HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990-08-14; City Council; 10768; SDG&E EXPANSION AT ENCINA PLANT - CITY COUNCIL PRELIMINARY REPORT TO CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION (SDG&E N.O.I. 89-1)1 I .I
t
..
I!
z 2
4 1 0 z 3 0 0
G
c1 YI)OF CARLSBAD - AGENW ILL /w u
DEPT. HD.U AB#’o;’6c TITLE: SDGEE EXPANSION AT ENCINA PLANT -
DEPT. RES (SDGEE N.O.I. 89-1) CITY C‘TY Am= MG
CITY COUNCIL PRELIMINARY REPORT TO
CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Approve Resolution No. C)a --2Y& which approves the Preliminary Issues Report for submittal to t
California Energy Commission.
MTG.~-
ITEM EXPLANATION:
The Notice of Intention discovery phase has been in process since March 28, 1990. The Califori
Energy Commission Sub-committee held a hearing in Carlsbad on May 10, 1990, and the Califor
Energy staff has held numerous workshops to address 25 categories of potential impacts to sitin
power plant. Your staff has submitted 41 specific questions to the Energy staff and SDG&E
information on the proposed project. Attached to this agenda bill is a report reviewing in detail
progress to date, and briefly explaining the next phase in the N.O.I. process. Staff has also attacl
our recommended Preliminary Issues Report to the California Energy Commission for your review i
approval for submission to the California Energy Commission.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Continued use of the City’s consultants and City staff time*:
1. Tetra Tech - not to exceed
2. Jackson, Tufts, Cole & Black
3. Dr. Sonu As needed
4. City Staff
$ 75,000
$150,000
Research Office
City Attorney’s Office
Planning Department
*The overall costs incurred to May 31, 1990 have been submitted to the State of California for
reimbursement.
EXHIBITS:
1. Resolution No. sD -%/6
2. Staff report, dated 8/7/90 , to the Carlsbad City Council.
3. Preliminary Issues Report, dated 8/17/90, to the California Energy Commission from the Cads
City Council.
#
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
lo
11
l2
92: 13
oaa 14
0:: 'ai 15
$26 oaa 16
+22 17 50
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26 I
27
28
Om SWm
$Eg ;g2
g2:
5;;
>ma WWO
m @
RESOLUTION NO. 90-296
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY ISSUES REPORT AND AUTHORIZING ITS SUBMISSION TO THE CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION IN CONNECTION WITH THE APPLICATION BY SDG&E TO CONSTRUCT A 460 MEGAWATT COMBINED CYCLE POWERPLANT AT ITS EXISTING ENCINA FACILITY.
WHEREAS, on December 12, 1989 representatives of SDG&E
indicated that the utility would be filing a Notice of Intention
with the California Energy Commission to construct a combined cycle
electrical generating facility of approximately 460 megawatts; and
WHEREAS, the Carlsbad Encina site is one of five
potential sites for the location of that facility; and
WHEREAS, SDG&E did file a Notice of Intention to file a
permit to construct such a facility with the California Energy
Commission on December 27, 1989 (89-NOI-1); and
~
~
I
WHEREAS, that application was determined to be data
adequate by the California Energy Commission on March 28, 1990; and
WHEREAS, the City Council authorized the hiring of legal ~
and technical experts to assist it in these proceedings by approval
of Resolution Nos. 90-129 and 90-141; and
WHEREAS, the City is accorded special status as a local I
agency, allowing it to fully participate in the proceedings andi
obtain additional facts and information; and
I WHEREAS, the City has extensively gathered facts and
participated in the proceedings and obtained sufficient information1 I
in order to allow it to prepare a preliminary issues report to the
California Energy Commission a copy of which is attached as Exhibit
A; and
I
WHEREAS, the California Energy Commission has issued a
scheduling order requesting agencies to file preliminary report
.E
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
n 12 am mw8 32- zucb 13
ang
8;: 14 >5z k5U ooc '4-1 15
>mu
SZ;d 16
<OJ %?S 17 so
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
0
woo
gz2
a 0
with it by August 17, 1990,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of th
City of Carlsbad, California, as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct.
2. That the preliminary issues report of the City 01
Carlsbad attached as Exhibit A is approved and the City Attornel
and City Manager are directed to file it with the California Energ!
Commission in its proceedings.
3. The offices of the City Attorney and City Manager arc
directed to continue to obtain information and data on the issue:
identified in the preliminary report and any other issues that ma;
become of concern to the City and to return to the City Council foi
further direction for submitting a final report or other document
to the Energy Commission as soon as necessary or desirable in thesc
proceedings.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a Regular Meeting of the
City Council of the City of Carlsbad on the
1990, by the following vote, to wit:
14th day of August
~
AYES: Council Members Lewis, Kulchin, Larson, Mamaux and 1
Pet t ine 1
None NOES :
ABSENT: None 1
1 1 1
ATTEST :
I4 r&AZi!a- i ALETHA L. RAUTENKRANZ, Ci9 Clerk
I
4m e
*I .
August 7,1990
STAFF REPORT
SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY'S PROPOSED ENCINA EXPANSION
(SDG&E N.O.I. 89-1)
San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) filed a Notice of Intention (N.O.I.) with the
California Energy Commission (C.E.C.) on December 27, 1989. After several meetings in
Sacramento, the C.E.C. accepted the N.O.I. application as complete, which started the official
clock for the N.O.I. review process. The N.O.I. process is in six phases. The first two phases
have been completed with various meetings during "prefiling" having taken place and the "data
adequacy" process completed March 28, 1990. The third phase, called "discovery," is now
ending.
During the "Discovery" phase, twenty-five individual categories of information were
explored with numerous questions being submitted by Carlsbad and other agencies to the
Energy staff for response by SDG&E. The Carlsbad staff fully participated in this phase, seeking
answers and information responding to many questions of local concern. We have not yet
received all the requested information, and this process is not completed. However, substantial
information has been exchanged and evaluated. Our experts, Allan Thompson of Jackson, Tufts,
Cole & Black; William Brownlie of Tetra Tech, and Choule Sonu, Ph.D. have uncovered
preliminary concerns during this process providing essential expertise, knowledge and substantial
assistance to City staff.
1
0 0 ..
As this "Discovery" phase draws to a conclusion, the Energy Commission is asking the
City of Carlsbad, along with all other cities, State and Federal agencies, for a preliminary report
to be submitted prior to August 17, 1990.
The next phases of the N.O.I. process are the "Analysis," the "Hearings," and the
"Decision." The "Decision" determines which, if any, sites will be considered further in the A.F.C.
(Application for Certification) process.
The "Analysis" phase provides the Energy Commission staff the opportunity to evaluate
the project sites based on the issues identified by participants in the process. The analysis
phase provides the basis for future testimony, analysis and studies by all participants in the
"Hearing" phase - to follow.
The "Hearing" phase includes the public adjudicating and non-adjudicating hearing to
provide for the resolution of differences on the various identified issues of concern.
Your staff, in conferring with our legal counsel and environmental consultant, has reviewed
and discussed twenty five issues related to the proposed plant. Our intent has been to clearly
identify those categories that specifically impact Carlsbad and not to include categories that are
easily mitigated, or have no potential for resolution, This does not mean that pending new
evidence we would not pursue such a category in the future.
The following categories have been prioritized by staff as follows:
1. Air Quality
2,
3. Land Use
4. Biology -
Beach Erosion - Sand Transport
Lagoon
e Ocean
2
a e ..
5.
6.
7. Alternatives/Options
8.
Visual Impacts (Existing and Proposed Plant)
Public Acceptance/Sentiment Toward the Proposal
Health and Safety, including -
Transportation of chemicals
Storage of chemicals and gases
Spills
The attached report to the Energy Commission further details these categories. Tonight
we are seeking City Council approval to submit the attached report to the Energy Commission.
With submittal of this report to the Energy Commission, staff will continue to seek further
information concerning land use, health, safety, environmental, economic, social and other
impacts associated with the proposed expansion.
The next phases (the analysis and the adjudicatory hearings) will involve extensive staff
and consultant participation. The results of these phases will provide the basis for a
comprehensive staff/consultant report to the City Council, tentatively scheduled for December,
which will contain a recommendation for a City Council position on the proposed N.O.I. based
on the information and facts that have been thoroughly analyzed in this N.O.I. process.
esearch Manager RONALD R. BALL, Assistant City Attorney
DENNIS TURNER, Principal Planner
3
a e ..
Allan J. Thompson, Esq. Joseph S. Faber, Esq. 1 Evelyn K. Elsesser, Esq. JACKSON, TUFTS, COLE & BLACK
650 California Street, Suite 3130 San Francisco, California 94108 Telephone: (415) 433-1950
Ronald R. Ball Assistant City Attorney CITY OF CARLSBAD
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, California 92008-1989 Telephone: (619) 434-2891
Attorneys for City of Carlsbad
STATE OF CALIFORNIA State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission
DOCKET NO. 89 NO1 1
PRELIMINARY ISSUES REPORT
OF CITY OF CARLSBAD
1 1 1
) 1
1 1 1
In the Matter of:,
THE NOTICE OF INTENTION OF SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY TO FILE AN APPLICATION FOR
CERTIFICATION OF A COMBINED CYCLE ) ELECTRIC GENERATING FACILITY AND ) RELATED FACILITIES KNOWN AS THE COMBINED CYCLE PROJECT
I. INTRODUCTION
The City of Carlsbad (l'Carlsbadl') hereby responds to the
scheduling order issued June 20, 1990 in the above-captioned
proceeding, which directs agencies to file preliminary reports on
or before August 17, 1990.
efforts to gather and analyze information provided by the
applicant and other resources. In fact, some of these efforts
have been hampered by San Diego Gas & Electric Company's
. ("SDG&E1st1) refusal to present detailed analyses of project
Carlsbad has not yet completed its
a 0 .. .
impacts, particularly in the areas of sand transport and
biological resources. Despite this 'difficulty, Carlsbad presents
in this report a preliminary list of principal problem areas
raised by SDG&E's Notice of Intention (ltNOIt'), reservinq its
right to supplement this list as further information becomes
available.
A. ScoDe of Carlsbad's Preliminary Report
This report addresses the following major subject areas:
land use; environmental issues; public health and safety; SDG&E's
economic comparison of proposed sites; and project alternatives.
Within these subject areas, the primary concerns can be
summarized as follows.
0 The Carlsbad community is concerned that selection of the Carlsbad site for the proposed project could be inconsistent with the community's long-term plans for the use of its coastal resources.
Carlsbad citizens are concerned that the degradation of the aesthetic resources in the area may not be accurately described and considered,
e Carlsbad is concerned that the project may cause, among other things, a permanent loss in beach sand and detrimental impacts to biological communities along the beach inter-tidal communities and other species present in the lagoon.
0 Carlsbad remains unconvinced that SDG&E will, in fact, be able to locate air quality emissions credits sufficient to offset the impacts to the Carlsbad area.
0 Carlsbad does not feel confident that SDG&E has adequately explored the potential health and safety hazards to the community that may result from SDG&E's
handling of hazardous materials, emissions of carcinogens, and the increases to electromagnetic fields surrounding transmission lines,
Carlsbad places little or no weight in SDGtE's highly subjective economic comparison of the proposed sites.
Carlsbad believes that SDGCE should consider seriously
0
0
0
-2-
,q
a 0 ..
other project alternatives, such as solar, geothermal, or power purchases, before embarking on the construction of the proposed combined-cycle facility.
B. Procedural Concerns
The City of Carlsbad must go on record that a full
evaluation of the environmental impacts, in sufficient detail to
support this Commission's site selection process, on the above-
reference may not be forthcoming. In order for this to be
achieved, however, SDG&E must cooperate with the Commission Staff
and other parties and provide necessary information to analyze
environmental impacts. SDG&E's refusal to cooperate and to
evaluate fully the impacts in the NO1 process could impair the
NO1 process and disadvantage the parties to this proceeding,
including Carlsbad.
Carlsbad fears that the NO1 process could result in the
selection of a coastal site such as Carlsbad -0 not because it
is the preferable site, but because of the limited time available
for subsequent licensing and construction activities in a more
environmentally benign area.
Figure 2.4-1, that review of the NO1 and the subsequent
application for certification (I1AFC1I) for the project must be
complete by December 1992 in order to meet its proposed
commercial operation dates. However, as a result of delays at
the Blythe and Heber sites, it appears to be impossible to
complete the licensing process by the end of 1992.
Carlsbad is concerned that SDGtE and the Commission may favor a
site that would have a shorter construction timetable. Carlsbad
believes it is far more important to have an NO1 decision based
SDG&E has assumed in the NOI,
'
Accordingly,
-3-
m 0 I.
upon a complete record than to do the required analysis piece
meal and be possibly rushed to judgment.
To begin with, SDG&E has proposed amendments to the Blythe
and Heber sites but has not yet provided the informatian
supporting the amendments to the Commission. The current
decision deadline for the NO1 is being extended day for day from
the date the NO1 was deemed data adequate to the date the
amendments are provided -- already an extension of five months
beyond SDGfE's anticipated NO1 schedule. Additionally, SDG&E has
admitted that it has not performed any site-specific studies,
such as the 316-A study, for any of the proposed sites. It is
not unreasonable to assume that these studies may take from six.
months to a year following the selection of a suitable site for
the AFC process. Under these assumptions, an AFC could not be
filed until early to mid-1992.
data adequacy, a decision would be expected in late 1993 or early
1994 -- more than a year after SDG&E's projected target date for
the completion of the licensing process.
After an appropriate time for
Based on this scenario, the timing of the licensing decision
could conceivably lead to an inadequate time period for
construction and a delay in the operation date for the
facilities.
SDG&E, and possibly the Commission, to be inclined toward a
project site with a shorter construction timetable. Since the
Encina and South Bay sites already accommodate SDGtE facilities,
it is likely that those sites would be viewed as the most
expeditious projects to undertake, regardless of the
.
Carlsbad fears that this possibility will cause
-4-
.
I. e ..
environmental merits of alternate sites.
Carlsbad believes that the analysis of environmental impacts
of the various sites should, in no way, be compromised by a
desire to CdnStYUct the facilities in the most expedient manner.
Carlsbad raises its concern at this time merely to encourage the
Commission to resist any inclination to be drawn by SDG&E's
construction schedule.
11. ISSUES OF CONCERN TO THE CITY OF CARLSBAD
A. Land Use
SDG&E Position. In its NOI, SDG&E states that the site
conforms to the Carlsbad General Plan, the Agua Hedionda Local
Coastal Plan, and the Carlsbad Specific Plan "public utilityvq
designation for the property. The NO1 does state, however, that
the Specific Plan for the site would need to be amended (NOI,
Vol. 1, pp. 2-25). The NO1 characterizes the impact of the
proposed project on the Encina site as follows: "the proposed
action is not expected to result in physical or operational land
use impacts to the site or its surrounding uses.ll While SDG&E
recognizes that the site borders sensitive recreational and
residential uses, SDGCE believes that the incremental addition of
the power plant would not I1significantly affect the operational
or physical aspects of these uses" (NOI, Vol. 2, p. 7.3.5-5).
.
Carlsbad Position: The City of Carlsbad does not agree with
SDG&EIs characterization of the impacts of the project on land
use in the Carlsbad area. First, selection of the Carlsbad site
would violate the letter, and spirit, of the Coastal Zone Act.
-5-
*
a a ..
The Act advances as a goal the protection, maintenance and, where
feasible, enhancement and restoration of the overall quality of
the coastal zone environment and its natural and artificial
resources. (CaLPub. Res. S 30001.5)
Second, the proposed project may not be compatible with the
long-term land use regulations prescribed by Carlsbad. There
appears to be substantial public interest in the Carlsbad
community to cease unnecessary industrial development on the
coast. Indeed, Carlsbad believes it would be in the public
interest to consider the eventual return of valuable coastal
resources to the public. This is obviously of concern in
licensing a new power plant with a thirty year or more life-time
as the addition of that industrial facility on the coast defeats
the interest of the citizens of Carlsbad.
For these reasons, and based on rising community interest in
the use of Carlsbad's coastal resources, the City of Carlsbad
passed Ordinance NS-108 (January 23, 1990), an urgency ordinance
prohibiting any uses which may be in conflict with a contemplated
general plan, specific plan, or zoning proposal which the City is
studying or planning to study. This action was taken by Carlsbad
so that it could understand fully the ramifications of locating a
new power plant on the California coastline -- one of the state's
most precious assets. The ordinance mandates:
No development application shall be accepted, processed, or approved which would increase the size, location, generating capacity or use of the existing Encina power generating facility within the general plan "U" designation and t'PU'l zoning districts . . . 11
-6-
4B a . *.
(Ord. No. NS-108, Section 2). 1
In accordance with the direction of Ordinance No. NS-108,
the Planning Department is studying and processinq a General Plan
Amendment amending the land use designation for the site. On
July 16, 1990, the Planning Department mailed a Notice of
Preparation to affected agencies notifying them that an
environmental impact report (ttEIRtt) would be prepared on various
land use options for the area west of 1-5 and north of Canon Road
designated tgUtt, which includes the Encina power plant area. The
Notice of Preparation describes the project to be analyzed in the
EIR as a General Plan Amendment to consider the redesignation of
approximately 100 acres from Public Utilities (U), to Travel
Service Commercial/Recreation Commercial and Open Space.
The EIR will be prepared in August and September. Once
comments on the draft EIR have been received and a final EIR
prepared, the Planning Commission shall hold at least one public
hearing regarding the EIR and the General Plan Amendment. After
hearings and a final written recommendation by the Planning
Commission to the City Council, the Council will take final
action on both the EIR and the General Plan Amendment by December
15, 1990. If the General Plan is amended, any specific plan or
other plan of the City that is applicable to the same areas or
matters affected by the General Plan Amendment shall be reviewed
and amended as necessary to make the specific or other plan
consistent with the general plan.
I
' Ordinance No. NS-108 was extended by Ordinance No. NS-111
on February 13, 1990 for a period of 22 months and 15 days.
-7-
a e . e.
While the outcome of these issues has yet to be determined,
Carlsbad wishes to advise the Commission that the land use plan
upon which SDG&E based its assumptions may be changing. If the
General Plan is amended, SDG&E will need to reassess the
feasibility of constructing its proposed project at the Encina
site.
B. Environmental Issues
1. Visual Resources
SDG&E Position. SDG&E identifies the sensitive view sheds
for the Encina project as Highway 1-5 to the north, residences
across the Agua Hedionda Lagoon, and the recreation area of
Carlsbad State Beach (NOI, Vol. I, p. 2-28). The NO1
additionally states regarding the impacts from 'the two additional
150 ft. stacks: Itthe additive increase of visual impact would be
high." (NOI, Vol. I, p. 2-28). In another location, the NO1
SDG&E states that the incremental impacts to the Encina site
project would be moderate to visual resources but adds Itthe
additive increase in visual impact of two additional stacks as
viewed from the north along Interstate 5, from the residences
across Agua Hedionda Lagoon, and from the recreation areas of
Carlsbad State Beach in the foreground -- middleground distance
would be significant.
would draw additional visual attentiontt (NOI, Vol. 2, p. 7.3.7-
1).
stacks a color which would repeat the similar color of the
existing stack (NOI, Vol. 1, p. 2-28).
Strong vertical line and form contrast.
SDGLE has proposed to mitigate these effects by painting the
Carlsbad Position: The City is currently attempting to
-8-
. I. a a
determine the impacts felt by its citizens who live in homes that
have views of the facility or who utilize the beach and park
lands which have a view of the facility.
impacts, SDG&E must also consider the view impacts of motorists
(some 130,000 cars/day) who travel on Highway 1-5, visitors to
the Carlsbad beaches (more than 3 million per year), and railroad
passengers (1.7 million per year on Amtrak). Carlsbad believes
that reactions of its own citizens and visitors may offer the
best evidence of the impact of the proposed project, despite
SDG&E's attempts to show, by way of a BLM developed model, that
the impacts would be moderate.
Along with these
Carlsbad has requested SDG&E to superimpose outlines of the
facility on photographs it has taken from various locations in
the City of Carlsbad. (See Data Requests of the City of Carlsbad
(Set Two)). When these images become available to Carlsbad, a
more helpful analysis and reaction will be made available. As
for now, Carlsbad does not agree that the impacts will be
moderate. Rather, Carlsbad agrees with the conclusion in the NO1
that the impacts to some areas will, in fact, be significant.
2. Sand TransDort
SDG&E Position. The cooling water intake from the
outer Agua Hedionda Lagoon causes excess water and sand to flow
from the oceans and beaches into the lagoon. SDG&E periodically
dredges this material and deposits it in the near shore region
south of the cooling water discharge outlet, thereby, in their
opinion, replenishing the sands that have been temporarily lost
to the coastal system by diversion into the lagoon (NOI, Vol. 2,
-9-
e 0 . a.
p. 7.3.3-3). SDG&E states that there are no sand transportation
effects attributable to the jetties and discharge plume.. (NoI,
Vol. 2, p. 7.3.3-8).
Dredging removes 275,000 cubic yards for each effort (NoI,
Vol. 2, p. 7.3.3-3), which translates into a dredging requirement
of an estimated 133,000 cubic yards per year (NOI, Vol. 2,
p. 7.3.3-3). By way of example, the dredging requirement for
1989 was 146,000 cubic yards (Comment, Mr. Dyson at 7-17-90
briefing).
Carlsbad Position: Carlsbad has a deep interest in
maintaining sand on its beaches and believes that the proposed
project will have significant detrimental effects on the quantity
of sand available to the beaches. Carlsbad has long been active
in many beach protection programs and has been an active member
in the Experimental Sand Bypass Project further north on the
coast in Oceanside, which will reroute sand to replenish the
Carlsbad beaches. The $12 million project, which is managed by
the Army Corp of Engineers, has a design capacity for rerouting
350,000 cubic yards of sand per year. In addition, Carlsbad is a
co-sponsor with the Port of Los Angeles in the Batiquitos Lagoon
Enhancement Project, which will provide nourishment to Carlsbad
beaches. Carlsbad wants to be sure that SDG&E1s characterization
of the relationship between increases in cooling water
requirements and sand increases in the lagoon will be accurate
for purposes of determining future sand dredging requirements.
Although SDG&E has not provided sufficient data and analysis to
make a clear determination, Carlsbad believes that there will be
- 10 -
e 0 . *.
some permanent loss of sand due to the rate of flow out of the
outfall structure and that there will be a negative effect on the
Carlsbad beaches from the "borrowing8' of sand from the beaches
into the lagoon. Carlsbad is not convinced that a 27% increase
in the cooling water requirements for the additional facilities
will translate to a 27% increase of sand into the outer lagoon.
Carlsbad has reason to believe that, in fact, the increase sand
transport into the lagoon will be significantly larger than 27%.
Inasmuch as SDG&E can only dredge from October to March
(Dyson Comment, 7-17-90), it is possible that dredging will have
to take place annually or up to every 18 months.
undoubtedly will cause increased turbidity in the lagoon and a .
greater permanent loss of sand due to dispersal by outfall plume
discharge off the coast.
will be substantial and serious impacts to biological resources
in the lagoons from increased cooling water requirements for the
plant and increased dredging activities.
This
Carlsbad further believes that there
3. Water Oualitv/Biolosv
SDG&E Position. SDG&E recognizes several important points
in its analysis of water quality/biological resource issues.
0 The areas of critical concern are the salt marshes, the
offshore kelp beds, and the eel grass beds in the
lagoon (NOI, Vol. 2, p. 7.3.4-76).
0 There will be detrimental effects from a 27% increase in the discharge of the thermal effluent to the ocean (NOI, Vol. 1, p. 2-20) and impacts from increased dredging (Vol. 2, p. 7.3.4-84).
There will be impacts to the sandy beach inter-tidal
community and offshore kelp and a reduction in the abundance in species diversity in the lagoon. (NOI,
Vol. 2, p. 7.3.4-82 and 83).
0
- 11 -
0 0 .*
0 The project will result in additional entrapment and entrainment of plankton, larvae and fish egg kills
(Vol. 2, p. 7.3.4-80 and 8'1).
Bio-fouling treatment, which occurs every six weeks, will increase the negative effects upon the plankton and fish communities (NOI, Vol. 2, p. 7.3.4-82).
A 316A demonstration will be required for the thermal discharge (NOI, Vol. 1, p. 2-21); meet the objectives of the 4O delta (NOI, Vol. 2,
0
0
316A probably cannot
p. 7.3.3-21).
Despite SDGtE's recognition of these potential problems,
ranks Encina as one of the three best sites for biology.
Vol. 1, p. 5-25.)
SDG&E
(NOI,
Carlsbad Position: Carlsbad has requested information from
SDG&E concerning the effects on water quality and biological
resources at the Encina site and will continue in its efforts to
obtain information necessary to an evaluation of the project
impacts upon the biological communities in the area. Even
without sufficient data, however, Carlsbad believes that the
proposed project will have detrimental impacts on the biological
resources in the lagoon and on the beaches.
SDG&E has failed to present any analysis of increased
entrainment or entrapment, and no thorough analysis of impacts
from the project are expected from SDG&E (see Response to Staff
Data Request No. 186). Indeed, the information that has been
provided by SDG&E on fish impingement is erroneous. Carlsbad
asserts that the fish impingement data presented on page 7.3.4-
79 should be correlated to existing operational flows, not to the
flow capacity (1326 cfs). Furthermore, little information about
the diversity or abundance of fish species in the lagoon has been
presented. Without further, and more accurate, analysis, the
- 12 -
0 0 ..
L.
true impacts on fish life cannot be assessed.
Carlsbad is concerned about the impact that decreased
flushing of the inner and middle lagoons might have on biological
resources. Increased flushing may lead to a reduction in the
tidal amplitude in these portions of the lagoon. As a result,
there may be reductions in the area of the intertidal zone and
associated effects on the intertidal ecosystem including
intertidal communities, eel grass beds, and salt marshes. While
SDG&E has identified these areas as areas of critical concern
(NOI, Vol. 2, p. 7.3.4-76), SDG&E has failed to indicate what the
potential impacts might be.
Carlsbad is concerned that the increase in the ocean outfall
may have significant adverse effects on the existing kelp beds
and the biota in the vicinity of those beds.
Finally, Carlsbad is concerned that SDG&E has failed to
analyze the effects of the proposed project on threatened or
endangered species. SDG&E has stated that the least tern is a
bird species known or expected to occur on lands associated with
the Encina site and its ancillary facilities. (Table 7.3.4.2.2-
1). The least tern is a federal and state-listed endangered
species. (7.3.4-63). SDG&E represents, apparently based on a
personal communication, that the least tern has not been observed
nesting near the site in the last few years, although "they may
nest within the immediate area of the proposed plan site."
(7.3.4-63). SDG&E also states that the snowy plover is a bird
species known or expected to occur on lands associated with the
Encina site and its ancillary facilities. (Table 7.3.4.2.2-1).
- 13 -
.*
e e ..
The snowy plover is a Federal Category 2 species.
identified the snowy plover nesting areas nor given any
indication of their degree of presence near the site.
submits that the cursory treatment of the potential impact on
these species given by SDG&E provides an insufficient basis on
which to determine the proposed project's potential impacts on
these biological resources.
SDG&E has not
Carlsbad
For these and other reasons, Carlsbad believes it is
impossible to analyze adequately the biological impacts from
project construction and operation with the present level of
information and analysis provided by SDG&E.
that the true impacts on biological resources cannot be
determined until a successful 316A demonstration has been made.
Carlsbad asserts
4. Air Oualitv
SDG&E Position. SDG&E admits that the San Diego air basin
is in a non-attainment status for ozone, NO,, CO and particulates
(NOI, Vol. 1, p. 2-16). SDG&E anticipates that offsets for the
new facility at Encina will be obtained from existing equipment
at the site.
own definition of Reasonably Available Control Technology
(%ACTtr) (NOI, Vol. 1, p. 2-16). SDG&E essentially assumes that
the present technology on the existing Encina plan constitutes
RACT by definition, simply because it is in compliance with
present San Diego County Air Pollution Control District
( "SDCAPCD") regulations.
SDG&E calculates the available offsets using its
SDG&E has attempted to quantify the difference in air
emission control costs between the "bestgg site (South Bay) and
- 14 -
*
e 0 ..
the *Iworstv1 site (Heber), reaching a figure of $20 million (NOI,
Vol. 1, p. 5-27). The Table ranking candidate sites, Tpble 5-6,
suggests that the differential would be approximately the same
value when comparing Encina and Heber, that is, almost $20
million. (NOI, Vol. 1, p. 5-29).
Carlsbad Position: Carlsbad does not accept SDG&E1s loose
application of RACT and submits that SDG&E should be required to
recalculate available offsets.
a more stringent definition of RACT.
21 workshop involving Albert0 Abreu of the San Diego County Air
Pollution District, the definition of RACT as employed by SDG&E
is unacceptable to all parties. In addition, SDG&E has
miscalculated the available offsets from the Encina site by
basing the calculation on maximum, rather than average, emissions
from the existing plant.
SDG&E should be required to apply
As was apparent at the June
Carlsbad is concerned that following a correct RACT
determination and recalculation of existing emissions, there may
be insufficient offsets to allow for the construction and
operation of the proposed unit. Moreover, the cost of offsetting
the new power plant at the Encina site will be much closer to the
$20 million cost of offsetting a facility at Heber. SDG&E's cost
comparison, therefore, will be less likely to favor the Encina
site.
It should be remembered that over the next two years the
SDCAPCD will undoubtedly be well on its way to requiring existing
power plant units to clean up their emissions or shut down. As
the opinion of the SDAPCD is extremely important to this
- 15 -
I" Item i40. 7, Pg. 16. Exhibit 3 to SDGCE Expansionaenda Bill #10,768.
proceoding, the interaction between this proceeding and the
timing of tho SDCAPCD raquhmanka nadc to ba rvaluatrd:
C. Kopbth and Safoty
1. -
-e Carlabad has roquo8tad that SDG&E provide a
dotailod riak assessment for each of tho fiva altae to ovaluata
quantitatively th8 mffmct of non-criteria pollutant mmiocions for
each .it.. (Carlrbad Data Requeat No. 16.) SDGLE has doclined
to provide thh information in it8 July 17, 15-Day Notification,
stating that tho information roquo8tmd goo8 far bmyond tha mcope
of the NOS proceus. Yet SOCLE alro rtat.8 that tho C~mmiaaion~s
Staff is praparinq tho hoalth risk aumousment uought by Carlsbad.'
-ad Pw. Carlsbad maintain., and apparently tho .
Cornmimaion mtaff agrmoa, that a hoalth ri8k aamosrmant should bo
proparad for oach of the five Bite@ in question. While Carlabad
will bo 8atiafi.d to rocoivo tho ro8ult8 of 8uch an analysim,
courtemy of the Co~i86ion'8 Staff, Carlsbad is pusalod by
SDCCIE'8 rofusal to undortako this analysis on it8 own account.
It io Carlsbad'r undaratanding that tho StaZf will. preparo a
haalth risk analyrh to obtain the individual risk lovolm for
non-critoria pollutant..
workrhop, howovor, Carhbad b01iov.a that it would be appropriate
in this cam to tako the analysir to it. logical conclumion by
extonding tha individual risk level to a population rirk leval.
Ai Carlobad indicated in tha June 21
Thm Air ~oxicm ~smssmont Manual, pr0par.d by tha California
Air Pollution Control Officarrr Amrociation, muggomtm that the
population oxtanrion can ba an important output of tho rimk
.. 16 -
0 0 .,
.*
assessment:
Another important output of the cancer risk analysis is the assessment of the increased cancer risks which the proposed facility may pose to the entire exposed population. This is obtained by calculating the "population excess cancer burden" . . . The population
excess cancer burden is the estimate of the potential increased number of cancer cases (not necessarily deaths) in a population as a result of exposure to a carcinogen.
(Air Toxics Assessment Manual, S 3.5.2).
Carlsbad believes that a population calculation would be
particularly appropriate in this case, in which the Commission is
attempting to compare the relative impacts that may result from
construction of the proposed facility in highly populated coastal
sites with the impacts on sparsely populated desert sites. The-
City of Carlsbad continues to grow at an impressive rate.
Carlsbad encourages the Commission, having expressed its
willingness to prepare the health risk assessment, to take the
analysis to its logical conclusion in this case.
2. Hazardous Materials
SDG&E Position. The staff of the CEC is preparing an
analysis of public health hazards emanating from the storage,
transportation and handling of hazardous materials.
Carlsbad Position: Given the size of the resident
population likely to be downwind of the plant and the extremely
large transient population on the highway in close proximity to
the plant, an analysis of the issues raised by the staff report
is of crucial importance to the residents of Carlsbad.
3. Transmission Line Safetv and Nuisance
SDG&E Position. In response to a request by the City of
- 17 -
3
e 0 6,
Z
..
Carlsbad, SEG&E refused to provide any'information on
electromagnetic field (''EMFtt) effects surrounding high tension
transmission lines.
Carlsbad Position: Carlsbad believes that the record in
this proceeding should contain an adequate discussion of the
potential health effects from EMF, and the increase in field size
as a result of the new plant.
responded to the Commission staff's request for information on
EMF and is most interested in the staff's evaluation of this
issue.
D. Economic ComDarison
SDGbE Position.
Carlsbad is aware that SDG&E has
SDGtE attempted to rank all of the
candidate sites based upon weighting coefficients, which were
developed on the basis of potential cost implications of avoiding
or mitigating predicted impacts or other site specific
shortcomings (NOI, Vol. 1, p. 5-24).
cost differential was 43.5% of the total, community acceptance
only 5.6%, and aesthetic impacts 11.3% (NOI, Vol. 1, p. 5-29).
SDGbE admits that there is a negative local reaction to the
filing of the NO1 (NOI, Vol, 1, p. 2-34).
For instance, the capital
Carlsbad Position, Carlsbad is concerned that the process
by which SDG&E arrived at the weighting coefficients used in its
analysis may not have resulted in a meaningful comparison of the
various site alternatives.
throughout this report, SDG&E has not performed sufficient
analysis in several areas on which to base any determination of
relative value. Second, it is difficult to imagine that the
First, as Carlsbad has emphasized
- 18 -
0 0 a.
s:
process could be free from subjectivity, as SDG&E has stated,
given that the process was conducted exclusively by SDG&E and its
consultants. For example, how was SDG&E able to accurately
reflect the relative value of community acceptance of the project
without involving the community directly? Third, the approach
involved the assumption that "one can adequately (if not fully)
account for the importance of a predicted impact at a given
candidate site by considering the amount of money that would have
to be spent to (a) prevent the impact from occurring or (b) to
mitigate the impact to the extent that net effect would be
acceptable.Il (NOI, Vol. 1, p. 5-6). Carlsbad does not agree
with this assumption. There are some impacts, for example,
visual impacts, that cannot be prevented or mitigated by spending
money: The NO1 process contemplates that a potential site may
have a "fatal flaw.l#
As a result of SDG&E's approach, Carlsbad believes that a
number of the elements used to differentiate the candidate sites
failed to reflect the true cost of siting the facility at the
Carlsbad location. For instance, due to the lack of information
and analysis provided by SDG&E, the cost to mitigate the biology
impacts (ocean intake and outfall structures) air quality- impacts
(higher cost of offsets), and public health impacts may be
substantially understated. Additionally, the evaluation of
community acceptance and land use impacts cannot possibly be
determined with any degree of accuracy without adequate
consultation with the community.
plant cost is 8 times more important than community acceptance.)
(Carlsbad cannot believe that
- 19 -
a 0 '. '
Finally, as mentioned above, some impacts, such as visual
impacts, cannot be mitigated to an acceptable level.
these reasons, Carlsbad is interested in exploring a ranking of
candidate sites which includes a more reasonable assessment of
mitigation.
E. Alternatives
For all of
SDG&E Position. SDG&E believes that the first plant needs
to begin operation in June 1995 and the second in June 1996.
(NOI, Vol. 1, p. 1-2). To fit in that time frame, SDG&E has
listed potential resources, but did not include solar,
geothermal, purchases from Southern California Edison, purchases
from out-of-state utilities and cogeneration within and outside
of the local area (NOI, Vol. 1, p. 3-9). SDG&E further stated
that: I'For its resource planning process, SDG&E has had no
reliable basis for determining that there is over 400MW of
dependable and economic purchase power options in the post 1994
period." (NOI, Vol. 1, p. 4-4)
Carlsbad Position: The City of Carlsbad believes that in
order to ensure that capacity additions conform to the announced
goals of the State of California, consideration of numerous
alternate fuel alternatives must be made. In fact, SDGCE itself
has committed to examine other possibilities.
that
The NO1 states
SDGLE will solicit bids from other utilities, QFs and
other independent power producers (IPPs) to ascertain whether the proposed combined cycle project can be deferred or eliminated by purchasing power, with the
necessary attributes to meet reliability and quality of
- 20 -
LI 0 * a1
,
service needs, from these other parties.
(NOI, Vol.1, p. 3-34). Carlsbad is most interested in assisting
in the evaluation of alternative sites and alternative methods of
producing the capacity required at the earliest date possible.
111. AREAS OF NO IMMEDIATE CONCERN
Although the analysis by the City of Carlsbad has been
preliminary, the City does not believe that it will contest other
areas of the NOI. These areas include: Paleontological
Resources; Socioeconomics; Mechanical Engineering;
Industrial/Fire & Safety; Civil Engineering; Transmission System
Evaluation; Soils (to the extent this category does not include
sand transport); Noise; Demand Conformance; Cultural Resources;
Power Plant Reliability and Efficiency; Engineering Geology;
Structural Engineering; and Transportation.
Carlsbad trusts that the comments provided to the Commission
herein will assist the Commission in determining the appropriate
site for the proposed combined-cycle facility.
Respectfully submitted this 17th day of August, 1990.
JACKSON, TUFTS, COLE & BLACK
Allan J. Thompsoz e Joseph S. Faber
Evelyn K. Elsesser
Attorneys for City of Carlsbad
1 \14794/001/PD005 .EKE
- 21 -
*