skip to main content
OSTI.GOV title logo U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information

Title: Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the JEA Circulating Fluidized Bed Combustor Project

Abstract

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, which occupies a 400-acre industrial site along the north shore of the St. Johns River 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 (SO{sub 2}), oxides of nitrogen (NO{sub x}), 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. JEA has indicated that construction may begin without DOE funding prior to the completion of the NEPA process in February 2000 and would continue until December 2001. Demonstration of the proposed project would be conducted during a 2-year period frommore » 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 funding 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 SO{sub 2}, nitrogen dioxide (NO{sub 2}), 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 SO{sub 2} concentration would closely approach (i.e., 97%) but not exceed the corresponding Florida standard. During the transition period before the Unit 1 repowering, JEA has committed to reduce maximum hourly SO{sub 2} emissions from the existing Unit 1 by nearly 93% using a blend of natural gas and fuel oil. After the Unit 1 repowering, a decrease in ground-level concentrations of SO{sub 2}, NO{sub 2}, and particulate matter would be expected most of the time at most locations in the surrounding area (the overall effect would be beneficial). Results indicate that the 24-hour average SO{sub 2} concentration for regional sources and the proposed project in conjunction with the related action 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 could result in substantial 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 during steam blowouts, and possibly during operation of equipment used to construct a nearby segment of a conveyor, construction noise should not appreciably affect the background noise of nearby residences or exceed local noise limitations. The preferred alternative for management of the combustion ash would be to sell it as a by-product to offsite customers.« less

Authors:
Publication Date:
Research Org.:
Federal Energy Technology Center-Morgantown, Morgantown, WV (US)
Sponsoring Org.:
USDOE Office of NEPA Policy and Assistance (EH-42) (US)
OSTI Identifier:
823385
Report Number(s):
DOE/EIS-0289
TRN: US200427%%342
Resource Type:
Technical Report
Resource Relation:
Other Information: PBD: 27 Aug 1999
Country of Publication:
United States
Language:
English
Subject:
02 PETROLEUM; 03 NATURAL GAS; 29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY AND ECONOMY; AIR QUALITY; AQUATIC ORGANISMS; BACKGROUND NOISE; CIRCULATING SYSTEMS; CLEAN AIR ACTS; COMBUSTORS; ENDANGERED SPECIES; ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENTS; FLUIDIZED BEDS; FUEL OILS; GROUND LEVEL; NATURAL GAS; NEOPLASMS; NITROGEN DIOXIDE; PETROLEUM PRODUCTS; STEAM TURBINES; SULFUR DIOXIDE; EIS; JACKSONVILLE; DUVAL COUNTY; FL; JEA; FLUIDIZED BED COMBUSTOR PROJECT

Citation Formats

N /A. Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the JEA Circulating Fluidized Bed Combustor Project. United States: N. p., 1999. Web. doi:10.2172/823385.
N /A. Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the JEA Circulating Fluidized Bed Combustor Project. United States. doi:10.2172/823385.
N /A. Fri . "Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the JEA Circulating Fluidized Bed Combustor Project". United States. doi:10.2172/823385. https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/823385.
@article{osti_823385,
title = {Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the JEA Circulating Fluidized Bed Combustor Project},
author = {N /A},
abstractNote = {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, which occupies a 400-acre industrial site along the north shore of the St. Johns River 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 (SO{sub 2}), oxides of nitrogen (NO{sub x}), 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. JEA has indicated that construction may begin without DOE funding prior to the completion of the NEPA process in February 2000 and would continue until 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 funding 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 SO{sub 2}, nitrogen dioxide (NO{sub 2}), 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 SO{sub 2} concentration would closely approach (i.e., 97%) but not exceed the corresponding Florida standard. During the transition period before the Unit 1 repowering, JEA has committed to reduce maximum hourly SO{sub 2} emissions from the existing Unit 1 by nearly 93% using a blend of natural gas and fuel oil. After the Unit 1 repowering, a decrease in ground-level concentrations of SO{sub 2}, NO{sub 2}, and particulate matter would be expected most of the time at most locations in the surrounding area (the overall effect would be beneficial). Results indicate that the 24-hour average SO{sub 2} concentration for regional sources and the proposed project in conjunction with the related action 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 could result in substantial 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 during steam blowouts, and possibly during operation of equipment used to construct a nearby segment of a conveyor, construction noise should not appreciably affect the background noise of nearby residences or exceed local noise limitations. The preferred alternative for management of the combustion ash would be to sell it as a by-product to offsite customers.},
doi = {10.2172/823385},
journal = {},
number = ,
volume = ,
place = {United States},
year = {1999},
month = {8}
}

Technical Report:

Save / Share: