Final Environmental Impact Statement for the JEA Circulating Fluidized Bed Combustor Project [electronic resource].
- Washington, D.C : United States. Dept. of Energy. Assistant Secretary for Environment, Safety, and Health, 2000. and Oak Ridge, Tenn. : Distributed by the Office of Scientific and Technical Information, U.S. Dept. of Energy.
- Physical Description:
- 470 pages : digital, PDF file
- Additional Creators:
- National Energy Technology Laboratory (U.S.), United States. Department of Energy. Assistant Secretary for Environment, Safety, and Health, and United States. Department of Energy. Office of Scientific and Technical Information
- This EIS assesses environmental issues associated with constructing and demonstrating a project that would be cost-shared by DOE and JEA (formerly the Jacksonville Electric Authority) under the Clean Coal Technology Program. The project would demonstrate circulating fluidized bed (CFB) combustion technology at JEA's existing Northside Generating Station in Jacksonville, Florida, about 9 miles northeast of the downtown area of Jacksonville. 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, a 297.5-MW unit that has been out of service since 1983. The proposed project is expected to demonstrate emission levels of sulfur dioxide (SO₂), oxides of nitrogen (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 coal utilization technologies. At their own risk, JEA has begun initial construction activities without DOE funding. Construction would take approximately two years and, consistent with the original JEA schedule, would be completed in December 2001. Demonstration of the proposed project would be conducted during a 2-year period from March 2002 until March 2004. In addition, JEA plans to repower the currently operating Unit 1 steam turbine about 6 to 12 months after the Unit 2 repowering without cost-shared funding from DOE. Although the proposed project consists of only the Unit 2 repowering, this EIS analyzes the Unit 1 repowering as a related action. The EIS also considers three reasonably foreseeable scenarios that could result from the no-action alternative in which DOE would not provide cost-shared funding for the proposed project. The proposed action, in which DOE would provide cost-shared finding for the proposed project, is DOE's preferred alternative. The EIS evaluates the principal environmental issues, including air quality, traffic, noise, and ecological resources, that could result from construction and operation of the proposed project. Key findings include that maximum modeled increases in ground-level concentrations of SO₂ nitrogen dioxide (NO₂), and particulate matter (for the proposed project alone or in conjunction with the related action) would always be less than 10% of their corresponding standards for increases in pollutants. For potential cumulative air quality impacts, results of modeling regional sources and the proposed project indicate that the maximum 24-hour average SO₂ concentration would closely approach (i.e., 97%) but not exceed the corresponding Florida standard. After the Unit 1 repowering, results indicate that the maximum 24-hour average SO₂ concentration would be 91% of the Florida standard. Concentrations for other averaging periods and pollutants would be lower percentages of their standards. Regarding toxic air pollutants from the proposed project, the maximum annual cancer risk to a member of the public would be approximately 1 in 1 million; given the conservative assumptions in the estimate, the risk would probably be less. With regard to threatened and endangered species, impacts to manatees, gopher tortoises, and other species would be negligible or non-existent. Construction-induced traffic would result in noticeable congestion. In the unlikely event that all coal were transported by rail, up to 3 additional trains per week would exacerbate impacts associated with noise, vibration, and blocked roads at on-grade rail crossings. Additional train traffic could be minimized by relying more heavily on barges and ships for coal transport, which is likely to be a more economic fuel delivery mode. During construction of the proposed project, noise levels would increase from the current operational levels. 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 affect...
- Published through SciTech Connect., 06/30/2000., "doe/eis-0289", and N.
- Type of Report and Period Covered Note:
View MARC record | catkey: 14093205