HomeMy WebLinkAboutEIA 300; Encina Power Plant Tank #7; _N/AF
TO :
rc
N (fT 1 C E Q F D ET E RM I N AT I 0 N .___I__________.I____________. __I
SECRF1ARY TOR RtXURCI1S FROM: CITY OF CL\RI-SDAI)* 'i4lG F1i;it.h Street, Rm. 1311 PI arini nq Dcpnr tinent
S~IC~ ~ITICII to, CA 9581 4 1200 Elm Aven~~e Carlsbad, CA 92008
COUNTY CLERK County of San Diego 220 W. Broadway
San Dieqo, CA 92101
SUBJECT: Filing of Notice of Dctcmiination in compliance with Section 21108 or 21152 of tile Public Resources Code
regarding the ;{bow described pwject:
I. he project iias been zdpproved by the Ledd Agericy. cz disapproved
2. The p:roject 0 w.ii 1 haw cr s igriificant effect on .the environment. nut
3. An Ciivioi*nmental Inrpsct Report was prepai*ed for this projcct plirsuan t to the provisions of CkfJA,
NOTICE OF DECLARATION OF
NON-SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
1
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the following projects have submitted environmental
impact information to the City of Carlsbad in accordance with the Environmental
Protection Ordinance of 1972 (Ord. 1150) and have been declared to have a non-
significant environmental impact. For further information, contact the Carlsbad
.Pl anni ng Department.
.
CARLSBAD PLANNING DEPARTMENT
APPLICANT LOCATION ACTIV I TY REASON FOR NEGATI
DECLAPAT ION
SDG&E . - Northwest of the Intersection Grading Permit for (see below) of 1-5 and Cannon Rd. Excavation of 142,000 cu yds of dirt to con- struct a 450,000 bbl fuel oil storage tank and install a landscaped Berm.
. REASON FOR NEGATIVE DECLARATION
1. The project will have a negligible impact on vegetation, wildlife,
. archaeology and community services.
.2. No special soil cqnditions exis$ which would prohibit the project.
3. The Environmental Protection Agency has stated that the project will not exceed establ ished air qual ity standards e
4. The tank will be placed below grade and obscured by a landscaped berm to minimize aesthetic impacts.
5. The probability of an oil spill resulting from increased tanker traffic is remote.
.
AN ADDITIONAL ANALYSIS OF THESE ISSUES IS AVAILABLE AT THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Publish: 8-21-75 CITY OF CARLSBAD PLANNING DEPARTMENT
August 26, 1975
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the P'fizimniing eQmwissisn of
the City of Carlsbad will .hold a public :hair$ng at 7:36 p.m.
on Wednesday, September IO, 7975, at tbc Garfshad City Hail,
1200 Elm Avenue, Carlsbad, California, bo ranstder an appeJ?
of the Planning Director's decision to 3ssue a. Declaration .
- of Negative (Non-significant) EnvirsnmemLiiI Effect, ob a
grading perwit fcr Tank #T at the Enctma Power Plant. The
gmdisy permit hill allow excavatiGn of 2%2,C23 Cu. Yes. cf - - dirt In order to construct a $50,000 bb3. fueX iojl storagg
tank and landscaped berm, by $an Diego Gas and Electric
Company, on property located northwest 95: &ha fnterseetion
of 1-5 and Cannon Road.
APPELLANT: Carrsbad Community Cause
\
PLANNING ~~~ISSIf?H OF TME
Publish: hgust 28,- 1975
C-k
, .
.\
-/-- - e- I.
* STATE OF CALIF@RF\rlk-CALITORNIA COPS ZONE CONSFRVATION COMMISSION ??&E -____-_____-__- - ~ _~- --____ __-- .-p-_.._.--I -- MALCOLM A. LOVE
Chairman
ROBERT C. FHAZEE
Vi 38 Chairmn
' $AN FI1E-GD COAST REGIONAL CCMMISSION
6154 MISSION GORGE ROAD. SUITE 220
SAN DIEG0,CALIFORNIA 92120-TEL. (7141 280-6992
February 18, 1975
IIPPLICANT :
San Diego Gas & Electric Company
101 Ash Street
San Diego, CA. 92101
JEFFERY U. FRAUTSCHY
Representative to the
California Coastal Zone
Conservation Commission
THOMAS A. CRANDALL
Executive Director
-
AGENT:
E. M. Gabrielson
Dear Sirs:
You are hereby notified that your application a Final Vote by the San Diego Coast Regiord Conmission at the Publ-ic Hca?--Lrig on February 21, 19'75
1350 Front Street, San Diego, California.
are scheduled for the morning session.
It is neceosarythat you be present at the Lime of qte on your project to answer questions of t'ne Com-nission. will be given time to comment on the staff recommend E t' ion.
F2124 is scheduled for
at 9:15 A.M. in morn &:LO9 of the State 13uilrj:ing, Tentatively, the Final Vote Items
c5
You, as well as other interestecl persons,
s,
Very truly yours, t
Thomas A. Crandd ExecuLive Director
.. . .
- - - h\ ’
. STATE OF CALIFORNIA-CALIFORNIA COAS’ ZONE CONSERVATION COMMISSION EDI’”b G. BROWN, Jr.. Governor
’ SAN DIEGO COAST REGIONAL COMMISSION MALCOLM A. LOVE
Chair man
ROBERT C. FRAZEE
Vie Chairman
6154 MISSION GORGE ROAD, SUITE 220
SAN DIEG0,CALIFORNIA 92120-TEL. (7141 280-6992
CONTFOL NO.:
APPLICANT:
LAST .DAY FOR ACTION:
VOTE REQUIrn:
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT
AT mTBLIC HEARING:
PRDJECT LOCATION:
PEDJECT DESCRIPTION:
STAFF F3COMMENDATION
F212.4
San Diego Gas and Electric
101 Ash Street
San Diego, CA. 92101
JEFFESY D. FRAUTSCHY
Represent at ive to the
California Coastal Zone
Conservation Commission
THOMAS A. CRANDALL
Executive Director
-
DATE OF PUBLIC March 19, 1975 HEARING: January 17, 1975
Majority of authorized membership (7 affirmative votes)
Dutcher, Jones, Parker, Pearson
San Diego Gas and Electric Encina Power Plant tank farm between
1-5 and the AT&SF Railroad, Carlsbad.
Construction of a 450,000 barye1 oil storage tank (315 feet in
diameter and 32 feet high, but only 12 feet above ground), land-
scaped berm east of the tank, relocating the exist-hg fence along
the south bank of the lagoon to the interior side of the land-
scaped berm built along the north side of the tank, a 1,000 gpm transfer pump, piping and valvirg within the East Tank Farm, and disposal of the l50,OOO cubic yards of material excavated for the tank.
STAFF RF;COMMENDATION: 9
Staff recommends that the San Diego Coast Regional Commission ISSUE a permit for the
That the applicant comply with the final landscaping plan submitted after the
public hearing.
proposed project subject to the following special condition:
1.
REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION: .
1. Need for Additional Residual Oil Storage Capacity Appears Justified - The currei
residual oil storage capacity at Eslcina is 1.3 million barrels and at South Bay is 2.0 million barrels. The proposed tank would permit the capacity at Encina to increase to 1.75 million barrels and the total storage capacity for the company to increase to 3.75
million barrels. The additional storage is needed because of increasing consumer demand and because of an increasing oil requirement in the production of electricity as natural gas supplies deminish. (According to the company oil comprized 70% of the fuel require-
ments for the production of electricity in 1974, in 1979 it will increase to 96%.
demand is expected to drop off after 1980 because of alternative energy sources.)
The
nt
The Company’s residual oil burn rates for 1975 are expected to nul from 1.06 million barrels in January to 0.26 million barrels in July.
to hcrcase to 1.27 in January and l.U in July.
In 1977 the requirements are projected While the current storage capacity of
STAFF -RECOMMENDATION; ~2124 -. -
, Page 2
barrels appears more than adequate to meet the monthly burn requirements, the that a 60 day storage capacity which could meet the requirements of the two worstcmonths under the most adverse conditions; e.g. a refinery strike, delivery delay, oripower unit breakdown, is needed. According to the company’s projections the
2 montKbed>equirement for November - December in 1977 would be 2.7 million barrels,
assuming a 20% additional requirement for adverse conditions, the storage requirement would be 3.2 million barrels.
-
The existing capacity is adequate to meet even this requirement, but would allow little
flexibility, such as an empty tank for an emergency situation.
It appears that the applicant’s need for an additional tank at Encina is related more
to the current distribution of tanks than to an actual ne storage. MoLt of the oil comes in at Encina. From Encina it is barged to the terminal. The
current capacity of 1.3 million barrels at Encina is not enough for the company to store 3 l+50,000 barrel shiploads. The tank is planned to allow such deliveries.
Fuel Savings Afforded by Ehcina Unit 5 would have an Insignificant Impact on Storage Capacitx - The applicant has argued in the application for Encina Unit 5 that
the new unit would be more efficient and would reduce fuel oil consumption by 600,000
barrels a year. barrels, 0.6 million would not significantly alter the storage requirement.
2.
Since the annual consumption in 1975 is expected to be 9.2 million
3. Impact on Tanker Traffic - Currently there are about two tanker deliveries a
month at Encina delivering a total of 7O0,OOO barrels a month.
expected to increase to about 900,000 barrels and the number of tanker deliveries
probably increase to three.
and being replaced by 450,000 barrel tankers, two or three 450,000 barrel tankers would supply the projected monthly demuld.
The size of the tankers which can unload at the Encina mooring is limited by the 70 ft,
water depth at the mooring.
than can be accommodated at Encina so a 450,000 barrel tanker is the largest that could
unload at the Encina mooring.
The supply delivered is
Because the 250,000 barrel tankers are becoming obsolete
Tankers larger than 450,000 barrels have a Qeper draft
4. Minimal Hydro Carbon Emissions - The emission rates from the Encina tank are estimated to be 0.0283 tons per day, assuming one heating cycle and one withdrawal loss
per month. As a comparison the APCD ambient air quality standards have been set at 0.24 ppm hydrocarbons which is roughly eqyivalent to 54 tons per day.
San Diego calls for reducing hydro carbon emissions from stationary sources from 22 tons
per day to 5 tons.
The proposed tank would have a floating’roof which has a more efficient sealing
capability than the older cone shaped stationary tops.
E.P.A.’s plan for
5. Minimal Aesthetjc Impact of Tank - Because the tank would be bermed and below
made it would not be visible from the freeway and should have minimal aesthetic impact - on the surrounding community, it would not obstruct any views.
NEW INFORMATION SUPPLIED SINCE THE PUBLIC HEARING:
1. Landscapiq - The applicant has included in the project a landscaping plan for
the section fronting onto the lagoon. An 8 ft. high berm would be added behind the
ST~FF. RECOMMENDATION; ~2124 ,-- -
, Page 3
existing fence line and landscaped with eucalyptus and hydro seeded with native flowering
perennials. freeway.
any view of equipment at the north end of the plant from the freeway.
plants should ensure continued use of the site by the wildlife now found there.
of the plan is attached as Exhibit A.
This berm would replace the storage area currently visible from the It should improve the appearance of the lagoon's south bank and obscure The use of native
A copy
2. Disposal Site - The site now proposed is an area near Palomar Airport and outside
of the coastal zone.
3. Answers to Questions Raised at the Public HearinK - The applicant has attempted
to answer qyestions raised at the hearing in a letter attached as Exhibit B.
4. Difference Betwezn Proposed Project and that Anproved by Carlsbad - Guestions
relating to the applicant's compliance with 'die specific plan approved by Carlsbad were
raised by Comrnunity Cause.
tanks. Two of these tanks were built
f+50,000 barrels and the proposed fourth tank would also have a capacity of 450,000 barrels. There would not be a fifth tank.
Carlsbad approved a plan which called for five 3OO,OOO barrel
The third tank was built with a capacity of
The capacity approved by Carlsbad was 1,500,000 barrels.
is approved, would be l,5OO,OOO barrels. consolidated into two.
The capacity, if the 4th tank
The difference being that three tanks were
STAFF FUXOMMEXDATION; F2124 r-
Page 4 I
WHEREAS San Diego Gas and Electric, 101 Ash Street, San Diego pmposes construction of a 450,000 barrel oil storage tank (315 feet 5n diameter and 32 feet high, but only 12
feet above ground), landscaped berm east of the tank, relocating the existing
fence along the south bank of the lagoon to the interior side of the landscaped
berm built along the north side of the tank, a 1,000 gpm transfer pump, piping and
va1vh.g within the East Tank Farm, and disposal of the 150,000 cubic yards of
material excavated for thc tank. Plant tank farm between 1-5 and the AT&SF Railroad, Carlsbad;
Sitc is San Diego Gas and Electric Fncina Power
WHEREAS the Commission finds 'the proposed development is consistent with the findings and
declarations set forth in the California Public Resources Code Section 27001 and
with the objectives set forth in the California Public Resources Code Section
27302 i
NrrI-S the Commission finds that the proposed project does not have a substantial adverse
environmental or ecological effect.
THERE2QRE BE IT RESOLVED that the San Diego Coast Regional Commission approve the proposed
development as submitted by the applicant provided:
1. That the applicant agrees to adhere strictly to the current plans for the
project as submitted to the Commission.
2. That the applicant agrees to notify the Commission of any substantial chwes in the project.
3.
&
fiat the applicant will meet all the local code requirements and ordinances.
That the applicant agrees to conform to the permit rules and reguiatioris of the California Coastal Zone Conservation Commission.
5. That the applicant agrees that the Commission staff may make site inspections of the project during construction ad upon completion. *
6. That construction on the project will start within one year following
issuance of this permit.
7. That the applicant comply with the final landscaping plan submitted after the public hearing.
- ADOPTED by the San Diego Coast Regional. Commission by vote of Yes 9 no 9
abstention on this day, ? 3-975 .. .
--
A L ' . .-
t
QUESTIONS CONCERNING THE PROPOSED ENCINA RESIDUAL OIL FUEL STORAGE TANK
3
1. Question: What are rates of hydrocarbon emissions from the tank?
Answer : For the Encina tank, emissions were calculated by assuming one reheat cycle from 150°F to 1800~ per month. residual oil was broken down to the project and vapor state and converted to its molecular weight. The total loss for
the reheat cycle was then calculated by the following formula:
The
Mol. wt . Hc ----- Aossreheat =-BBLS product X Density product -- . vapor stored Density condensed rnol.wt. vapor product
Flash calc. results x Hcvapor press
wtm. pressure X
Loss reheat = 7.225 BBLS/mo. ' ,
If during the heating period the tank is only partially full, the loss would be directly proportional to the ratiolq of the amount of product in the tank to the tank capacity.
from API bulletin 2517, pg. 16, wgs used: For the Encina tank withdrawal losses, the formula
wL = Constant: 448 Diameter V
The withdrawal losses are then found to be 1.41 It is assumed that one fill cycle/mo. barrels/rnillion barrels. will occur. Therefore:
WL = 1.91 bbls. x 450,000 bbls.
Mo . 100 bbls.
= .634 bbls./mo. wL
The attached CB&I letter of January 31, 1975 confirms this result. It should be noted that the vapor calculations were based on pentane, C5H12, having a density of
219 lbs./bbl. in lbs./hr. and tons/day. The attached letter also gives the breakdown
.. -_
Chicago Bridge & Iron Company
January 31, 1975
Daniel I Mann, Johnson and Mendenhall
3250 Wilshire Blvd.
Los Angeles, CA 90010
RE: 318
SAN
Dear Mr.
fi FLOATING ROOF STORAGE TANK LOSSES DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC CO.
Snyder:
We have reviewed the losses from the 318'8 double deck float- ing roof storage tank and they are estimated to be 7.225 bbls per month due to the heating cycle and 0.634 bbls per month for withdrawal loss.
These losses are based on product with a true vapor pressure of 1 psia at 150°F and one heating cycle and one tank turn- over per month.
The emission rates converted to lb/hr would be 2.167 and 0.190 respectively. 0.0260 and 0.00228 respectively.
*
Converted to tons per day the rates wou$d be
Very truly yours, ..
_. _- ..
Wray B. Young Development Engineering
. .. ... ..
.. . . . .. -. . . . . . . . ... . .. .J ..
..
.. . . .. .. ..
. ..
i .~
. -t.
*
1
2.
--. - -L-
Question: What affect will the tank have on present and future tanker traffic?
Answer: The installation of the fuel storage tank will have no bearing on the amount of traffic by tanker or barge, to and from the Encina mooring facilities, The frequency of traffic is governed by long range planning of' fuel burn needs.
Successful uninterupted operation dictates a 30 day minimal contlngency storage supply. In the past this critical storage supply could be maintained by the use of natural gas as fuel. With the phase out of natural gas for
-. generating-fuel. and -the increase on the use of residual oil,
fuel storage must be increased to maintain a minimal supply.
tanker deliveries at the Encina tanker terminal, From the tanker terminal we are shipping an average of one 45,000 bbls. barge per month to the San Diego harbor, 24th Street terminal for distribution to other generating facilities.
Presently we are receiving between one and two
Projections of increasing demands_for residual oil will require an increase in deliveries at the rate to. four 250,000 to 450,000 barrel capacity tankers each month
Question:
by 1977.
3. Where will the stored oil be used and how will it
be transported from the storage tank?
Answer: the Encina Power Plant to provide,electrical generation. Residual fuel stored in the new storage tank will be connected to the existing tanks at the Encina Power Plant. arises the burn tanks can be replenished. The fuelail can then be transported to the Encina Power Plant through pipe- lines. This tank is required to meet our system burn rate demands.
Question:
The stored residual oil at Ehcina will be used at
As the need
4. Will the disposal site be within the area of the coastal zone permit area?
Answer: The disposal site for the material extracted from fuel Gil storage tank site is proposed to be located in the vicinity of the Palomar Airport which is outside the coastal zone permit area. Under normal conditions, several sites are selected depending on the need by those requiring fill material. However, in this particular situation we nrticipste u3ing only the one disposal site. amount of the material to be extracted. This site will accept the entire
1.
5.
6.
7.
- Question: Is there a possibility of alternative uses of the storage tank?
Answer: The tank is designed for residual fuel oil.
Question: Is there a relationship between the storage tank,
Answer: The proposed tank is for the storage of residual oil. The need for this tank which will provide fuel storage capacit (30 day7 supply of fuel in the event of strikes by shippers, adverse burn conditions or delays in delivery. The refinery referred-toAn the- qu-estion has no relationship in - __ - the - - - - - - planning for the fuel oil storage tank at Encfna.
the refinery and the proposed Encina expansion?
was planned in order to maintain a satisfactory
Question: What were the fuel oil projections when the last storage tank was constructed at Encina?
Answer: A residual fuel oil study, completed in 1971 for Tank NO. 6 at Encina, indicated that approximately 600,000 barrels of storage was needed, This result is based on the following criteria.
A. A minimum ullage" requirement of 250,000 bbls. This minimum ullage requirement was necessary to overcome the following operating problems:
1. The maximum practical operating storage capability
for our entire system was 2,650,000 barrels.
2. The pr6bability of having a tank out of service for
3. To allow some margin to insure that we willalways be able to take a tanker load of fuel oil.
The ending inventory in any month should never be less than the burn requirement for the next succeeding month. This requirement is-intended to minimize the effect of
tkc fcllowing contingencies:
. repairs.
B.
.-. - 1. The possibility of a tanker problem which could delay deliveries.
Insonsistencies in the amount of fuel oil burned depending upon adverse burn conditions. 2.
* The amount that a container lacks of being full; Webster's Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary_.
. .. .. ... .. ... .
.. I rn
1'
7. h . I2 *-
e I
3. Under nc-rnal circumstances, we have .pproximately
3OO,OOO barrels of fuel oil in storage which cannot
be used under normal circumstances.
C. It was assumed that we will be receiving fuel oil from
.- Tesoro at a rate of 27O,OOO bbls. per month beginning in April of 1972, and will increase to 285,000 bbls. per month beginning in July, 1972.
D. Union Oil Company deliveries between June 1972 and June of 1973 would be 375,000 bbls. and that the minimum deliveries would be 225,000 bbls.
The Union Oil Company was contacted to determine the feasibility of leasing this fuel oil storage. The entire West- Coast-was-searched and it was reported that it would be------ very questionable that the additional fuel oil storage capacity could be leased. It was reported that even if we could find the additional storage it would be in small blocks of no more than 100,000 bbls. at any one location.
- _-.
Attached is a summary sheet which summarized the fuel oil requirements needed for the 1971 through 1973 period. /
8. Question: What is the rationale for increasing oil storage capacity?
Answer: production of electricity in 1974. oil will increase to 96$ by 1979. fuel oil should decrease gradually due to the utilization of alternative energy sources. By 1979, however, we estimate that 20 million barrels of oil will be used for electricity generation as compared to 9.1 million in 1975.
With the need to meet our minimal requirement and provide a safety margin of capacity for our entire raystem so does the need to increase our storage.
Oil comprized 70$ of fuel requirements for the These requirements for fuel After 1980 the demand for
9. Question: What landscaping scheme is to be included with the project?
Answer: Landscaping of the fuel oil storage tanks is an intregal part of the Company's landscaping program for Encina. The new tank will be recessed to provide a low profile. A contoured berm of 81-10' in height will be constructed along Interstate 5. The berm will be extended along the southerly rim of the middle Agua Kedionda Lagoon, terminating at the AT&SF FiR right of way. landscape berm will be similar to the plao.';ii!g on the existing landscape berm along Interstate 5. Additionally, the sloped
The plant material selected for the
.,
4
., 'J .*
-_
4 -5- '
area from the rim to a point near the waters edge will be planted, Many native plants and grasses are growing on the slope. Rather than disturb these natives, we intend to in- corporate trees only, which will enhance and beautify the overall area. Because of the necessary removal of dirt to recess the tank and the construction operation, the place- ment of the berm and the actual planting of the plant material on the berm will be accomplished only after the completion of construction. We are including a copy of the landscaping plan.
. *' '. .
...... ... ........
. _. .............. ... .. ._ __ . . . -. , ..
. - . - ....... .......... - ... - - .. - .
.. -* ........ ... - ... ~. - ...... .... - . - - .. - - ..... -. . - . - .....
........
. .-
... -.
... .......
.. __ ... ...... - . ......
.. .- .~
.
. ._. - . .
...... ....... ..... - ... .-
..
P
....
...
.. :. . ..
... .....
. *. :. , .. .. .... 1
. ' SAn DIECO GAS 6 ELECIRXC COF.BCYWY
...
'. .. ..
5. .. IllEL AVAILABILITY REPORT ' -.. ENERGY SOURCES
.. . *.
.. ._ .
.!
.t
..
86 =. 134 147 810 129 1 CWAW sm- Lon (2) XWKR 747 664 710 . 657 672 676' 734 811
3 TOTAL ENERGY FOR LOAD 57 42 L L 14 10 19 20 38 49 49 2 DELIVERISS M OTFEStS KWKR '.26 __ 16
m m 680 4.m a82 78f m- 10
RESOJRCES (3) (4)
4 OWTIED HYDRO m NOT APPLICABLE TO SAN DZEOO aAS 61 ELSCTRIC CQt4PAH.Y 5 HWVW HYDRO XWKR 0. *(I (I *
7
I( I) rn (I
m. 3 3 12 12 11 11 7 5 8 93 Tln 7.r lr 7 --5*--3--93
OTHER WI'CRN~~. HYDRO
TOTAL HYDRO XWHR 6,
44 29 30 28 30 30 28 21 29 31 355 45 40 4 4 4 7 9 9 9 5 0 1 0 9 61 -. 8 NCRTIfdEST HYDR9 - Pm 9 NORTtWESP HYDRO - ECONOW KhIlR .
--20038-- 8 7 72-0- 0' 29 4 10 NWWdEST HYDRO - SURPWS MCR
TOTAL NORTIWEST HYDRO m7IR 49 44 48 39 47 45 46 28 22
COAL , XhHR _. NOT APPLXC~BLE TO SAN saxE~o GAS c ELSCTRIC COHPAXY -: 12 .
13 . NUCLEAR
*. 14 GEOTWRMhL
48 37 .' 0 22 53 . 55 55 53 55 53 55 531 - mtrR 55 . KhHR NOT APPLXCABLE T'O ShN DIEGO QhS C ELECTRIC COWPAXY
0 Q ..o 0 -0. :o. 0 0 .o 7 '7 I 15 OTHER RECBIFTS XWKR .'.O)' 0"
16 TOTALAVAILA8LSBWOReGM) XWHR , 1. 109 . 95 -7 110 Ill0 18 43 81 ' ' 110 ' 113 108 92 ' 84 87
699 117 142 . - 'J .. .. . 664 ' 585 650 '. ' 628 601 585 ' 641 ' _'. 741 686 ... .. -. .. .. ._
.Kw* .. 17 .' ,GM 6 OIL GEISL4TION
GAS SlrPPLY AND OIL REOIfIRC3ENFS_
.. .. .. .. , .. .
18 GAS C OIf REWIRe(EKTS (5) ' ' E0 BBL . 1.147 1.030 . 1.143 -,LOW 1.06i 1.00s 1.094 .~299 1.199 1.214. 1.258 1.292 l3.8oj .- .'
. 19 GAS SUPPLY .. EQ BBI. * . '9069 .lo8 -168 -136 .292 . .313 .e08 ..e91 .637 .471 , .139 .046 4.278 ' - 20 OIL REWIRP.IE~TPS BBL 1.078 . .922. -975 .961 .772 .696 .286 ,408 -.362 ' .743 1.119 1.246 8.568 .
-_' . 1 .. t ..ADDITIONAL OIL REWIRFD A9 A RESULT OPI
-050 .OS8 ,065 * ;098 .126 , .122 .110 ' .071 ' .035 -020 .020 .OB5 . ..e60 BBL .
._
. 21 DRY YEAR HYDRO ~CIDUCTION ,
Nmi (1) Recorded Oata. (4) Estimated off system transactions are as exwcted at -. (2) toad forecast is on a current outlook basb . interconnection-with XEr transmission lceso~ are not included. :.
(3) mdro availability is on a current outlook baais for reporting . (5) Does not include fuel for steam heat department. ..
.. -. Electric Production Department -I Results hqineerlng Section. ... ...... UrD January 23, 1??5
.. .... -. .
-. . .. . _. .-
.. .- . . - ------
.. ... .. '. ___ . -. ...-...-.. - - ..... .._-- ~.. . .. ..
..a
.. J. : .. , . .' ,. . ., . -_ .-
.%
.-_-._.I ~ -.--..--- ---------.----- -----
.. 0. .. ..
.. OIL REOVIRFXEHTS
1 OIL REOVIREXENT A. Heavy Oil B. Distillate
grt SUPPLY
I 2 bTeRNjscAPz.2,xTY A. Heavy 011 8. Distilla :e
3 SUPPLY ON "ID BEGINNING or ;mn A. flccrvy Oil 8. Distillate
BBL .L. 060 .762 .687 ,010 .009 .259 .400 -027 .OW
.912. .964 .010 ..on .951 ,010
3.294 e456
1.340
e372
.951 .010
-825 .012
0 0
0
'0
.825 .012
,730 .013
3.294 .456
2.522
.376
.na .013
1.ii2
.092
.358 .004
3.294 ,456
2.099
.368
,358 .004
.681
.012
e961 1.148 .158 .OW
9.192
I 1:
9.192 .376
9.427 .483
.. -- I-:> i
.SO0
0
9.927
0 403
.018
3.294 .418
, 2.026 .336
1.060 .018
.988, .012
0 0
*o
0
.988 .012 s
J
3.294 3.294 .456 .456
BBL
BBL
BBL BBL
3.294 3,294 .456 .456 3.294 3.294 ,456. .,456 3.294 3.294 .456 .456 -
1.954 1.923
.330 .371 1.714 1.302
.374 .376
1.296 .1.718
.379 .364 3.004 2.824
-455 ,429
ECTFD OIL SWPPLIES i*F
-912 -964 .010 .Oll
e881 a881 .os1 .012
BBL . . DEL .762' .687 ,010 .om .259 .400 .027 .OW
.681 -681 ,012 .012
-961 1.148 . ,158 . ,098
*
.681 ,985 -132 .112
.. .-
.' . BBL BBL .350 .681 ..012 .012 ,
6
.7
8
9
. 10
COPl'RACTS UNDW
NEGOTIATION
A. Heavy Oil B. Distillate
PROBABLY sweu&s
8. Dlstillbte
TOTAL OIL SUPPLIES
A. Heavy Oil E. Distillate
STORAGE DRhNDCMN
. A. Heavy Oil
A. Heavy Oil B. Distillate
tmAssImm OIL
A. Heavy Oil B. Distillate
BEL BBL . 0
'0 .,
.lob .o
'0 0
.loo
0
.112 .092
0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
.o. 0
0. 0
BBL + . BBt 0. .roo 0- 0 .loo, A100
0. 0
c
.781 1.085 .132 .112
.. ..
.681 .781 .781 .012 - .012 .012
BBL BBL .e81 .e81 .os1 . .012 ,350 .68l .012 ,012
BBL .0?2 BBL -006
88L 0 BBL 0
- .. _. . 0 0 0-0
0. 0 0. .o 0 . O*. 0 0. 0 0 ..
-Electric Production Department Results Engineering Section January 23, 1975 UCD . . .. z ...
..
..... ....................
*.
'
1
;3- . '
!
.i
.'
.. !
1. , i.
,
.l . :I .i.' ' *
..
. - .-.-. ...
............. *a-C. .......... ...._,,_.._^",__..,--I .. ....- -
7 1976 $*2L!E ,--Q*& 9 ....................... ... ........................ -.,. ... ....- -_ ~-. . ..- ~__l__.l__ _,,I- . ._.-_,-._ ........ _--. - ...... ..,- :.-,-- .. .= P >. I.
..:I. -. . . ._ . I. .. ,,
1. .
.."<
' : , >'.
..... .- . "~, . ......... ........
"
! .... ,. . . ~ ..
. 3 :. .... ... , ....... . .&. .. ..
..
1. ~. ., -
...-. .. .....
... . .- ...
* .-.: * ,.
.. ... ... ..
. .. . ,-
. .~ , ..
.... .. ...
...... .. ..... ..... .... . .% :. .......... .. ,. ...... I- ... P, T :: c an P ANY .- .. ,
... 27 55 S *. : ..
........ :_ 2 .,.. ,. ' . ., c. c :: L .. I .. :: ... 1. ~ ... I c x r I c c 0 x P A I .Y
4 1 7
1' .. .~ ..
::I
i. -.?; . .;.
.... ., ."
... ...
.... ... .\ ._ , \. . ".
cd at
re :mt inclucai.
on Depar'kment * ... ts L::r;i:ieering Section .
'rl ,3. 1975 WD
-?v?-t-?R... ........ r-.- .x. -. .. %. ..... .- ....... -... ........
.. .. , , ... ... ..
I ,. . .. s.
.!
1.
I' ..
..
..
t'
..
1 OIL RfCUIRFX&W
BBL ' 1.113. ,901 1.019 .946 A. Heavy 011 8. Mstfllate BBL -132 -159 e134 .086
OIL SOPPLY
1.103 .122 1.202 1.206 1.213 12.7 ,080 .176 .172 J.4
)A t
3.744 3.744 3.144 .606 A06 .806
..
3.744 '3.744 3.744. 3.744 .806 .806 .806 .BO6
2 STCRMECAPACITY
A. Heavy Oil B. Distillate
3 SLTPLY ON nkw BECIbVISG OF 24-
8. Dlatlllatr A. Heavy Oil
3 . - MPECTED OIL SJ'FPLIFS
4 FEA ALUXATIOH
A. Heavy Oil 8. Distillate
5 PTRHco?rPRAcrS
A. XeaVy 01). E. Distillate
3.294 3.294 ',3.744' 3.744 -606 -806 -806 a806 aBt , BBL 3.744 .%06
2.412 2.442 2.037
.674 ,106 .642
BBL am 2.761 2.449 ' .. -443 ..423 2.674 2,456
.375 253
2.742 2.611 2.812 2.652
-479 ,546 -614 .621
1
,,
2.114 -684
1.103 1.202. 1.206 1.213 12.7, e122 -080 ' -176 -172 1.4
BBL BBL
BBL BBL
1.113 .907
.132. .1S9
' .701 ' 1.132
.112 .lll
1.619 -946
.134 ' ,086
,101 1.132
,112 .212
e932 e931 -961 1.170
,045 .044 .lo5 .149
-701 i.i32 .yo1 1.132 ,112 ,112 ..112 .212 ..701 1.132
' ,112 -112 ..701 '. 112 1.039 10.9 .212 1.6,
6 com~msuwER
h'U;OTTATION
A. Heavy Oil 8. Distillate .... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
.. 100 0 .loo% .loo 0- 0 0 0
\
0 0 0 0
.loo .loo 0 0
0 -7 0
.a
1' .loo 1.01 0 .
1.139 lL9I
.212 1.6.
BBL BBL . 0'0 0 .o .. 0 0 0 0 0 0 ._ 7 PROBMLY WPPLfES .. A. Xeavy Oil E. Distillate
BBL
BEL .loo . 0 ..loo -100 .o 0 0 0 .loo 0
8 . ToTM.oILsupPLIEs
A. Heay 011 BBL . .mi 1.132 '.eo1 1.232 ..
1 .112 .111 .112 -212 8. Distillate BBL
9
-801 .1.132 . a801 1.232
.112 ,112 .112 -212
,131 (.201) ,160 (.062) t.067) (.068) (.007) (-063)
..
,801 . 1.232
,112 ,112
.801
.112 ..
.405 .064
9 SMRSPD3rnCkRt A. ReSw Oil 8. Dis tilla to
10 WSSltNE3 OIL ..
. A. Eeay 011 BBL 0 0- 0 0
0 0 .'.. 0 0 E. Distillate BBL
.. *.
. NOTMs
... . ...... *,. . -- !? 3. ..... . .:
(1) Re~~~deddata.
....... c \e. - -... _. . ; ..L. .:..-.!.,- :::':..:* ::.:...,;:::.:*, .'
* .. _.
... .. b -.
.o 0 0 0
0 0 '0 0 0. 0. 0 0
0 0 .o 0 -.
.. . -..- .......... ... ..
_._. .~1w~c PEOtuction-mrt-nf Results Engineering Section -Janya-q 23; -19'15 UD- ..
'% -.. . .- ._ .. .. .
.* .. .I ,. .. ... . _, .. . ..,; . .. . , . _I . . ... . .. L , . . ~ -. ~.. -..- '. ..--.,I. c-- - ~ .
.. .-
..
-.m..-.1-..1I -..e-- IN MUONS JA
\
- \+LA 879 964 851 889
899 . 939 934 1006 10664
485oArlz
TO SAN D'IEQO GAS
I I .I I
A 11 3-115
14 11 13 15
28 .27 26 26
P ELt,CTRIC C0WPA;NY
.I I
14 7 5-e .13L
14 7 5 8' 131
25 18 25 30 326
4 mED HYDR3
1s HOOVER HYDRO - ._ '6 OTHER CALIFGRNIA HYDRO 7 TWAL HYDRO
NORTKdEST HYDRO - FXRX
NORTHWEST hiRO - ECOSOW
' 10 NORTIMEST WRO - SU2PUrS
' 11 TOTAL NORT€frlEST HYDRO
I " 8 .9
NOT APPLICABLE
.I I
AA2A
10 12 12 10
32 . 29 i '32 28 3. 3 3 1
35 32 1 ..35. 36
0 -0.d
54 1. - * 52 0 55 0 - 8 0 - 5 1 0 9 34
0000168_
a3 99 81 34
TO 'SAX DIBGO OAS
25 39 - 528 30 ' 19
I ELECTRIC CO~PA'NY NOT .APPLfChBLE COAL -. .a 12 .
KWHR. ?- 55 48 55 . 53 54 53 . 54 55 52 55 53 55 642 - -. - 13 . NUCLEAR .- .'- 14 GEOTIiERHht . wart NOT APPLICABLE .TO SAN DIEGO QAS L ELECTRIC COWPAMY -
. 15 OTHER RECEIPTS KknR 3! 3 3 3 3 3 1- 6 0 0 0 7 26
J- 7 ? . 103 95 105 102 134 146 149 104 ' 96 * 81 83 109
I ,:*> 672 . 727 848 803 858 851 897 819 7 09 764 712 677
16 TOTAL AVAILABLE BEFORE
. 17 GAS & OIL GENERATION "it
GAS SUPPLY AND OIL 2EO'JIREXXNTS .. .
.. ..
a. .' .. ..
,. 18 GAS b OIL XECRJIR-S (5) Eo . 1.441 . 1.246 -' f.345 '1.260 .1.221 '1.211 1.290 .1.461 . '1.388 1.479 '1.462 '1.563 16.367 -,: ' ,. 0 .- a324 - 19 GAS RlPPLY EQ BEL .o 0 ' -008 -022 -087 ,033 .035 a086 . .Of0 -003 0
20 OIL REQUIREHENTS ' BBL .l;+l 1.246 .1.337 1.238 1.134 '1.178 1.255 1.375 1.338 1.476 1.462 -1,563 16.943
.ADDITXO?VU OIL REWIRED As A RESULT OS:
.-
21 DRY FA HYDRO PRtOUCTrON BBL ,094 .lo4 .115 ..* .lo9 .198 - .184 -.188 .074 .OM ---. 020 __ .021 - .085 __ 1.240
NQTESi (1) Recorded data. (4) Estimated off system transactio? are aa expected at interconnection vlth SCE; transmission losses are not includd. . rsb w not include fuel for stearn heat department. (2) Load foreast h on a current outlook bash .- : .-. -- - - .. (3) i?y&o availability is on a current outlode basla for reporti- ..
year, normal year besin for future years -.
*' Results Enqlneering &tion January 23, 1975 UQ, -_ .
I
.I I **
.. .I !. . ,. 1 ,.
I !.
i
!
!
!'
..
.. .. !.
r.
*
\:
..
..
-.
..
SAN DIDCO GM 6 ELECFRIC COW=
FUEL AVAILABILITY REPORT OIL RECNIR!3GWN AND SUPPLIES ..
ITEM 'JAN FEB HAR m MY JVN' JUL AVO SEP CCT * NOV DM: ANNUAL IN HILLIOSS
OIL REOUIRL).IEtW
1.277 098
3.744 .e06
2.561 .562
1.277 _. 098
1.132 .212
0 0
-1 OIL REWIRQfJZt?T
A. Heavy Oil , 8. Distillate BBL 1.271 1.099 1.178
' BBL -169 . ,147 el59 1.010 .168 ..
3.744 .a06
2.344 .624
1.010 .168
i.i32 rll2
0 0
'0 0
1.132 *112
1.137 .118
3.744 .806
2.466 .568
1.137 .118
1.132 ,112
0 0
..loa
1.223 ' 1.330 .115 .146 1.113
-125
3.744 .EO6
2.110 .542
1.113 .125
1.327 1.380 ;135 .lB3 14.36: l.F(
\. 1.
14.36: L68t
13.75: 1-64:
!
t .- LOO( 4
14.75: 1.64:
(. 38! .03'
<
.f
1.017 .117
3.744 e836
2.229 -629
1.017 ,117
1.132 .112
.o
0'
0 0
1.132 0112
OIL SUPPLY .. .. -.
3.744 3.744 3.744 .a06 ,806 .eo6
2 STORAGEUI!ACITY A. Heavy oil B. Dlstillate
3 SVPPLY 03 HAM) BEGINNING OF UOKCB
A. Heavy 011 8. Distillate .
pcP?3XED OIL SUPF'LIFS
4 FEAALLOCATION
A. Heavy Oil B. Distillate
BBL
BBL 3.744 3.744 .006 .a06 3.744 3.744 .8W ,806
BBL EEL 1.963 1.923 2.056
-682 , ,625 .589 2,516 2.52s- .676 .6?3 2.427 2.332 .639 .616
1.272
4 169
1.132
+ ,112
1.099 1.178 ,a147 a159
*..
1.223 '1.330 .llS ..146 BBL . BBL 1.327 1.380 .135 .183
5 .FIRHCON1RACTS . A. Heavy Oil . - B. Distillate
6 COWTRACISUNDER NEGOTIATION A. Heavy Oil
8. Distillate
. 7 PROBABLY SUPPLIES
A. Heavy Oil E. Distiliate
. BE5 BEL I . 3.132 1.132 1.132 .111* .llZ .212 1.132 1.132 1.132 1,300 .112 .112 .112 .212
0' .o 0 0.
0.0 0 0
BBL ' 8BL .
0 0 0 0 0 0
.loo -100 .loo '0
..
0 '. 0
0
-0
.loo .o
1.232 .112 *.
't .W0 .OS7
-0 0
.. .
BBL , BBL .
BEL BDL
BBL BBL
. 100 .loo- 0 .loo 0' .IO0 0 *loo 0 0 . 0"
8 ' TOTAL OIL SUPPLfES A. Heaw Oil 8. Distillate 1.232 1.i~ 1.232 .111 .112 .212 . '1.232 1.232' 1.232 1.232 1.232 1,40'a .1,12 .212 .112 .112 .112 .212
10 . VNASSIGND OIL A. Heav, oil . EL Distillate .
-. BEL . BBL ' .. ..
.. .. . .. r
.- ... ..
. --
I .. ..
, CARLSBAD COMMUNITY CAUSE
3831 MARGARET WAY
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
(714) 729-8065 February 18, 1975
Chairman Malcolm Love San Diego Coast Regional Commission 6154 Mission Gorge Road, Suite 220 San Diego, California 92120
Dear Chairman Love,
We would like to request that the San Diego Coast Regional Commission consider the following questions concerning SDG&E's Application F2124 (7th Storage Tank). We also ask that this letter be placed in the official record.
1. The 7th Storage Tank is not in compliance with the Specific
Plan as approved by Carlsbad City Council on August 3, 1971 (Ordinance 9279). The changes made were substantial. the City of Carlsbad for discretionary chanqes in the Plan? comply with the regulation of getting local agency permit first.
Should it not be returned to This would
2.
plan to increase generating capacity of Encina. Storage Tank (Application F2124) be considered at the same time and with the same requirements (k.EIR) as Application F0451 (Encina Unit 5)?
City Ordinance 9279 constitutes a major change in the environmental impact of the mooring facility. the mooring point? increased of g.p.m. flow? Can this booster pump system be * used to pump oil to the proposed Macario Refinery?
SDG&E originally included storage tanks as a part of the Should not the 7th
3. The addition of booster pumps, not covered in the Carlsbad
Will this increase pressure in the pipelines from Will it increase the impact of a spill because of the
4. Since SDG&E has not complied with the General Conditions of Carlsbad City Ordinance 9279, paragraph 3, should not this be referred back to the City of Carlsbad?
5. Since the proposed 7th Storage Tank will affect adversely the middle lagoon, which is presently used for aquatic recreation, through visual pollution, air pollution and potential oil spill should it not be agreed upon by a 2/3 majority as indicated in Proposition 20, Chapter 5, Section 27401?
We believe that SDG&E has not shown sufficient need for this storage capacity with the existing generating facilities. projected increase of the mooring facility and increased storage capacity is part of the overall plan to massively increase the generating capacity of the Encina Plant and facilitate development of the proposed Macario Refinery and Industrial Park.
We believe that the
I
1200 ELM AVENUE
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008
Citp of Garls'bab
September 18, 1975
TELEPHONE:
(714) 729-1 181
CARLSBAD COMMUNITY CAUSE 3831 Margaret Way Carlsbad, California 92008
Attention: Ms. Joan Jackson Civic Action Chairperson
Subject: PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION ON THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR ENCIIJA POWER PLANT TANK #7 (EIA-300)
The Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on September 10, 1975 to consider your appeal of the Planning Di- rector's decision to issue a declaration of negative (nonsignificant} environmental effect. The Planning Commission after substantial testimony by both the public representatives, your organization and the City staff upheld the decision of the Planning Director for the reasons outlined in the Planning Department's Staff Re- port regarding the appeal.
Pursuant to Chapter 19, Section 04.140, any appeal of the Planning Commission's decision must be made within ten (10) days of the mailing of the notice of the Commission's decision. This letter is the official notice of the Plarning Commission's decision to uphold the decision of the Planning Director.
DAA: mdp
cc: San Diego Gas & Electric Company City Manager
' .
October 3, 1975
Mr. Paul Bussey City Manager City of Carlsbad 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, California 92008
Re: Community Cause appeal of San Diego Gas & Electric Company's 7th Fuel Oil Tank application
Dear Mr. Bussey:
As you know, San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E)has planned the construction of a 7th Fuel Oil Tank since early 1971 when the Specific Plan was approved showing the inclusion of such a tank. Considerable information has been made public relative to the tank. Public hearings were held by the San Diego Coast Regional Commission. The action of that Commission in approving the tank was appealed to the Coastal Commission by Community Cause and Coast Watch. The State Coastal Commission found, after an in-depth review and careful consideration of all the facts, that there were no significant environmental impacts and therefore declined to hear the appeal, thereby sustaining the approval ob- tained from the Regional Commission, which approval became final in May, 1975.
The Community Cause appeal implies that inadequate in- formation is available relative to the construction of this tank. Yet, the subject was thoroughly aired at numerous public hearings. Pursuant to our most recent application for a permit, the Carlshad Planning Director issued a negative declaration confirming that there is no environmental impact. The City Planning Commission, on an appeal of the Planning Director's decision, confirmed that a negative declaration was appropriate.
the 7th Fuel Oil Tank and Encina 5, the Marine Terminal, and other Encina activities. We repeat once more, that the Encina Unit 5 project, the 7th Fuel Oil Tank, and the Marine Terminal have no interrelationship. In fact, SDG&E requires the 7th Fuel Oil Tank now. It cannot wait until Encina 5 is built.
Community Cause implies there is a relationship between
.-
sDgE SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY D
Mr. Paul Bussey October 3, 1975 Page 2
Our present plans show that the Marine Terminal is in deep enough water to allow a 70,000 dead-welght-ton tanker to come in and off-load. Presently, there are two tanker deliveries per month, The tanker deliveries and fuel oil delivered are not based on the amount of storage that one has, but are determined by the amount of fuel burned at two major generating facilities. SDG&E's present rate of burn is approximately one million barrels per month. However, with the reduction in natural gas, which in the past has been available for generation, the need for fuel oil is increasing. Our projections show the increase will amount to between two and three hundred thousand barrels a month. All this leads to the fact that SDG&E needs additional storage to give it the operating flexibility needed for handling incoming tankers, for barging fuel oil to South Bay, and for maintaining a sufficient supply at Encina in case of an emergency.
Community Cause confuses the real issue by raising the question of barging. direct result of the amount of fuel burned, At South Bay we have a two-million barrel storage capacity, and this supports .
our electric generation there. storage as full as possible to allow for any type of emergency breakdown on our fuel system or any reduction in imported off- system resources. is established on a monthly basis to maintain full storage at South Bay. If we do not build the tank at Encina, then oc- casionally we would refuse tanker deliveries due to lack of storage. This would result in inadequate fuel oil supply to meet energy requirements, necessary cost increase that would be passed on to the rate- payers, many of whom live in Carlsbad.
this 7th Fuel Oil Tank has been disclosed and has been available for public review. To require an envirnmental impact report now, would serve no purpose other than to cause additional delays and increased costs. of the City's laws. appropriate permits.
The amount of barging to South Bay is a
It is our intention to keep that
The amount of barging from Encina to South Bay
This is not desirable and is an un-
All the information that we have about the construction of
We have complied with all of the requirements We are now entitled to the issuance of the
c
EGO GAS & ELECTR
-4
C COMPANY
Mr. Paul Bussey October 3, 1975 Page 3
It seems obvious that Community Cause's tactics are obstructionist and not an attempt to elicit additional facts, nor to protect environmental concerns.
SDG&E has been delayed in the construction of this needed tank for more than four months. The cost to the ratepayers in our service territory for this delay is already approximately $120,000 more than it would have cost absent the delay. delay would only increase such ccsts. Therefore, we respectfully request the earliest approval for the requested permits.
Further
Sincerely,
fl M./aykclc-
E. M. Gabrielson, Supervisor Land Planning
EMG : lina Extension: 1885
cc: City Council Members Don Agetep, Planning Director Carlsbad Community Cause
P.0 BOX 1831 SAN DIEGO. CALIFORNIA 92112
1714) 232-4252 \- . January 14, 1976
Attention: Mr. Donald Agatep
SUBJECT: LANDSCAPING - ENCINA F"EL OIL TANK NO. 7
Dear Don :
In accordance with our phased program for landscaping the Encina Power Plant property, we are enclosing a copy of the landscape and irrigation plans for Encina Fuel Oil Tank No. 7.
A berm has been constructed which will continue the theme of elevating the landscaping. The south bank of the middle sector of our Agua Hedionda Lagoon will be planted to enhance the character of the area.
We expect to begin this project following completion of the construction of Encina Fuel Oil Tank No. 7.
Sincerely,
c/ H. E. Richmond Land Planner
HER : lma
Extens ion : 1887
Encl.
AN INVESTOR-OWNED CORPORATION
*.
SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY
P 0 BOX 1831 SAN DIEGO. CALIFORNIA 92112
1714) 232-4252
January 4, 1977
Mr. Bud Plender Planning Director City of Carlsbad 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008
Dear Bud :
We are enclosing plans showing the landscaping and irrigation system for that portion of our property along the south rim of the middle sector of the Agua Hedionda Lagoon. This is in accordance with the permit for the construction of fuel oil storage tank number 7.
Please be advised that the irrigation system will be installed followed by the planting of the landscaping. You may be interested to know that a "drip system" will be utilized as a water conservation measure.
Very truly yours,
H:E. Richmond Land Planner
HER : dr Enclosure
JAN 5 1977
CITY OF CAPLSBAU manning Department
AN INVESTOR-OWNED COHPORATION
CARLSBAD COMMUNITY CAUSE
3831 MARGARET WAY
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
~
(714) 729 - 8065
APPEAL TO THE CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL CONCERNING THE DECLARATION OF NEGATIVE (NOH-
SIGNIFICANT) EI'*IIVIRONMEi'.ITAL EFFECT OF THE SAN DIEGO GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY 'S EXPANSION OF THE ENCINA TANK FARM. OCTOBER 2, 1975
DISPOS.4..
The Planning Department Staff analysis of August 18, 1975 states that the
excavated material is proposed to be deposited in an uninhabited area of the County
and that the County wi 11 have the responsi bi 1 i ty of determining the environmental
requirements for the project.
was to deposited at the proposed Macario Refinery site but they recently approached
Prior to August 18, San Diego Gas and Electric Company
the San Diego Regional Coast Commission about the possibility of obtaining an admin-
istrative permit to deposit a portion of the material on the beach. Regional Coast
Conmission staff informed San Diego Gas and Electric that they would be required t3
go through the regular pemit procedure.
for a regular permit.
ultimately decide to deposit the 142,OO cubic yards of dirt, and although the site
may be in the county, the impact of the disposal of that amount of dirt could indeed
have an adverse environmental effect.
and over what roads it will be hauled are all environmentally significant questions.
San Diego Gas and Electric has not applied
Since there appears to be some question as to where they will
Where it will be dumped, when it will be dumped,
NEED
Staff's analysis states the tank is planned to increase the total storage
capacity of SDGCtE and the additional supply is needed because of increased consumer
demand and an increasing requirement for fuel oil in generation of electricity. The
Californi ;I Coastal Zone Conservation Conimission Staff report on the tank states:
"The project should not result in significantly more oil being brought in at
Encina as the need for the project is only-justified on the basis of system reliabil-
ity and not the need for the storage for normal operations." These two statements
are contradictory. San Diego Gas and Electric testified to the State Coastal
Commission that they needed the tank, not to increase their storage capacity, but
that insufficient storage capacity is available at Encina to store oil temporarily
before it can be transferred to the coinpany's other facilities. If the Encina facility
is to be used as an oil depot for San Diego County this will most certainly have
significant environmental effects on the City of Carlsbad.
AIR QUALITY
Staff analysis says that the United States Environmental Protection Agency
issued an authorization to construct the tank, and that they found that the application
met a71 requirements of the Clearn Air Act as amended. State Coast Commission Staff
report says: "Although a storage tank is not a great a source of hydrocarbon emissions
as power plants for example, they are a significant point source.
for the tank are estimated at 0.9283 tons per day (57 lbs/day).
practice and staff discussion with EPA staff, it is apparent that the storage tank will
not receive an EPA permit unless the company makes an equivalent reduction in hydro-
carbon emissions somewhere in its system within the San Diego Air Basin because that
basin has been designated as a critical air area." (The first smog alert in the
history of San Diego was called for three days last October for this area - from
Solana Beach north to the county line.)
is determining how to make such equivalent reductions and hopefully that information
will be available.
Certainly, the tank will have a substantial effect on the air quality of Carlsbad.
The emission rates
Based on past EPA
Staff then continues by saying that the Company
To our knowledge, that information has never been made available.
-2-
TANKER AND BARGE TRAFFIC
Staff discusses at sone length the rnpact of the ncreased tanker traffic and the EIR
for Encina 5 which contains a discussion of the impacts of increased tanker traffic at
the mooring. That a spill could kill birds and mar the beauty and the recreational value
of the'beaches is discussed. Then they go on to say there is very little effect on beach
biota other than the purely mechanical effects such as mothering because the fuel is low
sulfur content fuel.
mental Protection Agency that unless they were granted a permit to build the Macario
Refinery they would not be able to guarantee purchase of low sulfur fuel beyond 1978.
Since the refinery is not as yet an accomplished fact, the environmental impact of higher
sulfur fuel spills should be considered.
primary function would be to remove sulfur from fuel brought in through the Encina mooring,
again indicating the need for determination of the hazard. Although SDG&E was granted
a permit to construct Encina 5 by the Air Pollution Control District on the basis of their
firm contracts to purchase low sulfur fuel through 1984, their statement to EPA contra-
dicts this.
San Diego Gas and Electric testified to the United States Environ-
In addition, should the refinery be built, its
In either case, it seems quite clear that incoming fuel oil may well be
other than low sulfur and consequently the hazards of high sulfur fuel spills must be
examined.
Staff does not address the added danger of oil spill that will come with the
routine barging of oil from the 450,000 barrel tank to San Diego to fuel the South Bay
.. facility, nor the air pollution from barge tank venting during these operations.
SUMMAT I ON
San Diego Gas and Electric Company as indicated by their Senior Vice President
Mr. Laffoon, intends to construct a fuel processing facility.
synergistic effect of the tank and its accompanying operations be fully evaluated to
permit the use of mi tigating conditions that will protect Carl sbad's envi rotmcnt.
specific plan that was adopted by the City of Carlsbad in their Ordinance 9279, August 3
Jt is imperative that the
The
- 3-
1 . - . . .
t A
1971, included the tank with Encina 5.
Encina 5 project and although Encina 5 did have an EIR, the 7th storage tank has never
had an EIR. An EIR is not a vehicle to stop a project, rather it is a vehicle to provide
the information to insure that the project will meet the standards of the City to protect
the City's environment. Clearly the disposal of the excavated material, the obvious
The 7th storage tank was separated from the
*
threat to the air quality, the increased tanker traffic and the routine barging all need
to be evaluated in order to determine the best possible means to insure that the project
will have no negative effect on the environment which is needlessly damaging, thoughtlessly
harmful , or i rreversi bl e.
Ordinance 9279 specified certain conditions for both Encina 5 and the expansion
of the tank farm. These conditions included that "Details concerning the leasing of park
lands shall be agreed upon between SDG&E and the City within one year after the City
has approved final rezoning. Location of baseball little league park and other athletic
facilities shall be subject to specific plan approval at the earliest practicable date.. ..'I
The Ordinance was adopted August 3, 1971.
wrote to Ted Richmond of San Diego Gas and Electric in response to a Planning Commission
query concerning progress of the proposed park site.
ordinance was signed.
fartin as approved by the ordinance without satisfying any of the conditions.
ordinance reads in part: "The Building Department shall not approve any structure until
such tine as the Planning Director has certified that all conditions of this Ordinance
have been satisfied." We are aware that this is a situation complicated by an Ordinance
which was a specific plan for both Encina 5 and the expansion of the tank farm and
further complicated by decision of the City that a review of the 400 foot Encina stack
is subject to review.
vague.
met by San Diego Gas and Electric Company before approval by the Building Department.
On March 4, 1974, Planning Director Agatep
It is now over 4 years since the
San Diego Gas and Electric is now proposing to expand their tank
The
-..
'
We are aware that the Ordinance has been criticized for being
But the intent of the Ordinance is certainly clear: certain conditions must be
.* -4-
The City Manager has now determined that perniits were granted that should not have been
granted. It is difficult if not impossible to separate the two projects and decide what
conditions apply to the tank farm expansion-, particularly since no formal assessment of the
environmental impacts of the tank has been made. As it is impossible to determine the
portion of the conditions that must be met before a portion of the Ordinance's specific
plan is approved,, Carlsbad Community Cause would respectfully petition the City Council
.
to reopen the specific plan to resolve some of these questions and that an EIR for the
tank be required as a necessary factor in formulating that specific plan. The only
possible alternative to this which guarantees to the people of Carlsbad what is legally
required by Ordinance 9279 is that all conditions be rnet before approval of any portion
of the specific plan is permitted construction.
to have been met years ago have not been met.
granting a permit for the storage tank is clearly contrary to the intent of Ordinance 9279.
If Ordinance 9279 is vague or unclear in its details, all the more reason to reopen the
study of the specific plan, for the intent of the conditions relating to the park is
quite clearly there.
Conditions of Ordinance 9279 which were
For the City Council to ignore this in
We were to have children playing on that facility years ago.
-5-
I
,* -- .- I*
Mr .. + q=z 7 m-
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM
EIA No. -mo -
Date: August 7. 1975
Name of Applicant: San DiegG Gas & Electric Company
Address: 101 Ash Street, San Diego, Califwnia 92101
Permit Applied For: Grading and Subseauent Buildi'nv. Permit
Case Nos.:
Location of Proposed Activity: The Tank Site is to be situated I between
the AT&SF RR and Interstate 5 and Cannon Road and the'Agua
Hedionda Lagoon as shown on San Diego Gas & Electric Company's
approved Specific Plan on-file with City of Carlsbad.
I. Background Information
1. Give a brief description of the proposed activity (attach any The project consists of . preliminary development plans).
excavating 142,000 cu.yds. from the-project site, constructing one 450,000 bbl fuel oil.storage tank and constructing a land- scaping berm. on file with the City of Carlsb.ad. Grading, building and landscaping plans are
..
._
.- 2. Describe the activity area, including distinguishing natural and manmade characteristics; a1 so provide precise slope analysis when appropriate. .
The site is generally flat', having been graded a number of years ago. site was constructed as part of the landscape berm far the existing tank immediately southerly of the project site.
A portion of the landscape berm for the new tank .
.. *.
.. e.
.. ..
.
..
..
I*
I.
.
11.
..
.'
- --
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT .ASSESSMENT FORM '
Environmental Impact Analysis .
Answer the following questions by p1acing.a check in the appropriate space.
Yes -
1. Could the project significantly change present land uses
2. Could the activity affect the use'of a recreational
3. Could the activity affect the functioning of an *
4. Could the activity result in the displacement of community residents?
5. area unique, that is, not found in other.parts of the County, State, or nation?
in the vicinity of the activity? . -
area, or area of important aesthetic value?
established community or neighborhood? -
-
Are any of the natural or man-made features in the activity -
6. , Could the activity significantly affect a historical or
7* Could the activity significantly affect the potential .use, extraction, or conservation of a scarce natural res- ource?
archaelogical site or its setting? -
-
8. Does the activity area serve as a habitat, food source nesting place, source of water, etc. for rare or endangered wildlife o,r fish species?
9. Could the activity significantly affect fish, wildlife or plant life?
10. Are there any rare or endangered plant species in the activity area?
11. Could the activity change 'existing features of anylof the city's lagoons, bays, or tidelands?
.
12. Could the activity change existing features of any of the City's beaches?
13. Could the activity result in the erosion or elimination
14. Could the activity serve to encourage development of . presently undeveloped areas or intensify development of already developed areas?
of agricultural 1 ands? '. .\
..
C.
x
X
'X
X
X -
x
c_-
x
.. . .. . ..
' ..
'Yes - ' No -
15. Will the activity require a variance from established environmental
16. Will the activity require certification, authorization or issuance
ageficy? 5= ..
X. standards (air, water, noise, etc)? --
* of a permit by any local, State or Federal environmental control
X -. -
17. Will the activity require issuance of a variance or conditional
18. Will the activity involve the application, use, or disposal of
19. Will the activity involve construction of facilities in a flood
X use permit. by the City? - -
potentially hazardous materials? . X
plain? -, -
-
4
X
I11 .
20. Will the activity involve construction of facilities on a slope of
25 percent or greater? . _I_
21. Will- the activity involve constructfon of facilities in the area of an active fault?
22. Could the activity result in the generation of significant
amounts of noise? -
23. Could the activity result in the generation of signfficknt amounts of dust?
24. Will the activity involve the burning-of brush, trees, or
25. Could the activity result in a signifjcant change in the quality of any portion of the region's air or water resources?
'X
X -
X
X - -
X . other materfals? -
- . (Should no.te surface, ground water, off-shore). X
26. Will there be a'significant change to existing land form? I- -
(a) indicate estimated grading to be done in cubic yards. 142,000
(b) percentage of alteration to the present land form.
*. (c) maximum height of cut or fill slopes.
27. Will the activity result in substantial increases in the use of utilities,
State of No Siqnificant Environmental Effects
If you have answered yes to one or more of the questions in Section 11 but you
think the activity will have no significant enviranmental effects, indicate your reasons bclow: The tank project will not have an adverse environmental im- pact. The tank is below eye-level and well screened from public virew. The Planning Commission and City Council approved this tank in their approval of our Specifiq Plan. The landscaping will.provide a pleasant aesthetic
improvement to the areal The EPA has issued an air quality permit and the Coastal Commission has issued. us a permit..
21 ft?
sewers, drains or streets? -L
..
I_ * . _.
'? 8
IV: Comments or Elaboration5 to Any of the Questions in Section 11.
(If additional space is needed for answering any questions, attach additional - sheets as may be needed.) .
.(Person completing report) Signature -gLMJrn..&LL&4L
Date Signed:
Conclusions (To be completed by the Planning Director). Place a check
in the appropriate box.
-. . Further information is required.
It has been determined that the project will not have significant environnental effects. ( ) You must submit a preliminary environmental
should make an appointment with the Planning Director to discuss
. further processing of your project, in accordance with Chapter 19.04 of. the Municipal Code.
impact statement by the following date e ( 1 You $
k*
-. DATE RECEIVED: LwA \\ , \q> 1
..
..
.\
...
.. ._ .. .. .-
..b -
.. . .. .. .. .. ..
. ..
. _I
Revised 7/3/74. -. ._ . .: .*
1. ..
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 941 11
JiL 2 ;m San Diego Gas & Electric Co. Attn: 3. Dietz P. 0. Box 1831 San Diego CA 92112
Dear Mr. Dietz:
In accordance with provisions of the Clean Air Act, as amended (42 USC 1857 et se .), the Environmental Protection Agency has reviewed
a new 450,000 barrel floating roof storage vessel at the Encina Power Plant, the application -% su mitted by the San Diego Gas 8 Electric Co. to construct
Carlsbad, California. I
A request for public comment regarding EPA's proposed action on the above application has been published. After consideration of the expressed view of all interested persons, including State and local agencies and pertinent Federal statutes and regulations the enclosed Authority to Construct/Modify a Stationary Source has been issued for the facility described above. This action does not constitute a significant change from the proposed action set forth and offered for public comment.
notice . Authorization to Construct shall take effect on the date of this
Si ncerel y
Air & Hazardous Materials *Division
4
Enclosures
cc: Calif. ARB San Diego APCD
*,e \. .- .. .., ..
.I .- . '*
Authorization to Construct/Modif! a Stationary Source
In compliance with provisions of the Clean Air Act, as ainended (42 U.S.C. 1857 et x.), the San Diego Gas & Electric
Co. is authorized to conEruct: One (1) new 450,000 barrel floating roof storage vessel for use in storing low sulfur fuel oil in accordance with the plans submitted with the application and with the Federal regulations governing Review of New or Modified Sources (40 CFR 52.233(g)) and other condi- tions attached to this document and made a part of this autho- rization.
Failure to comply with any condition or term set forth in this authorization shall constitute a violation of 40 CFR 52.233(g), a federally promulgated portion of the California. State Implementation Plan, and will be considered grounds for enforcement action pursuant to Section 113 of the Clean Air Act.
This authority to construct a stationary source grants no relief from the responsibility for compliance with any other applicable provision of 40 CFR €?arts 52, 60 and 61 OK any applicable Federal, State, or local regulations.
This authorization shall become effective immediately.
For the Regional Administrator
qk8), I*,-! @<;A>
Fran M. Covington, Director Air 6r Hazardous Materikxs
Division
CXTY ,OF CARLSBAD
ENY KRQNM€NTAL PROTECTrON ORRINANCE
DECLARATION OF NEGATIVE (NON-SIGNIFICANT) ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECT
APPLICANT: San Diego Gas and Electric' ' 101 Ash Street San Diego, CA
TYPE OF APPLICATION: Grading pe6mit for Tank #7 at the Encina Power PSant
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Excavation of 142,000 cu yds of dirt fn order to construct a 450,000 bbl fuel oil storage tank and install a landscaped berm.
(SEE ATTACHED MAP) PROJECT LOCATION: Northwest of the intersection of 1-5 and Cannon Rd.
I declare that I have examined the informatian far the above gro,ject as su6mTtted by the. applfcant Assessment questiTJnnaire on file in my office as a publtc document, f;; i~ my determtnqtDn tfiat this progect will not have a signif-icnnt effect.up- bn the environment' k7't;h-i-n the. meaning of 'the Cal'lfarnia Environment61
Quality Act and the Environmental Protection Ordtnance. of 1972 for the following reasons:
and on the basis aT the Environmental Impact
1. The project will have a negligible Impact on vegetation,
2. No special soil conditions exist which would prohihft the
wildltfe, archaeology and community services.
project.
3. The Environmental Protection Agency has stated that the project will not exceed established air quality standards.
4. The tank will be placed below grade and obscured by B land-
5. The probability of an.011 spIf1 resulting from increased
scaped berm to minimize aesthetic frnpacts,
tanker trafffc is remote.
FOR FURTHER ANALYSIS OF THESE rssu.Es, SEE THE ATTACHED DISCUSSTON
The Environmental Impact Assessment ~$11 be available for pubtic review and comment for FIVE'DAYS from the da
or
STAFF ANALYSIS August 18, 1975
PROJECT: Enviornmental Impact Assessment for grading permit to allow construction of Tank #7 and related landscaping at the Encina Power Plant s.ite
1.. Project Description: The project involves the excavation of 42,000 cu yds of dirt, constrution of a 450,000 bbl fuel oil storage tank and construction of a landscape berm.
11. Discussion:
A. Sot1 Conditions: A soils investigation was conducted in 1974 by Benton Engineering, Inc., for the Tank #7 site. Their report indfcates:
1. The extsting soils located 19 feet below the existing grade in the area of the proposed tank will prov-ide excel lent support for the structure.
2. Calculations based on shear tests performed on undistur6ed soils beneath the finish grade give safe allowafile bearing pressure of 8003 lbs, per 5.F. for faotimgs at least one foot beneath the undisturbed natural ground surface.
3. Jfncc the total welght of soils to be removed exceeds maxihum loading which will be imposed by the tank, ncr lang term settlement is anticipated.
4, All Excavated soil will be satisfactory for fSlf when campacted to at last 90% of the maximum dry density.
5. Composite cut and fill slopes up to 33 feet high in the area of the tank will have a safety factor of 2t least 2 when constructed at a slope of 1k:l or f 1 atter.
B. Disposal: The excavated soi.1 is praposed to Be dep~s-ited fn an uninhabited area of the County. Consequently, the County of San Diego will have the responsibility of deter- mining the environmenthl requirements for that phase for the project. Transport of the excavated fill should not pose any problems.
C. - Need: The tank is planned to increase the total storage capactty of SDG&E by 0.45 million barrels to 3.75 m.illion barrels. This addl'tional supply is needed because of tncrcased consumer demand and an Oncreasing requirement for fuel o.fl in generation of electricity. Much of the addttional storage will be to meet the needs of the South Bay Generating Plant. The fuel oil is to be stored at the Encina Plant and shipped by barge when needed to
- ..
the 24th Avenue Terminal.
D. Air Quality: The hydrocarbon emmission rates from Tank #7 are estimated to be 0.0283 tons per day, assuming one heating cycle and withdrawal loss per month. As a compardson, the APCD Ambient Air Quality Standards have been set at 24'parts per million hydrocarbons (or, roughly 54 tons per day).
The proposed tank has a floating roof design which substantially controls leakage over the older cone-shaped roof design.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has issued an authbrizdtion to construct the tank. In granting the authorization the EPA found that the application met a71 requirements of the Clean Air Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1857 et seq.).
E. Aesthetics: The tank is prspsed to be placed below grade an a landscaped berm will obscure the tank from public view. The area around the tank is propsed to be landscaped with eucalyptus and hydroseeded with native flowering peranniais.
F. Tanker Traffic: Currently there are about two tankers per month delviering a total af 700,000 barrels 20 the Encina Plant. Installation of Tank #7 will increase monthly shl'pments to 900,000 barrels and will require two to three 250,000-450,000 barrel tankers per month. By 1977 ft is anticipated that tanker delivieries wili increase to 4 per month. Tankers larger than 450,000 barrels cannot be accommodated at the Encina mooring. It is expected that 1 barge per month will be required to ship fuel oil to the 24th Avenue Terminal.
The State Public Utilities Commission has certified an EIR for the Encina 5th Unit which contains a discussioli on the tmpacts of increased tanker traffic at 2he moarfng. T&i primarr tmpact fs, of course, the increased probability Q? an accWenta'l: otl ~~€11. Such a spill could kill birds and mar the beauty and recreational value of beaches. RX6 tKe lcrw sulfur content fuel oil, there is very letle effect on beach biota other than the purely mechani~cal effects such as smothering.
Trie PuBlfc Uttltties Commission EIR contains a detafled conti'ngency plan out1 ining measures taken to reduce the pOSSlt6t'1ftr of an oil spill and also emergency measures
-2-
-.
to be employed to reduce impacts of a spill should one occur. Among the measures taken to reduce the possibility of an oil spill include:
Inspection and testing of all mooring equipment prior to each oil transfer operation.
0 Periodic removal of submarine hoses for inspection, 'static pressure testing and, replacement if necessary.
Visual inspection of the pipeline by divers.
0 Use of fill system relief valves which will preclude over-pressurizing the system due to thermal expansion.
0 Pipeline shutoff and check valves near the beach which will prevent backflow to the ocean.
0 Submarine hose with working pressure rating more than twice the maximum ship discharge pressure. Burst strength is greater than 14 times ship discharge pressure.
@Vacuum pump in fill line capable of pulling 25 inches of vacuum.
.Pressure relief system on ship reloading pumps in the event of pipeline overpressures.
0 Continuous communications between tanker and terminal operating personnel by use of ship to terminal radio during the entire operating cycle.
system. *Power operated closure valves at key points in the
0 A boat with divers patrols the area during fuel transfer to inspect for any signs of oil leakage.
The Oil Spill Contingency Plan contains detailed measures for containment and clean up of an oil spill. SDG&E has an oil containment boom and stock piled equipment in order to effectively deal with a spill. The contingency Plan is on file with the Planning Department and available for public review.
In 18 years of operation, the Encina Marine Terminal has had an incident free record of oil spills. It is considered that the likelihood of an oil spill at this location is low, although the numerical probability has not been computed. The U.S. Coast Guard estimates that the maximum spill which could occur at the site would be of medium severity and would involve approxi- mately 1530 barrels.
-3-
CARLSBAD COMMUNITY CAUSE
3831 MARGARET WAY
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
(714) 729 - 8065
August 21, 1975
Mr. Paul Bussey City Manager
City of Carlsbad
Carlsbad, California
Dear Mr. Bussey,
Carl sbad Comniuni ty Cause protests the Carl sbad P1 anni ng Comi ssion' s decision to not require an EIR on the construction of a 450,000 barrel storage tank at the San Diego Gas and Electric Encina Power Plant tank farm.
The tank is located below grade to reduce the visual impact of the
storage tank. of 150,000 cubic yards of material. environmental effects. No consideration was given at either the San
Diego Regional Coast Commission or the California Coastal Zone Conservation Commission to where the disposal site was to be located because of the
insistance of San Diego Gas and Electric Company that it was to be located outside the Coastal Permit Zone.
The excavation will result in the necessity to dispose This could have substantial adverse
San Diego Gas and Electric has since requested that the San Diego
Regional Coast Commission grant then an admisistrative permit to dispose of at least part of the 150,000 cubic yards of material on the beach. This request was denied.
Because of the continuing uncertainty on the disposal of the material from the excavation and because there has never been an Environmental Impact Report on the project, the City of Carlsbad must require that the reaulatiors of the Citv Carlsbad Environmental Protect on Ordinance
of 1972 and Ordinance No.*8063 are complied with.
We respectfully request that the $50.00 appeal fee waived
fee is excessive and denies the rights of citizens to pet government.
Sincerely,
'Joan Jgckson
,>. I , * <?rAe&P;,
Civic Action Chairperson
because the tion their
4/C. NO.
NQ . .44321
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
TOTAL I \To
'I
I I
CARLdAD COMMUNITY CAC4C
3831 MARGAREl WAY
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
(714) 729-8065
APPEAL TO THE CARLSBAD CITY PLANNING COMKISSION CONCERNING THE DECLARATIOY OF NEGATIVE (NON-SIGNIFICANT) ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECT OF THE SAN DIEPJO GAS AND ELECTRIC
COMPANY'S EXPANSION OF THE ENCiNA TANK FARM. SEPTEMBER 1, 1975
DISPOSAL
The Planning Department Staff analysis of August 18, 1975 states that the
excavated material is proposed to be deposited in an uninhabited area of the County
and that the County will have the responsi bi 1 i ty of determining the environmental
requirements for the project. Prior to August 18, San Diego Gas and Electric
Company stated to the California Coastal Zone Corrmission that the excavated material
was to be deposited at the proposed tlacario Refinery site but they recently asked
the San Diego Regional Coast Commission for an Administrative Permit to deposit a
portion of the material on the beach. This request was denied. Since there is
still some question as to where they will ultimately decide to deposit the 142,000
cubic yards of dirt, and although the site may be in the county, the impact of the
disposal of that amount of dirt could indeed have an adverse environmental effect.
Where it will be dumped, when it will be dumped, and over what roads it will be
hauled are all environmentally significant questions.
NEED -
Staff's analysis states the tank is planned to increase the total storage
capacity ofSDG&E and the additional supply is needed because of increased consumer
demand and an increasing requirement for fuel oil in generation of electricity. The
California Coastal Zone Conservation Commission Staff report on the tank states:
--
"The project should'not result in significantly more oil being brought in at
Encina as the need for the project is only justified on the basis of system reliabil-
ity and not tk need for the storage for normal operations." These two statements,
are contradictory. San Diego Gas and Electric testified to the State Coastal
Commission that they needed the tank, not to increase their storage capasity, but
that insufficient storage capacity is available at Encina to store oil temporarily
before it can be transferred to the company's other facilities.
facility is to be used as an oil depot for San Diego County this will most certainly
have significant environmental effects on the City of Carlsbad.
If the Encina
AIR QUALITY
Staff analysis says that the United States Environmental Protection Agency
issued an authorization to construct the tank, and that they found that the
application met all requirements of the Clean Air Act as amended.
Commission Staff report says: "Although a storage tank is not as great a source of
hydrocarbon emissions as power plants for example, they are a significant point
source.
57 lbs/day).
is apparent that the storage tank will not receive an EPA permit unless the cotnpany
State Coast
The emission rates for the tank are estimated at 0.0283 tons per day
Based on past EPA practice and staff discussion with EPA staff, it
makes an equivalent reduction in hydrocarbon emissions somewhere in its system
within the San Diego Air Basin because that basin has been designated as a critical
air area." (The only smog alert in the history of San Diego was called for three
days last October for this area - froin Solana Beach north to the county line.)
Staff then continues by saying that the company is determining how to make such
equivalent reductions and hopefully that information will be available. To our
knowledge, that information has never been made available. Certainly, the tank
will have a substantial effect on the air quality of Carlsbad.
-2-
--
TANKER AND BARGE TRAFFIC
to the
a perm
of low
fact,
Staff discusses at some length the impact of the increased tanker traffic
and the EIR for Encina 5 whi -4 contains a discussion of the impacts of increased
tanker traffic at the mooring. That a spill could kill birds and mar the beauty
and recreational value of the beaches.
effect on beach biota other than the purely mechanical effects such as smothering
because the fuel is low sulfur content fuel.
They go on to say there is very iittle
San Diego Gas and Electric testified
United States Environmental Protection Agency that unless they were granted
t to build the Macario Refinery they would not be able to guarantee purchase
sulfur fuel beyond 1978. Since the refinery is not as yet an accomplished
he environmental impact of h
In addition, should the refinery be
sulfur from fuel brought in through
for determination of the hazard. A
gher sulfur fuel spills should be
built, its primary function would
the Encina mooring, again indicat
though SDGslE was granted a permit
considered.
be to remove
ng the need
to construct
Encina 5 by the Air Pollution Control District on the basis of their firm contracts
to purchase low sulfur fuel through 1984, their statement to EPA contradicts this.
In either case, it seems quite clear that incoming fuel oil may well be other than
low sulfur and consequently the hazards of high sulfur fuel spills must be examined.
Staff does not address the added danger of oil spill that will come with the
routine barging of oil from the 450,030 barrel tank to San Diego to fuel the South
Bay facility, nor the air pollution from barge tank venting during these operations.
SUMMAT I ON
San Diego Gas and Electric Company as indicated by their Senior Vice President
14r. Laffoon, intends to construct a fuel processing facility. It is imperative that
the synergistic effect of the tank and its accompanying operations be fully evaluated
- 3-
. -.
to permit the use of mitigating conditions that will protect Carlsbad's environment.
The specific plan that was adopted by the City of Carlsbad in their Ordinance 9279,
August 3, 1971, included the tank with Encina 5. The 7th storage tank was separated
from the Encina 5 project and although Encina 5 did have an EIR, the 7th storage
tank has never had an EIR.
a vehicle to provide the information to insure that the project will meet the standards
of the City to protect the City's environment. Clearly, the disposal of the excavated
material, the obvious threat to the air quality, the increased tanker traffic and
the routine barging all need to be evaluated in order to determine the best possible
means to insure that the project will have no negative effect on the environment
which is needlessly damaging, thoughtlessly harmful , or irreversible.
petition the Carlsbad City Planning Commission to 'require an Environmental Impact
Report on the expansion of the Encina Tank Farm and accompanying operations.
rely on the word of San Diego Gas and Electric Company in view of their conflicting
testimony is clearly unsatisfactory.
An EIR is not a vehicle to stop a project, rather it is
We therefore
To
- 4-
..
I
,
..
.. .. 7
.: .. ..
L . ..