HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990-08-14; City Council; Resolution 90-296ll w m
,
1
2
3
4 I
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.
1
5
6 indicated that the utility would be filing a Notice of Inte
7 with the California Energy Commission to construct a combined
8
9
electrical generating facility of approximately 460 megawatts
WHEREAS, the Carlsbad Encina site is one of
WHEREAS, on December 12, 1989 representatives of
10
WHEREAS, SDG&E did file a Notice of Intention to f 11
potential sites for the location of that facility; and
12
slug cn>Z 13
<aOg $E&
$8;: 14
Z>j2 %sg mGQl, 15
SUO30 ~$26 16 ZOS$ q8y >Y% 17 gv
0
u ,<-I >ma
18
permit to construct such a facility with the California E
Commission on December 27, 1989 (89-NOI-1); and
WHEREAS, that application was determined to be
adequate by the California Energy Commission on March 28, 199(
WHEREAS, the City Council authorized the hiring of
and technical experts to assist it in these proceedings by apy
of Resolution Nos. 90-129 and 90-141; and
19
WHEREAS, the City has extensively gathered fact 22
obtain additional facts and information; and 21
agency, allowing it to fully participate in the proceedin? 20
WHEREAS, the City is accorded special status as a
23
scheduling order requesting agencies to file preliminary 28
WHEREAS, the California Energy Commission has is: 27
A; and 26
California Energy Commission a copy of which is attached as E: 25
in order to allow it to prepare a preliminary issues report. 24
participated in the proceedings and obtained sufficient inforl
I/
1
2
w m
with it by August 17, 1990,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council
City of Carlsbad, California, as follows:
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1. That the above recitations are true and corre
2. That the preliminary issues report of the C
Carlsbad attached as Exhibit A is approved and the City At
and City Manager are directed to file it with the California
Commission in its proceedings.
3. The offices of the City Attorney and City Manag
directed to continue to obtain information and data on the
10 identified in the preliminary report and any other issues th
11
12
00,
&E&
ouam ooaa Z>ilz QI"a
u 'ai ,>ma wmo
aan
SlUF m>
53;:
mi522
+&$
=-5gl:
Zz-l
>2%
0 ko
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21 /I
22
23
become of concern to the City and to return to the City Counc
further direction for submitting a final report or other do
to the Energy Commission as soon as necessary or desirable ir
proceedings.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a Regular Meeting
City Council of the City of Carlsbad on the 14th day of &
1990, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES : Council Members Lewis, Kulchin, Larson, Mamaux ar
NOES : None
ABSENT : None
Pettine
~ 24
25
ATTEST :
27
a g ,g" 26
ALETHA L. RAUTENKRANZ, Cit. Clerk
28
W (m
Allan J. Thompson, Esq.
Joseph S. Faber, Esq. 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
In the Matter of:, 1 DOCKET NO. 89 NO1 1
THE NOTICE OF INTENTION OF SAN 1 PRELIMINARY ISSUES REPOI DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY TO 1 OF CITY OF CARLSBAD
FILE AN APPLICATION FOR 1 CERTIFICATION OF A COMBINED CYCLE ) ELECTRIC GENERATING FACILITY AND ) RELATED FACILITIES KNOWN AS THE 1 COMBINED CYCLE PROJECT 1
1
1
I. INTRODUCTION
The City of Carlsbad ("Carlsbad") hereby responds to the
scheduling order issued June 20, 1990 in the above-captioned
proceeding, which directs agencies to file preliminary reports
or before August 17, 1990. Carlsbad has not yet completed its
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&EIsl') refusal to present detailed analyses of project
W im
impacts, particularly in the areas of sand transport and
biological resources. Despite this 'difficulty, Carlsbad preseni
in this report a preliminary list of principal problem areas
raised by SDG&E's Notice of Intention (lfNOI1f), reserving its
right to supplement this list as further information becomes
available.
A. Scope of Carlsbad's Preliminarv Rersort
This report addresses the following major subject areas:
land use; environmental issues; public health and safety; SDGCE
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.
0 Carlsbad citizens are concerned that the degradation the aesthetic resources in the area may not be accurately described and considered.
0 Carlsbad is concerned that the project may cause, am0
other things, a permanent loss in beach sand and
detrimental impacts to biological communities along t
beach inter-tidal communities and other species prese 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.
0 Carlsbad places little or no weight in SDG&E's highly
subjective economic comparison of the proposed sites.
0 Carlsbad believes that SDG&E should consider serious1
-2-
W m
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 tc
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 Sta:
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 -- not because it
is the preferable site, but because of the limited time availab
for subsequent licensing and construction activities in a more
environmentally benign area. SDG&E has assumed in the NOI,
Figure 2.4-1, that review of the NO1 and the subsequent
application for certification ("AFC") 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. Accordingly
Carlsbad is concerned that SDG&E and the Commission may favor a
site that would have a shorter construction timetable. Carlsba
believes it is far more important to have an NO1 decision based
-3-
9
W 'o
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 information
supporting the amendments to the Commission. The current
decision deadline for the NO1 is being extended day for day fro
the date the NO1 was deemed data adequate to the date the
amendments are provided -- already an extension of five months
beyond SDG&EIs anticipated NO1 schedule. Additionally, SDG&E h
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. After an appropriate time for
data adequacy, a decision would be expected in late 1993 or ear
1994 -- more than a year after SDG&EIs projected target date fo
the completion of the licensing process.
Based on this scenario, the timing of the licensing decisi
could conceivably lead to an inadequate time period for
construction and a delay in the operation date for the '
facilities. Carlsbad fears that this possibility will cause
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 SDG&E facilities
it is likely that those sites would be viewed as the most
expeditious projects to undertake, regardless of the
-4-
W (.
environmental merits of alternate sites.
Carlsbad believes that the analysis of environmental impaci
of the various sites should, in no way, be compromised by a
desire to construct the facilities in the most expedient manner
Carlsbad raises its concern at this time merely to encourage th,
Commission to resist any inclination to be drawn by SDG&Ers
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 Ifpublic utilityvv
designation for the property. The NO1 does state, however, thal
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 lanc
use impacts to the site or its surrounding uses." While SDG&E
recognizes that the site borders sensitive recreational and
residential uses, SDG&E believes that the incremental addition c
the power plant would not I*significantly 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 wit
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-
w w
The Act advances as a goal the protection, maintenance and, whe]
feasible, enhancement and restoration of the overall quality of
the coastal zone environment and its natural and artificial
resources. (Cal.Pub. Res. S 30001.5)
Second, the proposed project may not be compatible with thc
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-tim
as the addition of that industrial facility on the coast defeat
the interest of the citizens of Carlsbad.
For these reasons, and based on rising community interest
the use of Carlsbadls coastal resources, the City of Carlsbad
passed Ordinance NS-108 (January 23, 1990), an urgency ordinanc
prohibiting any uses which may be in conflict with a contemplat
general plan, specific plan, or zoning proposal which the City
studying or planning to study. This action was taken by Carlsb
so that it could understand fully the ramifications of locating
new power plant on the California coastline -- one of the state
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 tlU1l designation and tlPU1l zoning districts . . . I1
-6-
- rl)
(Ord. No. NS-108, Section 2). 1
In accordance with the direction of Ordinance No. NS-108,
the Planning Department is studying and processing a General P1;
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 (IIEIRI') would be prepared on variou:
land use options for the area west of 1-5 and north of Canon RO~
designated rlUl*, which includes the Encina power plant area. Thl
Notice of Preparation describes the project to be analyzed in tl
EIR as a General Plan Amendment to consider the redesignation o
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
I
prepared, the Planning Commission shall hold at least one publil
hearing regarding the EIR and the General Plan Amendment. Afte
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 Decemb
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 reviewe
and amended as necessary to make the specific or other plan
consistent with the general plan.
' Ordinance No. NS-108 was extended by Ordinance No. NS-1
on February 13, 1990 for a period of 22 months and 15 days.
-7-
w m
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 additiona
150 ft. stacks: "the additive increase of visual impact would be
high." (NOI, Vol. I, p. 2-28). In another location, the NO1
SDGbE states that the incremental impacts to the Encina site
project would be moderate to visual resources but adds "the
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. Strong vertical line and form contrast
would draw additional visual attentiongt (NOI, Vol. 2, p. 7.3.7-
1). SDG&E has proposed to mitigate these effects by painting th
stacks a color which would repeat the similar color of the
existing stack (NOI, Vol. 1, p. 2-28).
Carlsbad Position: The City is currently attempting to
-8-
w rn
determine the impacts felt by its citizens who live in homes th,
have views of the facility or who utilize the beach and park
lands which have a view of the facility. Along with these
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 railro
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.
Carlsbad has requested SDG&E to superimpose outlines of th
facility on photographs it has taken from various locations in
the City of Carlsbad. (a Data Requests of the City of Carlsb
(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 N
that the impacts to some areas will, in fact, be significant.
2. Sand Transport
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 periodical1
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-
- 0
p. 7.3.3-3). SDG&E states that there are no sand transportatio
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 requireme
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 quanti
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
co-sponsor with the Port of Los Angeles in the Batiquitos Lagoo
Enhancement Project, which will provide nourishment to Carlsbad
beaches. Carlsbad wants to be sure that SDG&E1s characterizati
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 b
- 10 -
w 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 t
Carlsbad beaches from the "borrowingI1 of sand from the beaches
into the lagoon. Carlsbad is not
in the cooling water requirements
convinced that a 27% increase
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 hav
to take place annually or up to every 18 months. This
undoubtedly will cause increased turbidity in the lagoon and a
greater permanent loss of sand due to dispersal by outfall plum
discharge off the coast. Carlsbad further believes that there
will be substantial and serious impacts to biological resources
in the lagoons from increased cooling water requirements for th,
plant and increased dredging activities.
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, t
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).
0 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).
- 11 -
- 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).
0 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).
0 A 316A demonstration will be required for the thermal discharge (NOI, Vol. 1, p. 2-21); 316A probably cannc
meet the objectives of the 4O delta (NOI, Vol. 2,
p. 7.3.3-21).
Despite SDG&EIs recognition of these potential problems, SDG&E
ranks Encina as one of the three best sites for biology. (NOI,
Vol. 1, p. 5-25.)
Carlsbad Position: Carlsbad has requested information fro]
SDG&E concerning the effects on water quality and biological
resources at the Encina site and will continue in its efforts tc
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 biologica
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 t:
flow capacity (1326 cfs). Furthermore, little information abou
the diversity or abundance of fish species in the lagoon has be
presented. Without further, and more accurate, analysis, the
- 12 -
- 0
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 biologic
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. Whil
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 t
potential impacts might be.
Carlsbad is concerned that the increase in the ocean outfa
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 wit:
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 observ
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). SDGtE 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 -
I
v W
The snowy plover is a Federal Category 2 species. SDG&E has no1
identified the snowy plover nesting areas nor given any
indication of their degree of presence near the site. Carlsbad
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.
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. Carlsbad asserts
that the true impacts on biological resources cannot be
determined until a successful 316A demonstration has been made.
4. Air Oualitv
SDG&E Position. SDGCE admits that the San Diego air basin
is in a non-attainment status for ozone, NOx, CO and particulatt
(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. SDG&E calculates the available offsets using its
own definition of Reasonably Available Control Technology
(IIRACTII) (NOI, Vol. 1, p. 2-16). SDG&E essentially assumes tha.
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
( tlSDCAPCD1') regulations.
SDG&E has attempted to quantify the difference in air
emission control costs between the I1bestl1 site (South Bay) and
- 14 -
v m
the ltworst1l site (Heber) , reaching a figure of $20 million (NO1
Vol. 1, p. 5-27). The Table ranking candidate sites, Table 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&E's loose
application of RACT and submits that SDG&E should be required tc
recalculate available offsets. SDG&E should be required to app
a more stringent definition of RACT. As was apparent at the Ju:
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, emissio:
from the existing plant.
Carlsbad is concerned that following a correct RACT
determination and recalculation of existing emissions, there ma:
be insufficient offsets to allow for the construction and
operation of the proposed unit. Moreover, the cost of offsetti:
the new power plant at the Encina site will be much closer to t:
$20 million cost of offsetting a facility at Heber. SDG&EIs co,
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 existi:
power plant units to clean up their emissions or shut down. As
the opinion of the SDAPCD is extremely important to this
- 15 -
Item ?.lo. 7, Pg. 16 omxhibit 3 to SDGCE Expansion mnda Bill #10,768
procmding, tha fntWXCtiOn between this proceeding and the
timing of the SDCAPCD raquirernrnts nerhe to be evaluated;
C. Health and Safw
1, -
SDCtE. Carlabad has requested that SDGOE provide e
detailed risk aasessment for each of the five sitem to evaluate
quantitativaly the affect of non-critaria pollutant em1or;ions POI
oach rite. (Carlabad Data Request No. 16.) SDGliE has declined
to pmVid0 this infomation in ita July 17, 15-Day Notification,
stating that the information requeated goem far bayond tha ocope
of the NO1 process. Yet SDCLE also state8 that the Commin8ion's
staff ia praparing the health ri6k auuessment sought by Carlsbad.
wad Pow. Carlsbad maintain., and apparently tha
Cormnisaion staff agree., that a health ri8k aasessmant ahould be
propared for each of the five &ita& in queation. While Carlabad
will b8 aatisfied to rmceive the reaulta of such an analyais,
courtesy of the Comisaionss ritaff, Carlmbad fm puzzled by
SDGLtE'8 rmfusal to undortake thir analysia on ita own account.
It ia Carlabad's understanding that the Staff will prepare a
haalth risk analyais to obtain the individual ri8k lavalm for
non-criteria pollutants. A6 Carlobad indicated in the JUn. 21
workshop, howovor, Carlabad believe. that it would be appropriate
in this cas8 to taka the analyeir to it6 logical conclumion by
extending the individual risk leva1 to a population rirk level.
Tho Air Toxic8 A88..8mOnt Manual, pr0par.d by the California
Air Pollution Control Officers Asaociation, muggmsta that thr
population axtenrion can be an important output of the rimk
- 16 -
w m
assessment:
Another important output of the cancer risk analysis the assessment of the increased cancer risks which thl
proposed facility may pose to the entire exposed population. This is obtained by calculating the ltpopulation excess cancer burdenv1 . . . The populatio
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
attempting to compare the relative impacts that may result from
construction of the proposed facility in highly populated coast
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 Safety and Nuisance
SDG&E Position. In response to a request by the City of
- 17 -
- 0
Carlsbad, SDG&E refused to provide any'information on
electromagnetic field (IIEMFtt) 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 si
as a result of the new plant. Carlsbad is aware that SDG&E has
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
SDG&E Position. SDG&E attempted to rank all of the
candidate sites based upon weighting coefficients, which were
developed on the basis of potential cost implications of avoidi:
or mitigating predicted impacts or other site specific
shortcomings (NOI, Vol. 1, p. 5-24). For instance, the capital
cost differential was 43.5% of the total, community acceptance
only 5.6%, and aesthetic impacts 11.3% (NOI, Vol. 1, p. 5-29).
SDG&E admits that there is a negative local reaction to the
filing of the NO1 (NOI, Vol. 1, p. 2-34).
Carlsbad Position. Carlsbad is concerned that the process
by which SDG&E arrived at the weighting coefficients used in it2
analysis may not have resulted in a meaningful comparison of tht
various site alternatives. First, as Carlsbad has emphasized
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
- 18 -
w m
process could be free from subjectivity, as SDG&E has stated,
given that the process was conducted exclusively by SDG&E and i
consultants. For example, how was SDG&E able to accurately
reflect the relative value of community acceptance of the proje
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 ha
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.## (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 spendi
money: The NO1 process contemplates that a potential site may
have a "fatal flaw. II
r
As a result of SDG&Ets approach, Carlsbad believes that a
number of the elements used to differentiate the candidate site
failed to reflect the true cost of siting the facility at the
Carlsbad location. For instance, due to the lack of informatia
and analysis provided by SDG&E, the cost to mitigate the biolog
impacts (ocean intake and outfall structures) air quality impac
(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. (Carlsbad cannot believe that
plant cost is 8 times more important than community acceptance.
- 19 -
w a
Finally, as mentioned above, some impacts, such as visl;al
impacts, cannot be mitigated to an acceptable level. For all (
these reasons, Carlsbad is interested in exploring a ranking of
candidate sites which includes a more reasonable assessment of
mitigation.
E. Alternatives
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, purchase
from out-of-state utilities and cogeneration within and outside
of the local area (NOI, Vol. 1, p. 3-9). SDGtE further stated
that: ttFor 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.tt (NOI, Vol. 1, p. 4-4)
Carlsbad Position: The City of Carlsbad believes that in
order to ensure that capacity additions conform to the announce
goals of the State of California, consideration of numerous
alternate fuel alternatives must be made. In fact, SDG&E itsel
has committed to examine other possibilities. The NO1 states
that
SDG&E will solicit bids from other utilities, QFs anc other independent power producers (IPPs) to ascertail whether the proposed combined cycle project can be deferred or eliminated by purchasing power, with the necessary attributes to meet reliability and quality
- 20 -
w a
service needs, from these other parties.
(NOI, Vol.1, p. 3-34). Carlsbad is most interested in assistil
in the evaluation of alternative sites and alternative methods (
producing the capacity requ.ired 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 othc
areas of the NOI. These areas include: Paleontological
Resources; Socioeconomics; Mechanical Engineering;
Industrial/Fire & Safety; Civil Engineering; Transmission Systen
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 Commissio
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. Th6mpsoii 7
Joseph S. Faber
Evelyn K. .Elsesser
Attorneys for City of Carlsbac
1\14794/001/PD005.EKE
- 21 -