[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 236 (Thursday, December 7, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 76614-76621]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-31160]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY


Record of Decision; JEA Circulating Fluidized Bed Combustor 
Project, Jacksonville, Duval County, FL

AGENCY: Department of Energy.

ACTION: Record of Decision.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Department of Energy (DOE) has prepared an environmental 
impact statement (EIS) (DOE/EIS-0289) to assess the environmental 
impacts associated with a proposed project that would be cost-shared by 
DOE and JEA (formerly the Jacksonville Electric Authority) under DOE's 
Clean Coal Technology (CCT) Program. The project would demonstrate 
circulating fluidized bed (CFB) combustion technology at JEA's existing 
Northside Generating Station in Jacksonville, Florida. After careful 
consideration of the potential environmental impacts, along with 
program goals and objectives, DOE has decided that it will provide 
approximately $73 million in federal funding support (about 24% of the 
total cost of approximately $309 million) to design, construct, and 
demonstrate the CFB technology proposed by JEA.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: To obtain additional information about 
the CFB combustor project or the EIS, contact Dr. Jan Wachter, National 
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Document Manager, U.S. Department of 
Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory, 626 Cochrans Mill Road, 
Pittsburgh, PA 15236, telephone: (412) 386-4809, fax: (412) 386-4726, 
or e-mail: [email protected]. For general information on the DOE 
NEPA process, contact Ms. Carol M. Borgstrom, Director, Office of NEPA 
Policy and Compliance (EH-42), U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 
Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585, telephone: (202) 586-
4600, leave a message at (800) 472-2756, or fax: (202) 586-7031.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: DOE has prepared this Record of Decision 
pursuant to Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations for 
implementing the procedural provisions of NEPA (40 CFR Parts 1500-1508) 
and DOE NEPA regulations (10 CFR Part 1021). This Record of Decision is 
based on DOE's final EIS for the JEA Circulating Fluidized Bed 
Combustor Project (DOE/EIS-0289, June 2000).

NEPA Strategy for the Clean Coal Technology Program

    For the CCT Program, DOE developed a strategy that is consistent 
with CEQ and DOE regulations for compliance with NEPA and which 
includes consideration of both programmatic and project-specific 
environmental impacts during and after the process of selecting a 
project. This strategy, called tiering (40 CFR 1508.28), refers to the 
consideration of general issues in a broader EIS (e.g., for the CCT 
Program), followed by more focused environmental impact statements or 
other environmental analyses that incorporate by reference the general 
issues and concentrate on those issues specific to the proposals under 
consideration.
    The DOE strategy has three principal elements. The first element 
involved preparation of a comprehensive Programmatic EIS for the CCT 
Program (DOE/EIS-0146, November 1989) to address the potential 
environmental consequences of widespread commercialization of each of 
22 successfully demonstrated clean coal technologies.
    The second element involved preparation of a pre-selection, 
project-specific environmental review of proposed CCT projects based on 
project-specific environmental data and analyses in accordance with DOE 
NEPA regulations (10 CFR 1021.216). For the proposed CFB combustor 
project, JEA supplied DOE with environmental data as part of their 
proposal. DOE reviewed the potential site-specific environmental, 
health, safety, and socioeconomic issues associated with the proposed 
project before selecting JEA's proposal for further consideration. In 
its review, DOE analyzed the environmental advantages and disadvantages 
of the proposal and alternative sites and processes reasonably 
available to JEA.
    The third element consists of preparing site-specific NEPA 
documents for each selected project. For the JEA proposed project, DOE 
determined that an EIS should be prepared. As part of the overall NEPA 
strategy for the CCT Program, the JEA EIS draws upon the Programmatic 
EIS and pre-selection environmental reviews.
    On November 13, 1997, DOE published in the Federal Register (62 FR 
60889) a Notice of Intent to prepare the JEA EIS and hold a public 
scoping meeting. The Notice of Intent invited comments and suggestions 
on the proposed scope of the EIS, including environmental issues and 
alternatives, and encouraged participation in the NEPA process. DOE 
held the scoping meeting in Jacksonville, Florida, on December 3, 1997. 
DOE received 3 oral responses and 20 written responses from interested 
parties. The responses helped DOE to establish the issues to be 
analyzed in the EIS and the level of analysis warranted for each issue.
    In August 1999, DOE issued the draft EIS for public review and 
invited comments on the adequacy, accuracy, and completeness of the 
EIS. As part of the review, DOE held a public hearing in Jacksonville, 
Florida, on September 30, 1999. DOE received 1 oral comment and 59 
written comments, which helped to improve the quality and usefulness of 
the EIS. In June 2000, DOE issued the final EIS, which considered and, 
as

[[Page 76615]]

appropriate, incorporated public comments on the draft EIS. Among the 
issues raised in the comments were concerns about (1) reliability of 
CFB combustion technology in meeting expected air emissions rates for 
particulate matter, sulfur dioxide (SO2), and oxides of 
nitrogen (NOX), in view of limited large-scale operating 
experience; (2) air emissions of heavy metals, radionuclides, 
carcinogenic chemicals, and carbon dioxide (CO2); (3) 
potential effects of cooling water discharge on the St. Johns River; 
(4) potential entrainment of juvenile sea turtles, such as endangered 
green sea turtles, in the cooling water intake; (5) potential effects 
on manatees and other endangered species; (6) potential effects on 
Essential Fish Habitat, such as estuarine emergent wetlands; (7) 
potential effects on cultural resources; (8) disposal of ash, including 
whether the planned ash marketing would be successful; (9) noise levels 
from construction, operation, and rail transportation; (10) 
electromagnetic fields; and (11) traffic congestion.

Project Location and Description

    The site for the proposed project is located in Jacksonville, 
Florida, about 9 miles northeast of the downtown area, at JEA's 
existing Northside Generating Station. This 400-acre industrial site is 
situated along the north shore of the St. Johns River, approximately 10 
miles west of the Atlantic Ocean. The local terrain is flat and there 
is a mix of industrial, commercial, residential, and agricultural land 
use in the vicinity. The industrial 1,650-acre St. Johns River Power 
Park borders Northside Generating Station to the northeast, and the 
46,000-acre Timucuan Ecological and Historic Preserve borders the site 
to the east. Blount Island, located immediately to the southeast in the 
St. Johns River, is a major port with facilities for docking, loading, 
and unloading large ocean-going vessels. The most striking 
environmental feature associated with the area is the nearby presence 
of estuarine salt marsh backwaters of the St. Johns River.
    Northside Generating Station, which currently employs 265 people, 
has operated since November 1966 when the 297.5-megawatt (MW) Unit 1 
came on-line. The 297.5-MW Unit 2 and the 564-MW Unit 3 started 
operation in March 1972 and June 1977, respectively. Unit 2 has been 
out of service since 1983 because of major boiler problems associated 
with the volume of its furnace being inadequate to accommodate the heat 
generated. The Unit 2 steam turbine is currently idle and the Unit 2 
furnace and stack have recently been dismantled and removed. Units 1 
and 3 can burn both natural gas and oil [No. 6 fuel oil or No. 2 fuel 
oil (diesel)]. Units 1 and 3 have no air pollution control with the 
exception of low-NOX burners on Unit 3. Once-through cooling 
water is withdrawn from and discharged into the St. Johns River. 
Existing facilities currently occupy about 200 acres of the 400-acre 
property. The property contains a number of wetland areas, especially 
in the perimeter areas.
    The proposed project would repower the idle Unit 2 steam turbine to 
generate nearly 300 MW of electricity using a new coal- and petroleum 
coke-fired combustor to demonstrate CFB combustion technology. The new 
combustor would be located adjacent to the existing Unit 3. Piping and 
related infrastructure would be constructed to link the combustor with 
the Unit 2 steam turbine. The proposed project and related 
infrastructure would occupy about 75 acres of the Northside Generating 
Station property.
    CFB combustion technology is an advanced method for burning coal 
and other fuels efficiently while removing pollutants from air 
emissions inside the sophisticated combustor system. CFB technology 
provides flexibility in utility operations because a wide variety of 
solid fuels can be used, including high-sulfur, high-ash coal and 
petroleum coke. In a CFB combustor, coal or other fuels, air, and 
crushed limestone or other sorbents are injected into the lower portion 
of the combustor for initial burning of the fuel. The combustion 
actually occurs in a bed of fuel, sorbent, and ash particles that are 
fluidized by air from nozzles in the bottom of the combustor. The air 
expands the bed, creates turbulence for enhanced mixing, and provides 
most of the oxygen necessary for combustion of the fuel. As the fuel 
particles decrease in size through combustion and breakage, they are 
transported higher in the combustor where additional air is injected. 
As the particles continue to decrease in size, unreacted fuel, ash, and 
fine limestone particles are swept out of the combustor, collected in a 
particle separator (also called a cyclone), and recycled to the lower 
portion of the combustor. This is the ``circulating'' nature of the 
combustor. Drains in the bottom of the combustor remove a fraction of 
the bed composed primarily of ash while new fuel and sorbent are added. 
The combustion ash is suitable for beneficial uses such as road 
construction material, agricultural fertilizer, and reclaiming surface 
mining areas.
    The heated combustor converts water in tubes lining the combustor's 
walls to high-pressure steam. The steam is then superheated in tube 
bundles placed in the solids circulating stream and the flue gas 
stream. The superheated steam drives a steam turbine-generator to 
produce electricity in a conventional steam cycle.
    The injected limestone could capture up to 98% of the sulfur 
impurities released from the fuel. When heated in the CFB combustor, 
the limestone, consisting primarily of calcium carbonate 
(CaCO3), converts to calcium oxide (CaO) and CO2. 
The CaO reacts with SO2 from the burning fuel to form 
calcium sulfate (CaSO4), an inert material that is removed 
with the combustion ash. The combustion efficiency of the CFB combustor 
allows the fuel to be burned at a relatively low temperature of about 
1,650EF, thus reducing NOX formation by approximately 60% 
compared with conventional coal-fired technologies. Greater than 99% of 
particulate emissions in the flue gas are removed downstream of the 
combustor by either an electrostatic precipitator or a fabric filter 
(baghouse).
    In addition to the CFB technology, the proposed project would use a 
polishing scrubber in combination with the CFB combustor to attain a 
98% SO2 removal rate. The polishing scrubber is a 
conventional scrubbing system that would use lime in a dry flue gas 
desulfurization process downstream of the combustor to convert 
SO2 chemically to calcium sulfite and calcium sulfate. It is 
called a polishing scrubber because the CFB combustor would remove 85-
90% of the SO2 and the polishing scrubber would remove or 
``polish off'' the remainder. This design is driven by economic rather 
than technical considerations (i.e., the CFB combustor alone could 
achieve a 98% SO2 removal rate but the operating cost would 
be greater).
    Another addition to the CFB combustion technology is that the 
proposed project would use a selective non-catalytic reduction system 
to further reduce NOX emissions. Aqueous ammonia, the 
reagent for this system, would be injected into the CFB combustor 
exhaust gas to convert NOX emissions to nitrogen gas and 
water via a chemical reduction reaction. Atmospheric emissions of 
ammonia can occur if the amount supplied to reduce NOX in 
the flue gas is not used up (ammonia slip). However, excess ammonia in 
the stack gas can typically be reduced by optimizing the amount of 
ammonia that is injected. For the proposed project, stack emissions of

[[Page 76616]]

ammonia slip would not exceed 40 ppm.
    A CFB combustor has several advantageous operating characteristics 
that differentiate it from more conventional technologies. Because the 
fuel and sorbent being added represent only a small fraction of the 
total fuel and sorbent available in the bed, the combustor reacts more 
slowly to variations in fuel or sorbent quality. Steam characteristics 
and furnace temperatures are more uniform, which usually results in 
easier operation, fewer upset conditions and emission spikes, and more 
consistency in the quality of combustion ash. As a consequence of bed 
fluidization and recycling of particles back to the lower portion of 
the combustor, enhanced mixing is achieved at more uniform 
temperatures, which allows more complete combustion and sorbent 
reaction. Another advantage of the combustor is the efficient transfer 
of heat due to the physical contact between the particles in the bed 
and the heat exchanger tubes in the walls. The technology also has 
lower operating and maintenance costs and a shorter ``down time'' for 
maintenance than conventional coal-fired technologies.
    During the demonstration, Unit 2 would be operated on several 
different types and blends of coal and petroleum coke to explore the 
flexibility of the CFB technology. The coal would be transported by 
ship (from areas such as Columbia and Venezuela), by train (primarily 
from the central Appalachian region such as West Virginia and eastern 
Kentucky), and by a combination of train and ship (train from West 
Virginia and eastern Kentucky to Newport News, Virginia, and ship from 
Newport News to Jacksonville). The petroleum coke would be transported 
by ship from oil refineries in Venezuela and the Caribbean region. 
Limestone for the CFB combustor probably would be transported by ship 
from the Caribbean region and the Yucatan Peninsula of Mexico.

Alternatives

    Congress directed DOE to pursue the goals of the CCT Program by 
means of partial funding of projects owned and controlled by 
nonfederal-government sponsors. This statutory requirement places DOE 
in a much more limited role than if the federal government were the 
owner and operator of the project. In the latter situation, DOE would 
be responsible for a comprehensive review of reasonable alternatives 
for siting the project. However, in dealing with an applicant, the 
scope of alternatives is necessarily more restricted because the agency 
must focus on alternative ways to accomplish its purpose that reflect 
both the application before it and the function the agency plays in the 
decisional process. It is appropriate in such cases for DOE to give 
substantial weight to the applicant's needs in establishing a project's 
reasonable alternatives.
    Based on the foregoing principles, the only reasonable alternative 
to the proposed action is the no-action alternative, including three 
scenarios that could reasonably be expected to result as a consequence 
of the no-action alternative. Other alternatives that did not meet the 
goals and objectives of the CCT Program or of the applicant were 
dismissed from further consideration.

Proposed Action

    The Department's proposed action is to provide approximately $73 
million (about 24% of the total cost of approximately $309 million) for 
the design, construction, and operation of facilities to demonstrate 
CFB combustion technology at JEA's Northside Generating Station in 
Jacksonville, Florida. The new CFB combustor would use coal and 
petroleum coke to generate nearly 300 MW of electricity by repowering 
the existing Unit 2 steam turbine (the 297.5-MW unit that has been out 
of service since 1983). In doing so, the proposed project is expected 
to demonstrate emission levels of SO2, NOX, and 
particulate matter that would be lower than Clean Air Act limits while 
at the same time producing power more efficiently and at less cost than 
conventional technologies using coal. The proposed project would 
demonstrate CFB technology for electric power generation at a size 
sufficient to allow utilities to make decisions regarding 
commercialization of the technology.
    In addition, JEA plans to repower the currently operating Unit 1 
steam turbine without cost-shared funding from DOE. The Unit 1 steam 
turbine would be essentially identical to the turbine for Unit 2 and 
would be repowered about 6 to 12 months after the Unit 2 repowering. 
Although the proposed project consists of only the Unit 2 repowering 
(because DOE would provide no funding for the Unit 1 repowering), the 
JEA EIS evaluates the Unit 1 repowering as a related action.
    JEA's management has established a target of a 10% reduction in 
annual stack emissions of each of 3 pollutants (SO2, 
NOX, and particulate matter) from Northside Generating 
Station (Units 1, 2, and 3), as compared to emissions during a recent 
typical 2-year operating period (1994-95) of the station (Units 1 and 
3). Also targeted for a 10% reduction is the total annual groundwater 
consumption of Northside Generating Station, as compared to 1996 
levels. These reductions are to be accomplished while increasing the 
total annual energy output of the station.
    JEA, the project participant, is responsible for obtaining all 
applicable permits for the proposed project and would comply with all 
applicable laws, regulations, and ordinances. JEA plans to enter into a 
contract with Foster Wheeler Corporation, which would perform the 
design, engineering, procurement, and construction of the CFB combustor 
and air emissions control equipment. JEA and Foster Wheeler conceived 
and proposed the technology in response to the DOE solicitation under 
the CCT Program; DOE's role is limited to providing the cost-shared 
funding for the proposed project. In addition, DOE and JEA have 
different objectives to be attained through the proposed project: DOE's 
objective is to demonstrate CFB technology, while JEA's intent is to 
meet its future demand for electricity.

No Action

    Under the no-action alternative, DOE would not provide cost-shared 
funding for the proposed CFB combustor project. The Programmatic EIS 
for the CCT Program (DOE/EIS-0146) evaluated the programmatic 
consequences of no action. Under the no-action alternative for the 
proposed project, three reasonably foreseeable scenarios could result.
    First, JEA could repower the existing Unit 2 steam turbine without 
DOE funding, thereby accepting more of the financial risk associated 
with demonstrating the CFB combustor (at its own risk, JEA has in fact 
begun initial construction activities without DOE funding). JEA would 
also proceed with the related action of repowering Unit 1. Under this 
scenario, construction materials and activities and project operations 
would be the same as for the proposed project. The same amount of 
electricity would be generated. Fuel requirements would be similar 
except that the blend of coal to petroleum coke might be slightly 
different, particularly during the first 2 years of operation. Under 
this scenario, more of the solid fuel used could be petroleum coke.
    Second, rather than repowering Unit 2, JEA could construct and 
operate a new gas-fired combined cycle facility at Northside Generating 
Station or at one of its other existing power plants. The natural gas 
would drive a gas combustion turbine and the heat from

[[Page 76617]]

combustion would be used to produce steam that would drive a steam 
turbine. Based on modeling projections by JEA, the facility would be 
expected to generate approximately 230 MW of electricity.
    Under this scenario, Northside Unit 1 would remain in its current 
oil-and gas-fired configuration, and JEA would not proceed with the 
related action of repowering Unit 1. Based upon the projected cost of 
natural gas and the combined cycle unit efficiency, the cost of 
generating electricity at the new combined cycle facility was projected 
to be in the same range as the existing oil-fired units. This resulted 
in the new combined cycle unit being projected to operate at about a 
60% capacity factor (the percentage of electricity actually generated 
by a unit during a year compared with the unit's maximum capacity). The 
difference in generating output between the proposed combined cycle 
unit operating at a 60% capacity factor and the two proposed CFB 
combustors operating at a 90% capacity factor would be supplied by 
operating the existing units at higher capacity factors, by purchasing 
electricity from other utilities, or most likely by a combination of 
these two options. If the existing Northside units were to remain 
operating at their historical levels, then the addition of a combined 
cycle unit would result in an increase in JEA emissions. The more 
likely scenario is that the existing units would operate at higher 
capacity factors than in recent years, resulting in a larger increase 
in emissions compared with historical levels and an even larger 
increase of most pollutants compared with JEA emissions expected 
following the repowering of Units 1 and 2 with CFB combustors. 
Therefore, even though air emissions of most pollutants from the 
combined cycle facility alone would be less than corresponding 
emissions from a CFB combustor alone, the emissions from the existing 
oil-fired units would result in greater overall emissions under the 
combined cycle facility scenario.
    Construction activities and operations would be similar for the 
gas-fired combined cycle facility and the CFB combustors but with 
notable differences related to fuel, sorbent, and ash handling and 
storage facilities. Under the combined cycle facility scenario, natural 
gas would be delivered by pipeline; no coal, petroleum coke, limestone, 
or lime would be used. No combustion ash would be generated. This 
scenario would not contribute to the CCT Program goal of demonstrating 
advanced, more efficient, economically feasible, and environmentally 
acceptable coal technologies.
    Third, rather than repowering Unit 2, JEA could purchase 
electricity from other utilities to meet JEA's projected demand. Under 
this scenario, no construction activities or changes in current 
operations would occur within the JEA system of power plants, including 
Northside Generating Station. JEA would not proceed with the related 
action of repowering Unit 1. There could be construction activities or 
changes in operations at the other utilities providing electricity to 
JEA if the needed electricity capacity were not already available.
    This scenario would not contribute to the CCT Program goal, would 
not provide employment for construction workers in the Jacksonville 
area, and would not result in reductions of atmospheric emissions or 
groundwater use at Northside Generating Station. Moreover, existing 
Units 1 and 3 might be required to operate at capacity factors greater 
than historical levels if JEA were unable to purchase sufficient 
electricity from other utilities. Under those circumstances, annual air 
emissions and groundwater consumption would increase.

Major Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures

    Potential impacts that could result from construction and operation 
of the proposed project are evaluated in the JEA EIS for resource areas 
including air quality, surface water, groundwater, floodplains and 
wetlands, ecological resources, noise, transportation, solid waste, and 
cultural and socioeconomic resources. The following summary provides 
key findings for areas of potential concern.

Air Quality

    A computer-based air dispersion model was used to estimate maximum 
increases in ground-level concentrations of SO2, nitrogen 
dioxide (NO2), and particulate matter that would occur at 
any location as a result of emissions from the CFB combustor and 
limestone dryers for the proposed project (the Unit 2 repowering). 
Results indicate that maximum modeled increases are always less than 
15% of their corresponding Prevention of Significant Deterioration 
(PSD) Class II increments (standards in the ambient air for increases 
in pollutant concentrations). One set of allowable increments exists 
for Class II areas, which cover most of the United States, and a much 
more stringent set of allowable increments exists for Class I areas, 
which include many national parks, monuments, and wilderness areas. 
Maximum concentrations generally occur at locations along, or very 
close to, the site boundary, often within 0.6 mile of the proposed CFB 
combustor stack. Dispersion of pollutants would reduce atmospheric 
concentrations at the nearest PSD Class I areas (more than 30 miles 
from the proposed facility) to only a small fraction of the maximum 
modeled increases near the site. The increases in pollutant 
concentrations at the nearest PSD Class I areas would be expected to be 
only small fractions of the corresponding Class I increments.
    The combination of the proposed project and related action would 
result in emissions from the new 495-ft twin-flued stack that would be 
twice those considered in the analysis of the proposed project alone. 
However, as part of the related action, the elimination of emissions 
from the existing 250-ft stack serving Unit 1 would more than 
compensate for the added emissions. Compared to existing emissions at 
Northside Generating Station, a net decrease in maximum hourly 
emissions of SO2, NOX, and particulate matter 
would result from the addition of the repowered Unit 2 and the 
limestone dryers and the replacement of the existing Unit 1 with the 
repowered Unit 1. Therefore, a decrease in ground-level concentrations 
of these pollutants would be expected most of the time at most 
locations in the surrounding area (the overall effect would be 
beneficial). However, pollutant concentrations would not decrease for 
all averaging times at all locations; maximum ground-level 
concentrations at some locations could increase because the 
characteristics and location of the proposed new stack would be 
different from those of the stack currently serving Unit 1. The net 
impacts could be positive or negative on any particular day at any 
particular location.
    Air dispersion modeling also was used to evaluate maximum adverse 
impacts possible from the proposed project in conjunction with the 
related action. Maximum modeled increases in ground-level 
concentrations are very similar to those for the proposed project 
alone. Maximum increases are always less than 15% of their 
corresponding Class II increments. Because the nearest PSD Class I 
areas are more than 30 miles away, pollutants from Northside Generating 
Station would be well mixed in the atmosphere, and stack 
characteristics would have little effect on ground-level pollutant 
concentrations in these areas. Therefore, a net decrease in pollutant 
emissions resulting from the proposed project in conjunction with the 
related action would be expected to improve air

[[Page 76618]]

quality, albeit by a very small amount, at the nearest PSD Class I 
areas.
    Regarding potential cumulative air quality impacts, results of 
modeling regional sources and the proposed project indicate that no 
exceedances of national or state ambient air quality standards would be 
expected if the proposed project were implemented. Florida standards 
are the same as the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) 
except for annual and 24-hour standards for SO2, for which 
the Florida standards are more stringent. During the 6-to 12-month 
transition period before the Unit 1 repowering, the 24-hour average 
SO2 concentration is estimated to be as high as 97% of the 
corresponding Florida standard. This large concentration results from 
aerodynamic downwash effects caused by the proposed 200-ft tall 
combustor structure that would induce downward motion on the exhaust 
gas emitted from the 250-ft stack serving the existing Unit 1 and the 
350-ft stack serving the existing Unit 3 (exhaust gas from the proposed 
495-ft CFB combustor stack would not be subjected to appreciable 
downwash because the stack is taller). During the 6- to 12-month 
transition period before the Unit 1 repowering, JEA has committed to 
reduce maximum hourly SO2 emissions from the existing Unit 1 
by nearly 93% when operations commence for the proposed project. This 
reduction, which would be accomplished by using natural gas and fuel 
oil with an SO2 emission rate averaging no more than 0.143 
lb/MBtu (effectively, a blend with a sulfur content averaging no more 
than 0.13%), would assure that the maximum 24-hour average 
SO2 concentration would not exceed the Florida standard.
    Estimated SO2 concentrations for other averaging periods 
are less than 60% of their respective standards. The annual average 
NO2 concentration is less than 40% of its NAAQS. The 24-hour 
and annual averages of particulate matter are less than 65% of the 
NAAQS, even though ambient background particulate concentrations for 
both averaging periods are over 40% of the NAAQS.
    Results of modeling regional sources and the proposed project in 
conjunction with the related action of repowering the existing Unit 1 
indicate that maximum concentrations are always less than corresponding 
concentrations without the related action. For example, the 24-hour 
average SO2 concentration for regional sources and the 
proposed project in conjunction with the related action is 91% of the 
Florida standard, compared to 97% for regional sources and the proposed 
project without the related action.
    Ozone (O3) concentrations during 1993-97 at the nearest 
monitor located about 5 miles north-northwest of Northside Generating 
Station were always less than 90% of the 1-hour NAAQS. Because changes 
in NOX and volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from 
the proposed project alone or in conjunction with the related action 
would be less than 1% of emissions in Duval County, they would not be 
expected to lead to any exceedances of the 1-hour NAAQS for 
O3 at that monitoring location.
    Regarding toxic air pollutants, findings indicate that the proposed 
project alone or in conjunction with the related action would not lead 
to any exceedances of, or close approaches to, guideline values for 
noncarcinogenic effects from toxic materials. Further, including both 
the inhalation and ingestion pathways, the maximum annual cancer risk 
to a member of the public resulting from dioxins, furans, and other 
carcinogenic substances emitted during operations was estimated to be 
less than 1 in 1 million (risk from lifetime of exposure estimated to 
be less than 3 in 100,000); given the upper-bound assumptions in the 
estimate, the risk would probably be less.

Water Resources

    Because Unit 2 has not operated since 1983, the proposed project 
would increase the demand for cooling water. After Unit 2 is repowered, 
the demand by the entire 3-unit plant would be approximately the same 
as when the three units operated together from approximately 1978 until 
1980. The sustained flow of the back channel of the St. Johns River 
would not be depleted by this diversion because nearly all of the 
withdrawn cooling water would be returned to the river after passing 
through the condensers. The amount of heat discharged to the St. Johns 
River would also increase as a consequence of the proposed project. 
However, the size of the thermal plume would not increase because 
simultaneous operation of all three units would increase the discharge 
velocity and enhance mixing.
    Operation of the proposed project would reduce by 10% the 
groundwater consumption from the upper Floridan aquifer by Northside 
Generating Station, which would decrease the rate of decline of the 
potentiometric surface of that aquifer. As a result, more groundwater 
would be available to local users, and water quality of the aquifer 
would be stabilized because of reduced influx of brackish or saline 
groundwater from deeper aquifers.

Floodplains and Wetlands

    No impacts from flooding would be expected to occur, and proposed 
activities would have a negligible effect on floodplain encroachment. A 
category 3, 4, or 5 hurricane in Jacksonville is a low-probability 
event that, if it occurred, would have serious consequences for 
Northside Generating Station. Although the effects of storm surge and 
waves that would occur along the beaches would partially be mitigated 
at Northside Generating Station by (1) its inland location, (2) the 
presence of the beach ridge along the dune line, and (3) Blount Island, 
the first floor of the station could be inundated by this unlikely 
event.
    Ecological impacts to wetlands from the proposed project would be 
minor because no more than 1.8 acres of isolated hardwood wetland 
habitat would be lost during construction of the ash storage area, and 
disturbance of salt marsh habitats during construction of the solid 
fuel delivery system would be negligible. Wetlands associated with the 
upper salt marsh communities would not be measurably affected because 
nearly all of the conveyor system for solid fuel delivery would span 
these habitats using existing structures and would involve no clearing 
or earthmoving activities. Although some pilings might need to be 
installed at the upper fringes of the salt marsh and in San Carlos 
Creek, any impacts resulting from piling installation would be very 
localized and temporary and should not measurably affect the normal 
structural and functional dynamics of the salt marsh and nearby 
estuarine ecosystems.
    As a mitigation measure to offset the loss of 1.8 acres of 
wetlands, JEA would purchase slightly greater than 3 acres of wetlands 
from an offsite mitigation bank and would restore 1 acre of salt marsh, 
which together would result in a net gain in the amount of wetlands. In 
addition, JEA plans to set aside and preserve 15 acres of undisturbed, 
uplands maritime oak hammock along the west bank of San Carlos Creek. 
By preserving the land, JEA would maintain habitat for wildlife, help 
protect the water quality of the creek, and leave a high-quality 
forested buffer area in a developing industrial area.

Ecological Resources

    With regard to threatened and endangered species, manatees are of 
the most concern. Impacts on this species from construction of a new 
fuel and limestone unloading dock are unlikely because manatees 
probably would not

[[Page 76619]]

regularly frequent the dock area due to the paucity of submerged 
vegetation such as seagrasses and emergent cordgrasses in the immediate 
vicinity of the dock. Potential impacts resulting from operational 
activities such as docking of vessels would also be unlikely. The 
potential for manatees to be trapped and pinned between the dock and a 
vessel are minimal because the dock would be supported by widely spaced 
support pilings rather than consisting of one long continuous 
structure. Because manatees generally avoid swift currents and prefer 
slow-moving or stagnant water, they would not frequent the main 
discharge area in the back channel of the St. Johns River where 
currents are relatively swift. In addition, it is very unlikely that 
all units for both the St. Johns River Power Park and Northside 
Generating Station would be shut down simultaneously, thereby 
minimizing the probability that manatees would be harmed by a cold 
shock event.
    Four or five juvenile loggerhead, Kemps Ridley, and/or green sea 
turtles (a listed endangered species) became trapped in the Northside 
Generating Station intake basin on one occasion during summer 1997 (the 
turtles were released unharmed). In order to prevent any further 
occurrences of juvenile turtles entering the intake structure, where 
they might become trapped, JEA installed on the intake trash rakes a 
finer grid of mesh bars (welded wire screen on 6-in. centers contrasted 
to the old 12-in. centers). The denser grid has excluded turtles of 
sizes similar to those observed from entering the intake basin and 
becoming trapped.

Cultural Resources

    Because the area in the vicinity of the proposed project is rich in 
archaeological resources and the excavation of undisturbed land could 
affect important archaeological artifacts, both a cultural resources 
assessment survey of the proposed project site and a follow-up Phase II 
investigation were conducted. These studies found that there are no 
potentially significant historic or archaeological sites located in the 
area that would be disturbed by the proposed project. Under the terms 
of the Submerged Lands & Environmental Resource Permit that would be 
issued by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP), 
JEA would be required to notify the appropriate agencies [the St. Johns 
River Water Management District, the FDEP, and the State Historic 
Preservation Officer] immediately upon discovery of any archaeological 
artifacts on the project site [Rule 62-330.200(2)(c), Florida 
Administrative Code].

Socioeconomic Resources and Environmental Justice

    Construction and operation of the proposed project would not result 
in major impacts to population, employment, income, housing, local 
government revenues, or public services in Duval County. The percentage 
of Blacks and Asians in Duval County is greater than for Florida as a 
whole. Because there are relatively few people in poverty or Blacks and 
Asians living in the census tracts surrounding the proposed site, no 
disproportionately high and adverse impacts to low income or minority 
populations would occur. In particular, because of the relatively low 
number of minority and low-income residents in the vicinity of the 
proposed project, very few members of these groups would experience the 
adverse effects associated with increased road and rail traffic and 
related noise.

Transportation

    Construction-induced traffic during the peak traffic hour would not 
exceed available capacity except for the section of Heckscher Drive 
from State Route 9A to Drummond Point (just west of Eastport Road). 
Without mitigation the congestion experienced on this segment would be 
significant. Accordingly, JEA has committed to encourage carpooling and 
suggest alternate routes to and from the site. The increased traffic 
would also result in noticeable congestion on New Berlin Road, 
especially at the intersection of Ostner and New Berlin Roads. To avoid 
a significant impact, JEA has committed to monitor traffic at the 
above-mentioned intersection and to place a police officer at the 
intersection to direct traffic during peak times, if needed. Should the 
presence of a police officer prove inadequate to control project-
induced traffic, JEA has further committed to pursue authorization of a 
temporary traffic signal at that intersection.
    Based on current projections, marine transportation would be the 
most economic means of delivering solid fuel and limestone for the 
proposed project. Consequently, no more than one 90-car train per week 
would be required to transport coal for the proposed project, and this 
could be offset by decreased rail deliveries and corresponding 
increased waterborne deliveries for operations at the St. Johns River 
Power Park. However, in the less likely event that all necessary coal 
would be transported by rail, up to 3 additional trains per week would 
be required for a total of 6 new one-way trips by 90-car unit trains. 
If all coal were transported by train, the 6 new one-way train trips 
per week would exacerbate impacts associated with noise, vibration, and 
blocked roads at on-grade rail crossings resulting from existing train 
traffic. These impacts are a source of concern for residents of Panama 
Park, North Shore, and San Mateo. Project-induced train traffic would 
increase total movement on the CSX line paralleling U.S. 17 by about 5% 
and would increase traffic on the spur line from U.S. 17 to the St. 
John River Power Park and Blount Island by approximately 8%. Additional 
train traffic could be minimized by relying more heavily on barges and 
ships for coal transport. As mentioned earlier, economic projections 
indicate that the marine fuel delivery mode is more likely.

Noise

    During construction of the proposed project, noise levels would 
increase from the present operational levels. Construction would 
primarily occur adjacent to the existing turbine building. The noisiest 
periods of construction would be during steam blowouts and during the 
operation of a pile driver and other construction equipment. Except 
possibly during steam blowouts and possibly during operation of 
equipment used to construct a nearby segment of a conveyor, 
construction noise should not appreciably change the background noise 
of nearby residences, interfere with outside voice communications, or 
exceed the limitations of Rule 4, Noise Pollution Control, promulgated 
by the Jacksonville Environmental Protection Board (1995). This rule 
limits daytime construction noise levels to 65 dB(A) at residential 
property.
    JEA likely would perform continuous, low-pressure, high-velocity 
steam blowouts. Although this activity would be conducted around the 
clock, noise levels at the nearest residences should be below levels of 
concern, because this type of blowout, uses low-pressure steam rather 
than high-pressure steam. However, because JEA's steam blowout plan has 
not been finalized, JEA has committed to installing mufflers if high-
pressure steam blowouts are conducted, or, if mufflers are not 
installed, JEA has committed to measuring the noise levels at the 
nearest residences and ensuring that the levels would conform to the 
Noise Pollution Control ordinance limits.
    The project-induced increased movement of trains through the local 
area would be accompanied by high-decibel train whistles and rattling 
rail cars. Train noise is a source of concern for residents of Panama 
Park, North

[[Page 76620]]

Shore, and San Mateo. One local resident has reported the level of 
train whistles as being 108 dB(A) and the level of rattling rail cars 
as being up to 85 dB(A). As mentioned in the transportation section 
above, additional train noise could be minimized by relying more 
heavily on barges and ships for coal transport.

Waste Management

    The preferred alternative for management of the combustion ash 
would be to sell it as a by-product to offsite customers. An aggressive 
marketing program would be implemented to maximize the quantity sold. 
If more than approximately 70% of the ash could be sold over the 30-
year lifetime of Northside Generating Station, the 40-acre storage site 
would be sufficient for complete containment, and disposal of the 
material would not be an issue. Additional permanent disposal space 
would be required if JEA cannot sell more than 70% of the ash. In the 
unlikely event that none can be sold, an additional 80 to 100 acres of 
disposal space would be required over the 30-year operating life of the 
facility. If additional space were required, potential locations for 
disposal include the property directly north of the Northside property, 
available land at the St. Johns River Power Park, and existing offsite 
landfills. Four large landfill sites that are permitted to dispose of 
nonhazardous industrial wastes have been identified in northeastern 
Florida and southeastern Georgia.

No-Action Alternative

    Under the no-action alternative, DOE would not provide cost-shared 
funding for the proposed project; three reasonably foreseeable 
scenarios could result (see Alternatives above). Under the first 
scenario, in which JEA would repower the existing Unit 2 steam turbine 
without DOE funding, environmental impacts would generally be very 
similar to those of the proposed project. However, more of the solid 
fuel used could be petroleum coke, which would be brought to the site 
by waterborne transport. If current projections about the economic 
advantages of marine transportation change and rail transport is the 
primary means of moving coal to the project site, the increased use of 
petroleum coke under this scenario would result in less train traffic 
and more marine traffic to deliver the fuel as compared with the 
proposed project. As a result, there would be fewer train trips through 
the neighborhoods in the vicinity of Northside Generating Station, 
which would reduce potential problems with noise, vibration, and 
blocked roads at on-grade rail crossings.
    Under the second scenario, in which JEA would construct and operate 
a new gas-fired combined cycle facility at Northside Generating Station 
or at one of their other existing power plants, there would be no 
train, marine, or truck traffic associated with fuel and sorbent 
delivery. No combustion ash would be generated and there would be no 
truck traffic to remove ash from the site. Consequently, impacts 
related to traffic noise and disruptions would be minimized. Air 
emissions would be expected to increase compared with historical levels 
because of the operation of the combined cycle facility in addition to 
the existing Northside units operating at the same or higher capacity 
factors. Therefore, air emissions under this scenario would generally 
be greater than those for the proposed project. Changes in 
concentrations of pollutants in the ambient air would depend on the 
location and project-specific nature of the facility (e.g., stack 
height and exit temperature and velocity). Impacts to cultural 
resources could be less if there were less disruption to construct 
conveyors and other facilities on previously undisturbed land; 
conversely, impacts could be greater if more onsite and/or offsite land 
were disturbed because of a need to construct or upgrade a pipeline 
supplying natural gas to the facility.
    Under the third scenario, in which JEA would purchase electricity 
from other utilities to meet JEA's projected demand, there would be no 
change in current environmental conditions at the site, and the impacts 
would remain unchanged from the baseline conditions. It is possible 
that existing Units 1 and 3 would operate at capacity factors greater 
than historical levels if JEA were unable to purchase sufficient 
electricity from other utilities. Consequently, annual air emissions 
and groundwater consumption would increase. In addition, some impacts 
to resources could result in the geographical area of the other 
utilities, particularly if a new facility were built to meet the JEA 
demand or if additional fuel were transported to the other site or 
sites to generate additional electricity. The level of any such impacts 
would depend on the project-specific characteristics of any facility 
construction, the fuel required by the facility, and the affected 
resources in the area.

Environmentally Preferred Alternative

    The environmentally preferred alternative would likely be the first 
scenario under the no-action alternative. This scenario is nearly 
identical to the proposed project [e.g., in both cases there would be a 
10% reduction in annual stack emissions of each of 3 pollutants 
(SO2, NOX, and particulate matter) from Northside 
Generating Station and a 10% reduction in the total annual groundwater 
consumption of the station]. Consequently, under the first scenario, 
environmental impacts would be very similar to those of the proposed 
project except that there could be less train traffic and more ship and 
barge traffic to deliver the fuel because more of the solid fuel used 
could be petroleum coke. Assuming that there would be fewer train 
trips, the potential impacts associated with train noise, vibration, 
and blocked crossings would be reduced under the first scenario.
    Under the second scenario of the no-action alternative, even though 
air emissions of most pollutants from the combined cycle facility alone 
would be less than corresponding emissions from a CFB combustor alone, 
the emissions from the existing oil-fired units would result in greater 
overall emissions compared to those of the proposed project. This 
environmental drawback would tend to outweigh the scenario's 
environmental benefits (e.g., no train-, ship and barge-, or truck-
related noise from traffic associated with fuel and sorbent delivery or 
ash removal).
    The third scenario of the no-action alternative would not result in 
reductions of atmospheric emissions or groundwater use at Northside 
Generating Station. Moreover, there could be potential impacts from 
construction activities or changes in operations at the other utilities 
providing electricity to JEA if the electricity were not already 
available. Therefore, this scenario is not considered the 
environmentally preferred alternative.

Comments on the Final EIS

    DOE received comments from the Marine Mammal Commission; the 
Florida Department of Transportation; the Florida Department of State, 
Division of Historical Resources; the United States Environmental 
Protection Agency (EPA), Region 4; and a member of the local community.
    The Marine Mammal Commission expressed concern about potential harm 
to northern right whales from collisions with ocean-going vessels, and 
recommended that DOE consult with the National Marine Fisheries Service 
to assess what mitigation measures might be needed to protect northern 
right whales from injuries due to project-related vessel traffic. The 
Commission

[[Page 76621]]

also expressed concern about potential harm to manatees during routine 
delivery of fuel to the plant, and recommended that DOE consult with 
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to determine whether the use of 
propeller guards should be required to protect manatees.
    In regard to the protection of northern right whales from 
collisions with project-related vessels, approximately 50 to 60 ocean-
going vessels are expected to deliver solid fuel, fuel oil, and 
limestone to Northside Generating Station annually after both units are 
repowered. In comparison, about 65 vessels delivered fuel oil to the 
station in 1998. However, some of these vessels were smaller river 
barges that did not enter into the Atlantic Ocean, which contains 
critical habitat for northern right whales from the shoreline out to as 
far as 15 nautical miles. As an upper-bound estimate, the annual 
increase in traffic in the Atlantic Ocean after both units are 
repowered would be about 50 vessels, which is less than 2.5% of the 
2,047 round-trips made by vessels traveling between the St. Johns River 
and the Atlantic Ocean in 1999. The ocean-going vessels are not 
expected to travel at speeds greater than about 12 knots. Because (1) 
the trips (about 1 per week) would be relatively infrequent, (2) the 
number of trips would be a small percentage of current traffic, and (3) 
the vessels would travel slower than the threshold speed of 14 knots 
above which most serious injuries to whales occur, no mitigation 
measures would be necessary to protect northern right whales from 
collisions with project-related vessels. Staff with the National Marine 
Fisheries Service have concurred with this assessment.
    In regard to the use of propeller guards to protect manatees from 
vessels delivering fuel to Northside Generating Station, currently 
propeller guards are not used on vessels in the St. Johns River. 
However, with the implementation of the mitigation measures discussed 
in the EIS (e.g., the dock design would allow sufficient space between 
vessels and the dock structure such that manatees could easily avoid 
being trapped), it is unlikely that the proposed project would cause 
harm to a significant number of manatees, even without propeller guards 
on project-related vessels. Staff with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service have concurred with this assessment.
    The Florida Department of Transportation stated that the project 
may have a direct impact on the State Transportation System and 
requested that JEA submit all site plans and access plans to the 
Jacksonville permit engineer. JEA has contacted the Jacksonville permit 
engineer cited in the comment and both parties agree that, because 
project-related construction would not occur along Heckscher Drive and 
because the only access for construction personnel would be located at 
the New Berlin Road entrance to the facility, JEA is not required to 
submit site plans and access plans for the proposed project to the 
Florida Department of Transportation.
    The Florida Department of State, Division of Historical Resources 
stated that the JEA EIS addresses their concerns in regard to the 
potential impact on historic properties listed, or eligible for 
listing, in the National Register of Historic Places. The Division of 
Historical Resources also stated their opinion that no historic 
resources would be affected by the proposed action.
    The U.S. EPA, Region 4, stated that their initial comments/concerns 
on the draft EIS have been satisfactorily addressed and that they 
appreciate the mitigation measures that JEA has agreed to employ in 
order to address potential impacts. EPA further stated that they 
continue to have environmental concerns about potential process 
releases and project impacts. DOE believes that by implementing the 
mitigation measures described in this Record of Decision it will 
address EPA's concerns.
    A member of the local community expressed concerns regarding 
groundwater use, particulate emissions, and construction worker safety. 
Regarding groundwater use, as discussed above under Water Resources, 
JEA has committed to a 10% reduction in total annual groundwater 
consumption at Northside Generating Station after Units 1 and 2 are 
repowered (as compared to 1996 levels). Similarly for particulate 
emissions (see Air Quality above), JEA has established a target of a 
10% reduction in annual stack emissions of particulate matter from 
Northside Generating Station (Units 1, 2, and 3), as compared to 
emissions during a recent typical 2-year operating period (1994-95) of 
the station (Units 1 and 3). These reductions are to be accomplished 
while increasing the total annual energy output of the station. In 
regard to the concerns expressed about construction worker safety, DOE 
believes that this concern reflects an accident that occurred in July 
2000, while JEA was constructing (at its own risk) the solid fuel 
storage dome associated with the proposed project. In the response to 
the accident, JEA completed a root cause analysis to ensure that worker 
safety is not compromised. The analysis concluded that wind speeds 
during the incident exceeded the design threshold of the dome anchoring 
system during construction. Consequently, the construction process has 
been redesigned to use additional anchors and to delay installation of 
most of the dome covering until after the entire structural frame is 
permanently anchored.

Decision

    DOE will implement the proposed action of providing approximately 
$73 million in cost-shared federal funding support to design, 
construct, and demonstrate the CFB technology proposed by JEA. The 
project is intended to demonstrate the combined removal of 
SO2, NOX, and particulate matter in a promising 
technology that is ready to be commercialized within the range that is 
most desired by utilities (250 to 400 MW). The project is expected to 
generate sufficient data from design, construction, and operation to 
allow private industry to assess the potential for commercial 
application of the CFB technology. This decision to provide cost-shared 
funding for the proposed project was made after careful review of the 
potential environmental impacts, as analyzed in the EIS.

Mitigation Action Plan

    In accordance with Sec. 1021.331(a) of the DOE NEPA regulations, 
DOE will prepare a Mitigation Action Plan that addresses mitigation 
commitments expressed in this ROD. Copies of the Mitigation Action Plan 
may be obtained from Dr. Jan Wachter, NEPA Document Manager, U.S. 
Department of Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory, 626 
Cochrans Mill Road, Pittsburgh, PA 15236, telephone: (412) 386-4809.

    Issued in Washington, D.C., on this 29th day of November, 2000.
Robert S. Kripowicz,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Fossil Energy.
[FR Doc. 00-31160 Filed 12-6-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P