida Power has contracted for 2 million tons of low-sulfur coal per
year for 20 years. This quantity will meet approximately 50 percent of
low-sulfur coal needs for 20 years. Further long-term contracts for
low-sulfur coal are being sought.
RESPONSE HLS-4
See Response HUD-1 (page 4-61).
4-64
-------
FPCR4/5-FEIS.1/WR.7
1/9/81
RESPONSE DI-1
On May 22, 1980, EPA proposed regulations which would require states to
develop and implement programs to protect visibility in federal Class I
areas. These proposed regulations reference several documents which
evaluate the sources, causes, and potential remedies to visibility
impairment. However, modeling techniques to predict the potential
impact of individual sources are still in the development stages and
cannot be used at this time as reliable predictors of actual impacts.
As a result, no quantitative analysis of the potential impacts upon
visibility at Crystal River Units 4 and 5 can be made.
The impact on visibility to the Florida National Scenic Trail is,
however, not expected to be significant. The distance (greater than
35 kilometers) and direction (wind frequency of 8.5 percent from the
northwest sector) of Crystal River Units 4 and 5 to that portion of the
Florida Trail is such that visibility impacts are not expected to be
significant.
RESPONSE CDC-1
Impacts associated with open burning of land-clearing waste will be of
short duration and will comply with regulations promulgated by the State
of Florida (Chapter 17-2.04(3) F.A.C. and Chapter 51-2 F.A.C.).^ These
regulations are administered by the Division of Forestry to ensure that
conditions during burning will not cause significant air quality
impacts.
Solid waste materials from construction will be recycled or landfilled
in state-approved areas. Open burning of waste construction materials
will not occur.
RESPONSE CDC-2
The monitoring program is designed to ensure that Florida's groundwater
quality standards are not exceeded by leachate from the ash and coal
areas. Lining of the coal storage areas is required if the pyritic
sulfur content of the coal exceeds 0.2 percent. Also, the final cover
4-65
-------
FPCR4/5-FEIS.1/WR.8
1/7/81
of each ash disposal cell will be at least 12 inches of clay liner (or
an equivalent) placed on top and on the exposed sides. Sufficient
topsoil to support vegetation will be placed over the liner. This
design will limit rainfall leaching through the pile. The groundwater
monitoring program is designed to evaluate potential impacts as a result
of this solid waste disposal design. Refer to Chapter 3.0 of this FEIS *
RESPONSE NRC-1
Florida Power is required to conduct a leachate monitoring and testing
program which will determine the long-term ash disposal landfill design
details that are necessary to protect groundwater and surface water
quality (refer to Site Certification Conditions, Attachment 2). These
studies, which are presently in progress, are discussed in Section 6.2.3
of the Technical Support Documents. In addition, Florida Department of
Environmental Regulation (FDER) Special Conditions of Certification
require the utility to monitor the groundwater in the vicinity of the
operating landfill. If groundwater quality standards are violated, the
landfill must be sealed, relocated, or closed, or the operation of the
facility must be altered to prevent significant contamination of the
groundwater. Radioactive components of potential leachate from the ash
disposal landfill are being studied as part of the monitoring studies.
RESPONSE NRC-2
The air quality impact of Crystal River Units 4 and 5 was analyzed in
detail during issuance of the Prevention of Significant Deterioration
(PSD) approval. EPA. determined that the proposed emissions from the
facility will achieve Best Available Control Technology (BACT) for all
pollutants that would be emitted in quantities greater than 100 tons per
year. In addition, EPA has determined that the facility will not exceed
an air quality impact greater than the Class I and Class II PSD incre-
ments for particulate matter and sulfur dioxide. The maximum impacts
will be 60 percent of the Ambient Air Quality Standards (AAQS) to
protect human welfare and 30 percent of the AAQS to protect human
4-66
-------
FPCR4/5-FEIS.1/WR.9
1/9/81
health. These maximum concentrations will occur close to Crystal River
Units 4 and 5, and will not be exceeded more than once per year.
RESPONSE NRC-3
EPA does not believe it appropriate to address the environmental
implications of the coal-fuel cycle within the scope of the Crystal
River Units 4 and 5 EIS. The Council on Environmental Quality's (CEQ)
regulations for implementing NEPA (40 CFR §1500-1508) direct that EISs
shall be concise and shall be no longer than necessary for compliance
with NEPA. CEQ directs that impacts shall be discussed in proportion to
their significance, with only brief discussions of less significant
issues. In addition, the CEQ regulations allow for incorporation, by
reference, of reasonably available information.
The options available to FPC for obtaining coal to fuel Units 4 and 5
preclude a meaningful analysis of the specific coal source FPC may
ultimately secure. Numerous studies devoted to the environmental
implications of aspects of the coal-fuel cycle have been reported and
documented.
RESPONSE NRC-4
An aquatic ecology program has been proposed for Units 1, 2, and 3. The
results of this program may indicate that procedural modifications to
Units 1, 2, and 3 are necessary. The Draft EIS does address, in detail,
alternative makeup cooling water sources for Units 4 and 5, as well as
heat dissipation strategies.
Florida Power will be constrained to operate Units 4 and 5 in compliance
with state and federal permits in force at the time, regardless of
future determinations concerning Units 1, 2, and 3 at Crystal River.
Any permit modifications based upon changes in the present supply or
additional supplies of makeup water would require agency scrutiny to
determine whether the environmental effects are minimized.
4-67
-------
FPCR4/5-FEIS.1/WR.10
1/9/81
RESPONSE NRC-5
Increased coal delivery by rail is expected to offset the need for
increased barging of coal for the Crystal River complex under present
coal delivery agreements. Also, please refer to comments by the Florida
Game and Freshwater Fish Commission and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (pages 4-51 and 4-55, 56, respectively).
RESPONSE NRC-6
See Response FPC-1 (page 4-69).
RESPONSE NRC-7
Florida Power Corporation presently is proceeding toward a design
modification to install ammonia and chlorine detection equipment for the
control room (Unit 3) which will initiate the isolation of outside air
intake and switch over to internal recirculation.
RESPONSE NRC-8
The potential meteorological influence on Unit 3 of structures asso
ciated with Units 4 and 5 will be atmospheric dispersion. Atmospheric
dispersion can be affected by turbulence caused by disrupted air flow in
the immediate vicinity of the structure. The most significant disturbed
flow will occur five building heights (or widths, vrtiichever is smaller)
downwind of a structure. Both distance and direction are necessary for
turbulent effects to occur.
Florida Power Corporation's Crystal River Units 4 and 5 are located
approximately 915 meters north of Unit 3. The largest structure
associated with Units 4 and 5 will be the cooling towers. Each tower
will be 134 meters in height and 113 meters in diameter at the base.
The closest tower is located 914 meters from Unit 3 in a direction 10
west of due north (compass reading 350°). The steam generator building,
the second-largest structure, is 80 meters in height and is located
1,005 meters due north of Unit 3. Although the steam generator stacks
4-68
-------
FPCR4/5-FEIS.1/WR.11
1/8/81
will be 183 meters in height, their small width will not cause
significant turbulence.
The major area of turbulent wake influence at Crystal River Units 4 and
5 structures will extend no greater than 670 and 400 meters,
respectively, from the cooling towers and steam generator buildings.
Unit 3 does not lie within this zone of turbulent wake influence. In
addition, the frequency of wind from the direction that would cause
turbulent interaction is relatively infrequent. Interaction with Unit 3
has the potential to occur less than 6 and less than 10 days per year,
respectively, for the cooling tower and the steam generator building.
As a consequence, the structures associated with Units 4 and 5 are not
expected to influence the dispersion of accidental releases of airborne
radioactivity at Unit 3.
RESPONSE FPC-1
A limit of 0.01 mg/1 of total residual oxidants (TRO)* has been included
in the Draft Permit at the Units 4 and 5 point of discharge (POD) to the
site discharge canal with the provision that nondetection by approved
analysis technique shall be deemed compliance. *[Total residual
oxidants is the appropriate term (rather than total residual chlorine)
in salt water where other oxidants (bromine, iodine, etc.) are produced
by the addition of free available chlorine.]
A specification has been included that the continuous monitor used must
have a limit of detection of not more than 0.05 mg/1. However, during
periods of manual monitoring, the limit of detection of the manual
monitor will determine the limit of detection (+0.03 mg/1), and during
periods of continuous monitoring the limit of detectability of the
installed monitor will determine the limit of detection (not greater
than 0.05 mg/1). A requirement for once-per-week multiple grabs is
included in the Draft Permit.
4-69
-------
FPCR4/5-FEIS.1/WR.12
1/9/81
EPA agrees that installation and proper operation of a dechlorination
facility using sulfur dioxide should allow the applicant to comply with
effluent limitations and Water Quality Standards requirements relative
to TRO at the POD from the Units 4 and 5 blowdown canal to the site
discharge canal. EPA further realizes that chlorine addition may not be
required or that discharge concentrations of TRO may be sufficiently low
during portions of the year to preclude the necessity of operating the
sulfur dioxide system. So long as effluent limitations are met during
such situations, sulfur dioxide addition is not required by the Draft
Permit. Additionally, since compliance will be achieved at the POD, a
mixing zone for TRO is not applicable and "chlorine" has been removed
from Part III.E of the Draft Permit. Modeling and dye dispersion
testing as required in the Draft EIS is no longer necessary since Water
Quality Standards limitations will be met at the POD.
RESPONSE FPC-la
EPA concurs with the approach proposed by the applicant. Conditions and
monitoring requirements have been appropriately changed for Serial
Number 013 and Part III.E in the Draft Permit.
RESPONSE FPC-2
EPA agrees that frequent testing of drift elimination performance of the
cooling towers would be unnecessary given periodic inspection of the
drift eliminators. Quarterly inspections of the drift eliminators would
reveal problems that may be developing. Subsequent NPDES permits would
allow for future testing of the drift eliminators to ensure a maximum
drift rate of 0.0005 percent of the circulating water rate.
RESPONSE FPC-3
The language of the permit condition has been revised to clarify the
intent of this condition.
4-70
-------
FPCR4/5-FEIS.1/WR. 13
1/9/81
RESPONSE FPC-4
Since coordination with EPA and the State is necessary should
significant contamination of the ground water be noted, immediate
consultation with EPA and the State is essential. The language of the
permit condition has been clarified.
RESPONSE FPC-5
No requirement was intended for the plant drains collection pond since
no overflow point is planned. Part III.G has been clarified.
RESPONSE FPC-6
It is not appropriate to change wording in the DEIS. Nevertheless, the
comments reflect Florida Power's decision to enclose conveyors and use
air pollution control (baghouse) equipment for control of particulate
emissions from coal handling. Plant operations must meet conditions
established in the PSD Approval and Site Certification (refer to
Appendices D and E, respectively).
RESPONSE FPC-7
The statement presented in the summary sheet for the DEIS concerning
acid rain is appropriate. See also Response HUD-1 (page 4—61).
RESPONSE FPC-8
With reference to the plant elevation datum (PED), mean sea level is
approximately 27 meters (89 feet). The mean annual flood is therefore
approximately 27.5 meters (90 feet) PED, and the 100-year flood
elevation is approximately 30.5 meters (100 feet) PSD.
RESPONSE FPC-9
EPA acknowledges Florida Power's decision to use five pumps for plant
service water makeup. As a result, groundwater withdrawal impacts will
be equal to or less than those presented in the DEIS and Technical
Support Documents.
4-71
-------
FPCR4/5-FEIS.1/WR.14
1/9/81
RESPONSE FPC-10
EPA and FPC have agreed that the following description of makeup and
blowdown systems is appropriate.
Normal operation of the makeup and blowdown system will consist of
continuous operation of one intake pump and one makeup pump for each
unit in operation. The system design is based on a constant rate of
makeup concept, but the intake pumps' discharge rate will vary with the
water level (tide) in the existing cooling water discharge canal. When
the tide elevation equals or exceeds 92.0 ft PED, the cooling tower
makeup water intake channel will overflow to the cooling tower blowdown
discharge canal. At high tide, with both units operating, the overflow
will not exceed 1,500 gpm.
RESPONSE FPC-11
See Response FPC-1 (page 4-69).
RESPONSE FPC-12
See Response FPC-6 (page 4-71).
RESPONSE FPC-13
Since sulfuric acid will be added to control scale in the cooling
system, there is the potential for ecological impact. The alkaline
nature of sea water will, as the comment noted, neutralize sulfuric acid
so that no free acid is present. Nonetheless, the potential for
ecological impacts still exists.
RESPONSE FPC-14
See Response FPC-10 (page 4-72).
RESPONSE FPC-15
See Response FPC-10 (page 4-72).
4-72
-------
FPCR4/5-FEIS.1/WR.15
1/9/81
RESPONSE FPC-16
See Response FPC-1 (page 4-69).
RESPONSE FPC-17
See Response FPC-1 (page 4-69).
RESPONSE FPC-18
Water loss from dewatering bins in Table 5.2-1 is included as
"Exfiltration" under the subheading "Losses."
RESPONSE FPC-19
The lowest flow considered in the six scenarios evaluated in
Section 5.2.2, Cooling System Blowdown (Volume I, Technical Support
Documents) was 170,500 gpm. This corresponded to a condition occurring
early in the 21st century when Units 1 and 2 have been decommissioned
and Unit 3 is in temporary shutdown. The figure mentioned in the
comment was derived by adding flows passing through Units 1, 2, and 3
when the units are temporarily shut down. These figures as provided by
Florida Power are 77,500 gpm, 82,500 gpm, and 170,500 gpm for Units 1,
2, and 3, respectively.
RESPONSE FPC-20
See Response FPC-10 (page 4-72).
RESPONSE FPC-21
See Response FPC-9 (page 4-71).
RESPONSE FPC-22
Refer to Chapter 3 (Monitoring Programs).
RESPONSE FPC-23
See Response FPC-1 (page 4-69).
4-73
-------
FPCR4/5-FEIS.1/WR.16
1/9/81
RESPONSE FDA-1
The extent of Class II waters in Citrus County is located south of the
Crystal River Units 4 and 5 plant site from approximately the Crystal
River to the Hernando County line. The waters adjacent to the
discharges for Units 4 and 5 are designated as Class III (refer to
Chapter 17-3.161 FAC). Florida Power Corporation is required to meet
the surface water quality standards fo't Class III waters.
RESPONSE FDA-2
The sewage treatment plant is designed to assure no discharge. Florida
Power Corporation has neither applied for nor received approval to
discharge from the sewage treatment plant to waters of the United
States .
RESPONSE OG-1
The comment is acknowledged. Comments attached to this letter from the
Office of the Governor are addressed elsewhere in the section under the
appropriate agency heading.
RESPONSE FGFC-1
Comment acknowledged.
RESPONSE FGFC-2
The air quality impacts associated with the Florida Power Crystal River
plant complex will meet all Ambient Air Quality Standards (AAQS)
promulgated to protect human health and welfare. AAQS designated to
protect human welfare included consideration for impacts to flora and
fauna when they were promulgated. Refer to Response NRC-2 (page 4-66)
for more discussion on air quality impacts.
A discussion of the salt drift monitoring program is included in
Chapter 3.
4-74
-------
FPCR4/5-FEIS.1/WR.17
1/9/81
RESPONSE FGFC-3
Chapter 3 contains a discussion of the groundwater monitoring program.
Special Condition XIIA of the Florida Site Certification and Part III.K
of the NPDES permit require Florida Power to consult with EPA and the
State of Florida and to implement corrective measures if significant
contamination by leachate occurs. These measures may include but not be
limited to: sealing, relocating, or altering operations of the ash
disposal area, plant drains collection pond, and/or coal piles.
RESPONSE HRS-1
Comment acknowledged.
RESPONSE CCC-1
An analysis of water withdrawal was presented in the Technical Support
Documents to the DEIS (see Volume I, page 5-53). As discussed in this
section, the amount of withdrawal is estimated to be less than 1 percent
of the estimated groundwater flow between the Crystal and Withlacoochee
Rivers. The estimated quantity of groundwater volume flowing toward the
coast between the Crystal River and Withlacoochee River (approximately
250 million gallons per day) will inhibit potential saltwater intrusion
caused by the water withdrawal from Units 4 and 5.
It should be emphasized that fresh water is used only for plant services
such as boiler makeup. Salt water is used for condenser cooling.
RESPONSE CCC-2
See Response HLS-1 (page 4-62).
RESPONSE FWS-1
Comment acknowledged.
RESPONSE FWS-2
Special Condition XI of Florida's Site Certification Approval requires
sheet piles or turbidity screens to be used as necessary to prevent
4-75
-------
FPCR4/5-FEIS.1/WR.18
1/9/81
turbidity in excess of 50 JTU above background 150 meters from the
construction site. This condition applies to the construction of the
cooling water makeup and discharge structures. Florida Power has
submitted a permit application for these structures to the Corps of
Engineers for this approval. No other structures or activities located
in waters of the United States are associated with Crystal River Units 4
and 5.
RESPONSE FWS-3
Comment acknowledged. The Biological Opinion of the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service was published in the DEIS.
RESPONSE FWS-4
During ecological and hydrological surveys of the Crystal River Units 4
and 5 site, no major surface water flows were noted. It is probable
that the coastal hydric hammock located west of the site receives a
majority of fresh water from the groundwater aquifer. At this location,
the aquifer interfaces with the salt water, causing an upwelling of
fresh water. As a consequence, surface drainage is not believed to play
a major role. See also Groundwater Monitoring Program contained in
Chapter 3. Florida Power was constrained by existing environmental
regulations to design facilities to handle stormwater runoff. In
addition, the plant foundation rests upon drilled piers rather than
grouting. This design should produce less interference with groundwater
movements.
RESPONSE FWS-5
See Response HLS-2 (page 4-63) and the Salt Drift Monitoring Program
contained in Chapter 3.
RESPONSE FWS-6
Comment acknowledged.
4-76
-------
FPCR4/5-FEIS.1/WR.19
1/8/81
RESPONSE NOAA-1
l
Comment acknowledged.
RESPONSE COE-1
EPA acknowledges that Section 404 permit requirements have been
fulfilled by Florida Power for the isolated wetland areas. The pending
permit for construction of intake and outfall structures is awaiting
completion of the NPDES permit process represented by this FEIS.
RESPONSE COE-2
Comment acknowledged.
RESPONSE COE-3
Lake Rousseau was constructed in 1909 and used by Florida Power
Corporation for hydroelectric generation. This station was retired when
the Inglis plant was constructed. The capacity of this station was
significantly less than 1 megawatt. This capacity was not enough to
consider it further with analysis of alternative energy sources.
4-77
-------
FPCR4/5-FEIS.1/WR/REF.1
12/10/80
REFERENCES
Air Pollution Control Association Presentation. 1980. Acid Rain: An
International Concern. Journal of the Air Pollution Control
Association, 30(10):1089. October.
Brezonik, P.L., Hendry, C.D., Edgerton, E.S., Schutze, R.L., and
Chrisman, T.L. 1980. Acidity, Nutrients, and Minerals in
Atmospheric Precipitation over Florida: Deposition Patterns,
Mechanisms, and Ecological Effects. Completion Report to U.S. EPA
for Contract #R-805560 (in preparation).
Likens, G.E., Wright, R., Galloway, J., and Butler, T. 1979. Acid
Rain. Scientific American, Volume 24, Number 4. October.
4-78
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Region IV
and
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION
A PUBLIC HEARING IN RE:
Application of FLORIDA POWER CORPORATION
Crystal River Steam Electric Power
Generating Plants, Units 4 and 5
TIME: 7:30 p.m.
DATE: October 28, 1980
LOCATION: 121 NW Highway 19
Crystal River» Florida
Reporting: Anae Japour
Bay park reporting company
COURT REPORTING
33 FOURTH STREET NORTH
ST. PETERSBURG. FLORIDA 33701
(813) 123-8311
4-79
-------
2
THE PANEL:
HOWARD D. ZELLER, Deputy Director
Enforcement Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region IV
MICKEY D. BRYANT
Florida Department of Environmental Regulation
DARIO J. DAL SANTO, Project Officer
EIS Branch
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region IV
CHARLES H. KAPLAN, Coordinator
Thermal Analysis Unit
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region IV
SPEAKERS:
H.A. EVERTZ, III, Esquire
Senior Counsel
Florida Power Corporation
BAY PARK REPORTING COMPANY
' COURT REPORTING
J3 FOURTH STREET NORTH
ST. PETERSBURG. FLORIDA 33701
(813) S23- 33SS
4-80
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
PROCEEDINGS
(Whereupon, at 7:30 p.m. the
public hearing was called to order)
MR• ZELLER•
I think it's 7:30, and I'd like to get started witt,
the hearing. I'll make a few comments before we under way.
First of all, let me thank all of you that are hen
for showing up on a rainy night, and especially with all of th<
.big action that's on television tonight. Please understand we
didn't schedule the hearing after the debate. They scheduled
the. debate after we scheduled the hearing, so we didn't have
anything to do with that.
The Federal Statutes have different requirements
for new sources of potential pollutants compared to existing
sources, and the hearing tonight is going to deal with a new
source of potential pollution to the environment, and of coursi
it involves a power plant that's subject to several requirement;
under the law; one of these under the Environmental Policy Act,
NEPA, that says that there should be en E1S.
Under che Clean Water Act, it calls for a water
permit to discharge pollutants. Under the Clean Air Act, there
a requirement for clean air and the prevention of significant
deterioration, and there also must be a certification of the
i
permit by the State of Florida where it's being Issued.
So the hearing tcnight will essentially cover all
4-81
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
u
12
13
14
IS
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
of those areas. It's a combination of a number of things that
ace going to be involved with a new source.
It'll be an informational-type hearing. Nobody
will be sworn in, and there'll be no cross-examination or thiflg
like that.
The purpose of the hearing is to provide informs tlx
to anyone who may be interested in the permit for the new
power — for the new units at the Crystal River Power Plant,
and I think the company is represented here and would be able
to respond to any questions you might have, and I would be glad
to respond to any questions that you might have relative to
any federal actions that would take place.
So with that little preliminary, let me go to my
opening statement, which is something I need to read into the
record so we can get under way, and then a few other people
will make some comments.
First of all, my name is Howard Zeller, and I'm the
Deputy Director of the Enforcement Division of the United State
Environmental Protection Agency in Atlanta, Georgia.
With me tonight are some other people whose name
tags you can see. This is Mickey Bryant to my left with the
!
Florida Department of Environmental Regulation; Charles Kaplan
to my right; Mr, Dario Dal Santo, who is involved with the
Environmental Impact Statement, who's also to my left; and Mr.
Wilson is there handling the recording equipment.
4-82
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
We're going Co be talking tonight about possible
actions by EPA with respect to Crystal River Units 4 and 5,
which is a new electric generating facility proposed by the
Florida Power Corporation.
The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
requires that federal agencies include in their decision-making
process an appropriate and thorough review of the environmental
consequences of proposed action.
NEPA also requires an Environmental Impact Statement
be prepared on all major federal actions that significantly
affect the quality of the human environment.
Issuance of a National Pollutant Discharge Elimina-
tion System permit to new source facilities is considered to be
a major federal action. That's why we're here tonight, to
discuss the EIS.
The EIS has been prepared, and notice of its
availability was published in the Federal Register. That was
in Volume 45, and the date on that was September 26, 1980.
i
l
If any of you did not receive a copy of that and
i
would like to receive a copy, you can take care of those j
arrangements tonight by talking to any of us here at the table..
Our hearing is for Che purpose of receiving commenti
on this Draft Environmental Impact Statement. It's also for
the proposed issuance of a National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System permit, and also, under Section 401 of the
4-83
-------
Clean Water Act, the State of Florida has been requested to
certify the proposed permit so that It will not cause any
violations to Florida Water Cuality Standards.
So those are the three significant actions that
this hearing will address tonight.
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act, which is
aow generally referred to as the Clean Water Act, has an
explicit goal for the elimination of the discharge of pollutanl:
by 1985.
To achieve the goal, the Act created the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit, and I'm going
to call that NFDES from here on out, to control discharge of
pollutants into the nation's waters.
Under this permit program* anyone who has a
discharge into waters of the United States mast receive a
permit, which will set limits and conditions on the discharge
of pollutants.
The Act requires strict limits for new sources,
such as the Crystal River facility.
The NFDES permit is the basic enforcement tool for
water pollution abatement under the federal law. Discharge
muat be in compliance with this permit's effluent limits upon !
initiation of its discharge.
Any violation of the terms or limits or violations
of the permit will be subject to discharge — to civil or maybei
t
4-84
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
M
«
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
even criminal penalties.
Now, in accordance with this NPDES permit system
and Section 306(c) o£ the Clean Water Act, Florida Power
Corporation has applied to the Environmental Protection Agency
for a permit to discharge pollutants from Crystal River Units
4 and 5, which is presently under construction here in this
county. Discharges from the facility will enter the Gulf of
Mexico by the plant discharge canal.
A draft permit proposed for the Crystal River units
was prepared by the staff of Region IV, and we referred to the
water quality standards, the new source performance standards
for the steam electric generating point source category, which
is contained in the Federal Regulations, and it also involves
the best professional and engineering judgment of the staff
concerning the application of these guidelines to site-specific
considerations.
Now, we're here tonight to get specific comment on
the draft permit and the Draft Environmental Impact Statement*
As we said in the public notice, all pollutant
limitations and other permit conditions are tentative, and
they're open to comment here tonight. Nothing will be final
until this hearing is over, until the final SIS is issued,
and the final permit is issued, and an opportunity will be
made for anyone who wants to make a comment to do so.
Now, we've made available for distribution copies
4-85
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
of the public notice, the fact sheet, permit rationale in-
formation, and the Draft EXS.
Each one of these documents, as well as other
relevant documentation, and all comments received tonight or
submitted in writing by November 10th will become a part of
the record of this hearing.
The information in the record will be used in
assessing the draft permit and then preparing the final Draft
HIDES permit proposed for issuance and which will be Issued
following a release of the final Environmental Impact State-
ment.
In addition, you should be aware that all public
comments on the Crystal River facility and the Draft EIS,
whether received here tonight and transcribed for the 'record
or submitted in writing directly to EPA, will be summarized
and addressed in the final Environmental Impact Statement.
Now, under the provisions of the Clean Air Act,
the Florida Power Corporation submitted a Prevention of
Significant Deterioration permit application to EPA in 1977*
Subsequent to review and public notice, Florida
Power received a permit to construct this plant in 1978. This,
of course, deals with the clean air aspects of the plant. The j
i •
plant will be a coal-burning facility, and in order — before
construction could begin, a permit, which would show that the
quality of the air wculd not be deteriorated, was required.
4-86
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
This was Issued in 1973.
Now, the purpose of che hearing tonight is to
address Issues relative to the Draft Water Discharge Permit
and the Draft Environmental Impact Statement.
The HfDCO permit's already been issued, and it's
not a matter of any concern to us here tonight at this hearing.
This is an informational hearing, as I told you,
and it's conducted pursuant to 40 CFR, and that part of the
regulations is 124.42(b).
The notice of the hearing was published in the
Sentinel on September 24th and in the Tampa Tribune
on September 25th, and in addition to that we sent out copies
of the public notice and fact sheet to e great many people
who are on our mailing list.
Now, that about covers what I wanted to say, and
at this time I'd like to ask Mickey Bryant, who is here on my
left and with the Florida Department of Environmental Regulatio
to see if he has any comments that he wants to make relative
to the State's requirement to certify this permit under j
Section 401 of the Cleen water Act, and if the State does not
certify the permit, SPA cannot issue it.
Mr. Bryant, do you have some comments you'd lika
to make for the record;
I'lR. BRYAJJT:
Thank you, Mr. Zellar.
4-87
I
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
X am Mickey Bryant, Administrator of the NPDES
section of the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation.
On behalf of Secretary Varn, I would like to
welcome everyone to this hearing also.
It's especially nice for me to return to Crystal
River tonight, because some of you may know that I'm a former
resident of this area, of Citrus County, and a graduate of
Crystal River High School.
My statement at tonight's hearing is brief. The
Department originally reviewed the proposed installation of
Units 4 and S at Crystal River pursuant to an application
submitted under the Florida Electrical Power Plant Siting Act.
This Act is contained within Chapter 403, Florida
Statutes, and addresses the procedures and requirements to be
met for establishment of new power plant facilities in Florida.
On Kovember 21st, 1978, the Florida Cabinet
approved the site certification of these two power plant units
with specific conditions of certification.
i
I have a copy of this certification with me tonight)
in case anybody wishes to examine it. There was also a copy j
in the Draft EIS, which anyone who has a copy of that can
examine it there.
Pursuant to federal law, Section 401, which has
been mentioned before, the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act, as amended by the Clean Water Act, authorizes states to
4-88
-------
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
review and issue or deny certification for proposed facilities
seeking NPDES permits.
The Department is here tonight to announce its
intention to issue State certification to Florida Power
Corporation for Units 4 and 5 at Crystal River.
The Department plans to certify the two new units
contingent upon compliance with the conditions of the site
certification adopted by the Florida Cabinet in November of
1978* and later modified on February 22nd, 1980, and May 22nd,
1980.
I believe that the final EIS will contain the —
It contains the first modification and will contain the May 22q
modification when it comes out.
State certification will also require compliance
with the terms and limitations contained in the Draft NFDES
permit.
i'am here tonight to receive public comment, which
will be reviewed prior to issuance of State certification by
the Depertamnt.
i
i
Your attendance at tonight's hearing is appreciated
I
and 1 look forward to receiving your comments. \
MR. ZELLER: j
Thank you, Mr. Bryant. j
Next I'd like to ask Mr. Darlo Dal Santo, who was 1
the £nvlronmental Impact Statement Project Officer, to talk
4-89
-------
1
2
3
A
5
6
7
8
4
1C
11
1:
i:
i<
l.
i
1
L
l little bit about the NEPA process and about the Environmental,
[mpact State meat that was prepared for Crystal River Units
» and 5.
Mr. Dal Santoi
OU DftL SANTO:
Thank you, Mr. Zeller. Good evening.
I am Dario Dal Santo, EPA, Region IV Project
Officer for the Environmental Impact Statement on Florida
Power Corporation's — and I'll refer to that as FPC —
proposed Crystal River Units 4 and 5.
The proposed units will have a gross generating
capacity of 1390 megawatts and will be located at the existing
FPC Crystal River complex in Citrus County, Florida.
Under the National Environmental Policy Act of
1969 — that is NEPA -- an Environmental Impact Statement must
be prepared for all major federal actions which may significant
affect the quality of the human environment.
Operation of the Crystal River Units 4 and 5
facility will require a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System permit.
The E?At Region IV, Regional Administrator has
determined that the proposed facility is a new source as
j
defined by Section 306 of the Clean Water Act.
i
Section 511 of the Clean Water Act defines issuance
of new source NPDZS permits as subject to the provisions of
4-90
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
NEPA. That is, issuance of the NFDES permit is a major federal
action that may significantly affect the quality of the human
environment.
Consequently, an EIS has been prepared. The
purpose of the EIS is to provide government agencies and the
public with information to assure that an appropriate and
thorough review of the environmental impacts of the proposed
action is included in the decision-making process.
The EIS was prepared.using the so-called third-part(
EIS process. Under this arrangement, the Florida Power Cor-
poration retained a consultant to prepare the EIS with EEA
guidance and direction.
Environmental Science and Engineering, Incorporated,
of Gainesville, Florida, was nominated by Florida Power
Corporation and approved by EPA as a third-party consultant to
prepere the EIS.
However, ultimate responsibility for the EIS rests
with EPA *
The Dra£t EIS consists of the summary document,
which is usually referred to as the Draft EIS and the two-
volume technical support document.
I
This procedure is consistent with Council of
Environmental Quality guidelines on implementing NEPA. The
i
intent of these guidelines is to produce a readable, under-
standable summary document, which addresses and evaluates
4-91
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
project alternatives, direct and indirect environmental impacts
associated with these alternatives and potential actions which
may serve to mitigate these impacts.
The technical support document contains the detaile
evaluation o£ the project alternatives and impacts.
The Draft EIS presents the evaluation of several
systems alternatives for the proposed project. Generating
system alternatives include management and alternate energy
sources.
The proposed coal-fired units were selected as
preferable based on envlromneatal considerations, available
technology, engineering, licensing, and construction lead times
Other principal systems o£ alternatives evaluated
include those related to siting, cooling systems and water
resources, wastewater treatment, and air emissions control.
The CEQ guidelines — that is, the Council of
Environmental Quality — guidelines specify that an EIS should
focus oh the major issues identified in scoping stage of
the environmental review process for a project; that is, in the
very initial stages of project identification.
The major issues primarily focus on cooling water
sources and systems, wastewater treatment, air emissions
control, and endangered species.
The proposed cooling system will utilize natural
draft cooling towers in conjunction with make-up water to the
4-92
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
cooling towers from the existing coo Ling water d is char at
canal for Units 1 through 3.
Impacts to the aquatic environment from this systeo
should be minimal since the cooling'water for Units 4 and 5
essentially will have been used as cooling water for Units 1
through 3.
Process wastewaters will be routed through a
wastewater treatment system to a plant drains collection pond.
Mo discharge of these wastewaters to surface waters of the
United States is expected.
A Prevention of Significant Deterioration -- that
is, a PSD -- review has been conducted. PSD analysis indicated
that air quality changes in the surrounding Class IX area and
the Class 1 area 40 miles distant would be within allowable
PSD increment levels.
Based on this analysis, state and federal air quali
standards will not be violated. Salt drift originating from
the cooling towers, however, could impact nearby vegetation.
I
Barge traffic associated with the transport of coal
will traverse waters known to be within the range of the
Florida manatee, which is an endangered species. The US Fish >
and Wildlife Service rendered a biological opinion stating i
that uncontrolled activities would likely jeopardize the
continued existence of the manatee.
To mitigate these programs, or, to aitigate these
4-93
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
impacts, several programs have been required, and I'll briefly
discuss these.
A salt drift monitoring program is required as a
condition of the NFDES permit. The program will be initiated
prior to commencement of plant operation and Will assess the
impacts of salt drift.
Should significant impacts be evident, Florida
Power Corporation will consult with EPA and the State to
address measures to mitigate these impacts.
A groundwater monitoring program is required by
the HIDES permit and will assess any impacts of leachates from
the coal pile, ash disposal, or effluent disposal areas.
Should significant impacts be identified, mitigativi
measures including relocation of disposal areas will be
evaluated.
To mitigate impacts to the manatee, all vessels
associated with the project will operate at no-wake speeds at
all times while in shallow waters of channels in the project
i
area.
Additionally, early in the planning stage of the
I
|
project, the proposed plant location was shifted eastward to
avoid major areas of coastal salt marsh, coastal hydric
hammock, and hydric hammock.
It should be emphasized the Draft SIS represents
ER^'s assessment of the project and proposed action. A
4-94
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
IS
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
decision on permit issuance will be included ia the final EIS.
Any comments you may have on the Draft EIS or the
permitting decision would be appreciated. Comments should be
forwarded to Mr* John E. Hagan of EPA, Region IV, and the
address is located, or, the address is at the bottom of the
agenda.
The comment period on the Draft EIS will remain
open until November 10, 1980.
f
The final EIS will consist of the Agency's state*
ment of findings, permit decision, substantive comments, and
responses to comments, transcript of this hearing, and any
additional evaluations performed since publication of the
Dra£t EIS.
The EFA desires to be responsive to the public and
to encourage public involvement in the EIS process.
i
Thank you for your attendance this evening.
MEL t ZEL1£R •
Thank you, Mr. Dal Santo.
Finally, the final presentation on the part of the
government will be made by Charles Kaplan, who's on my right*
Mr. Kaplan is an engineer with the Enforcement
Division, primarily responsible for development of the thermal j
permit end for the environmental assassment as far as the
i
discharge is concerned.
Mr. Kaplan?
i
I
4-95
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. KAPLAN:
Thank you, Mr. Zeller.
Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. My name is
Charles Kaplan. I'm employed by Che US Environmental Pro tec tic
Agency as Coordinator of the Thermal Analysis Unit in the
Enforcement Division for the Region IV office. I'm head-
quartered in Atlanta, Georgia.
And it is my responsibilty to draft the NFDES perm!
for the new source plants within the Region IV area. At the
registration desk there are copies of the public notice and
the fact sheet for the facility.
The fact sheet contains die proposed limitations an
requirements as well as the permit rationale. This information
was provided to the EPA mailing list and was also provided for
posting at various post offices, libraries, and town halls in
this area.
The Draft NPDES permit and rationale were also
included in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement.
As has been Indicated to you tonight, one of the
most important purposes of this hearing is to receive comments !
|
from you, the public, on this project, on the proposed waste- j
water discharge permit from the Crystal River Units 4 and 5, j
also any comments on the State certification, if you wish.
Under the provisions of the Clean Water Act, a
liquid waste discharge to waters of the United States must
4-96
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
meet two different sets of criteria. This first is that the
effluent must meet the requirements of the effluent guidelines
and standards, which were promulgated on October 8th, 1974,
for the steam electric power generating point source category.
These are promulgated and contained in Title 40,
Fart 423 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
The second set of criteria is that the discharge,
when viewed in conjunction with any other discharges, oust
not violate the applicable Florida Water Cuality Standards.
Application of these two sets of requirements to
the discharges from Crystal River 4 and 5 is in the form of
effluent limitations which are included in the draft permit
and which are provided in the fact sheet.
The draft permit contains limitations on the amount
of pollutants, such as suspended solids, chlorine residual,
heat which can be discharged into the plant discharge canal.
The fact sheet contains copies of the proposed
effluent limitations and special conditions to assure that
the plant is constructed and operated in an environmentally
acceptable manner.
As has been stated in the public notice and
reiterated tonight, the permit conditions are tentative, in
draft, and are open to your comment tonight or later in writing
There are two units proposed for addition to the
three already in operation at Crystal River. These two new
4-97
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
source units are under construction* As new source units,
they have to meet virtually the most stringent requirements
that have been promulgated by the Environmental Protection
Agency.
In order to meet the limitations, Florida Power
has provided facilities which will result in basically a
no-discharge type of facility. The primary source o£ waste
will be the cooling towers and their blowdown to the discharge
canal.
Rainfall runoff will be generally collected in
evaporation/'seepage-type ponds and canals and normally will
not discharge.
Other wastes that would normally result from a
power plant of this nature, such as fly ash, won't have a
discharge to waters of the United States.
Under the provisions of Section 316(b) of the
Clean Water Act, the cooling water intake structure proposed
for any new units must assure that the design, the location,
the capacity, and the construction of the intake reflects the j
best technology available for minimizing adverse environmental j
impact.
EPA has tentatively determined that the proposed
intake will meet these requirements'.
As I close, I wish to Indicate that juat two weeks
ago today, EPA proposed revisions to the new source performance
4-98
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
M
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
standards, particularly as they relate to toxic pollutants.
We are presently reviewing the impact these proposed regulatioi
will have on the plant effluent limitations and requirements,
and basically our primary review indicates that the proposed
facilities will be able to meet the new requirements.
If our final complete review is such, then we will
proceed to issue a five-year permit for Units 4 and 5. These
evaluations and conclusions will be provided in the final
Environmental Impact Statement.
Thank you again for your attention.
MR. ZELLER:
Thank you, Mr. Kaplan.
That concludes the statements for the government
agencies for the record, and 1 will proceed with what we're
really here for, to receive the public comments.
One of the goals of the Clean Water Act and NEPA
is to encourage and provide for public participation and inputj
into the decision-making process for actions legislated by ]
these acts and to encourage government responsiveness to |
public concerns, and we're trying to promote a greater public |
i
awareness of actions that are proposed by the Environmental
Protection Agency.
We would ask for statements from the public. We
also want to make sure that everyone here is registered so we
may have a record of those who are in attendance, 30 we can
4-99
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
M
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
send you a notice of our determination regarding the permit.
If you haven't already registered, please do so.
Finally, when it comes down to give statements,
if you have a lengthy written statement, we ask that you
summarize it if possible.
Some members of this panel may ask questions of
the persons that present oral' comments where we think it
might be necessary to clarify the nature or substance of the
comments* but by and large, this would not be any cross-
examination.
I'd like to ask that each person that makes a
statement to please step up to the microphone* I think we
want to use that podium over there.
The hearing is being recorded by a court reporter,
and a transcription will be included in the public record, in
the final EIS, in addition to oral or written comments submltte
this evening»
The comment period on the Draft CIS will be open
until. November 10th. A written record of the hearing and your
comments will be held as a matter of public record at the
Regional Office of EPA in Atlanta.
Right at the present time the only person who has
indicated that he wanted to speak is Mr. H.A. Evertz, who is j
Senior Counsel with Florida Power Corporation, so I'd ask Mr. |
Evertz, if you would come forward, please, and present a
4-100
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
IS
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
statement an behalf of Florida Power Corporation for the record
MR. EVERTZ:
Thank you, Mr. Zeller.
For the record 117 name Is H.A. Evertz, III. 1
reside in St. Petersburg, Florida. I'm Senior Counsel with
Florida Power Corporation, and we welcome this opportunity to
appear before the public at this joint hearing as the Applicant
for the weter discharge permit involved in this matter.
The company, of course, fully supports issuance
of the permit by EPA and the certification by the State of
Florida that.the proposed discharge will be in compliance with
all applicable standards.
We are in the process of finalizing the permit
terms with EPA. We do strongly feel that we have designed
an efficient coal-fired power generating station which will hav
minimal impact on the environment.
We seem to have shared the same speech writer,
i
Mr. Chairman. I will pass over the portions of this written , J
statement which have already been addressed by you end the othei
1
1
members of the government agencies.
I would request that the statement be submitted
in the record as if read in full, however.
i
MR. ZELLER:
1
We'll be happy to do chat.
MR. EVERTZ:
4-101
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
2
The Crystal River Units 4 arid 5 are located in
Florida Power Corporation's 4,738 acre generating complex in
Citrus County, Florida. The plant site is located adjacent
to the Gulf of Mexico between Crystal River to the south and
the Wlthlacdoahee River to the north.
The City of Crystal River is approximately 8 miles
southeasterly of the complex. Currently Florida Power operates
three existing generating units at the plant site on approxi-
mately 319 acres of cleared land.
Unit No. 1 is a 383 c&egawatt co^l-fired unit.
Unit Nob 2 is a 498 megawatt coal-fired unit; and Unit No. 3,
of course, is the nuclear unit, 825 megawatts power plant.
Unit 4 and 5, as mentioned, are presently under
construction and will be operational for thirty years. The
major components of the project Include two 695 megawatt
electric generating plants, two natural draft salt water
cooling towers 440 feet tail, two chimneys 600 feet tall, a
wastewater treatment system, a coal storage area, and an ash
disposal area.
Approximately 335 acres will be cleared for this
project, for the plants and the supportive facilities.
The existing barge and rail unloading facilities
are adequate to handle the coal for the project, as well as
l
existing Units 1 and 2 which burn coal.
Additional storage anc handling facilities will be
4-102
-------
1
2
3
4
S
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
needed. Additional storage areas for coal will be adjacent
to Units 4 and 5.
As mentioned, the cooling water for the units will
be drawn from the intake structure for the existing units 1,
2 and 3. An average of approximately 98 million gallons of
sea water per day will be required for cooling purposes for
Units 4 and 5.
An average of 600,000 gallons per day of raw
groundwater, fresh water if you will, will be required for
plant requirements. This water will cone from a well field,
which will be located east of US 19 along the — within the
existing transmission line corridor east of US 19.
Of the 98 million gallons of seawater a day for
cooling purposes, approximately 88 million gallons per day
will be returned to the existing discharge canal downstream
of the intake structure. This water is called cooling water
or cooling tower blowdown.
Ash from the units will be disposed of daily on an
on-site storage area, which will eventually cover 95 acres.
The runoff of rainwater from the ash storage water from the
coal pile and the plant site will be collected into systems
l
of canals and ponds and will have a detention volume which j
exceeds the maximum ten-year twenty-four-hour rainfall eventi
i
in other words, the amount of rain that would fall over e
twenty-four-hour period once every ten years.
4-103
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Under normal conditions no water would run off
from the site into public water, and when it did happen, it
would be an extremely rare occurrence.
As previously mentioned} the air quality in the
area has been thoroughly considered and was the subject of
permits already issued by the State of Florida for the
construction of the two units and the Prevention of Significant
Deterioration -- so-called PSD -- permit which has previously
been issued by EPA.
These cover such things as the discharge of sulfur
dioxide and particulates, the main things.
There will be no new transmission lines. The
axis ting transmission corridor was originally planned to carry
the current from these units out.
s
In order to meet its statutory duty as a public
utility of providing adequate, reliable electric service to
meet the future demands of Its customers, the company has
conducted detailed studies on projected customer growth,
i
energy demands, and available system capacity and reserves.
From these studies it developed a generation i
i
I
expension plan in order to meet its projected capacity needs, j
Based on historical trends and customer growth and energy use
i
and on assumptions concerning the various factors affecting
demand, Florida Power anticipates that its customers and
system loads will continue to increase in the future.
4-104
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
M
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
I don't think that statement surprises any of ua
that have lived in Florida and have seen its growth today and
projected growth expectations*
Due to slowdowns in the growth o£ population and
of the average energy use per customer resulting from con-
servation measures taken to date and appliance saturation,
the forecasted growth rates are lower than those expected, or,
experienced in the 1960's and early 1970's.
Florida Power forecasts that by the winter of
1984-85 the peak demand on its system can be expected to
increase 1,200 megawatts above the 1979-1980 winter peak.
This represents an annual growth rate of 4.5 percent.
Using reliability, production cost, and financial
simulation computer models in its studies, Florida Power
evaluated a number of alternative generation expanaion plans*
For generation capacity planning purposes, a
loss-of-load criterion of one day in ten years was used. This
is standard industry practice and has been — This method or
criterion is approved by the Public Service Commission in the
State of Florida. |
Plans which were evaluated include purchases from
i
other utilities, peaking capacity, combined cycle oil capacity
and coal units of various sizes to satisfy base load capacity
requirements. 1
Based on these evaluations, Florida Power developed
4-105
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
a generation expansion plan. Fundamental to this plan is the
addition of two coal-fired 695 megawatt base load generating
plants, units, to begin service in December 1982 — that'll be
Uhit Mo. 4 — and December 1984 for Unit No. 5*
The accuracy of our load forecast has been
confirmed by actual experience. The seasonal winter and summer
peaks in 1980 both exceeded the forecast used in the original
studies. Sharply higher oil costs and the inability to license
other projects in a time-effective manner led to the cancellati
of 400 megawatts of peaking and combined cycle-type units.
To help offset this lack of plant capacity, *
200 megawatt economy purchase from our neighbor to the north,
the Southern Company, has been implemented.
Our current reserve projections for the 1982 throug
1987 time frame are still lower than those contained in the
Draft Environmental Impact Statement, which is the subject,
principal subject, of this hearing.
In addition to the increased need for capacity for
reliability purposes, the increased cost of oil fuels and the
need to conserve these resources makes the timely completion j
of the two coal units essential.
Every year that one of these units is delayed will ;
result in increased consumption of 6 million barrels of j
foreign oil and a fuel cost increase of 150 to 200 million
dollars\ and as you well know, fuel costs are passed through
4-106
-------
1
. 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
to the customer in his bill, so these are not small numbers
we're looking at.
The project will have considerable socioeconomic
benefits for the Citrus County/Crystal River area. The project
has been and will provide employment for an average of 528
workers during the seven-year construction period. We're now
approximately two years into that seven-year period.
The total payroll for the construction will be
approximately 150 million dollars based on 1978 dollars.
Operation and maintenance of the two units will require 162
permanent new employees at the plant with an annual payroll
of $3,400,000.
Additionally > there will be an annual yield in the
area of approximately $300,000 for outside contractual services
required, and the addition of the units to the tax rolls will
add several millions of dollars in property taxes.
As already mentioned, the site has bean certified
by the State of Florida in November of 1978. Florida Power
feels strongly that the completion of Crystal River Units 4 and
5 at the earliest possible time is essential if the company is j
|
to continue serving its customers in a reliable and economic
aanner.
We urge both EPA and che Florida Department of
Environmental Regulation to act promptly in issuing the final
Environmental Impact Statement and the NPDES permit for the
4-107
t
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
IS
16
17
19
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
project.
I wish Co thank EPA and the Florida Department of
Environmental Regulation for this opportunity to be here and
present this statement for the record.
We do have additional people, Mr. Zeller, in
various areas to respond to any issue germane Co the proceeding
MR • Z£LLERs
Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Evertz. Let me assure
you that on behalf of EPA and the State we do intend to
proceed in an expeditious manner in terms of issuing these
permits, and we expect everything to be on schedule, as you've
indicated.
This completes the individuals who've indicated
they wanted to make a statement at the hearing tonight.
Is there anyone else at this time that would like
to make a statement, or is there anyone that has any questions?
We've talked a lot up here —-
Yes, ma'am?
tfi. SPIVEY:
Yeah.
MR. ZELLER:
;
I'd like to ask you, if you would, if you don't
mind, would you come up so that I can get your question on the j
i
record.
If you would, state your name.
i
!
4-108 i
-------
1
2
3
4
s
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
>S. SPIVEY:
Halea Spivey, Cryseal River.
First, it's not a question. What I'm — You keep
saying November 10th, and on your little hand-out it says
November 12th, your comment-dose period.
MEL. KAPLAN:
The 10th is the proper date.
MEL* ZRT.T.kh j
The official closing date is November 10th*
MS. SPIVE*:
Okay. Now, I wrote my question on the other side*
I just heard the gentleman say that Florida Power intended to
keep all their ash on site, and 1 had read in die Environmental
Impact Statement that if they could sell 26 percent of it they
would. _ _ _ _ .
And then soms place else in there it said that
they, because of additional regulations, they would not be
able to, and a couple of days ago we had an incident of someone
who had been hired by Florida Power to take care of some fly j
ash, and they put it in a cypress swamp in which they had no ;
permit to put it.
And if they do get to the point where they cannot
contain all the fly ash on sita, is Florida Power responsible
for its contractors, or do we have to keep an eye on the
contractors and see where they due? it or just Has it been
4-109
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
n
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
addressed at all, oc is there any kind o£ look-see into it?
And also, did your statement look into sink holes
at all —
MR. ZSLLER:
Let's try to take these
MS. SPIVEY :
— if they're covering all that ground?
MR. ZELLER:
Let's try to take these one at a time.
MS * SPIVEY:
Oh, okay.
MR. ZELLER:
And let's talk a little bit about the fly ash* The
new guidelines relative to new sources are quite specific in
terms of fly ash handling facilities for power plants that are
built under new source performance standards.
And let me ask Mr. Kaplan here to maybe talk a
little bit more about that and go into a little more detail on
that.
I
I
I
I don't think we're going to have a problem here
I
relative to what you talked about in terms of handling the fly
ash, because it's going to be a different system that's involved
here compared to some of the conventional coal-fired plants
where there's an ash pond, and we're looking at a little
different facility, so we shouldn't have that kind of a problem
4-110
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
o£ handling ash.
Do you agree, Mr. Kaplan?
MR. KAPLAN:
I definitely do agree. Our evaluation indicates
that there will be adequate storage on site, 1 believe, and
agreed, the company is going to try and sell as much of the
fly ash as they can, 'cause it is s valuable resource.
I'm not aware of any fly ash being discharged into
a cypress swamp and
IB. SPIVEY:
It was In the S£. Pete Times a couple of days ago.
It was down near Halls River, Homosassa, and I
MR » ZELLER•
I think this is something we very much like to —
like to investigate this. This violates several —
MS. SPIVEY:
Well, apparently the gentleman has a permit for a
fill some place to put the stuff, but he filled a place he
didn't have a permit for, and I think Florida DER was called
la on it. I
MR. BRYANT: !
!
I'm not familiar with the case myself. I should be:.
16. SPIVEY: ,
|
But I — I just kind of thought that, you know,
if they can't contain it —
4-111
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
MR. ZELLER:
Let'8 — We'll look into the -- investigate the
incident you reported, but otherwise, relative to the new
units that are going to be built here, there should not be
any problems relative to handling the fly ash. It's going to
be a totally different kind of handling system than what is
normally expected at power plants, and we believe it's a very
good system and applies newest and best technology, and
there should not be any problems whatsoever relative to fly ash
SPIVEY:
Okay. Can. I ask another'/
MR. ZELLER:
Surely, please*
MS. SPIVEY:
Did your statement address sink holes et all, or
did you look into it?
I realize that there's arguments as to what causes
them and what doesn't, and the last time we were afflicted
with them, I think, is when they drew down Lake Rousseau.
MR. ZELLER:
I wonder If we might ask — I'm sure that Florida •
i
Power Corporation, when they initiated construction on this |
l
site, you know, made some Investigations relative to the, you j
know, to the topography and the soil types and any likelihood
that anything like this would happen.
4-112
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Mr. Everts, do you have someone who could speak to
that, or would you like to speak to it?
EVERTZ:
I think the problem brought up has to do with the
fly ash from Crystal River Units 1 and 2.
As I understand it, the ash has been removed by —
under contract and is temporarily being stored, and there've
been questions raised as to whether or not leachates from the
fly ash in this temporary storage area will or will not
adversely affect groundwetar, well weter, or anything like that
I might point out that this problem should not —
if it's a problem now; I don't know that it is — but it would
not occur, I don't think, at Crystal River 4 and 5.
The ash storage area for these two units is 95
acres. The ash on the plant site adjacent to the units, the
ash will be stored at present ground level. In other words,
it will not be buried in an excavation.
Tests will be made on the initial storage area as
to whether or not there is a leaching problem of any impurities
going down into the groundwater at the plant.
The 95 acres has been sized so that the storage !
area is large enough to store the ash for the two units for !
the entire thirty-year lifetime, if necessary.
i
!
If there is a commercial use for the fly ash, it
would, or course, be sold, obviously. It'd make economic
4-113
-------
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
sense to; they do use £Ly ash for things, making brick, as an
aggregate in certain types of concrete and cement.
Should the ash leave the site, it would be by
contract to the extent that Florida Power would be covered,
and the transporter of the £ly ash and the ultimate consumer,
would be covered by whatever applicable regulations for the
protection o£ the environment are In force at that time.
So whether or not the present situation is or is
not a problem, it would not occur, I don't believe, with the
fly ash from Units 4 and 5.
MR • ZKLLER .
Thank you.
ML. EVERXZ:
But as to the other natter, Florida Power had been
more of a bystander, more of a bystander, although the ash,
of course, does come from the power plant.
It has been, I think, a problem mainly between the
contractor who intends to use the fly ash and whether or not
It's an appropriate temporary storage mechanism and —
I know it has been studied quite extensively by
the Department of Environmental Regulation and the local county
people and — j
i
IA • ZELLERs j
Apparently it's a matter of local permits thet may!
be required for storage of this material, and it certainly does
4-114 I
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
u
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
23
warrant investigation.
Wa appreciate your bringing lc up.
MI ~ EVEB.TZ :
To tha base of our knowledge, ie la undar invastl*
gation, and between tha persona, tha paopla storing tha ash
and whatnot.
MR, ZELLER:
Ara there any othar questions?
US. SPI7EY:
You lost my sink holes.
MR* ZELLER:
Yaah.
MR. EVERTZ:
Tha ash at tha powar plant would not ba In a sink
hola. Howaver, it will ba storad at —
MS. SPI7EY:
No. Tha
MR. ZELLER:
I think -— I think your question
MS . SPITE*:
Tha amounts of watar that you ara intending to
pump out along your aasament, has anything been looked into
to sae if it might have soma sort of an impact in causing sink
holaa?
MR. ZELLER:
4-115
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Okay. I think Mr. O'Brien — I think the
question relative to what we're talking about in terms of
sink holes is of some concern that there may be leachates from
soma of these storage ponds on the plant site.
MR. KAPLAN:
(Shakes head negatively) The question is will sinl
holes, do they exist —
MR. ZELIER:
Okay. Okay.
MR. KAPLAN:
— or will they be generated.
MS. SP1VEY:
In other words, they're planning on pumping a
tremendous — well, he said 600,000 gallons — and in one of
these statements he said it could be up to as high as 8 milliot
a day at 2 and a half foot drawdown in the Immediate area.
MR. DAL SANTO:
This was in the EIS?
MS. SPIVEY:
Yeah. Okay. And I realise they're not going to
i
draw that all the time, but I just wondered if anybody had '
looked into the possibility of this causing sink holes.
MR. ZELLER:
f
I think the issue has been raised in the EIS, and '
as a result of your bringing it up here at this meeting, why, w
4-116
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
will make further investigation relative to any likelihood or
possibility of anything like that happening.
1 think it's been essentially addressed, but it wil
be addressed, you know, to the fullest extent --
MS. SPIVEY:
Thank you.
tfl. ZELLER:
— since you have brought it up. Thank you.
Does anybody else have any questions they'd like
to ask at this time?
MR. EVERTZ:
The matter o£ the ground — The 600,000 gallons
o£ water a day in the well field was one of the subjects
covered in the State site certification hearing, and it will
be in compliance with rather stringent regulations of the
Southwest Florida Water Management District as to how much —
the rate of drawing down water and whether or not it's causing
a sinking and affecting the weter on adjacent property.
It will meet all those stringent regulations.
MS. SP1VEY:
Yeah. I realize you didn't want the plant to go
down the drain.
MR. EVERTZ :
It was exhaustively covered in the site certifiesti
hearing and is part of the site certification.
4-117
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
U
12
13
14
)i
U
i;
li
V
21
2
4C
fi. SPIVEY:
Okay. Thank you.
ZELLER:
Does anybody else have aay questions at this tint?
Ehls is —- We've talked about a lot of things up here, and if
you don't understand anything about the new units, this is why
we're here. This is a very good opportunity for anyone to
aay questions that they nay have, and we'd be pleased to, If
tie don't have answers, to find answers for you.
Does anybody else have anything they'd like to a«lt,|
any questions they'd like to ask at this time? If not, X
intend to close the hearing.
Well, let ne thank all of you for your attendance
and your participation.
The record of Che hearing will remain open through
the close of business on November 10th, 1980. This will allow
anyone wishing to submit additional statements sufficient tlio*
to do so.
Further submissions must be in writing to be includi
in the official record and should be sent to the attention of
John Hagan at the Regional Office in Atlanta.
The final Environmental Impact Statenant will be
published after the close of the public comment period.
I
Now, the final EIS will consist of a summary of thej
Draft Environmental Impact Statement, the Agency's tentative
4-118
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
decision on, this project, responses to comments received on
the Draft EIS, this transcript o£ the public hearing, and any
other comments submitted between now and November 10th, 1980,
and any other relevant information or evaluations developed
after publication of the Draft EIS.
A copy of the Draft EIS should be retained if a
complete evaluation of the project is desired.
Now, after consideration of all the written comment
and of the requirements and policies in the Act and appropriate
regulations, the EPA Regional Administrator will make de-
terminations regarding permit issuance.
If these determinations are substantially unchanged
the EPA Regional Administrator will so notify all persons
making oral statements here tonight and all persons submitting
written comments.
If the determinations are substantially changed,
the EPA Regional Administrator will issue a public notice
indicating the revised determinations.
Within thirty days of receipt of the final de-
termination or the date of the public notice, any interested
party may request an evidentiary bearing on this determination^
Now, a request for an evidentiary hearing should
be addressed to the EPA Regional Hearing Clerk. Procedures
|
for filing evidentiary hearing requests are set out in Title 40
in the Code cf Federal Regulations, Fart 124.
4-119
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Unless a request for an evidentiary hearing is
granted, our determination will be a final action on the part
of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Fending final Agency action on an evidentiary
hearing, which is granted by the Regional Administrator, the
Applicant will be without a permit as a project for which a
permit has been applied is a new source.
The record upon which the determination to issue
is made will include both comments received at this hearing
and received in response to the public notice.
The final permit will be issued no sooner than
thirty days after issuance of the final Environmental Impact —
and that's in accordance with the federal regulations.
Thank you again for coming out and attending this
hearing, for your participation in the process here this
evening.
I now declare this hearing to be closed.
(Whereupon, at 8:25 p.m. the
public hearing was concluded)
-oOo-
4-120
-------
CERTIFICATE
This Is Co certify Chat the attached proceedings before
THE UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY and
THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION
121 NW Highway 19
Crystal River, Florida
7:30 p.m.
October 28, 1980
were held as herein appears and that this is the
official transcript of the proceedings for the
file of the Agency.
' IL ¦
ANNE JAFOUR
Certified" Verbatim Reporter
Official Reporter
BAY PARK REPORTING COMPANY
COURT REPORTING
5J FOURTH STREET NORTH
ST. PETERSBURG. FLORIDA JJ70I
(SU) S23-SJM
4-121
-------
FPCR4/5-FEIS.1/RES.1
1/9/81
RESPONSES TO TRANSCRIPT COMMENTS
RESPONSE T-l
See Response HLS-1 (page 4-62).
RESPONSE T-2
The factors which influence the development of sinkholes in the vicinity
of the FPC Crystal River well field can be summarized as follows:
1. The limestone is cavernous.
2. The projected drawdown due to operation of the well field is
about 5 feet in the vicinity of the wells. The greater
drawdown is confined to the FPC power line easement.
3. No heavy structures in the vicinity of the well field are
present or are planned which would load the limestone and
increase the chance of sinkhole development.
4. The aquifer at the well field area acts essentially as an
unconfined aquifer. There is no excessive potentiometric
pressure vtaich would provide support to the rock. Most of the
overburden stress is supported by the rock itself. It is,
therefore, not anticipated that any lowering of the water level
will affect the present stress-strain relationship on the rock.
Sinkhole development presently occurring in the area is likely due to
the cavernous nature of the limestone, long-term dissolution of the
rock, and seasonal water level fluctuation. Pumping due to operation of
the well field should have little or no impact on sinkhole formation in
the immediate vicinity of the well field.
The average and maximum freshwater withdrawal for plant service uses
will be 549,000 and 782,000 gallons per day, respectively. Statements
4-122
-------
FPCR4/5-FEIS.1/RES.2
1/10/81
in the Draft EIS and Technical Support Documents pertaining to 8 million
gallons per day per unit freshwater usage refer to alternatives that
%
involved freshwater cooling. As discussed in the Draft EIS and approved
by the State and EPA, saltwater cooling will be used at Crystal River
Units 4 and 5.
4-123
-------
FPCR4/5-FEIS.1/LOP.1
1/9/81
5.0 LIST OF PREPARERS
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
John E. Hagan III
Robert B. Howard
John P. Herrmann
Clara J. DeLay
Dario J. Dal Santo
Charles H. Kaplan
Thomas A. Gibbs
Edward T. Heinen
John T. Marlar
James H. Scarbrough
Leonidas B. Tebo, Jr.
Donald J. Guinyard
Chief, EIS Branch
Chief, EIS Preparation Section
Project Officer (1977-1979)
Project Officer (1979-3/1980)
Project Officer
(3/1980-Publication)
NPDES Permit
Chief, Air Facilities Branch
Chief, Ecological Review Branch
Chief, Water Quality Management
Branch
Chief, Residuals Management
Branch
Chief, Ecology Branch
Chief, Water Supply Branch
Environmental Science and Engineering, Inc.
E.R. Henderson, Ph.D., P.E.
Kennard F. Kosky, M.S.E., P.E,
Frank L. Hearne, M.S.
Steven R. Marks, M.S., C.C.M.
Marvin K. Hamlin, M.S.
Alberto Linero, M.E.
Steven W. Fletcher, Ph.D.
Project Director
Project Manager,
Mechanical Engineering
Asst. Project Manager,
Aquatic Ecology
Meteorology, Air Quality
Air Quality Monitoring
Noise Impacts
Terrestrial Ecology
5-1
-------
FPCR4/5-FEIS.1/LOP.2
1/9/81
Roy S. DeLotelle, M.S.
Mel E. Lehman, M.S.
Clay A. Adams, M.S.
Bill Marsh, M.S.
James B. Holly, M.S.
Herbert G. Stangland, M.S., P.E.
David E. Bruderly, M.S., P.E.
Allen P. Hubbard, B.S.E.
Thomas Hammer, Ph.D.
Jack D. Doolittle, B.A.
Marcia L. Ward, M.S.
Marcia W. Willis (Consultant)
Charlotte M. Sykes, B.A.
Ginger Windham, B.A.
John Milko (RS&H), B.E.E., P.E,
Jackson B. Sosebee, M.S.
Greg M. Powell, M.S.
Terrestrial Ecology
Systems Ecology
Aquatic Ecology
Aquatic Ecology
Groundwater Hydrology—Geology
Groundwater Hydrology—Geology
Surface Water Hydrology,
Civil Engineering
Surface Water Hydrology,
Civil Engineering
Soc ioeconomics
Socioeconomics
Archaeology, Socioeconomics
Archaeology
Document Coordination
Document Coordination
Electrical Engineering
(Need for Power)
Water Chemistry
Surface Water Hydrology
5-2
-------
FPCR4/5-FEIS.1/LOA.1
1/7/81
6.0 COORDINATION LIST
The following Federal, State, and Local agencies and interest groups
have been requested to comment on this impact statement:
Federal Agencies
Bureau of Outdoor Recreation
Coast Guard
Corps of Engineers
Council on Environmental Quality
Department of Agriculture
Department of Commerce
Department of Education
Department of Energy
Department of Health and Human
Services
Department of Housing and Urban
Development
Department of the Interior
Department of Transportation
Economic Development
Administration
Federal Energy Commission
Federal Highway
Administration
Federal Power Commission
Fish and Wildlife Service
Food and Drug
Administration
Forest Service
Geological Survey
National Park Service
Nuclear Regulatory
Commission
Soil Conservation Service
Federal Aviation
Administration
Public Health Service
Members of Congress
Honorable Lawton Chiles
United States Senate
Honorable Richard Stone
United States Senate
Honorable Don Fuqua
U.S. House of
Representatives
Honorable Richard Kelly
U.S. House of
Representatives
Honorable Sam Gibbons
U.S. House of
Representat ives
Honorable C.W. (Bill) Young
U.S. House of
Representatives
6-1
-------
FPCR4/5-FEIS.1/L0A.2
12/4/80
State
Honorable D. Robert Graham,
Governor
Coastal Coordinating Council
Department of Agriculture
Department of Commerce
Department of Community Affairs
Department of Environmental
Regulation
Department of Health and
Rehabilitative Services
Department of Natural
Resources
Department of the State
Department of Transportation
Geological Survey
Game and Freshwater Fish
Commission
Local
Southwest Florida Water Management District
Withlacoochee Regional Planning Council
Citrus County Commission
Levy County Commission
Hernando County Commission
City of Crystal River
City of Yankeetown
Interest Groups
Florida Audubon Society
Florida Sierra Club
Izaac Walton League of America
Gulf Coast Lung Association
Florida Defenders of the
Environment
Florida Wildlife Federation
Citrus County Civic Association
6-2
-------
APPENDIX A
(The black bars in the margins indicate changes made in the permit since
its publication in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement.)
-------
Permit No. FL0036366
| ; .
ipr t/f/s/ ij
¦ i E.'.id i. ¦ v„ ¦ /, • >
,r- i *
Ww L*
*J iaj u-l fa
AUTHORIZATION TO DISCHARGE UNDER THE
NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION RYSTKM
In compliance with the provisions of the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act, as amended, (33 U.S.C. 1251 et. seq; the "Act"),
Florida Power Corporation
P. 0. Box 14042
St. Petersburg, Florida 33733
is authorized to discharge from a f.:c lity located at
Crystal River Power Plant
Units 4 and 5
Citrus County, Florida
to receiving waters named Gulf of Mexico
from discharge points enumerated herein, as serial numbers 009, 010, Oil, 012
am* 013.
during the effective period of this permit
la accordance with effluent limitations, monitoring requirements and other
conditions set forth in Parts 1, II, and III hereof.
This permit shall become effective on
This permit and the authorization to discharge shall expire at midnight,
Permittee shall not discharge after the above date
of expiration without prior authorization. In order to receive authorization
to discharge beyond the above date of expiration, the permittee shall submit
such information, forms, and fees as are required by the Agency authorized
to issue NPDES permits no later than 180 days prior to the above date of
eviration.
Signed this day of
Sanford W. Harvey, Jr., Director
Enforcement Division
-------
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 and 010 - Cooling
tower blowdown from Units 4 and 5, respectively.
Such discharge shall be limited and monitored by the permittee as specified below: DRAFT
Effluent Characteristic Discharge Limitations Monitoring Requirements
Instantaneous Maximum Two-hour Average Measurement Sample
Frequency Type
Flow-m3/Day (MGD) N/A N/A Continuous Recorder (totalizer)
Temperature °C(°F) N/A 35.6(96,0) Continuous Recorder
Total Residual Oxidants (TRO) mg/1 0.01 kj N/A Continuous 1/ Recorder
Phosphorus (mg/1 as P ) N/A 10.0 1/week 2/ Grab
Calcium (mg/1) N/A N/A 1/week Grab
Conductivity _3/ N/A N/A Continuous Recorder
Cycles of Concentration N/A N/A 1/week Calculation
Operation of the dechlorination system shall be maintained to assure than excessive quantity of sulfur
dioxide are not discharged.
Discharge temperature shall not exceed the lowest temperature of the recirculating cooling water
prior to the addition of make-un.
There shall be no discharge of detectable amounts of materials added for corrosion inhibition (including but not
limited to zinc, chromium and phosphorus) or any chemicals added which contain the 129 priority pollutants.
The pH shall not be less than 6.0 standard units nor greater than 9.0 standard units and shall be monitored 1/day.
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): discharge from each cooling tower prior to mixing with other waste streams except that temperature,
and TRO shall be monitored in the blowdown canal prior to discharge to the site discharge canal.
1/ Manual monitoring for TRO and check-out of the continuous monitor shall be conducted not less than
one/week during periods of maximum expected TRO concentrations. The continuous monitor shall have
a limit of detection of not more than 0.05 mg/lt Prior to start of discharge, evaluation of the
proposed monitor shall be completed by the permittee and results submitted to EPAt
2/ Limitation and monitoring requirement are not applicable if permittee does not add compounds containing'
phosphorus to the condenser cooling water system. ^
o
3/ Reporting shall be in mg/1 of Total Dissolved Solids. 2
— ON
y Non detection by approved analysis technique shall be deemed compliance with this limitation.
KJ
53
O O
-------
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) Oil - Coal Storage Area Runoff
from Units 4 and 5
Such discharges shall be limited and monitored by the permittee as specified below: DRAFT
Effluent Characteristic Discharge Limitations Monitoring Requirements 1/
Instantaneous Maximum Measurement Sample
Frequency Type
Flow-m^/Day (MGD) N/A 1/week Weir Reading 2/
Total Suspended Solids (mg/1) 50 1/2J 1/week Grab
Metals Monitoring See Below 1/month Grab
Monitoring for metals shall include total arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, iron, lead, mercury, nickel,
selenium, and zinc. In the event that no discharge occurs during the three-month reporting period, a sample
for metals analysis shall be taken in the portd near the effluent point.
Note: Monitoring requirements are applicable only during periods of discharge except as noted for metal
monitoring.
Samples taken in compliance with the monitoring requirements specified above shall be taken at the
following location(s): point(s) of discharge from treatment system prior to mixing with other waste streams.
1/ Applicable to any flow up to the flow resulting from a 24-hour rainfall event with a probable recurrance
interval of once in ten years. If an impoundment is utilized by permittee, it shall be capable of con-
taining a 10-year, 24-hour rainfall event.
"d "tJ
(D to
2J In the event that the effluent concentration exceeds this limitation, the permittee may attempt to S
demonstrate that treatment in the runoff retention system assured compliance prior to discharge to rt w
the discharge canal.
?o
• hi
3/ An event recorder shall also be provided and the number of discharges per month shall be reported ^
quarterly.
r
o
o
u»
to
-------
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) 012 - A9h Pile Runoff
from Units 4 and 5
Such discharges shall be limited and monitored by the permittee as specified below:
DRAFT
Effluent Characteristics
Discharge Limitations
Instantaneous Maximum
Monitoring Requirements
Measurement Sample
Frequency Type
Flov-m'/Day (HGD)
Total Suspended Solids (mg/1)
Metals Monitoring
See Below
N/A
1/
1/week
1/week
1/month
Weir Reading 2J
Grab
Grab
Monitoring for metals shall include total arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, iron, lead, mercury, nickel,
selenium, and zinc. In the event that no discharge occurs during the three—month reporting period, a sample
for metals analysis shall be taken In the pond near the effluent point.
Note: Monitoring requirements are applicable only during periods of discharge except as noted for metal
Samples taken In compliance with the monitoring requirements specified above shall be taken at the following
location(s): Point(s) of discharge from treatment system piror to mixing with other waste streams.
1/ Pending repromulgation of effluent guidelines for this waste category, limitations on total
suspended solids shall not be applicable. Within 90 days of repromulgation, permittee shall
subait a proposed implementation schedule and shall expeditiously complete necessary facilities,
if any, to assure compliance with such repromulgated regulations.
2/ An event recorder shall also be provided and the number of discharges per month shall be reported
monitoring.
quarterly.
-------
A. EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
During Che period beginning on start of discharge and lasting through expiration
the permittee is authorized to discharge from outfall(s) serial number(s) 013 - Runoff Collection
System Overflow from Units 4 and 5
draft
Such discharges shall be limited and monitored by the permittete as specified below:
-Effluent Characteristic Discharge Limitations Monitoring Requirements
Instantaneous Maximum Measurement Sample
Frequency Type
Flow-m^/Dav (MGD) N/A 1/day weir reading 2/
Total Suspended Solids (mg/1) 50 1/ 2/week Grab.
Metals Monitoring See Below 1/month Grab
Oil and Grease (mg/1) N/A 1/week Grab
Monitoring for metals shall include total arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, iron, lead, mercury, nickel,
selenium, and zinc. Discharge concentrations for heavy metals and other pollutants shall be in conformance
with Florida Administrative Code Chapters 17-3 and 17-4 at the discharge point or boundary of mixing zone
(See Part TII.E.).
Note: Monitoring requirements are applicable only during periods of discharge except for metal
monitoring.
The pH shall not be less than 6,0 standard units nor greater than 9.0 standard units and shall be
monitored 1/day 1/-
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): point(s) of discharge from treatment system prior to mixing with other waste
streams* except that heavy metal monitoring shall be after combination with cooling tower blowdown but
before discharge to the plant effluent canal.
JL/ Applicable to any flow up to the flow resulting from a 24-hour rainfall event with a probable recurrance £ g*
interval of once in ten years. If an impoundment is utilized by permittee, it shall be I n ^
capable of containing a 10-year, 24-hour rainfall event.
H*
rt
Iff
2/ An event recorder shall also be provided and the number of discharges per month shall be reported oVo
quarterly.
o
o
to1
OA
U>
C*
-------
EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AMD MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
During the period beginning on start of intake and lasting through expiration
the permittee shall monitor serial number(s) 014 - Intake Units 4 and 5
Such Intake(s) shall be monitored by the permittee as specified below:
Influent Characteristic Discharge Limitations
draft
Monitoring Requirements
Daily Average Instantaneous Maximum Measurement
Frequency
Flow-m/Day (MGD)
Total Dissolved Solids (mg/1)
Calcium (mg/1)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Continuous
1/week
1/week
Sample
Type
Pump logs
Grab
Grab
Samples taken in compliance with the monitoring requirements specified above shall be taken at the
following location(s): Plant intake.
Intake screen backwash may be discharged after passage through a trash removal basket without limitation
or monitoring requirements.
-------
DRAFT
fAK'i" I
Page 7 of
Permit No. FL003636'6
B. SCHEDULE OF COMPLIANCE
1. The permittee shall achieve compliance with the effluent limitations
specified for discharges in accordance with the following schedulet
a. Achieve compliance with effluent limitations (009 through 013)-
On start of discharge(s)
b. Evaluation of TRO continuous monitor (009 and 010) - Prior to start
of discharge
c. Plume evaluation (Part I1I.E.K if required
(1) First report - 15 months after commercial operation date of Unit 4
(2) Second report - 15 months after commercial operation date of Unit 5
d. Leachate testing and monitoring program (Part III.H.)
(1) Reports - monthly commencing on the effective date of this permit*
e. Ground water monitoring program (Part TTI.K.)
(1) Implement - 12 months prior to receipt of coal for Units 4 and 5
(2) First report - 4 months after commercial operation date of Unit 4
(3) Subsequent reports - Quarterly after the first report
f. Manatee Procedures Notification (III.L.) - One month after effective
date of this permit.
g. Salt drift monitoring program (Part ITT.m.)
(1) Implement - December 1, 1981
(2) Drift Study Reports - Quarterly with Discharge Monitoring Reports
(Part I.C.2)
h. Drift rate testing and assessments (Part III.M.)
(1) Reports of maximum drift rate - 12 months after commercial operation
date of each unit
(2) Certification of operation - Quarterly with Discharge Monitoring
Reports (Part I.C.2)
i. Toxic Scan (Part III.O.)
(1) Submit data - nine months after commercial operation date of Unit 4-
2. Mo later than 14 calendar days following a date Identified In the above
schadula of compliance, the permittee shall submit either a report of
progress or, in tha case of specific actions being required by identified
dates, a written notice of compliance or noncompliance. In the latter
cass, tha notice shall Include the cause of noncompliance, any remedial
actions taken, and tha probability of meeting the next scheduled requirement.
Note: Any construction of new waste treatment facilities or alterations
to axisting waste treatment facilities will require a permit or authoriza-
tion for construction in accordance with applicable stste law and regulation.
•Reports shall be submitted to Chief, FIR Branch.
-------
PART I
Pil£C 8 Of
Permit No. FL0036366
C. MONITORING AND REPORTING
1. Represen tative 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 the previous 3 months shall be summarized for
each month and reported on a Discharge Monitoring Report Form (EPA No. 3320-1),
postmarked no later than the 28th day of the month following the completed reporting
period. Hie first report is due on . Duplicate signed copies of
these, and all other reports required herein, shall be submitted to the Regional
Administrator and the State at the following addresses:
Chief, Water Enforcement Branch
Environmental Protection Agency
345 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30308
Florida Department of Environmental
Regulation
Twin Towers Office Building
2600 Blair Stone Road
Tallahassee, Florida 32301
3. Definitions
a. The "daily average" discharge means the total discharge by weight during a calendar
month divided by the number of days in the month that the production or
commercial facility was operating. Where less than daily sampling is required by this
permit, the daily average discharge shall be determined by the summation of all the
measured daily discharges by weight divided by the number of days during the
calendar month when the measurements were made.
b. The "daily maximum" discharge means the total discharge by weight during any
calendar day.
c. "Weighted by flow" means the summation of each sample concentration
times its respective flow in convenient units divided by the summation
of the flow values.
d. "Nekton" means free swimming aquatic animals whether of freshwater
or marine origin.
e. For the purpose of this permit, a calendar day is defined as any
24-hour period, except that for temperature and flow it shall be from
midnight to midnight.
f. For the purpose of this permit, continuous measurement frequency is
defined as measurements taken at intervals of no greater than one hour
each.
-------
PARTI
l»#v 9 <•'
He.«nn Nn FL0036366
g, "Multiple grabs" shall mean samples taken of intervals of no greater
than 15 minutes over the entire period of total residual chlorine
discharge.
h. "Two-hour average" shall mean an average of all values obtained in
a continuous 120-minute period.
4. Tett Prooedurtt
Test procedures for the analysis of pollutants shall conform to regulations published
pursuant to Section 304(g) of the Act, under which such procedures may be required.
5. Recording of Remit*
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 dates the analyses were performed;
c. H*e perton(s) who performed the analyses;
d. The analytical techniques or methods used; and
e. The results of all required analyses.
6. 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 value* required in the Discharge Monitoring Report Form (EPA No. 3320-1). Such
incnaaad frequency shall also be indicated.
7. Record* Retention
All records and information resulting from the monitoring activities required by this
permit including all records of analyses performed and calibration and maintenance of
instrumentation and recordings from continuous monitoring instrumentation shall be
retained for a minimum of three (3) years, or longer if requested by the Regional
Administrator or the State water i>ollution control agency.
-------
PART II
Ptpc 10 ut
IWiiNd, FL0036366
A. MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS
1. Change in Discharge
All discharges authorized herein shall be consistent with the terms and conditions of this
permit. The discharge of any pollutant identified in this permit more frequently than or
at a level in excess of that authorized shall constitute a violation of the permit. 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 or, if such changes will not violate the effluent
limitations specified in this permit, by notice to the permit issuing authority of such
changes. Following such notice, the permit may be modified to specify and limit any
pollutant* not previously limited.
2. Noncompliance Notification
If, for any reason, the permittee does not comply with or will be unable to comply with
any daily maximum effluent limitation specified in this permit, the permittee shall
provide the Regional Administrator and the State with the following information, in
writing, within five (6) days of becoming aware of such condition:
a. A description of the discharge and cause of noncompliance; and
b, The period of noncompliance, including exact dates and times; or, if not corrected,
the anticipated time the noncompliance is expected to continue, and steps being
taken to reduce, eliminate and prevent recurrence of the noncomplying discharge.
3. Facilitiei Operation
The permittee shall at til 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 permit.
4. Advene Impact
The permittee shall take all reasonable steps to minimize any adverse impact to navigable
waters resulting from noncompliance with any effluent limitations specified in this
permit, including such accelerated or additional monitoring u necessary to determine the
nature and impact of the noncomplying discharge.
5. Bypaulng
Any diversion from or bypass of facilities necessary to maintain compliance with the
terms and conditions of this permit is prohibited, except (i) where unavoidable to prevent
loss of life or severe property damage, or (ii) where excessive storm drainage or runoff
would damage any facilities necessary for compliance with the effluent limitations and
prohibitions of this permit. Hie permittee shall promptly notify the Regional
Administrator and the State in writing of each auch diversion or bypass.
-------
PART II
P»|tc 11 if
Permit No. FL0036366
6. Removed Substancet
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 navigable waters.
7. Power Failuret
In order to maintain compliance with the effluent limitations and prohibitions of this
permit, the permittee shall either:
a. In accordance with the Schedule of Compliance contained in Part I, provide an
alternative power source sufficient to operate the wastewater control facilities;
or, if such alternative power source is not in existence, and no date for its implementation
appears in Part I,
b. Halt, reduce or otherwise control production and/or all discharges upon the
reduction, loss, or failure of the primary source of power to the wastewater control
facilities.
B. RESPONSIBILITIES
1. Right of Entry
The permittee ihall allow the head of the State water pollution control agency, the
Regional Administrator, and /or their authorized representatives, upon the presentation of
credentials:
a. To 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; and
b. At reasonable times to have access to and copy any records required to be kept under
the terms and conditions of this permit; to inspect any monitoring equipment or
monitoring method required in this permit; and to sample any discharge of pollutants.
2. Transfer of Ownerthip or Control
In the event of any change in control or ownership of facilities from which the authorized
discharges emanate, the permittee shall notify the succeeding owner or controller of the
existence of this permit by letter, a copy of which shall be forwarded to the Regional
Administrator and (he State water pollution control agency.
8. Availability of Report*
Except for data determined to be confidential under Section 308 of the Act, all reports
prepared in accordance with the terms of this permit shall be available for public
-------
PART II
Pitfc 12 of
Permit No. FL0036366
Inspection at the offices of the State water pollution control agency and the Regional
Administrator. 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 300 of the Act.
4. Permit Modification
After notice and opportunity for a hearing, this permit may be modified, suspended, or
revoked in whole or in part during its term for cause including, but not limited to, the
following:
a. Violation of any terms or conditions of this permit;
b. Obtaining this permit by misrepresentation or failure to disclose fully all relevant
facta; or
c. A change in any condition that requires either a temporary or permanent reduction or
elimination of the authorized discharge.
6. Toxic Pollutant*
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 and such standard or prohibition is more stringent than any limitation for such
pollutant in this permit, this permit ahall be revised or modified in accordance with the
toxic effluent standard or prohibition and the permittee so notified.
6. CM! and Criminal Liability
Except M provided in permit conditions on "Bypassing" (Part U, A-6) and "Power
Failures" (Part II, A-7), nothing in this permit ahall be construed to relieve the permittee
from civil or criminal penalties for noncompliance.
7. OU 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 to or may be subject under Section 311 of the Act.
6. Stat* Law*
Nothing in thii 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 8tate law or nfulation under authority preserved by Section 610 of the
Act
-------
PART II
Page 13 of
Permit No. FL0036366
9. Property Rights
The issuance of this permit does not convey any property rights in either
Teal 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 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
hereby.
PART III
DRAFT
OTHER REQUIREMENTS
A. 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.
B. If the permittee, after monitoring for at least 12 months, deter-
mines that he is consistently meeting the effluent limits contained
herein, the permittee may request of the Regional Administrator that
the monitoring requirements be reduced to a lesser frequency or be
eliminated.
C. There shall be no discharge of polychlorlnated byphenyl compounds
such as those commonly used for transformer fluid.
D. The company shall notify the Regional Administrator in writing not
later than sixty (60) days prior to instituting use of any additional
bloclde 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. frequencies of use,
3. quantities to be used.,
4. proposed discharge concentrations, and
5. EPA registration number, if applicable.
-------
PART III
Page 14 of
Permit No. FL0036366
Effluent discharge from Units 4 and 5 shall be designed and operated to
assure compliance with Florida Water Quality Standards limitations
(pH-6.0 to 8.5, cadmium 0.005 mg/1, copper 0.015 mg/1, etc.) at a distance
of 150 meters (492 feet) from the point of discharge into the discharge
canal under all expected operating modes of Units 1-5. Subsequent co
commercial operation of each unit, field measurements (supplemented as
necessary with modeling results) shall be conducted, if found to be required
after plant operation begins, to determine the three dimensional configu-
ration of the discharge plume, determine minimum dilution factor expected,
and substantiate conformance with the 150-meter (492 foot) mixing zone.
Reports on this study shall be submitted not later than 15 months after the
commercial operation dates of Units 4 and 5, respectively.
Permittee shall maintain daily records of rainfall at the plant site.
There shall be no point source discharge of the following categories of
wastes to Waters of the United States or to any waste stream which enters
such Waters: construction runoff, low volume wastes (including, but not
limited to 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
blowdown from recirculating house service water system), metal cleaning
wastes (cleaning compounds, rinse waters, 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
and specifically including such water wash operations as hosing down boiler
fireside surfaces), sanitary wastes and boiler blowdown. Event recorders
shall be placed at all overflow points from evaporation/seepage ponds
receiving such wastes to assure compliance with this requirement (not
applicable to the plant drains collection pond).
The Permittee shall implement the leachate testing and monitoring program
for the ash disposal area as generally specified in Special Condition XII.A.
of the State Power Plant Site Certification Order issued by the Governor and
Cabinet on November 21, 1978, (hereinafter "Order") and as submitted to EPA
on October 4, 1979. Status reports on the program shall be submitted monthly
commencing on the effective date of the NPDES permit. Based on results of
the program, the Permittee shall select an environmentally sound ash disposal
strategy acceptable to EPA and the State, provided that the disposal strategy
shall meet any applicable EPA or State regulations whichever are more stringent.
The Permittee shall consult with and obtain EPA and State approval prior to
initiating changes in the ash disposal strategy.
The Permittee shall consult with EPA and the State at such time as the need
for additional ash disposal site(s) or new coal storage area(s) is identified.
Consultation shall be initiated at a sufficiently early time so as to provide
adequate opportunity for a thorough evaluation of the environmental impacts
of the proposed action. No site other than those described in the EIS shall
be used for Units 4 and 5 without prior approval of the Director, Enforcement
Division.
The Permittee shall line the area of any coal pile directly associated with
Units 4 and 5 if the pyritic sulfur content of the coal is greater than 0.2%
in conformance with Special Condition XII.B. of the Order.
-------
PART III
Page 15 of
Permit No. FL00363&6
K. The Permittee shall implement a groundwater monitoring program approved by
EPA and the State. The program shall be implemented not later than one
year prior to receipt of coal for Units 4 and 5. Reporting shall be
quarterly in conformance with requirements of the Order and shall commence
four months after operation of the first unit. Reports may be submitted to
EPA with DMRs (see I.C.2).
Should the reports demonstrate significant contamination of groundwater is
occurring, the Permittee shall immediately consult with EPA and the State
and expeditiously institute reasonable corrective measures acceptable to
EPA and the State to mitigate the problem and to ensure that no further sig-
nificant leaching occurs. These measures may include but not be limited to:
sealing, relocating, or altering operations of the ash disposal area, plant
drains collection pond, or coal piles. If the reports demonstrate no signi-
ficant contamination is occurring, the Permittee after consultation with and
approval by the Director, Enforcement Division, may reduce or eliminate the
monitoring program.
In the event that changes in the monitoiirig program become necessary, such
changes shall be approved by the Director, Enforcement Division, and the
State Director prior to institution.
L. The Permittee shall ensure that contractors, whose activities may impact
manatees, instruct all personnel associated with such activities about the
potential presence of manatees in the area and that all vessles associated
with the project shall operate at "no wake" speeds at all times while in
shallow waters of channels where the draft of the boat provides less than
three feet clearance of the bottom. The Permittee shall ensure that all
personnel are advised that there are civil and criminal penalties for harming,
harassing, or killing manatees, which are protected under the Endangered
Species Act and that the contractor is notified it shall be held responsible
for any manatee harmed, harassed or killed as a result of any of its activities.
The Permittee shall provide written documentation that all affected parties
have been informed of this condition by not later than 1 month after the
effective date of this permit.
M. The Permittee shall commence one year prior to operation of the first cooling
tower, but not later than December, 1981, the salt drift monitoring program
approved by EPA and the State. Program progress reports and monitoring
reports shall be submitted quarterly with the DMR's (see I.C.2) commencing
with implementation of the salt drift monitoring program. The program shall
be conducted for at least two years following operation of the second tower.
If the reports indicate significant impacts are occurring to the nearby area,
the Permittee shall consult with EPA and the State and shall initiate
reasonable corrective measures acceptable to EPA and the State to mitigate
these impacts. Should the reports indicate no significant impacts are occur-
ring to the nearby area, the Permittee after consultation with and approval by
the Director, Enforcement Division, may reduce or eliminate the monitoring
program.
-------
PART III
Page 16 of
Permit No. FL0036366
Cooling towers shall be designed and operated to assure a maximum drift
rate of 0.0005% of the circulating water rate. The applicant shall submit
written evidence that this performance is guaranteed by the cooling tower
manufacturer. Tests showing compliance shall be submitted within twelve
months of the commercial operation of each unit. The drift eliminators
will be inspected not less than every three months. Certification that the
drift eliminators are properly installed and in good working order will be
made at the time of submission of reports required by part I.C.2.
Subsequent NPDES permits may require tests of the cooling towers be conducted
to verify a maximum drift rate of 0.0005% of the circulating water rate.
N. 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. This permit shall be modified, or alternatively, revoked and
reissued, to comply with any applicable effluent standard or limitation issued
or approved under sections 301(b)(2)(C), and (D), 304(b)(2), and 307(a)(2) of
the Clean Water Act, if the effluent standard or limitation so issued or
approved:
(1) Contains different conditions or is otherwise more stringent than
any effluent limitation in the permit; or
(2) Controls any pollutant not limited in the permit.
The permit as modified or reissued under this paragraph shall also contain any
other requirements of the Act then applicable.
0. Not more than nine months after the Commercial Operation Date of Unit 4,
permittee shall submit representative data as included in 40 CFR Part 122.53(d)
(7)(ii), (iii) 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.
P. The State of Florida Department of Environmental Regulation has certified the
discharge(s) covered by this permit with conditions (Attachment B). Section
401 of the Act requires that conditions of certification shall become a condi-
tion 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.
-------
«*w <«IL
HATER SU^LT
cm ins towers w*ior
.000
CONOCNSERS
JRff-.- „ V.„w
W
v M,tit,MO
toot inc Town
UOWMMtS-
moeucT
COOlIHE TOWERS
OISCNMCI
11,520
m
SOI I OS CONTAfT
BASIN
|\4/l7flVo
GAA
ASH AND 'CT$
MANOLING
Try64**00 5x372,mo ^t?m.48o \ry 8,640
..> 11 3a
306,720
V<
W «,WO
V SACKMSH
"^7s.
4U,«M
377,200
MAKEUP
DCMINCftAlIU*
361,440
^<7no.*ootf
JILi
760
MISCELLANEOUS
PLANT WINS
W 80,640
L ^8.640
«M DISPOSAL
ARIA ACCUMULATION
33,120
T*7«« , » «V
new cvu.
M^AOC ARC A
L
79.200
TO*is,840
^ REGENERATION
^*T72,000
TtMO
6INCRAT0R
steam
CONOENSATE
FECOWATER
CYCLE
CONDENSATE
POLISHING
SYSTEM
1
116,640
Oil SEPARATION
TRAPS
^^16,640
•IS.Ml
^0
^ 14,400
REGENERATION
1CIAL CLEANING
WASTES
1N0TE I
_V
NEUTRALISTION
BASIN
^30.
^ 25,920
JL_
240
SEWAGE
TREATMENT PLANT
Oil SEPARATION
TRAP*
640
PERCOLAT ON
POND
^J^2.000
ft
T
PIANT OAA INS
COLLECTION PONO
T
^T7 216.000
TWTy
11,520 10,
/1?
195,$40
ft.
GENERAL
SITE AREA
«J *g M.S20 >0,080
lif7
runoff collection
RETENTION SYSTEM
V'.
700
NOTE I PREOPERATIONAL METAL CLEANING PRODUCES 1,200,000 GALLONS Of WASTEWATER
ACID MAINTENANCE METAL CLEANING PROOUCES 360.000 GALLONS OF WASTEWATER
PER BOILER, ONCE EV|»T fMWCt TO flvE rEAR*.
28.BOO
152.6*0
p;,
^ 122,400
*^IM,320
V7 Ji.ooo
Vffl
HOOF CHAINS
\y stream number
AVERAGE DAILY FLOW
GALLONS PER OAT (lifOI
UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED
||j EVAPORATION
ElFllTRATION
ffl
0
RAINFALL
FLOW CONTROL STRUCTURE
10 YEAR 24 HOUR EVENT
* NPDCS SERIAL NUMBERS
Figure 3.3-1
PLANT WATER USE DIAGRAM
SOURCE: Mack and VMlch, 1900
FLORIDA POWER CORPORATION
PROPOSED
CRYSTAL RIVER UNITS 4 & 5
CITRUS COUNTY, FLORIDA
>
m H
H» C.
"[1
2 P
O 2
pg>
O
O
OJ
Os
U>
o>
OS
-------
ATTACHMENT B
Permit No. FL0036366
STATE CERTIFICATION
Units 4 and 5
(To be Included vith permit prior to Issuance)
-------
January 9, 1981
Crystal River Power Plant
Units 4 and 5
Permi t Rationale
NPDES No. FL0036366
Applicable Regulations
A. Federal performance standards for new sources
Chemical wastes (40 CFR 423.15) and area
runoff (40 CFR 423.46).
B. Florida Water Quality Standards: Receiving
waters are classified as Class III waters -
Recreation - Propagation and Management of
Fish - Surface Waters (Florida Administra-
tive Code. Chapters 17-3, 17-4 and 17-6)
C. Florida Site Certification (FSC). Florida
Administrative Code, Chapter 403.
Effluent Limitations
A. Outfall serial numbers 009 and 010.
1. Temperature: Two-hour maximum average
blowdown temperature of 34.2 C (96.0 F)
as requested by the applicant has been
incorporated, consistent with the Flori-
da Site Certification (FSC).
2. Phosphorus - 10 mg/1 limitation as re-
quested by the applicant. The appli-
cant feels that a phosphate compound
may be necessary as a scale inhibit-
ion (not corrosion inhibitor). Addi-
tion will not initially be implemented
and will be started only if necessary
for proper cooling tower operation.
Monitoring is therefore only required
if addition is implemented.
3. Chlorine - Limitations proposed are
are consistent with 40 CFR 423.15(1)
and (j) and FSC requirements.
4. Corrosion inhibiting substances and
priority pollutants. Prohibited In
accordance with 40 CFR 423.15(1) and
proposed 40 CFR 423.15(k).
-------
-2-
5. pH: Range of 6.0 to 9.0 tn accordance
with 40 CFR 423.15(a).
Outfall serial number Oil.
1. Total suspended solids. 50 mg/1 limitation
consistent with 40 CFR 423.45(a) and (b).
2. pH: Included 1n serial 013.
3. Metals monitoring. Required to quantify
waste characteristics and assure com-
pliance with Florida Water Quality Stand-
ards requirements.
Outfall serial number 012.
1* No limitations due to remand of regulat-
ions. Otherwise included in serial 013.
2. Monitoring. Required to quantify waste
characteristics and assure compliance
with Florida Water Quality Standards re-
qu1rements.
Outfall Serial number 013 - Runoff Collection
System Overflow (Includes 011 and 012)
1. Total Suspended Solids - 50 mg/1 limitat-
ion consistent with 40 CFR 423.45 (a) and
(b), although remanded and FSC requirements.
2. pH. Range of 6.0 to 9.0 1n accordance with
40 CFR 423.15(a).
3. Other monitoring. Required to quantify waste
characterlstics and assure compliance with
Florida Water Quality Standards requlrements.
On October 14, 1980, EPA published proposed regulations
(40 CFR Part 423) In the Federal Register (45 FR 68328)
which included proposed New Source Performance Standards
as well as proposed requirements for Best Practicable
Control Technology Currently Available, Best Available
Technology Economically Achievable, Best Conventional
Pollutant Control Technology, and Pretreatment. Work-
ing from these proposed regulations, a tentative best
professional judgement has been made that the effluents
from the plant will comply with the New Source Perfor-
ance Standards for New Sources as related to the 65
"priority" pollutants and classes of pollutants "toxic"
under Section 307(a) of the Act. It Is therefore pro-
posed that the permit be Issued for a five-year period.
This best professional judgement is based on the fol-
lowing:
1. No PCB containing equipment will be placed
on site. (Compiles with propose Section
423.15(b), which Is unchanged from existing
Section 423.15(b).)
-------
-3-
2. Bottom ash will be removed and handled by a
closed recycling system which will not have
a discharge to surface waters. (Exceeds
requirements of proposed Section 423.15(e).)
3. Dry fly ash handling is proposed. (Com-
plies with proposed Section 423.15(f).)
4. Metal cleaning wastes will be pretreated
and disposed of in an evaporation/seepage
pond with no discharge to surface waters.
(Exceeds requirements of proposed section
423.15(d) which are unchanged from exist-
ing Section 423.15(f).)
5. Total residual oxidants (SeHal Number 009
and 010) is limited to 0.01 mg/1 1n the
discharge from units 4 and 5 to the plant
discharge canal to comply with Florida
Water Quality Standards requirements. This
will assure compliance with proposed
Section 423,15(j). Dechlorination facili-
ties will be used the applicant to
achieve compliance. A prohibition against
the discharge of detectable amounts of any
chemical added which contains any priority
pollutant is included. (Complies with
proposed Section 423 .15U).
6. A reopener clause 1s included 1n the
draft permit (Part III.N.) to assure
that 1f more stringent regulations than
those proposed are ultimately promul-
gated, the permit can be reopened to
included such more stringent require-
ments .
7. A special condition (Part II1.0) has
been Included which requires the per-
mittee to conduct and submit priority
pollutant scans not more than nine
months after the commercial operation
date of Unit 4. This will assure that
unanticipated pollutants are not present
at unacceptable levels and/or that the
permit could be reopened to provide
additional limitations and requirements
1f unacceptable levels are found.
------- |