Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1976-04-20; City Council; 3625; REQUEST FOR AN AMENDMENT TO SP 144 TO PERMIT CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE 400' STACK| APPLICANT: SDG&EI ,~ I .. e- ,'. ' XICTY' 'OF. CARLSUAD :(I) t' c' .-. '" Initial; Dept. Hd. City Atty v/' ... .36 25. .... A6ENDA BILL RO: DATE:. DE.PARTNENT:. ' " " PLANNING DEPARTMENT ................. ....... . . ApP41.20; .1976. ' ' ' ............... c City Mgr. .................................... .> SU 83 ECT : REQUEST FOR AN AMENDMENT TO SP-144 TO PERMIT .CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE 400' STACK . A.P.P['.ICA'NT.i'.': ...... SDG&E. . .... ................ . 'Sta't'em6n't' '0.f 'the. .Matter The Applicant, SDG&E, is .re.questing an amend of Specific Plan (SP 144) to permit .construction of a 'single 400' stack replace the 4 existing stacks at the Encina Power Plant. The City of Carlsbad approved a previous amendment request. on November 1973; however, because other discretionary approvals were necessary frc Public Utilities Commission and the California Coastal Commission, the permic expired and the Applicant has requested a 'new amendment. . .The proposed amendment was presented .to the Planning commi.ssion at a pu hear4ng on January 28, 1976. The Commission continued the matter to March 24, 1976 to permit Staff..to include a report on the cause-s arid ef . .of' an ideutifi~d "falloLrt'l ~roblern. The Planning Commission, at their meeting on March 24, 1976, unanimous1 recommended approval of the .proposed amendment for reasons and subject condi.tions of P.C. Resolution 1224.' The major issues presented to the 'Planning Commission by the Public, the San Diego Air Pollution Control the Applicant and the Staff are'discussed in the attached Staff rep.ort. : .. Exhibits: Ordinance NO. qq3-4 %- . P.C. Resolution 1224 Staff Report of April 12, 7976 ~~~~~~~~d~tion: If the City Council concurs-witkc the findings and recommendations of planning Commission Resolution No. 1224, Ghi€:h have been -incor$orated in Ordinance No. ?+5L-'-,-yOUr action should b'e to intr.oduce Ordinance No. y/-i-k-- Council action ..4-20-76 Following the public hearin.g, staff was instructed to prepare a ordinance, ,,approving an amendment to SP-144 to permit construct . of a 400' stack, for the next. meeting, incorporating the concen of .the Council as to its findings and the conditions*to be imp0 Ordinance #9456 was introduced for a first reading as amended. 4-27-76 5-4-76 .ordinance #9456 was given a second reading and adopted. . < i. 3, 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 91 10 11 12 13 14 a "J "0 15 16 mG -I 17 u:, ?a wo gL8d gE2g 18 zg li: 'r- n 19 2 a 20 21 22 9 OLWd a022 -a % ES a z 2E;g .E 0 23 24 25 26 27 28 , . fi4 * 0 ORDINANCE NO, 9456 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, AFENDING ORDINANCE NO. 9279 BY TI-IE AMENDPIIENT OF THE SPECIFIC PLAN ADOPTED THEREBY TO PEZTIT THE CONSTRUCTION, SUBJECT TO CERTAIN CONDITIONS, OF A 400 FOOT SINGLE STACK TO REPLACE FOUR EXISTING STACKS AT THE ENCINA POWER PLANT ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED TEST OF INTERSTATE 5 AND SOUTH OF THE AGUA HEDIONDA LAGOON (SP-144(B)). APPLICANT: SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY. The City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, doe: ordain as follows: SECTION 1: That it does find and declare as follows: 1. A verified application for an amendment to SP-144 to E mit the construction of a 400 foot sing1.e stack to replace the four existing stacks at the Encina Power Plant has been receivc for the following described property! Those portions of Rancho Agua Hedionda, Map NQ. 823 in thc City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, together with that portion of Block W Palisades Number Two, Map No. 1803 in the City of Carlsbad, County o& San Diego. Also being Parcel 6, Page 07, Book 206; Parcels 24, 25, 26, & 27, Page 01, Book 210; Parcel 21, Page 21, Book 211 and Parcel 14, Page 01, Book 212 of the Assessor's Map of San Diego County. - 2. In accord with Title 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Cod€ the matter was referred to the Planning Commission for public hearing. 3. A duly noticed public hearing was held before the Planning Commission at the time and in the place specified in said notice on January 28, 1976 and continued to March 24, 197( at which time all interested persons were heard. I I. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 l3 0 14 Em .IT d O g 15 E$ (5, OLWQ 'Do=$ 16 7-> y0 Ot--<E mgi ,i. 36 -1 17 6~~2 18 19 >u r- u 20 21 22 23 . 24 25 26 27 28 6 $kg:- q z 0 0 4. The applicant has complied with the Public Facility Element of the General Plan and has provided the necessary information which ensures Public Facilities will be available concurrent with need. 5, The subject application has complied with the requi ments of the City of Chrlsbad "Environmental Protection Ordina of 1972" in that an Environmental Impact Report on the project was certified in 1973 and has been fully supplemented with additional current information which constitutes prior complia In addition, an EIR for the entire related Encina 5 project as certified. by the Public Utilities Commission acting as lead agency on the project has been considered. 6. The Planning Commission unanimously recommended the 'I approval of the applicant's request. 7. That a duly noticed public hearing was held before City Council on April 20, 1976. 8. At said public hearing,'upon hearing and considerin the testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons who desire to be heard, the City Council considered all factors relating the Specific Plan Amendment and made the following findings of fact: (A) All conditions of City Council- Ordinance 9273 have been complied with and this amendment is consistent with said ordinance and the provisions of the P-U z (B) The 400-foot stack is necessary to provide an effec method of dispersing the emissions of the Encina Board and because of its relationship with Encina E will improve the overall quality of air in this are . Power Plant as required by the State Air Resources 2. # 1 2 3 4 5 7 8 9 6i 10 * 0 (C) SDGStE has indicated that some of the corrosion dama Electric Company Encina Power Plant (more specifica the Terramar Area) is probably started or caused by particles from the Encina Plant. SDGStE has accepte responsibility for such damage and further stated t they will meet with individual Terramar residents t resolve the damage claims and that they are also working with the San Diego County APCD staff to develop a work program that will assure the City an County that necessary corrective action will be tak by the Company.. Unless this ordinance is amended, the "fallout" problem will be solved prior to the use of Encina 5 and the stack. "fallout", in the vicinity of the San Diego Gas & (D) The approval of this amendment, with conditions, wi improve air quality in the immediate vicinity of th plant. To the extent there are adverse environmental effec to the project, they will be mitigated by the con- ditions of approval. (E) 12 0 14 l3 a mw .a 3 g N 15. 58 o) 16 . dL"Q no== z op := >z m$Q- -1 17 u:, ?,a $&St- 18 20 v) .>o - wo &$22 q ; 19 k 0 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 (F) The identical project was approved in i5-/3 and the conditions surrounding that approval have not mater ally changed and the applicant has relied on such i approval. (G) The construction of the stack will be accompanied by the removal of the four existing stacks and a screening of all duct work so that the aesthetic ef of the plant with the 400-foot stack will be no wor than the existing-,four stacks. The project is a logical extension of an existing use located in an area already committed to heavy (H) public utility operations. (I) This amendment is consistent with the Carlsbad Gene. Plan and all applicable specific plans. SECTION 2. That Ordinance No. 9279 is amended by the amendment of Section 2 of said ordinance to replace the Specif Plan Map attached thereto with a revised plan labeled SP-144Bf Exhibit A, dated October 10, 1975, on file in the'planning Department and incorporated by reference herein, which is here1 adopted. .3, .. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 14 -= 4: 8 N 15 E$ cn 16 a OL!J-- 5?c <z o i 1'7 Iuu 5kSt; gEq 18 ze 11 'c- aa E 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 13 n Lo qz <. 34 u .E V 0 0 SECTION 3: That Ordinance No. 9279 is miended by the me ment of Section 2 of said ordinance to add Condition No. 14 to read as follows: "14. In addition to the above conditions, the revised PO tions of the specific plan which permit theconstruc of the 400-foot stack and the removal of the four existing stacks shall be accomplished in accord wit the revised specific plan SP-1445 and shall be subj to the following conditions: (A) All applicable requirements of any law, ordin or regulation of the State of California, Cit of Carlsbad., and any other governmental entit shall be complied with. I (B) Ail- ground iighting shdil Le ai-ianged to re51 away from adjoining properties and streets. (C) Any mechanical and/or electrical equipment to located on the roof of the structure shall be screened in a manner acceptable to the Planni Director. Detailed plans for said screening shall be submitted, in triplicate, to the Planning Director for approval. I I (D) Air pollution equipment capable of monitoring ambient particulates, NO, and SO2 concentrati and other enissions from the Encina Plant as as air quality in the Carlsbad area shall be placed in service not later than six months f lowing the effective date of this ordinance. number of stations, type of equipment and loc tion of stations shall be to the satisfaction the APCD Control Officer and the City or' Carl Should the Air Pollution Control Officer of t San Diego County Air Pollution Control Distri require additional air quality or emissions monitoring equipment and funds for air qualit analysis in connection with their current study of emissions from the Encina Power Plan the applicant shall supply said equipment an6 funds as deemed necessary by the Air Pollutic Control Officer, !@!he cost of said equipment 4. 9, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 e 1) shall not exceed $150,000. The requested func for air quality analysis shall not exceed $50,000 per year. County Air Pollution Control District to less( 'or otherwise control emissions from the Encin: Power Plant are hereby incorporated as a part of this Specific Plan.Amendment and SDGstE sha: comp?v fully therewith. The costs of such measures shall be borne by SDG&E. (E) Any future measure required by the San Diego (F) SDG&E will obtain a report of compliance from City staff regarding the conditions of this ordinance and. fron the San Diego County Air Pollution Control Officer regarding compliancc with the applicable conditions of the ordinanc and with air quality standards, and! forward ii the City Council five years from the date of motion of the City Council, or the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission and City Council shall review the report with reqard ti conformznce to the corjitinns of th~s ordinanc and to regulations required by other applicab . this ordinance or as otherwise required by 14 %co -I g 15 -)u 16 dLWQ PO'Z 2 i5a GZ$E aG u:. fa -I 17 5L8d %E22 18 zi2 y 13 D 6 a; ; wv '5 a 19 >- s 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 t 0 regulatory agencies, including, but not limit( to, the San Diego County Air Pollution Contro District, Public Utilities Commission and Sta Coastal Com.ission. The City reserves the ric to amen6 this specific plan SP-144B as necess to add conditions to ensure such compliance. After the initia1,report is filed the City Co may, by motion, require additional reports as they deem necessary. I (G) In the event that the City of Carlsbad determ - that the 400-foot stack is no longer necessar a method of air emission dispersion, the 400- stack shall be removed at the applicant's exp The applicant may request an amendment to thi specific plan to provide a reasonable extensi the period for such removal. (H) The applicant shall make a formal commitment conduct the studies necessary to determine wh operating practices and/or emissions control devices are capable of eliminating the partic "fallout'! problem,' A schedule for the comple sat-isfactory to the San Diego County Air Poll . of the studies shall be established which is 5. - ., .l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 14 .a a 15 16 ,is 0 5a -I 17 5zSt; 18 't- fx 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 l3 n 3 2% 52 0) . dLWQ nozg 70 wo z :LE g$:s re y as E - V 0 * I. Control District Officer, the Air Pollution Control District Hearing Board or Court of Lah SDC-&E shall fully conply with the abatement order entered in petition 110.607. The applicant shall further agree to pay clairr for property damage resulting from the "fallou problem until compliance with the abatement or is achieved. 'I The particulate "fallout" problem shall be cor trolled tathe satisfaction of the City Counci of the City of Carlsbad and of the Air Polluti Control Officer prior to the final building PC clearance for Encina 5 and. the single stack. (I) Not later than eight months after the Building Inspector signs the final inspection for the 400-foot stack, the four stacks on the existir Encina Power Plant shall be completely removed (J) SDG&E shall file an annual report with the Cit Council regarding improvements in plant and cpcratizg Frsczdures during the preced-ing year k which reduce the emission of air pollutants resulting from the operation of Encina Units 3 2, 3 and 4. SDG&E: shall operate the plant in full compliar with all air quality standards as-are or may 1: established by the APCD. If themcnitcring stat indicate the standgrds are Seing exceeded at i time, SDG&E ,shall compLy with all directions c APCD to reduce,through any reasonable means, pollutants from the plant. -_ I (K) (L) In the event SDG&E files for a variance or ot4 form of administrative or legal relief from t4 requirements of APCD, they shall concurrently forward a copy of any such filing, or any sub- sequent communications in connection therewitl- to the City of Carlsbad. SECTION 4. That the thirty-five foot height limit estab: ed by Condition No. 5 of Section 2, of Ordinance No. 9279, sha: not apply to the 400-foot stack or the duct work and screening 6. I -8 *. ** J, 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 X'1 0 14 a2 !l S 2 15 16 .oo== z zc DG u:, 5a i 17 5GSC; 8z:g 18 zo v) >-o c- 'm ;:us OC.,P uo '5 ; 19 o * 0 be constructed on top of the main generation building in conjur tion with the construction of the stack and the removal of the fmr existing stacks." EFFECTIVE DATE: This ordinance shall be effective thirt] days after its adoption, and the City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this orzinance and cause it to be published at least once in the Carlsbad Journal within fifteen days afte; its adoption. an adjourned INTRODUCED AND FIrZST PEAT) at / regular meeting of the Carlsbad City Council held on the27thday of Apri 1 , 197' and thereafter PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of said Council 1 on the 4th clay of May , 1976, by the following vote, to 1 AYES: Councilmen Packard, Skotnicki and Councilwoman C NOES : Councilman Lewis ABSENT: None ABSTAINED: Councilman Fraze ATTEST: 23 - 24 '25 26 27 28 . 7. . 3, 2 '3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 e 0 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1224 RESOLUTION OF THE P.LANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOM- PLAN (SP-144) TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 400-FOOT SINGLE STACK TO REPLACE THE FOUR EXISTING STACKS, AT THE ENCINA POWER PLANT. CASE NO. : SP-144(B) APPLICANT: SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC CO. MENDING APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMIZNT TO SPECIFIC WHEREAS, a verified application for an amendment to SP-1 to permit the construction of a 400 Et. single stack to repla the four existing stacks has been received for the following described property: Those portions of Rancho Agua Hedionda, Map No. 823 in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, toget- her with that portion of Block W Palisades Number Two, Map No. 1803 in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego. Also being Parcel 6, Page 07, Book 206; Parcels 24, 25, 26, & 27, page 01, Book 210; Parcel 21, Page 21, Scak 211 zrid Farccl 14, Pagc: C1, Bcok 212 of the Assessor's Map of San Diego County, WHEREAS, in accord with Title 21 of the Carlsbad Municip I Code, the matter was referred to the Planning Commission for public hearing. WHEREAS, a duly notice-d public hearing was held at the t and in the place specified in said notice on Jan. 28, 1976 an continued to March 24, 1976 at which time all interested pers were heard; and WHEREAS, the applicant has complied with the Public Faci Element of the General Plan and has provided the necessary in formation which insures Public Facilities will be available c current with need; and WHEREAS, the subject application has complied with the r quirements of the City of Carlsbad "Environmental Protection I' I. 2 . 3 * 5 6 7 8' 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 * 21 28 0 . Ordinance of 1972" in that an Environmental Impact Repoft on project was certified in 1973 and has been fully supplemented additional current information which constitutes prior compli In addition, an EIR for the entire related Encina 5 project a certified by the Public Utilities Commission acting as lead a on the project has been considered; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and consid ing the tesimony and arguments, if any, of all persons who de Q sired to be heard, said Commission considered all factors re1 ing to the Specific Plan Amendment and found the following fa and reasons to exist; (1) All conditions of City Council Ordinance 9279 have been complied with and this amendment is consistent with said ordinance and the provisions of the PU zo The stan,!: IC C~C~SC~:TT 3 to ?rovi.de i?ll 3ff2cti.v~ meth of dispersing the emissions of the Encina Power Pla as required by the State Air Resources Board and wi improve the overall quality of air in this area. (3) SDG&E has indicated that some of the corrosion damage, "fallout", in the vicinity of the San Diego Gas & Electric Company Encina Power Plant (more specifically the Terramar Area) is probably started or caused. by particles from the Encina Plant. SDG&E has'further stated that they will meet with the individual Terramar residents to resolve the damage claims and that they are also working with the San Diego County APCD staff to (a) develop a work program, and (b) design an agreei or affidavit that will assure the City and County that necessary corrective action will be taken by the Company. resolved prior to use of Encina #5 and the stack. The actions and findings in support thereof made by the Public Utilities Commission and State Coasta Comission are correct, are supported by the eviden and adopted by this Commission and their conditions of approval taken together with the conditions recoi adverse effects of the project, (2) . Said problem exists now and will b (4) I mended by this resolution adequately mitigate any -2- 9' 1 a 3 4 5 6 7 .8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 0 e (5) The needs 'of the San Diego regional area for qdequa supplies of electrical power necessitate approval of this application. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Plarining Commissio: the City of Carlsbad as follows: A) That the above recitations are true and correct. B) Than an amendment to SP-144 be approved and is subj to the following conditions : 1) That Ordinance No. 9279 is anended by the amen memt of Section 2 of said Ordinance to replace Specific Plan Map attached thereto with a revi plan labeled SP-l44(B), Exhibit A, dated 10-10 on file in the Planning Department and incorpoi ted by reference herein, which is hereby adopt( 2) All conditions of Ordinance No. 9279 dated Augr 3, 1971, with the exception of #5, shall apply the Specific Plan as amended which shall be in addition to the conditions hereof. 3) All applicable requirements of any law, ordina! or regulation of the State of California, City Carlsbad, an6 any other governnientai enrity Shi be complied with. 4) Compliance. with and execution of all condition: listed here shall be necessary, unless otherwi: specified, prior to obtaining final building ii spection clearance. Deviation from this requii ment shall be permitted only by written conseni of the Planning Director and Planning Comrnissic All ground lighting shall be arranged to reflec away from adjoining properties and streets. Any mechanical and/or electrical equipment to f located on the roof of the structure shall be screened in a manner acceptable to the Planninl Director. Detailed plans for said screening SI be submitted, in triplicate, to the Planning Director. 5) 6) 7) Should the Air Pollution Control Officer of thc require additional monitoring equipment and fur for air quality analysis in connection with thc current study of emissions from the Encina Powc Plant, the applicant shall supply said equipmer and funds as deemed necessary by the Air Pollut Control Officer. The cost of said equipment SI San Diego County Air Pollution Control District -3- .a 3 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 0 0 not 'exceed $150,000. Th'e requested funds for quality analysis shall not exceed $50,000 per year. Any future measure required by the San Diego County Air Pollution Control District to lesse air emissions from the Encina.Power Plant are incorporated as a part of this Specific Plan A ment and SDGGrE shall comply fully therewith. The City will obtain a report of compliance fr the City staff and the San Diego County Air Po tion Control Officer on or before five years a deemed Lrecessary by City Council, Planning Corn or staff. The Planning Commission and City Co shall review the report with regard to conform to the'conditions of this Specific Plan and to regulations required by other applicable regul agencies, i.e. San Diego County Air Pollution District, Public Utilities Commission, State C Commission, etc. The City reserves the right amend this Specific Plan (SP-144B) as necessar to add conditions to insure such compliance. In the event that the City of Carlsbad determi that the 400-foot stack is no longer necessary I as a nethod of air emission dlspcrsl~r~, tlis 42 stack shall be removed at the applicant's expe or the applicant shall request amendment to th Specific Plan to provide a reasonable time per for removal. 8) 9) IO) 11) The applicant shall make a formal commitment to conduct the studies necessary to determine what operating practices and/or emissions con- trol devices are capable of eliminating the particulate fallout problem. the completion of the studies shall be establi which is satisfactory to the San Diego County Air Pollution Control District Officer, the Ai Pollution Control District Hearing Board or Court of Law. Upon completion of the studies, applicant will, within 60 days, submit to the Air Pollution Control Officer or the Air Pollu tion Control District Hearing Board a complian emissions control devices to be used in the En Power Plant as are necessary to eliminate the fallout damage and a time schedule for their u Applicant will further consent to the entry of an abatement order incorporating the complianc schedule which abatement order may be enforcea by the Air Pollution Control District Hearing Board or the Superior Court. A schedule for schedule, including such operating practices a' . # -4- .h 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 21 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 - 26 27 28 0 0 The-applicant shall further agree to pay-claim for property damage resulting from the fallout problem until compliance with the abatement or is achieved. The particulate fallout problem shall be contr to the satisfaction of the Air Pollution Contr Officer prior to the final building permit cle ance for Encina #5 and the single stack. If t ,requirement cannot be met, the City Council ma extend the time limit for compliance without further amendments to the Specific Plan. Prior 29 the Building Inspector signing the fi inspection for the 400 ft. stack, the four sta on the existing Encina Power Plant shall be COI pletelp removed. This amendment is consistent with the Carlsbad Gene. Plan and all applicable specific plans. The projec a logical extension of an existing use located in a! area already committed to heavy public utility oper, tions. 12) C) PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the , City of Carlsbarl Planning Conmi.ssion h-ld on March 2Lc, LI376, i the following vote, to wit: AYES : Commissioners Watson, Jose, Dominguez, Larson Fikes and L'Heureux. NOES : None ABSENT: None Stephen M. L'Heureux, Chaii ATTEST; Donald A. Agatep, Secretary . - 0 0 4.r CITY OF CARLSBAD PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT * April 12, 1976 TO: CITY MANAGER FROM: PLANNXNG DEPARTMENT CASE NO.: SP-l44(B) APPLICANT: SDG&E REQUEST: The Applicant requests : 1) Approval of an Amendment to a Specific Plan (SP-144) to permit the construction of a 400-foot single stack to replace the four existing stacks at .the Encina Power Plant. the Stack, and consideration of additional environmental Snfarmation to supplernent those EIR’s. 2) Review of prevs’ously certified EIR’s on Eneina Unit 5 and -- 1: o BAC-KGROUND REP-ORT: . A. *HTS’TDRY AND R€LAT€D CASES: The City Council approved a Specific Plan for the entire Encina Power Plant property and transmission corridor on August 3, 1971, This Specific Plan (SP-144, Ordinance 9279) authorized construction of the 4th and 5th generating units. Condition #5 of the Specific Plan limited the height o-F new structures to 35 feet. In 1973, the Applkaht determ’ined that construction of Unit 5 for sulfur dioxide (SO2) to be exceeded. The Unit 5 addition was redesigned with a single 400-foot stack wh’ich would ade- quately disperse SO2 emisst’ons, ‘thewby meeting State air quality standards. Tile City Council approved the application far a Specific Plan Amendment to allow the single 400-f-cmt stack on November 20, 1973 (SP-l44(Aj, Oydinancc 9372). Gondition #3 of this Specific Plan Amendment required that construction of the single stack be initiated within one year of the date of approval. Because the Applicant was delayed in obtaining permits from other regulatory agencies, canstpuction was not started within the allotted one year and the Stack Modificalion Amendment (SP-344(a)) expired. as Ori gi nal ly designed woul d cause State air qual i ty standards 0 e .a The present project is a request for reapproval of the ari-ginal Stack Modification Amendment. No chanaes have been made to the application for the single stack. B. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The Planning Commission held two hearings on the subject application. held on January 28, 1976, was continued for two' months so that the following could occur: 1) Preliminary data from paint samples, source testing and ambient air testing in the vicinity of the Encina Plant could be analyzed by the San Diego Coun.ty Air Pollution Control District; 2) Further information could be gathered on a fallout (rust) problem at the Moss Landing Power Plant in Monterey The first hearing, County: 3) Research could be done on other power plants which have 4) Information on the "state-of-the-art" in dealing with had complaints about fallout; fallout problems could be obtained. This information was researched by City Staff and the San Diego County APCD and presented to the Planning Commission on March 20 !975. P.fter hezrfng consfderable testimony, the Cosmission recommended approval of the application, subject to 12 condition C. PUBLIC TESTIMONY RECEIVED AT PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING: The majority of public testimony received at the January 28th and March 24th Planning Commission hearings centered on the following issues: 1) The single stack would not change the emissions gene- . rated by the Plant, but would simply disperse them. 2) The promise of a future solution to the identified fallout problem is not an appropirate basis for granting appro- val of the project. since future abatement requirements made by the APCD may obviate the necessity for the stack. including adverse aesthetic impacts, property damage and health hazards. Staff believes that the question of emission dispersion vs. 'emission control has been adequately addressed in the Public Utilities Commission EIR, the Stack Modification EIR and the 3) The City should postpone approval of the 400' stack, - 4) The City should consider total costs of the project - - 2- * 0 0 APCD June 1975 study on Encina 5, These studies have found that the single stack will markedly decrease ground level SO? concentrations in the vicinity of the Planti and will slightly decrease SO2 levels basin-wide. The project will decrease SO2 concentrations emitted by the Plant a*ffecting inland or downwind areas. On the issue of future fallout abatement requirements, Staff believes that the City has ample control to ensure that those requirements are met. Condition #11 recommended by the Planning Commission requires that abatement of the fallout occur prior to building permit clearance for Unit 5 and the stack. Condition #8 incorporates any future emission control measures into the project approval. Therefore, any abatement measurzs which might obviate the need for the stack could Lz automically Specific Plan Amendments. Condition #10 requires removal of the stack should it no longer be necessary for emission dis- persi on. The most important control that the City has over the project is that allowed through the Specific Plan process. If the City Council determines that new circumstances have occurred which affect the project, the Specific Plan may be reopened. This ability to periodically review the Specific Plan has been formalized in Condition #9, which requires that the project be reviewed at least once every five years. I1 . PLkI\I1\11NG 111 FORMATION SUMMARY Location and Description of Property: The property subject to east of the Pacific Ocean, southerly of the north shore of Agua Hedionda Lagoon. Essentially, the property subject to the Specific Plan includes the Encina Power Plant facility, Agua Hedionda Lagoon and property south of the Lagoon. The proposed stack will be constructe-d on a presently unused portion of the property adjacent and directly to the east of the existing power plant. (See Environmental Impact Report Information,)- - General Plan Information: The General Planshows the subject property as Public Utility, in the area of the power plant facilities and open space for Agua Hedionda Lagoon as well as lands to the south and east of the Lagoon. There iS one additional parcel of land, which is designated RMH and RH. This property is adjacent to the north shore of the Lagoon between Garfield Street and Carlsbad Boulevard. ’ incorporated into the project without requiring further . the approved Specific Plan is approximately 680 acres and located -3- 0 e The zoning map shows the power plant site and transmission' corridors as Public Utility (P-U). The. parcel located to the, north of Cannon Road between 1-5 and the railroad right-of- way is designated C-2. The Agua Hedionda Lagoon is zoned Open Space/Floodplain Overlay (OS-FP). Major Planning Considerations : It is the Staff's opinion that the following issues are the major items which must be addressed by the City: Plan Amendment (SP-144A) application approval in 1973? ' 1) Have circumstances changes since the initial Specific 2) Have the conditions of SP-144 been met? 3) Do the zoning/General Plan inconsistencies affect the 4) What are the aesthetic impacts of the 400-foot stack? 5) What are the environmental effects of the 400-foot review of the Amendment to the Specific Plan? stock? DISCUSSION: the Staff has t.52 ?Z?!SY:~ZCJ findir.-;s o'th rcspect t:: the zzjcr considerations: 1) The application submitted by SDG&E is the same project . considered by the City Council/Planning Commission in 1973. Several complaints however have been filed with the San Diego Air Pollution Control District which express extreme concern about air emissions being generated by the existing facility with the 4 stack configuration. These complaints and the issue. involved are discussed in more detai.1 in the appended envjron- mental section of this report. conditions which were to be met. Although several of these conditions were only satisfied recently (iIe.: community park site, landscaping), all conditions have been accomplished. 3) Staff feels that the Zoning/General Plan inconsis- 2) The original Specific Plan SP-144 levied a number of tencies that exist on portions of the Specific Plan affected areas do not directly relate to the request for Specific Plan Amendment to allow a 400-foot stack. These issues may be considered at the discretion of the Planning Commission or City council at a future date. -4- 0 0 4) In the previous Staff report on the'requested Specific Plan Amendment, Staff noted the following regarding aesthetic. impacts of the stack: "A public opinion survey was conducted by Central Surveys in order to evaluate the public's reaction to the aes- thetics of the proposed stack modification. When shown a photograph of the plant in its present state, 72% of the sample saidithat they preferred the appearance of the proposed stack modification. However, when questioned ; whether they would favor the construction of a single stack, only 33% replied yes. What this seems to indicate is that although the single stack is preferable to the plant in its present state, it does not represent a posi- tive aesthetic value when considered on the basis of no stack. The increase of the impact area from some 9 sq. miles to some 35 sq. miles is a substantial effect." When evaluated in terms of alternatives, which are discussed in more detail in the SDG&E Stack Alternatives (attached to this report) Staff feels the aesthetic'impacts can be justified. The site of the Encina Plant has been committed to the power plant operations for a number of years. The previous expansion of the plant, and the current fifth turbine addition, were approved by the initial Specific Plan (SP-?44; Ju!~ 29, 1971) as we!l as acpprova.1 by the P.U.C. apd State Coastal Commission. - The necessity for a single stack configuration of the dimen- sion requested is an answer by SDG&E to requirements estab- lished by the State Air Resources Board to mitigate unaccep- table ground level air pollutant concentrations which may result from the addition of a fifth generating unit using a conventional stack. 5) The information on the environmental effects of the proposed stack is contained in the following section. 11 I SUPPLE\IENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION: The California Environmental Quality Act and the Carlsbad Environmental Protection Ordinance of 1972 require that prior to approving a project for which an EIR has previously been certified, the approving body must: - 1) Review all previously certified EIR's for the project; 2) Consider supplemental environmental information when either the project or the circumstances surrounding it have changed since the EIR was certified. -5- 0 0 Two previous EIR's relating to the present project have been . certified. The first is an EIR for the Stack Modifjcation Amendment (SP-l44(A)) which was certified Novernber'20, 1973. The second is the E1.R for Encina Unit #5 which was certified by the California Public Utilities Commission on November 29, 1974. These two EIR's have been submi.tted for the Planning commission's and City Council's review. The decision to supplement these EIR's was based on the dis- covery of a particulate fallout problem in the Terramar Area. The ensuing studies conducted by City Staff and the San Dieao APCD have been analyzed in the following sectiDn. A discus- the Carlsbad Area and the effect of the Encina Power Plant's operation on local air quality. Several qualifications are in order. First, some of the data gathered in inconclusive. It is apparent that the "state-of- 8 the art" in dealing with fallout (rust) problems is not highly developed. Furthermore, it is dangerou's to draw too close a correlation between the Encina Plant and other facilities because there may be significant differences in generating capacity, operating practices, plant design and meteorological conditions. SVPPLEMEETAL AIR ~u.4~r-r~ I NFOKMATION: City Staff has been following current activities and complaints . relating to air quality impacts of the existing Encina power plant operation. Two new air quality studies under the auspices of the San Diego Air Pollution Control District (APCD) have been undertaken since the certification of the stack modifica- tion and C.P.U.C. Encina Unit #5 EIR's. The first study, completed by the Air Pollution Control District in June 1975, examined the air quality impacts of Encina Unit #5, tion of the 5th unit, sulfur-dioxide (SO2) emissions from the plant are a significant air quality problem, Based on the company's projections of need, the study showed that ground level concentrations of SO2 would decrease slightly with the installation of the single stack. The APCD also examined nitrogen dioxide, hydrocarbons and particulate emissions (during normal operation) and concluded that these emissions were not a significant problem. These results are essentially the same as those contained in the Encina Unit #5 and Stack Modi fi cation E1 R's. The APCD also conducted an additional study of particulate emissions from the power plant. This study was prompted by numerous complaints from Carlsbad residents (primarily in the -Terramar area) concerning noise and "fallout" from the power -6- esion is also included on general air quality conditions in The study concluded that with or without the addi- a 0- plant. The complainants stated 'that when the "stacks are blown" at the plant (a process which is done routinely to main- . tain operating efficiency of the generators) sBa:ll particles fall on the surrounding area, causing rust and corrosion of painted surfaces and damage to plants. Some of the complainants have also alleged that the "fallout" causes illness. In an effort to determine the source of rust damage in the Terramar Area, the APCD collected air and paint samples which were sent to the following laboratories for analysis: TYPE OF TEST LABORATORY ANALYSIS Source tes ti ng- Sampl es taken Croc ker Nucl ear La h. U. C. 9 from power plant stacks' during Davis both normal operation and during soot blowing. Ambient testing - Air samples Crocker Nuclear Lab., taken at selected sites in the U.D., Davis Terramar Area and also at a distance one mile from the power plant. Particle samples, samples of Lawrence-Livermore Lab., .',a?In.g%! p1'q-t. Sacramento; Environmental Protection Ayeiicy, Denver Office. These tests concluded that the power plant was responsible for property damage in the Terramar Area. A later study conducted by Stanford Research Institute for SDG&E corroborated this finding. Details of the APCD's findings are contained in Donald Agatep and a file rnemo.frorn Richard Baldwin). REVIEW OF POWER PLANTS WITH ALLEGED FALLOUT PROBLEMS: cerned with the PG&E Moss Landing Power Plant. The following is a sumrnsry of the discussions: Staff talked with John Maloney, Air Pollution Control Officer. According to Maloney, the problem with fallout in Moss Landing originates in the interior of the boilers. The heat transfer surfaces inside the boiler are made up of acres of steel alloy surfaces. When fuel oil is burned in the boilers, corrosion occurs and small metal particles are sluffed off. These particles are then blown out through the stacks during 'Ishoot: blowing" -a regular procedure used to clean and maintain operating efficiency of the boilers. -7- attachments to this report (see letter from Richard Baldwin to Moss Landing: Staff has talked with three persons con- Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District - ., There are'a,number of factors which influence the emission of these metal particles (which have sulfates present, and there-. fore may be corrosive). The meteorological conditions (particularly wind direction) during soot blowing have a major .effect on the dispersion of the particles.. The problem is not apparent when natural gas is burned; the severity of fallout appears to be positivel'y correlated w+th sulfur content of the fuel burned. . Duri.ng "upset conditions" - when meteorological conditions are .unfavorable - the particles are deposited on boats and auto- ,= -3 mobile's in the Moss Landing Harbor Area. The metal particles react with moisture to form rust. spots which "bleed" on the .' surfaces on which they land. The rust appears on fiberglass, wood and painted surfaces alike. The damage can be described as small orangish spots, ranging up to l/4" in diameter. Staff observed rust damage at the Moss Landing an,d noted that the visual characteristics of the rust spots are identical to those observed in the Terramar.Area. Research by the Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District-indicated that the, : phenomenon was not attributable to normal "salt air" corrosion but was a resultof fallout from the power plant. . Mr. Maloney noted that PG&E had made several changes in their opPrations ,in an attempt to mitigate fallout problems. These inciuded: . a) .Trying to coordinate soot blowing with favorable 'meteorologicdl conditions,: This practice is not. always effective because cleaning of the boilers takes approximately 6'8 hours and must be done frequently. . Wi'nd directions may often change during cleaning, causing an "upset episode". b) Enamelizing heat transfer surfaces.to protect against corrosion: This measure appeared to be ineffective. 4 Changing operations in the air heaters: This measure. -attempted.to increase temperatures so.that corrosion would be less 'severe. The measure appeared to be ineffective. Maloney acknowledged that measures to correct the problem have not been entirely successful and that upset episodes still occ'ur.. The APCD has been working closely with PG&E exploring new possibilities for abatement. PG&E will in the near future be closing down one of their 750 megawatt,units for one month to ,install a "soot separator" mechanism. Maloney is optimistic . . that this device will decrease fallout episodes.' '. . -8- 0 0- Pacific Gas and Electric - Staff talked with Robert Puckett, Plant Manager for the Moss Landing Facility. . Mr. Puckett talked about measures his company had explored to combat the fallout problem. He noted the PG&E had done considerable "pioneering" at the Moss Landing Plant. It is hoped that the soot separator will remove the ferrous particles effectiveness can be made until the mechanism is put into operation (probably mid-year). A diagram of the soot separator has been attached (See Attachment A). Moss Landing Harbor --Staff talked to Bill Wimmer, Harbormaster at Moss Landing. Mr. Wimmer explained that the fallout had not been abated and the claims were still being filec by boat owners. Clai'ms for boat cleaning and occasional repainting are made through the Harbormaster's Office and are then relayed to the PG&E adjuster. Mr. Wimmer praised the level of cooperation between the Harbor Office, the APCD and PG&E. from the exhaust gasses. However, no evaluation of its Southern California Edison: The problems of power plant fallout have been alleged in the Los Angeles Area for a number of years. In particular, three Southern California Edison slleged to cause rust fallout on nearby residences and boats. Boat owners in the Redondo Beach Area brought suit against Edison about 5 years ago. The Court found that although the pT.Snt was responsible for damage to boats, that damage was outweighed by the larger benefit afforded to the general public in the form of electrical power. Edison has not acknowledged responsibility for any rust damage, although they have honored claims as a "public relations gesture". In January 1976, Edison began an 18-month 2-phase study of the alleged fallout problem, According to Mr. Bob McCluskey who heads -the study, the first phase will be a survey of the utility industry throughout the country to determine if fallout problems have been identified and, 11' so, what are the charac- teristics of the fallout. The second phase of the study will be technical tests made by a consult-ing firm (yet to be selectec The consultant will study emission samples taken from the stack, the plume and at ground level locations around the plant. This study is being closely monitored by Los Angeles Air Pollution Control Officials. Plants - Alamitos, Ormond Beach and Redondo Beach 0 have been -9- 0 0 DISCUSSION OF ABATEMENT TECHNIQUES: Several potential solutions to fallout problems have been sugges ted by persons interviewed by Staff. However, it is impossible to apply any one particular measure to all occurrences. Abatement techniques must be uniquely suited to plant design and meteorological conditions. A measure which may be appro- priate for Moss Landing might not be appropriate for the Encina Plant (or vice versa). The San Diego County Air Pdllution Control District does have the authority to abate a nuisance, once it is detvmined that ' the nuisance does exist. Conditions proposed by Staff cover any future abatement that may be required by the San Diego County APCD. GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF LOCAL AIR QUALITY AND THE AIR QUALITY IMPACTS OF THE ENCINA POWER PLANT: At the January 28th Planning Commission hearing there was some apparent confusion as to the impacts of the Encina Plant on air quality. This discussion attempts to explain some of the basic air quality consideration. hrls5~d is part 95 the large? Szn Ziegc! ?ir hasin which encompasses approximaceiy two-thirds of San ijieyo County. The basin contains those portions of the County which are relate topographically and meteorologically. The dispersion of pollutants in the basin is determined prima- rily by the wind patterns and height at which the contaminants are mixed. In Carlsbad, the winds are generally light, ranging from four to fifteen miles per hour. Because of the ocean influence, the winds blow inland during the day and are reversed at night. Pollutants are most effectively dispersed during stormy condi- tions or in the summer when the winds are most persistent. Under these conditions, the air layer beneath the inversion is deep, allowing effective dispersion of the pollutants. However, during much of the rest of the year the marine air layer is shallow and winds are weak. This condition lessens the mixing volume, causing poor dispersion of pollutants and a high air pollution potential. Temperature inversions are important in determining the sus- ceptibility of an area to air quality problems. During a temperature inversion, the usual pattern of decreasing tempera- ture with altitude is changed. The contaminants in a rising heated air mass are trapped by the warmer inversion layer. As a result, the vertical interchange and upward dispersion of pollutants is restricted. . -10- 0 0 .. The inversion in the Carlsbad area is usually persistent at a height of 500'to 3,500,'above mean sea level. The lower inver- sion heights generally occur during the late fall and winter months. Available data indicates that despite strong tempera- ture inversion conditions during June, July and August, the summer breezes effectively disperse pollutants.' The San Diego County Air Pollution Control District monitors the emission of the following contaminants.: Oxidant Oxides of Nitrogen Carbon Monoxi de Non-Methzne Hydrocarbons Sul fur Di oxi de Methane Nitric Oxide Total Hydrocarbons Nitrogen Dioxide . Oxidant .is the result of a photochemical reaction involving hydrocarbons, oxides of nitrogen and sunlight. Photochemical oxidant is the primary ingredient of "L.A. Smog" and can cause eye irritation and aggravates respiratory diseases. Highest oxidant levels in the San Diego Basin occur during two different periods of the year. The first period usually occurs during March and April, although it may be as early as February or as late as May. The second period occurs during September and October. Carbon Monoxide is a poisonous gas which can impair judgement, Ienghten reaction time, and at high concentrations, cause death. Sulfur dioxide has an unpleasant smell and can aggra- vate respiratory diseases. Nitrogen dioxide causes atmospheric discoloration and contributes to the oxidant problem. According to the Air Pollution Control District, the two signi- ficant air pollution problems in the San Diego Basin are photochemical oxidants and particulates. The following table delineates the number of days in 1973 and 1974 in which State and Federal standards were exceeded: -11- 0 1 1974 I Oxidant I 30 1973 I 1974 1973 I 1974 1 Same as l Sal ' Pr I I ! 49 45 70 , Primary Monoxi de 0 1 '0 Carbon 0 O\ 1 Same as i Sai 0 / Primary ' Pr 0 a PERCENTAGE OF BASIN-WIDE POLLUTANTS ORIGINATING FROM STLAM ELECTRIC POWER GENERATION - CONTAMINANT Total Hydrocarbons 0.2% Reactive Hydrocarbons 0.2% Carbon Monoxi de 0.1% Oxides of Nitrogen 25 .O% Particulates 5.0% Oxides of Sulfur 54.0% - - ’Source: Revised Emissions Inventory for San Diego Air Basin - 1972 (Intuitive reliability factor rated good) The APCD completed in June 1975 a study of the projected emissions from the Encina Plant expansion. This study concluded that with or without the expansion of the Encina Plant, SO2 emissions are a significant problem. Nitrogen dioxide, hydro- carbons and particulate emissions (during normal operation) were also examined; the APCD determined that these pollutants were not a significant problem. Based on the Company’s pro- jections of need, the study showed that the ambient SO2 levels k!-i17 decrzasc s:?cjhtIjl w-itii ihe proposed (Init 5-SiRgle Stack adcii ti on a Future SO2 levels in the vicinity of the Encina Plant will depend in part on whether new generating units are brought on line at the San Onofre and Kaiparowits Plants according to projections. With the units at San Onofre and Kaiparowits in operation as scheduled, the demand on the Encina Plant will be reduced, and hence the emissions will be reduced. - ATTACHMENTS: A. Soot Sep, Diagram (PG&E) B. Ltr; from RB, APCD, to DAA, Carls. Plan. Dept. C. Memo fr. RB, APCD, re Fallout fr. Pwr. Plants D. Ltr. fr. Thomas, SDG&E, to CM Bussey, Carlsbad SDH:cpl . -1 3- ( / s 4 +/&ti ffi ///X PA G,-.C,, /S e e LLUTIOld CONT ISTRn COUATY OF SAN DIEGQ WILLIAM SIMMONS 9150 Chesapeake , Air Pollution Sail Diego, Calli. ' Control Officer (714) 565-5901 (M March 15, 1976 Don Agatep Director of Planning, City of Carlsbad Carlsbad, CA 92008 Dear YE. Agatep: Enclosed is a copy of the San Diego Air Pollution Control District's study of the 'rfallout" problem in the vicinity of the San Diego Gas & Electric Company Encina Power Plant. I am also enclosing a memo on my trip to San Francisco, Moss Landing Harbor and Los Angeles. problem, we have concluded that the particulates are from the Encina Power Plant. residents and government officials. Recently San Diego Gas & Electric commissioned Stanford Research Institute (SRI) to study the "fallou-t" moblem. SRI's latest work confirms OUT laboratory studies. 1200 Elm Avenue We have included the appendices for yom records. As a result of our studies and discussions on the "fallo~zt" We announced our findings on larch 4 at a meeting with Terramar The only report we've seen alleges j--JldB y& >&i2,. rl rLLoIIu n-4- is ret res>mxi3le. EIoweve?s TAT~ have been told that Since its acknowledgement, San Diego Gas & Elec%ric officials have been in frequent con-kact with the Air .Pollutim Control District.' San Diego Gas & Electric has agreed- to conduct a comprehensive study of the particle formation as a function of boiler operatioi to determine a best acceptable air pollution control device or process modifi- cation which will eliminate the "fallouk" damage. Upon completion of the stud: San Diego Gas & Electric will submit to the Air Pollution Control District a compliance schedule to control, throw@ retrofit if required, Encina units 1- through 4 and to control Encina 5 prior to its completion. It must be understood that all our facts indicate that Encina complies with a1 our emissions limits. What we have is essentially a nuisance, If an air pollution control device is required, it will probably not be put in operation until completion of the 400' stack. San Diego Gas & Electric has in formed us that re-design of the exhaust gas entry point into the stack is now underway to allow for the installation of any conceivable air cleaning device which may be required. - The purpose of re-design at this time is to minimize possible retrofit costs, The Air Pollution Control District is currently discussing with County Counsel the legal options open to us to insure abatement of the problem by San Diego Gas & Electric. from the Air Pollution Control Hearing Board. native is a court action for injunction. in principle to the abatement order process. At this time, we feel that an abatement order will be sought San Diego Gas & Electric has agreed The only other acceptable alter 0 0 Mr. Don Agatep -2- March 15, 197.6 The Air Pollution Control District is not technically opposet to the 400' stack, in fact, we feel that some improvement in the air quality will 'be achieved by installing the tall stack. However, in ow opinion, the tall stack by itself will not eliminate or greatly-reduce property damage from "fallout" particles in the vicinity of the power plant. We do feel that San Diego Gas & Elec'cric is at last on the way to an acceptable solution to this problem. If you have any qu9stions pertaining to this matter, please feel free to contact me at 565-3909. Sincerely, a*&?$ &&& RICHARD H. BALDWDJ Chief, SmveillaGce & Enforcement Division xHB:lll;p Enclosure s (2 ) - 6 ' r d u.&$r# / flcjy +J L a Ma* , 1976 TO: Fi 1 es Dic'k ' Baldwin ' +?iir- ' FROM: SUBJECT: S D G 6.E ENCINA .. This report is a summary of my recent findings as a result of several.out of town conferences to discuss the fallout problem in the vicinity of gas/oil fired el.ectri gener,.ting plants. February 10, 1976 I met with Tom Brennan, Asst. Direct.or of Enforcement - Bay Area Air Pollution Control District. He informed me of recorded infrequcnt fall ow yrc lens in the vicinity of PG /E's plant located in Pittshurg on the Sacrammt:, River. This location is unique in that there. are very few structures located nca~ the plan and these structures are up-wind from the plant under p1.eva.j ling wind condj.tions. 0 to the 4nfre.qim-d occurrence (once or twice) the Bay Area APCD has not pursued . , this issue. Feb. 11, 1976 I met with John Maloney, APCO -' Monterey 9ay.Unified APCD to discuss . . the fallout problem at FG EE's Moss Lan.ding Harbor facility. This generating faciiity originally had 5 units, each videa 125 MrJ. units began operation. public nuisance. the fallout problem waS. minimal. Company started using oil or, mre than a stand-by basis. The problem is so acute at this time that PG GE has developed a short claim form for the boat o~iiers in ?.he harhor. When an episode occurs the boat owners are paid for 'the cleaning of t!iei.r boats. If the boats are cleaned within 3 day or two there is no permanent damage. The.spots on the boats are identical to the spots which we have recorded near the In 1967 and 1968 two 756 PC+' Prior to start up of the 750 bll'l units there was no kr,own *. This company has had a good supply of natural gas and on ga.s The property damage problem became vocal when the . Encina power plant. March '8, 1976 e Files * -2- .I . .. I next mct with the 1~10~s Landing Plant Superintendent, Robert Puckett, at the power plant. PG GE has recognized the problem for several years. In an effort to abate or minimize the emissions they tried several things. the most significant contributor to the problem is soot-Slowing the air pre-heater. To rectify this they first tried procelainizing the pre-heater blades, this failed due to high mainten'ance problems. to' collect the emissions from soot-blowing the air pre-heaters on oiie 750 bll? wit. If this unit comes out of service on schedule the project will be complete in June 1976. heater to increase the outlet temperature. 1% and it seems to have created some reduction in the nunher of air pollution coni- plaints. I will follow up on the scrubber project late this summer. The .company feels that They are now in the process of installing a scrub; The comFariy has removed the intermsdiate stage (3 stage) of the air pre- %is reduced the boiler efficicncj- by - FeS. 17, 1976 I zeZ wit!' Duaiie Zordwick, Supervising Air Pollirtior! Eiigineer with Los hgeles APCD and Bob ?4cC:lusky of Southern California Edison in L.A. to discuss the fallout problem in the Los Angeles area. problen prior to 1972. agaiEst Edi.son for fallout damage to boats and property adjacent to the Redondo The LAAFCD became involved in this In 3.972 the LA District filed 2 public nuisance comFlaint Beach facility. was riot guilty on all counts. of the statute is a scientific impossibility unless and imtil the defendent is per.- Case Number M-130528 went to trial in 1973. The final disposition - The judicial opinion stated that, "Literal coinplimce . .mitted to replace its present oil/gas generating facility with a nuclear power generator. contention that the statute imposes an absolute duty to do the impossib1.e". facts of the case. shorii.ng public nuisance were not disproved. cause serious problems for us in-San Diego. On the light of all of the record in-this case, we reject the Feople's The , This precedent could - -i .* March 8, 1976 e Files - 3- e Since Nov. 36, 1973 the Los Angeles APCD has prepared six formal reports on the particulate fallout in the vicinity of the Hapes and Alamitos power plants, the last report being Feb. 10, 1975. summary, Los Angeles APCD feels that they have sufficient evidence to prove that the fallout comes from the power plants and that the worst condition is during soot-blowing or rapid load changes. Ijaynes is owned by Los Angeles Department of Water and -Power. I have copies of each of these reports. In The Alamitos plant belongs to Edison and Edison is currently not soot-blowing their boilers. and manually wash the parts which are normally cleaned by steam soot-blowing. has found this practice- to be unacceptable and wants to return to their pevious practice of soot-blowing. They shut them down periodica Edi As a result of the LAAPCD study the Diqtrict hes tzld Ldkx aiid LAXG ihat a bag- . house would be considered as an accepta5le air pollution control device, Edison znd LADWP countered with an offer to perform a detailed scientific study of the problem. It is a two part concurrent study, the two parts are; The District has accepted this proposal. a) A six month utility industry survey nation-wide to see if this probl is present at other generating facilities and if so, what is 'oeing d or has been done to correct the problem. b) An 18 month Study to be performed by a consulting company. This par will probably include a detailed analysis o€ the emissions in the st and a detailed study of the pollutants in the plume. The purpose i: 'determine how the fallout particles form in an effort to find some control alternative to the baghousc proposal. - . Filds * - 4- * March 8, 1976 Based on the above information LMKD is considering some form of legal action, . probably an abatement order. The only problem at this time in issting an abatement order is that nobody knows how long it will take to control the emissions, in fact, at this time there is no direct knowledge as to how the particles form. that the sulfates emitted from the stack form sulfuric acid droplets, these drople? then agglomerate on the inorganic particles with the particles acting as a nucleus. When sufficient agglomeration takes place gravity causes the particie to fallom from the plume. There is a sound basis for this hypothesis but at this time there is not proof of the fact. The 18 month study will prove or disprove this hypothcs: and will suggest alternate control techniques if any are available. . LA feels DICK BALDX IiY DB : j cs cc: Dana Hield, Zarlsbad Planning Commission / I_ 71 I ‘‘~CAIFI~CYLX- t, b 0 *- S/lq §AN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY P 0 BOX 1831 SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92112 (714) 232-4252 0 FILE NO CNB I( JACK E. THOMAS VICE PRESIDENT-POWER PLANT ENOlNE€XINC li CONSTRUCTION March 12, 1976 Mr. Paul Busseg City Manager City of Carlsbad 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, California 92008 Dear Mr. Bussey: . During the January 28 Planning Commission hearing on San Diego Gas & Electric Company’s requested amendment to the Specific Plan for the Encina Power Plant, we said that SDG&E had retained Stanford Research Insti- tute (SRI) to conduct some studies related to the alleged Fallout problem in the Terramar area. The test program, whfle not concluded, has thus far indicated that some of the reported corrosion damage in the Terramar area is probably started or caused by particles from the Encina Plant. Therefore, we plan to meet with the individual Terramar residents to resolve the damage claims which are our responsibility. have determined that further* studies will be required to isolate the specific plant operating conditions which are causing the fallout and identify the steps reqcired for corrective action. San Diego County APCD staff to (a) scope a study, and (b) design an agreement or affidavit that will assure the City and County that necessary corrective action will be taken by the Company. Both the San Diego County APCD and this Company We want you to knoh7 that we are working with the a- *.. SAN DIEGO GAS 8t ELECTRIC COMPANY Mr. Paul Bussey March 12, 1976 Page Two . /c However, we respectfully request everyone to keep clearly in focus that establishing a plan to correct this problem should in no way involve further delay in the City's re-confirmation of its amendment to the "Encina Specific Plan" to permit constructiol, of * the 400 foot stack. p& ack E. Thomas Vice President-Power Plant Engineering and Construction ;ET : dm cc: ROT? Prai- Mary Casler Bud Lewis Ron C. Packard Tony Skotnicki Stephen M. L'Heureux E. W. Dominguez J. C. Fikes E. L. Jose Eric Larson R. L. Watson @on Agatep Vincent Biondo Local Papers - A. .A. Sugg, District Manager < W v Planning Com.ni ss ion fV&& March 1.7, i9n-j wg@g City Of Carlsbad d@I@ J 9 ,s D”@Dw& ,ar 19rs 1200 Elm Avenue Dear Comiissioners : “dfiojOD ‘4~1s~~~ %?e are opposed to the approval of Encina 5 and tts 406 for the fol.lowhg reasons : Carlsbacl, California @/’v OF ‘ stack --insufficient evideL&-e of need. --45% increase in air pollution --gross visual immct in coastal area --growth inducing --incomplete data on wesent air quality and effects of existin? plant If the decision is made to permit construction, we believe it is essential that the city of Carlsbad have complete control plus szack) e Carisbad residents woula be most adversely affected and. therefore local jurisdiction is imperative, Ve recommend that tho, most strict conditions be set as a part of the permit to construct to insure polhution abatement. Such condithns as the following should be included: --may not sperate units 1-4 dLring critical climatic --requirement of latest state of the art equipment and --fines and penalities for violations --strict monitoring and enforcing of conditions and ?-id respppsfbflft;9 85 lez2 agency fcr tk;~ A--~-’ rVlrC+.L ------ Pl.LJ;Gz \Ia> (VI- conditions (air inversions) methods laws There must be no negotiating the public’s right to breath clean air, The negative impact of this development would be extreme an4 permanent. We ask that your Commission give the most conscientious consideration to this project and hope that your ultimate judgment will be to recommend denial, . ;Ea A Donna and George Flanders 2168 Chestnut Avenue * Carlsbad 1 2 I 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 I m ? Post 01 I'icc> 130~ 1 :I31 I'EAl<Ck~, COlfN R GIESON Sm Dicgo, ~a~ifornia $121 12 Tc'~c~P~Io~~c: ('7.14) 232-4252 Attorneys for. Sat1 Diego Gas & Electric (lorripany .. w Ucfore the Ilcr-rring 13onrd 0 .. of the 1 .I I- -, Sail Diego Air Pollution Control Districl State of Cdifornin ., -..: - *. .I < Pet. 60'7. ) NO. ) ) ) Section 41700, Hulc 51 OF the %in 1 ) Air Pollufion Control 1>islric.if s JZ:I ) and Regulations, and Application fc ,Air Pollution Control IJistrict of San Diego County, Answer to Accusation of Violation Petitioner, ) California IIcnlfh :rad SafeiS- c'ocic vs . San Iliego Gas & Electric Company, ) Order of Abatciiient 1 t R espondant, 1 In response to the Accusation and Applicatjon for an Orcicl- 01' L1 ment, San Diego Gas & Electric Company alleges as I follo~s: 4 I Sail Iliego Gas & Electric Company admits each aiid cvcry alle~ contained in paragraphs I, 11, ZII, IV, V, VI, VII, VIH, ix, X, 11, XiI, si YIV. I1 I Sa11 1X~lg0 Cas R Electric Company doc;; Ilot oppo:;Lk illc c.!!tr.:- 01 rdcr requested in the Application. 1: hted: April 19, 1976 1. kLi!&- *L&Lh$n, G? +y- *@ C. ~c~wartl (iibson u Rf.torney for San Diego Cas & Xleciric Company i'