76614 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 236 / Thursday, December 7, 2000 / Notices

Recordkeeping burden. OMB invites

public comment.

Dated: December 1, 2000.

John Tressler,

Leader Regulatory Information Management,

Office of the Chief Information Officer.

Office of Educational Research and

Improvement

Type of Review: New.

Title: Education Longitudinal Study

of 2002 (ELS 2002).

Frequency: Annually.

Affected Public: Not-for-profit

institutions; State, Local, or Tribal

Gov’t, SEAs or LEAs.

Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour

Burden: Responses: 51,597. Burden

Hours: 59,497.

Abstract: Year 2001 field test of 50

schools in five states, students, parents,

teachers, and librarians. The main study

in Spring 2002 in all 50 states and

District of Columbia will constitute the

baseline of a longitudinal study of

school effectiveness and impact on

postsecondary and labor market

outcomes.

Requests for copies of the proposed

information collection request may be

accessed from http://edicsweb.ed.gov, or

should be addressed to Vivian Reese,

Department of Education, 400 Maryland

Avenue, SW, Room 4050, Regional

Office Building 3, Washington, D.C.

20202–4651. Requests may also be

electronically mailed to the internet

address OCIO_IMG_Issues@ed.gov or

faxed to 202–708–9346. Please specify

the complete title of the information

collection when making your request.

Comments regarding burden and/or

the collection activity requirements

should be directed to Kathy_Axt at her

internet address Kathy_Axt@)ed.gov.

Individuals who use a

telecommunications device for the deaf

(TDD) may call the Federal Information

Relay Service (FIRS) at 1–800–877–

8339.

[FR Doc. 00–31144 Filed 12–6–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P

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 email: jan.wachter@netl.doe.gov. 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, projectspecific environmental review of

proposed CCT projects based on projectspecific 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

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 236 / Thursday, December 7, 2000 / Notices 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. Oncethrough 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 highsulfur, 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

76616 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 236 / Thursday, December 7, 2000 / Notices

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 coalfired 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

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 236 / Thursday, December 7, 2000 / Notices 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 gasfired 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 oilfired 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 twinflued 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

76618 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 236 / Thursday, December 7, 2000 / Notices

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

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 236 / Thursday, December 7, 2000 / Notices 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 slowmoving 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 highpressure 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 highdecibel train whistles and rattling rail

cars. Train noise is a source of concern

for residents of Panama Park, North

76620 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 236 / Thursday, December 7, 2000 / Notices

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 noaction 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 projectrelated vessel traffic. The Commission

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 236 / Thursday, December 7, 2000 / Notices 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 upperbound 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 projectrelated 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 § 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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Golden Field Office; Fiscal Year 2001

Broad Based Solicitation for

Submission of Financial Assistance

Applications Involving Research,

Development and Demonstration

AGENCY: Department of Energy.

ACTION: Issuance of the Fiscal Year 2001

Broad Based Solicitation for Submission

of Financial Assistance Applications