Opportunities for new coastal power plants in California staff report

[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]

OPPORTUNITIES FOR NEW
COASTAL POWER PLANTS
IN CALIFORNIA

STAFF REPORT

JUNE 1981

CALIFORNIA
ENERGY
COMMISSION

TK1 10
.077
1981 P700-81-006
c. 2

STATE OF CALIFORNIA-THE RESOURCES AGENCY EDMUND G. BROWN JR., Governor
CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION Property of CSC Library
1111 HOWE AVENUE
SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95825
S- DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NOAA
COASTAL SERMES CENTER
2231 SOUTH HOBSON AVENUE
CHAR,LESTON SC 29405-24 13

TO: All Interested.Parties

The staff of,the California Energy Commission (CEC) has completed its study
examining opportunities for new coastal power plants in California. The
study was prepared for the,California Coastal Commission (CCC) and the San
Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC). Its purpose
was to determine if energy development objectives could be met while main-
taining coa'stal protection. From the study it was concluded that minimal
changes to CCC and BCDC designated areas would be required to allow devel-
opment of coastal power plants at the locations identified.

A draft of this report was widely circulated for comment to governmental
agencies, utilities and interested members of the public. Public workshops
on the draft report were conducted by CEC staff in early 1981, and many
comments, both written and verbal, were received and incorporated as changes
to the final report. Public participation significantly assisted in improving
the quality of the study.

if you have any questions regarding the final report or future studies, please
contact David Maul of the CEC's Special Projects and Planning Office at (916)
920-7525. Written comments should be directed to:

California Energy Commission
1111 Howe Avenue, MS-43.
Sacramento, CA 95825
Attention: David Maul

We welcome your continued participation in the activities of the California
@J Energy Commission.

Sincerely,

HN L ESMAN
E ive irector

R E C F_ I V E D
uc.6 01 1983
J
HN AE AN
E SiMector

CA Coastal Commission

OPPORTUNITIES FOR- NEW
COASTAL POWER PLANTS
IN CALIFORNIA

STAFF REPORT

PREPARED BY

CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION
1111 HOWE AVENUE
SACRAMENTO, CA 95825

JUNE 1981

property of csc library

This publication was prepared with financial assistance from,
the U.S. Office of Coastal Zone Management, National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration, under the provisions of the
Federal Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended and
from the California Coastal Commission, under the provisions
of the California Coastal Act of 1975.

tment of commerce
US Depar
noaa coastal services center library
2234 South Hobson Avenue
charleston, sc 29405-2413

DISCLAIMER

The views and conclusions in this report are those of the staff and should not
be intrepreted as necessarily representing the official policies of either the
California Energy Commission or the State of California.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION
JOHN GEESMAN
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL DIVISION

CLIFF WEBB Division Chief
Engineering & Environmental Division

BILL DURKEE Deputy Division Chief

BOB THERKELSEN Office Manager
Environmental & Health Office

KEITH SCHWARTZTRAUBER Office Manager
Engineering Evaluation Office

DAVE MAUL Office Manager
Special Projects Office

BRYCE CAUGHEY Project Managers
ROBERT WOODS Special Projects Office

CONTRIBUTING CEC STAYF SECRETARIAL STAFF

Zene Bohrer Al McCuen Cindy Johnson
Bob Brand Greg Newhouse Lois Mouriski
Jim Dickson Richard Peter Barbara Romanini
Judy Gaumon Luke Shurley Word Processing staff
Rod Gottschalk Brian Smith
Bob Haussler Steve Smith CONTRACTORS:
Gary Heath Bob Strand
Joel Klein Bob Therkelsen California Division of Mines
Ken Koyama and Geology

California Coastal Commission Richard Kilbourne

Brian Baird Department of Water Resources
Jody.Loeffler
Joe.Nicholson John Bever
Richard DeCoe
Bay Conservation and Development Ernest Stone
Commission
Associated Electrical Engineers
Frank Broadhead
Margit Nickell Jerry Bagley
Don Keef

EE-6 CPP dh

ABSTRACT

Thi final report presents the results of a staff study examining power plant

siting issues in California. The study was conducted to determine the effects

of the California Coastal Commission (CCC) and the San Francisco Bay Conserva-

tion and Development Commission (BCDC) coastal protection policies on opportuni-

ties to develop new coastal power plants. The study concludes that minimal

changes to CCC and BCDC policies are required to allow development of base

load and peaking power plant capacity additions at the locations identified

in the report.

The study examined four types of conventional power plants, six fuel types,

and three sizes of plants. Approximately 200 areas on the coast were evaluated

using 27 environmental and technical factors. Three institutional factors are

examined to consider their effects on the opportunities identified. Finally,

public opinion was considered in the evaluation of the results.

Opportunites for the location of new power plants are identified at nine areas

along the coast and San Francisco Bay. The opporunities identified potentially

allow the construction of 3700-4400 MW of generation capacity. The staff

recommends that the CEC, CCC, and BCDC adopt a joint policy statement identifying

the priorities for future development of coastally located power plants. Develop-

ment should conform to the following priorities:

- Expansion of existing plant sites,

- Development of new sites. adjaent to existing sites,

- Development of new sites in other undesignated areas,

- Development of new sites in designated areas.

SUMMARY

Conclusion

Opportunities for the location of ne 'w power plants are identified at
nine of approximately 200 California Coastal Commission (CCC) and
San Francisco Bay. Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC)
undesignated areas (UAs). The opportunities identified potentially
allow the construction of 3,700 - 4,400 MW of generation capacity to
support the state's projected need for development of electrical
supplies. Violation of ambient air quality standards in areas of
rugged terrain was the most common prohibition to development. , A
common but mitigatable constraint to development at the nine
remaining undesignated areas described herein is the effect of
cooling water system entrainment and thermal discharges on marine
and estuarine biological resources. Although other minor con-
straints exist At the nine UAs, they can be adequately mitigated.
CEC staff has identified reasonable opportunities as a result of
this study and an earlier CEC staff study which examined opportun-
ities to expand existing coastal power plants. The CEC staff
concludes that minimal changes to CCC and BCDC designated areas are
required to allow development of base load and peaking power plant
capacity additions at the locations identified in these reports.

Project Description

This study examines opportunities to locate new power plants in California's
coastal zone. It has been conducted by the California Energy Commission (CEC)
in cbnjunction with the California Coastal Commission (CCC) and the San
Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC). The purpose of
this study. is to determine the effects of CCC and BCDC designated areas on
opportunities to develop electrical generating capacity in the state's coastal
areas. The-CCC and the BCDC are legally required to "designate" areas of
their respective coastal zone jurisdictions where the location of a thermal
power plant of 50 megawatts (MW) or greater would prevent achievement of
coastal resource protection.objectives. This study assists the CCC and the
BCDC in determining the effects of the designations. Information from. this
study-is being used by the CCC and the BCDC in their biennial revisions of
their. d4@signations, and by the CEC in its continuing planning for the state's
electrical generating supply needs.*

*THIS,.STUDY IS A PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS OF OPPORTUNITIES TO LOCATE NEW COASTAL
POWER PLANTS; IT DOES NOT IDENTIFY OR SELECT SITES FOR CONSTRUCTION OF NEW
POWER PLANTS,. ACTUAL CONSTRUCTION OF ELECTRICAL GENERATING CAPACITY AT ANY
COASTAL LOCATION EXAMINED IN THIS STUDY WOULD REQUIRE ADDITIONAL STUDY AND
REVIEW BEFORE CERTIFICATION. THIS REPORT IS INTENDED FOR USE AS A PLANNING
DOCUMENT AND IS NOT PART OF CEC'S REGULATORY PROCESS.

EE-6 CPP dh

This study init -ially examined approximately 200 individual undesignated areas
(UAs) for pote@ntial power plant opportunities. These areas were analyzed
using 27 environmental and technical screening factors. The effects of three
instit.utionalF factors--the Powerplant and Industrial Fuel Use Act '(PIFUA),
the CEC 1981' Biennial Report (BR) supply criteria (also 1981 Preliminary
Report), and state nuclear waste disposal laws @(PRC Section 25524.2)--are
examined to.consider their effects on the opportunities identified. Finally,,.
public opinion. was considered in the evaluation of the study results (see
Appendix I).

The study examines opportunities for four types of conventional power plants,
nuclear, direct-fired coal, oil- or gas-fired steam turbine, and combined
cycle. Six fuel types--uranium, coal,,oil, natural gas, methanol, and coal
gas--are considered in conjunction with the various plant types. Finally,
three plant sizes in terms of MW capacity--small (100 - 400 MW), medium
(500 - 800 MW), and large (1,200 - 1,300 MW)--are used for each type of
plant. The study includes an evaluation of cost factors.for cooling water
pumping penalties and transmission corridor analyses. No other economic
analysis is performed in the study. Waterfront location opportunities are
compared with setback opportunities to provide information for developing a
range of, coastal locations.

Results

Opportunities for the location of new power plants are identified at nine CCC
and BCDC undesignated areas (5 CCC; 4 - BCDC). Nearly all opportunities
identified will require trade-offs or mitigation to offset the. effects of
adverse impacts on natural resources. Results are tabulated in Table i and.
Figure i and summarized in Chapter 5 - Results.

Air quality factors eliminated the majority of UAs examined (see Appendix H).
In rural areas, this is due primarily to the interaction of air quality
impacts from power plant stack emissions-on the nearby hills. In urban areas,
the lack of trade-offs for air quality impacts eliminates opportunities.

The most severe constraint to development at the nine undesignated-areas
described in this study is the impact of plant cooling water systems on marine
biological resources. History, however, has shown that this impact can be
mitigated and should not prohibit developmento At the five CCC UAs, the
impact of once-thtough cooling entrainment and thermal discharges on marine
biological resources limits most opportunities to medium-size facilities. The
use of cooling towers may increase these,opportunities, At three BCDC UAs
(with, the exception of Oleum), the use of once-through cooling is. not
recommended due to thermal discharge restrictions. Thermal discharge effects
associated with the use of alternative water supplies (waste water). on
sensitive estuarine ecosystems at these sites would limit opportunities to
small-size facilities. If cooling towers are used, they should use available
waste water to reduce demand for limited freshwater supplies.

EE-6 CCP dh

TABLE i: OPPORTUNITIES SUMMARY (MW)

Technology CONVENTIONAL
NUCLEAR COAL STEAM TURBINE COMBINED CYCLE,
Fuel OIL, NATURAL GAS, OIL, NATURAL GAS,
SITE U02 COAL COAL GAS, METHANOL COAL GAS, METHANOL

CRESCENT CITY #< -0- -0- 150 500 400 - 500*

SAMOA SPIT -0- -0- 150 500 400 - 500*

SALINAS RIVER -0- 100 150 500 400 - 500*

SANTA MARIA RIVER #< -0- 100 150 - 500 400 -.500*

TIJUANA'RIVER # < -0- -0- @150 - 800 400 500*

OLEUM -0- 100 150 400*

PT. SAN PEDRO + -0- -0- 150 400*

VISITACION -0- 100 150 400*

NORTH SAN JOSE + -0- 100 150 400*

SETBACK AREA
MOST PRACTICAL CAPACITY DISTRIBUTION: BASED ON SELECTION OF MOST EFFICIENT TECHNOLOGY AT AREAS
WITH REASONABLE DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITY
+ - SENSITIVE DEVELOPMENT LOCATION BUT MEETS OPPORTUNITY CRITERIA
< - REQUIRES PARTIAL DESIGNATION FOR DEVELOPMENT
Teclnol O'y

Fuel
SITE

FIGURE
OPPORTUNITY LOCATIONS

0
1-70
1. CRESCENT CITY (CCC)
LLI
2. S,AM.OA SPIT (CCC)

3. SALINAS RIVER (CCC)

-7
0
4 SANTA MARIA (CCC)
Mum" 0
6. TIJUANA RIVER (CCC)
Dim

6. OLEUM (BCDC)

7. POINT SAN PEDRO (BCDC)

8. VISITACION (BCDC)
.7
.9. NORTH SAN JOSE(BCDC)
8

3
gem

KNU
<

WA uu
Cow" SW NKSWAOM

aws "mw

un Amn

WA=aw

Norlh

lq,g 1-0 -V -2)

0
PARTIAL DESIGNATIONS ARE REQUIRED TO DEVELOP OPPORTUNITIES

SENSITIVE LOCATION FOR DEVELOPMENT BUT MEETS LOCATION OPPORTUNITY
CRITERIA
6
7 @'@
8

The availability of land is not considered a serious constraint at most of the
nine UAs due to their generally rural location or less developed status.
However, land availability is limited at two BCDC UAs (Pt. San Pedro and
Visitacion), thereby restricting opportunities at the two UAs to small-size
facilities. This study identifies five UAs (4 - CCC; I - BCDC) that are set
back from the coast. Engineering analysis of the feasibility to pump cooling
water to these areas confirms the availability of these opportunities.
Locations set back from the immediate coastline provide.-more flexibility in
.locating'power plants where designated areas may limit access to the immediate
coastline. This provides opportunities which are not constrained by the
impacts on biological resources.

This report identifies opportunities for conventional steam turbine and
combined-cycle power plants. The report also identifies opportunities for 100
MW coal-fired facilities which economically may not be a practical oppor-
tunity. Opportunities for new nuclear power plants are determined not to be
available at any of the 200 UAs initially considered in this study. This is
due to the limiting effects of Quaternary faults, lack of ingredients to
demonstrate positive geologic stability, and population density criteria.
These specific results generally reflect the conservative nature of the,siting
criteria of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).

The development of the opportunitieslidentified in this report may be-limited
by certain institutional factors. The Powerplant and Industrial Fuels Use Act
(PIFUA) would limit the use of oil and gas fuels in new steam turbine and
combined-cycle power plants until either synthetic fuels are available on a
reliable basis or exemptions to PIFUA are established. The 1981 CEC Biennial
Report forecasts the demand for electricity and identifies California's
preferred energy options. Both aspects discourage the development of new
conventional power plants except those using synthetic fuels.

The results of this study indicate moderate opportunities (3,700 MW - 4,400
MW) for new electrical generating capacity exist at nine coastal locations.
Additionally, staff has previously identified*,7,600 MW -10,000 MW of capacity
available,through expansion at 20 existing coastal power plant sites. These
expansion opportunities were for both-base load and peaking power plant types.
Staff concluded that the CCC and BCDC designated areas did not preclude
opportunities for the reasonable expansion of existing coastal zone power
plants. Again, PIFUA would be a limiting factor unless an exemption was
obtained or a reliable source of synthetic fuels was available.

Based on the re.sults of'these two studies, CEC staff concludes that there are
reasonable opportunities (assuming exemptions to PIFUA or a reliable,supply of
.synfuels) for both base load and peaking capacity additions on the, coast.
Minimal changes to CCC and BCDC designated areas are required .,to allow
development of these opportunities. While the major utilities have not
,identified the necessity to develop any of the nine opportunities, in this
report during the period 1980-92, future change in the CEC Demand Forecast may
require development of one of these opportunities.

*Opportunities to Expand Existing Coastal Power Plants in California (see
Appendix G).

EE-6 CPP dh

Recommendations

The CEC staff".1recommends the following actions to support the results and con-
clusions of t'h1s study:

1. The CEC,- the CCC., and the BCDC should adopt and issue a joint policy
statemeA, identifying the priorities for future development of coastally
locatedly-,
@lectrical generating capacity. This statement should be based
on opportunities and constraints identified in this study and in the
previous, coastal power.plant expansion stud Such a statement should
y
provide'-for continuing safeguards of coastal resources as required by law
and proVid6 for developmental capacity with the following priorities:

o,Expansion of existing.power.plant sites,

o @Development of new sites adjacent to.existing sites,

o Development of new si.tes in other undesignated areas, and

o Development of new sites in designated areas only as a last resort..

2. The CCC should allow development of cooling water conduits at Cre.scent
City (CCC.Map 2). Santa Maria River (CCC Maps.109, 110, and I'll), and
Tijuana River (CCC Map 161) to,accommodate opportunities identified in
this report. This would allow for necessary power plant ancillary
support facilities. Proposal's for development at 'these areas, should
consider the priorities identified in recommendation number one. Prior
to.such designation., the applicant should submit a detailed site-specific
evaluation-of the pro 'posed.area to the CCC to ensure that no substantial
adverse impact on the environment occurs as a result of site development
and operation. This submittal should occur prior to or concurrently with
the CEC Notice of Intent regulatory proceedings. -The CCC can allow this
development by either, adopting a partial designation or by making a
finding under Public Resources Code Section 25526.

3. The CCC should adopt regulations on procedures for approval of ancillary
power plant. support facilities in designated areas pursuant to Section
25526. of the Public.Resources Code,. The*regulations should provide a
procedure for CCC review.of utility,pFoposals to locate Underground
cooling water intake and outfall pipelines through designated areas to
determine if the facilities can be sited consistent with the primary uses
of the land and if any substantial adverse environmental effects of.the
proposal can be mitigated.

4. The CCC and the BCDC shouldnensure that study results are incorporated
into coastal planning studies at the local level to assist in maintaining
optionsfor any opportunities identified. The agencies should coopera-
tively participate in localplanning efforts to promulgate the necessary
information and interpretation. The CCC and BCDC.staffs should partict-
pate in the development.of local coastal plans to ensure that such plans
are not inconsistent with the results of this study and the previous site
expansion study.

EE-6 CPP dh

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

SUMMARY . . . . . ... ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i

TABLE OF CONTENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii

LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . viii

CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

CHAPTER 2 - PROJECT DESCRIPTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Objective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Methodology . . . . . . 3

CHAPTER 3 EVALUATION ANAYLYSES . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Air Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Geology . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Public Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Biological Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
Water Resources . . . . . . . . . 69
Setback Ranges . . . . . . . . . . 78

CHAPTER 4 - INSTITUTIONAL FACTORS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76

CHAPTER 5 - RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
Area Profiles . . . . 92
Matrix by Location and Plant Type: Table 15 . . . . . . . . . 98
Plant-Type Profiles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
Screening Factor Profiles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
Institutional Constraints 105
Undesignated Area Opportunities: Conclusions 109

CHAPTER 6 - RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . 111

REFERENCES . . .. 113

APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120

A. CEC, CCC, BCDC SITING MANDATES . . . . . . . . . 121
B. PLANT TECHNOLOGY DESCRIPTIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
C. SCREENING FACTOR DEFINITIONS . . . . . 129
D. AIR QUALITY CRITERIA . . . . . . 144
E. SETBACK CRITERIA 145
F. TRANSMISSION CORRIDORS 175
G. EXPANSION STUDY RESULTS 183
H. AREA PROHIBITION CRITERIA . . . . 187
I. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 188
J. AREAS MAPS (UAs 1-19 only) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209

vii

EE-6 CPP ae

LIST OF TABLES

Page
Table i - Opportunities Summary . . . . . . ... . . . . . .. iv
Table 1 - Plant Technology .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Table 2 - EvaluAtion Factors . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . 13
Table 3 - Ambient-Air Quality Standards 16
Table 4 - Trade-offs Required For AAQS Violations . . . . . . 19
Table 5 - Status of Compliance with StAte and
Federal AAQS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Table 6 Percent of Average- Annual TSP Concentrations
Comprised of Organics, Sulfates, and
Nitrates . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Table 7 - Allowable PSD Deterioration Increments . . . . . . 24
Table 8 - Cultural Resources (CCC) . . . . . . . 41
Table 9 - Cooling WAter Demand . . . . . . . . . 72
Table 10 - Acreage Assumptions For Cooling Processes . . . . 74
Table 11 - Flood Hazard and Alternate Water Supply
Analysis (BCDC) . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . 76
Table 12 - Water Quality and Waste Disposal . . . . . . . . .. 77
Table 13 - Setback Pumping Costs . 80
Table 14 - Setback Opportunities . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . 85
Table 15 - Summary of Opportunities . . . . . . ... . . . . . 98
Table 16 Capacity Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
Table DI Emission Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138
Table D2 Plant Specifications . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . 142
Table D3 Trade-off Requirements .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143
Table El Cooling Water Requirements . . .. . . . . 146
Table E2 Summary of Design Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . 154
Table E3 Design Criteria and Capacity Factors.. 155
Table E4 Fuel-Cost . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . 156
Table E5 Design and Cost Criteria . . .. . . . . . . . . . . 159

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure i - Opportunity Locations . . . . iii
Figure I - Opportunity Locations . . . ... . . . . . . . 5
Figure 2 - Coastal Designated Areas . ... . . . . . . . . . . 6
Figure 3 - Quaternary Fault Restriction Zones . . . . . . . . 30
Figure 4 - BreAkeven Costs (Setback Siting) . . . . . . . . . 81
Figure 5 - Setback Facility . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . 82
Figure El - Megawatts versus Plant Size . . . . . . . . . . . 161
Figure E2 - Megawatts Versus Plaint Size . . . . . . . . . 162
Figure E3 - Installed Capital Cost versus Plant Size . . . . . 163
Figure E4 - Installed Capital Cost versus Plant Size . . . . . . 164
Figure E5 - Annual Operating and Maintenance Csot
versus Plant Size . . . . . . . . . . . 165
Figure E6 -Total Annual Cost versus Plant Size 166
Figure E7 - Installed Capital Cost versus Plant Size
(Hydroelectr ic Generation) . . . . . . . . . . . 167
Figure E8 Annual kWh x 106 versus Plant Size
(Hydroelectric Generation) . . . . . . . . . . . .168

Viii

EE6 CPP ae

Figure E9 - Breakeven Price of Power versus.Plant Size . . . . 169
Figure E10 - Once-Through Saltwater Cooling System
(Net Cost Penalty) 170
Figure Ell - Once@Through Saltwater @oolin@ ;yst;m*,
(Net Cost Penalty) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171
Figure E12 Breakeven Cost of Once-Through Cooling versus
Cooling Towers (A Function of Plant Elevation
and Setback Distance) . . . .. . . . . . . . . . 172
Figure E13 Annual Cost Penalties for.A 1,200 MW Nuclear
and 500 MW Combined Cycle Power, Plants Using
Once-Through Cooling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173
Figure E14 Construction Cost Penalties for A 1,200 MW
Nuclear and 500 MW Combined Cycle Power
Plants Using Cooling'Towers . . . . . . . . . . . 174

OPPORTUNITY MAPS

Map IA - Crescent City . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211
@Map 1B - Crescent City . ... . . . . . . . . . . . 212
Map 2 - Samoa Spit . . . . . . o . o . . o . . . . . . . . . o 213
Map 3A - Salinas River . . . . . o - o . . . o . . . . . . . . 214
Map 3B - Salinas,Rive'r . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . o 215
Map 4A - Santa Maria River o o o . ... . . . . . . . 216
Map 4B Santa Maria River . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217
Map 5 Tijuana River . . . . . . . . . .. o . . . .... . . . o 218
@Map 6. Oleum . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . o . . . . . .. 219
Map 7 - @Pt. San Pedro .. . . . . o o o . . . o . . . . . . 220
Map 8 - Visitacion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221
Map 9 North San Jose o o . . . o . . . . . . . . . . . 222

EE-6 CPP ae

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

This study, conducted by the California Energy Commission (CEC), examines
opportunities,- to locate new power plants in undesignated areas of the
California Co !: astal Commission (CCC) and the San Francisco*Bay Conservation and
Development,,,,@6mmission (BCDC) coastal zones. Specifically, the study examines
the' availability of opportunities for locating new power plants after the
applicati.on of coastal resource protection designations by the CCC and the
BCDC have initially restricted those opportunities -in certain-areas of the
coast.. The potential for additional electrical-generating capacity from new
coastal power plants is an important, consideration in the development of
California's energy,supply strategy, and the potential effect of restrictions
on new power plant sites, such as designated*areas, must be adequately
analyzed if electricity supply projections are to be accurately matched with.
electricity demand projections. This study 'limits its analyses to screening
existing undesignated Areas with a variety of technical and institutional
factors1for opportunities for new power plants. It follows a similar CEC
staff study which produced the report "Opportunities to Expand Coastal Power
Plants in California."

The CEC, within its role as the state's.energy resources conservation and
development agency, has been assigned the exclusive responsibility for
certifying statewide sites--including the coastal zone--for new thermal power
plants of 50 MW or greater (see Appendix A). The CCC and the BCDC, within
their roles as the state's coastal zone land use planning agencies, have been
assigned the responsibilities for "designating" specific areas. of their
respective jurisdictions where the location of. a thermal electric power plant
of 50MW or more would prevent the achievement of coastal resource protec.tion
objectives.

These three state agencies, by reason of their separate legislative mandates
share responsibilities for the location of new power plants in California's
coastal zone Areas. To be most effective, these responsibilities must be
carried out cooperatively. This study is such a cooperative effort, conducted
jointly by the CEC, the CCC, and the BCDC to examine opportunities to locate
new power plants in undesignated coastal zone areas.

THIS STUDY IS NOT INTENDED OR DESIGNED TO BE A S.ITE-SELECTION STUDY OR A
DETAILED RESOURCE, OR IMPACT ANALYSIS. Its format and depth of analysis are
intentionally limited to a preliminary level that is sufficient only to
examine general opportunities for locating power plants. It should not be
used, or in any other way interpreted, as a site-selection study.

This study is a continuation of previous CEC locational analysis projects:
the 1977 CEC Biennial Report, Volume 7, Power Plant Siting; the 1979 CEC
Constraint Mapping Study; the 1979 CEC Constraints and Opportunities for Power
Plant Siting: Technical Issues; the 1979 CEC Biennial Report; the 1980-CEC
0) ortunities to Expand Coastal Power Plants In California; and the 1981, Cl,'C
Biennial. Report and Electricity Tommorrow. This final report is the sub@ ct
Je
of four workshops in February and March 1981. Additional coastal" area
studios are not scheduled at this time.

EE-6 CPP ae

CHAPTER 2: PROJECT DESCRIPTION

OBJECTIVE

This study examines opportunities to locate new power plants in undesignated*
areas (UAs) of the California coastal zone. Its objective is to determine the
effects of CCC ' and BCDC coastal resource protection designations** on
opportunities to locate electrical-generating facilities on the state's coast.
To that end, the study is conducted by the CEC to assist the CCC and the BCDC
with the legislatively mandated revisions to their designation processes. The
study is intended to provide information for the second set of revisions of
the designations of both agencies.***

This is a preliminary study which is intended only to accomplish a general
examination of opportunities to locate new power plants in CCC and BCDC
undesignated areas. , THE STUDY IS NOT AN ATTEMPT BY THE.CEC TO SITE POWER
PLANTS. AND SHOULD NOT BE INTERPRETED IN THAT MANNER.

CEC staff studies and analysis of the California Coastal Act and the McAteer-
Petris Act suggest that new coastal electrical-generating capacity be con-
sidered in the following priority:

o Expansion of existing power plant sites,

o Development of new sites adjacent to existing sites,

o Development-of new sites in other undesignated areas,

.01 Development of new sites in designated areas only as a last resort.

A Study examining expansion opportunities, "Opportunities to Expand Coastal
Power Plants in California," was completed by the CEC staff in 1980. This new
study is the continuation of a planning procedure intended to correlate the
need for electrical generating capacity with opportunities to locate such

*Areas of the coast not "designated" as noted below are available for.the
location of new and/or expanded powerplants. In planning vernacular these
areas are termed "undesignated" areas. These undesignated areas are the
subject of this study.

**State law (see Appendix A) requires both the CCC and the BCDC to
"designate" areas of their respective coastal zone jurisdictions where the
location of.any thermal power plant with an electrical generating capacity
of 50 MW or greater, or any electric transmission line, would prevent the
achievement of coastal resource protection objectives noted in the agen-
cies' enabling legislation [PRC Section 30413b and CC Section 66,645(b)l.

***Revisions of the CCC and BCDC designations are required biennially, and are
scheduled to occur in alternate years. The CCC designates were begun in
1978, and -first revised in 1980; the next-revision is due in 1982., etc.
The BCD C designation revision arescheduled for 198i and 1983, etc.'

EE-6 CPP ae

capacity in the coastal zone where important opportunities, such asmajor load
centers and once-through cooling water supplies, exist. If the combined
expansion and n.ew plant opportunities do not provide adequate electric
generating supply capacity,, designated areas could then be studied to
determine ff..specific revisions would help to provide the necessary capacity
T
siting oppo'rtunities.

A second objective of this s-tudy is to generate information for.use in devel-
oping and rev ising CCC local coastal programs (LCPs), and for other land use
planning efforts by both the CCC and the BCDC. In this respect, the study is
intended to@further the coordination of the three agencies involved--the CEC,
the CCC, and the,BCDC. This cooperation in discharging separate,.as well as
joint, responsibilities in coastal zone land use planning and power plant
locatLonal analysis is intended to avoid duplication of effort and products,
and to reduce the staff time and expendituresInvolved.

The third objective is to generate information and identify the need for
additional studies which could help guide utility supply planners in the
development of more detailed siting or expansion analyses. This study
considers opportunities on a coastwide basis and provides information of a
more comprehensive.nature than the utilities might ordinarily develop indi-
vidually. The study's comprehensive design is intended to reduce duplication
effort in future planning studies by the utilities.

This study will also contribute to satisfying the mandate of Public Resources
Code' 25309(e) and to a number of current and future CEC planning programs.
Tbrough the provision of informa-tion on plant locational opportUnities, the
study will contribute to the long-term@resolutfon of regional equities such as
coastal/inland cooling water conflicts, and- urban/rural air quality impacts.
Information from the study will also be used in the CEC's synthetic-fuel
planning.program.

METHODOLOCY

Design

This study uses the process of geographic focusing or screening to introduce a
practical element into the examination,of opportunities for new power plants.
These opportunities are identified-by determining the effects of a variety-of
power plant location characteristics (or factors) on each undesignated area.
Through this process, certain undes-ignated areas may be identified as
providing opportunities for &range of plant types and generating capacities,
while other areas may be eliminated. The results (opportunities) are then
compared against the projected need for supplies of electrical generating
capacity.

The study is limited-:.t:o a-,preliminary, leve1of examination and analysis.
Determination&,of availability-: of power plant location opportunities are of
necessity, based on the "Null Hypothes1s"'principle. If a clear prohibition
to location has not developed on completion of the screening process, an
opportunity for location is assumed:to exist within the limits of the study's
level of analysis. This level of analysis as previoisly noted, -is- n-ot i ended
to result in site selection. 'The results of the study are, therefore, not
conclusive but are sufficiently detailed to adequately meet the technical

and institutional factors used in this study,- and to provide direction for
additional planning.

Evaluation Process

The evaluation process used in this study is a common and generally accepted
screening method. It involves the progressive reduction (focusing) of the
geographic scope of review as the level of -detail of the screening factors
being applied is increased. That is, large land areas are first examined with
factors whose effects occur on a gross level to eliminate (screen) areas
where opportunities do not exist. The remaining smaller areas are then, in
turn, examined with factors whose effects occur on a more site-specific level.
The result is a limited number of relatively small areas which have not been
screened out or eliminated.on either a gross or site-specific level. These
areas are identified as opportunityareas for the purpose of the study.

This study uses air quality and geology factors to examine regional areas for
opportunities. on a gross basis; public facility and natural resource factors'
are used to examine the result s of that gross screening process for
opportunities on a more detailed or site-specific basis.. At both levels of
screening, the.factors are applied to determine both effects which might be
prohibitive or constraining to an unacceptable. degree, or which might be
positive opportunities for location of.a new power plant (see also Evaluation
Factors section following in this chapter).

Scope

This study examines opportunities for locating new power plants in, or
adjacent to, California's coastal zone areas. The study is limited in.
geographic scope to the state's coastal areas due to the jurisdictions of the
CCC and the BCDC. The CCC jurisdiction incorporates the 1,100 mile Pacific
Ocean coastline, and the BCDC jurisdiction covers the 300 mile shoreline of
the San Francisco and Suisun Bays (see Figure 1).

While this study initially examined approximately 200 UAs, this report
&1scusses only the opportunities of nine UAs which met the evaluation
criteria. These nine UAs are described,with general place names.and numbers
by staff for ease of reference throughout this report. These nine UA
locations and numbers are:

Crescent City UA .1
:Samoa Spit UA 2
Salinas River - UA 3
Santa Maria River - UA 4
Tijuana River - UA 5
Oleum - UA 6
Point San Pedro - UA 7
Visitacion - UA 8
North San Jose - UA 9

The study's examination of opportunities for new power plants is limited
primarily to the undes'igna,ted areas of both the CCC and the BCDC. In general,
these undesignated areas are defined by the boundaries of the "designations"
assigned by the CCC and the BCDC to prevent power plant impacts on coastal

FIGURE I
OPPORTMITY LOCATIONS

.......... ..............
r 0
C'RESCENT CITY (CCC)

2. SAMOA SPIT (CCC)

2
LASM
3. SALINAS RIVER (CCC)
0
4 SANTA MARIA (CCC)
puim" 0
.5. TIJUANA R-IVER (CCC)
aw,
11 wrl,
w=cm
6. OLEUM (BCDC)

7. POINT SAN PEDRO (BCDC)
"(Ko
SoNow Nm
3 S. VISITACION (BCDC)
_,PACOAN
SOLAW
%CA@
7 A MUR"
x\ 9. NORTH SAN JOSE (BCDC)
.WDA
8

CL,
I .-y
cow

3 FFKW

1A
VAMTEPtgV ARM

Km
un onwo
sme.0cm
4
L
WGMA

. . ........... .. --- --- --- - -

0
- PARTIAL DESIGNATIONS ARE REQUIRED TO @DEVELOP OPPORTUNITIES

- SENSITIVE LOCATION FOR DEVELOPMENT, BUT MEETS LOCATION OPPORTUNITY
7_@A
8
@17

C'RITERIA
5

FIGURE 2

UNDESIGNATED AREAS IDENTIFIED
BY THE, CALIFORNIA COASTAL
COMMISSION, AND THE BAY
CONSERVATION AND
DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION

S T A F F
AREAS ANALYZED BY CEC

Q.-

CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION

1981

resources (s,ee Appendix A). The study,does not examine opportunities in any
o.f these designated areas (see Figure 2).. However, analyses 'of some of the
undesignated areas require. that logical,. yet limited, peripheral portions of
the adjacent-designated areas be screened to provide information to help
resolve a particular issue within,a

In. addition to UAs with d ,irect,ac,cess to the ocean or bay waters, the study
also examines opportunities to locate plants in UAs that are set back from the
wat@er's ed&_. Such "setback"* locations would require that cooling water
conduits trayerse longer distances. between plant and water supply but could
also provide-more opportunities, to locate plants since more land areas would
be available.@ Both the CCC And the BCDC have provided for such,"setback"
siting oppoituni'ties by assigning "partial designations"** to certain areas of
the coast.

The study, then,. examines both waterfront and setback location opportunities.
The setback portion of the study screens areas up to five miles inland. Most
of these inland areas are out of the coastal zone but were included in this
preliminary study because.of the possible necessity to use the coastal zone
for ancillary systems (cooling water, etc.). The effects of these partially
designated areas and setback locations are discussed in Chapter 3: Analyses,
and Chapter 5: Results.

Several other limitations affect the development of this study. They reflect
the many complex technical, legal, and institutional factors which affect the
location of power plants statewide. They limit the scope and complexity of
the study's design but not the effectiveness or validity of the results and
conclusions of the study.

First, the study does not consider all possible power plant siting factors or
all possible relationships between. the factors that are used. It relies on
factors selected for their prominence and efficacy in the land use aspect of
locating power plants,. The factor selection coincides with the intent and
necessity to limit the study-to a preliminary examination. Specifically, the
study does not examine.all economic.factors involved with the location of new
power plants in coastal areas. Economics are clearly important to.ultimate
siting decisions and are included in the CEC's Notice of intention (NOI) and

*"Setback" siting permits a power plant'to be located slightly inland so
that the plant is still "on!' the coast or in the near coastal area yet not
exactly "on" the water-s edge...

**A "partially designated" area may contain only power plant ancillary
facilities such as. cooling water conduits and transmission lines; these
facilities must be located underground; power plants per se (power block,
fuel tanks) may notbe located in partially-designated areas.

The combination of partially designated areas and setback siting allows a
.power plant.to be I Iocated close enough totthe coast (through the location of
areas) to take advan-
ancillary support facilities in partially designated
tage"of the positive attributes of coastal locations. At the same time, the
effects on the sensitive coastal resources @:of the transition zone between
water and land habitats are*minimized.

EE-6 CPP ae

Application for Certification (AFC) regulatory process. This study examines
only cost penalties associated with setback location and cost estimates of the
development of transmission line corridors. ADDITIONAL ANALYSIS BEYOND THE
SCOPE OF THIS STUDY WOULD BE NECESSARY TO ACTUALLY. SELECT LOCATIONS FOR
SITING. THIS PLANNING STUDY IS NOT DESIGNED TO BE A TOOL FOR SUCH FINAL
SELECTION. IT DOES NOT REPLACE THE CECIS REGULATORY PROCESS.

Second, the factors used for the study are not weighted. Rather they are
applied sequentially. Only to the extent that they are sequentially applied,
are the factors considered cumulatively. The effects of individual factors
are considered individually, and are not added to determine a specific level
of opportunity.

Third, some power plant technology characteristics considered in this study
are known to be relatively impractical in the current commercial and technical
frameworks. For instance, 100 MW nuclear and coal plants are utilized as
examples of small plant sizes for those technologies in this study, but, for
all practical purposes, nuclear and coal plants of this size are no longer
constructed. They are included in this study, however, to provide as broad a
range of technical characteristics as possible so that the 'analysis of
opportunities would be as complete as possible. Inclusion of the smaller
plant sizes is,also intended to provide elementary information for consider-
ation In energy supply plans that emphasize decentralization of power plants.

The technologies considered in this study are essentially limited to those
which are comme 'rcially available, or which are projected to be available,
through 1985. The study does not consider potential- effects of technologies
which may be available after 1985. Potential effects of proposed future land
land development patterns on land use, or air and water quality are not
considered.

Fourth, since the scope of the 'study is limited to coastal zone areas only, an
extensive examination of regional equities (for example, coastal vs. inland
siting and 'water use constraints and opportunities) are not involved. The
study does examine the relation of projected statewide end-use demand to
potential new.site capacity. This is based on the 12-year planning period
that coincides with CEC Biennial Report (BR) forecast figures. This informa-
tion is intended to contribute to a broader discussion of regional equities
involving other concepts in addition to potential new coastal sites..

This study is based on readily available data (see References). With the
exception of site visits and computer modeling (air quality and pumping
penalties), original research is not conducted, nor is existing original
research extensively interpreted.

Undesignated Areas

This study examines opportunities to locate new power plants in the juris-
diction.s of both the CCC and BCDC. Of necessity, it also considers partially
designated areas where the underground placement of ancillary power plant
facilities (for example, cooling water conduits and transmission lines) would
support.setback opportunities. Opportunities in designated areas of either
jurisdiction are not considered.

EE-6'CPP ae

CEC staff have identified, in the CCC jurisdiction, 141 undesignated areas,
determined on the basis of complete and discrete boundary lines for each
individual areA. This system follows he designations of the CCC, and results
in some undesignated and partially designated areas which are quite large and
some which are quite small., However, for.. this reason,. the individual areas
also tend to incorporate coastal resources of a discrete or similar type so
that while the sizes of the areas are varied-,. the analyses of the resources
involved are more orderly and logical.

Undesignated areas located behind, or adJacent to, partially designated areas,
are, considered for setback opportunities along the entire length of the coast.
Undesignated areas with immediate access to open ocean waters are not
considered for setback locations. Space does not allow a graphic represent-
ation of all the areas-only those not eliminated.by the screening process.
(see Appendix G). Map sets of the designated and undesignated areas are
available for review at CCC and CEC offices..

CEC staff have identified, in the BCDC jurisdiction, 51 undesignated areas, 45
partially designated areas and 60 designated, areas. The method of identifi-
cation for these areas follows that described above.

The jurisdictions, and hence the noted undesignated areas of both the CCC and
the BCDC are variously distributed among the. service areas of the state's four
largest electrical utilities--Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PGandE),
Southern California Edison (SCE), San Diego Gas and Electric Company
(SDGandE), and City of Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP).

Plant Types and Sizes (see appendix B)

This, examination of new power plant- opportunities considers 30 different
combinations of plant types, plant sizes, fuel types, and facility components.
As indicated in Table 1,these combinations include four types of conventional
electricity generating power plants:. nuclear, coal- direct-fired, oil- or
gas-fired steam turbine (hereafter referred to as steam turbine) and combined
cycle. A pressurized water reactor (PWR) is used as the nuclear plant type.
Direct-fired coal plants are considered as a separate plant type due to the
unique fuel and waste storage and handling capabilities required, even though
the thermal generation process involved is a conventional steam turbine
(Rankine-cycle) type.

Combustion (gas) turbine plant types are mot considered in this study since
the CEC 1979 Biennial Report (BR) indicated that the demand for this peaking
capacity through 2000 can probably be met without a major new coastal site.

For example, 1,290 MW of combustion turbine capacity is proposed for
development by SCE at the inland, Lucerne Valley site. Cogeneration and
repowering are not included as plant types since these technologies are
options for expanding existing capacity.

Power. plant technology is also considered in. terms of three basic plant
sizes--small, medium, andlarge, The capacity rating in megawatts (MW) for
each plant size is related to the capacity for each of the four respective
plant types as commonly constructed. Thus, a, small steam turbine is rated for

EE-6 CPP ae

use in this study at 150 MW, while a small combined cycle is rated at. 400 MW
to reflect current construction practices.

..Plants with a capacity of 50 MW or less are not examined in this study due to
the legal restrictions on the CEC's review procedures. The Warren-Alquist Act
limits the CEC power facility certification authority to "thermal power plant"
(Public Resources Code [PRCJ Sections 25500 and 25110). The Act further
defines "thermal power plant" as .'*any stationary or floating electrical
generating facility using any sourc@ of thermal energy, with .2,generating
capacity of 50 MW. or more (emphasis added), and any facilities appurtenant
thereto" (PRC Section 25120). .(See also Appendix A.)

Fuellypes

Table I also lists the,various fuel types that are considered in conjunction
with each plant type. Uranium dioxide pellets are the only fuel considered
ror nuclear plants, and only pulverized raw coal is considered for direct-
fired coal plants. Four fuel types--oil, natural gas, coal gas, and methanol-
-are all considered as fuels for both the steam turbine and combined-cycle
plant types. The effect of the availability of oil and natural gas as power
plant fuels is discussed further in Chapter 4, Institutional Factors. Plant
size is not a factor in the consideration of fuel type. The effects of,fuel
type are discussed in greater detail in Chapter 3--Analyses.

Screening Factors @see Appendix C)

The 30 combinations of plant and fuel type and plant size are further con-
sidered.in, terms of.the 27 screening factors listed in Table 2. These factors
are selected by CEC staff for their applicability to. screening general
opportunities for new power plant locations. They are not intended to
represent all possible plant location considerations.

The 27 factors are grouped for discussion of analyses into several major
groups on the basis of their application in the study: general land use, air
quality, geology, public facilities, biology and water resources. The general
land,use and air quality factors are used in the analyses of plant effects on
a regional basis. The geology, public facilities, and biology and water
resources factors are applied on a more site-specific basis. Some of the
factors are naturally occurring (for example, Wetlands and Estuaries), and
some are man-made (Rail Lines and Public Parks).

The 27 factors are applied to determine the effects of the 30 different plant
and fuel type and pla nt size combinations at various coastal locations.
Potential locations are thus screened for 30 types of plant technology by 27
locational factors. This permits specific technology characteristics to be
matched with compatible characteristics of specific, unique locations.

In this screening process, the factors are not considered to be either
strictly constraints or s,trictly opportunities. Instead, each factor is
analyzed in terms of its effects at various locations and is assigned one of
five'relative effect criteria ranging from opportunity to prohibition.

EE-6 CPP ae

TABLE I-PLANT TECHNOLOGY.

Plant Plant Size (MW) Fuel Type
S M L

Nuclear (PWR) 100 500 1,200 Uranium Dioxide

Coal (Direct-fired) 100 500 1,300 Coal

SteamTurbine 150 500 800 Oil, NaturalGas,

(Oil/Gas) Coal Gas, Methanol

Combined Cycle 400 500 1,300 Oil, Natural Gas,

Coal Gas, Methanol

The five levels of opportunity criteria are defined as follows:

1. Opportunity--de sirable conditions or relationships exist that may aid in
location, or otherwise promote or encourage opportunities to locate at
specific areas.

2. Nominal--little or no constraint on location; little or no mitigation
required for location; opportunity to locate exists.

3. Moderate--significant constraint on location; specific mitigation
obviously and'definitely required but location opportunities still exist.

4. Severe--most serious level of constraint not considered prohibitive;
limited location possible only with costly design or mitigation required;
limited location opportunities exist.

5. Prohibitive--location of any reasonable or practical plant size not
possible due to this factor alone; eliminates location opportunities in
.spite of.status of.other factors.

With use of these criteria, each of the 27 evaluation factors may function
either as, an opportunity or constraint depending on its specific effect at
different locations on the coast. The same factor, therefore, may have
functioned as a prohibitive constraint at one location, as a nominal con-
straint at another location, and as an opportunity at still another location.
For example, violation of emission limitations may be considered prohibitive
at one location, while a lack of violation may be considered an opportunity at
a different location.

These criteria are based primarily on practical rather than legal effects.
Although certain of the factors (for example, air quality and seismicity
standards) have a legal basis for existence, their application in this study,
is based on technical knowledge and experience gained from previous staff
Ianalyses. Positive location opportunity is identified by three of the
criteria: opportunity, nominal andImoderate. The severe constraint criterion
is considered as either opportunity or constraint depending on the extent of
severity, and the degree to which the factor is critical to location of new
facilities. The prohibitive criterion is.used to indicate an elimination of
location opportunities in all cases.

The factor and criterion application and analysis is done by CEC staff. The
factor analyses are collated by.individual location to develop an opportunity
profile for each technology in terms of the opportuni 'ty criteria. Table 15
summarizes this information in a single matrix which identifies the general
opportunities at various locations. The analyses, supporting this study are
described in Chapters 3 and 4 of thisreport. Results and conclusions are
described in Chapter 5, and summarized beginning on page i. Recommendations
are listed and explained in Chapter 6.

EE-6 CPP ae

TABLE 2--EVALUATION FACTORS

GENERAL LAND USE BIOLOGYRESOURCES

1. Parcel Size 18. Legally Protected Species
2. Terrain Difficulty 19. Commerical/Recreational Species
2O. Areas of Critical Concern
AIR QUALITY
Wetlands
3. New Source Review b. Estuaries
4. Emission Limitations: c. Riparian Areas,
5. Prevention of Significant d. Refuges and Reserves
Deterioration e. Natural Areas

GEOLOGY 21. Species of Special Concern

6. Slope Instability WATER RESOURCES

a. Active Sand Dunes 22. Cooling Water Availability
b. Quaternary Landslides. 23. Waste Water Availability
c. Steep Riverbanke Slopes/ 24. Once-Through Cooling Impacts
Recognized-Sea Cliff 25. Waste Disposal Impacts
Instability 26. Water Quality Standards Conformance
27. Flood Hazards
7. Faults and Related Seisic
Hazards

a. Ground Surface Rupture
b. Seismic Shaking
c. Seismically Induced Lique-
faction
8. Selected Mineral and Geologic
Resources

a. Fossil Fuel Production
b. Other Mineral.Deposits

PUBLIC FACILITIES

9. Urban Areas
10. Cultivated Agricultural Lands,
11. Recreational Activity Areas.
12. Military Bases
13. View Protection
14. Rail Lines/Transportation
15. Available Land
16. Cultural Resources
17. Transmission

EE-6 CPP ae.

CHAPTER 3: ANALYSES

This chapter describes the analyses associated with the application of the 27
screening factors.in the screening process. The analyses discussions are
organized into five general groupings of air quality, geology, public
facilities, biology and water resources. Assumptions necessary to the
analyses of each group of factors are described separately by group. The
overall results of these analyses are discussed in Chapter 5: Results. Brief
definitions for the 27 factors are contained in Appendix C.

EE-6 CPP ae

AIR QUALITY

New Source Ri@v@ew (NSR)
Emis,sion Limitations
Prevention of'Significant Deterioration (PSD)

Three factors are used in analyzing air quality effects on opportunities for
new coastal :-'zbne power plants. These factors are New Source Review (NSR)
regula.tions,-emission limitations, and Prevention of Significant Deterioration
(PSD) regulations. These analyses are based on applicable air quality
regulations and available ambient air quality data a.s of July 1, 1980.

New Source.Review

NSR regulations are mandated by the United States. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) and have been promulgated at the state (model rules) and local
level in California.

Basically, these regulations preclude a facility from being built if such a
facility would prevent attainment or maintenance of an ambient air quality
standard (AAQS). In California, there are. -state as well as.national .(EPA'
adopted) AAQSs, and for purposes of this study it is assumed that NSR regul-
ations apply to both state and national AAQSs. These standards are included
in Table 3. NSR regulations would preclude a new plant from being built if
the plant would cause ground level AAQS violations where such violations do
not already exist. This condition could occur where a plume from the plant
stack would directly impact elevated terrain.

Earlier work by, CEC staff in the Air Quality Statewide Coal Plant Area
Screening 1@@ (see References) indicated that a 500 MW coal plant would have
to be located in an area in whichnet elevation increases are no more than 500
feet within a 10 kilometer (km) radius of the plant site to avoid excessive
elevated terrain impacts. Since many of the undesignated coastal areas are
located in or near complex terrain,. a considerable number of areas were
screened out at the onset of the study. Because some of the power,plant types
being considered in this study have considerably lower emissions than a 500 MW
coal plant, the required 7flat terrain" radius criterion was reduced to
approximately 5 km. In other words, to be eligible for further consideration,
an u.nd.esignated area would have to include at least one potential site at a
minimum distance of 5 km (plus or minus) from the nearest point of terrain 500
feet higher than the potential site itself.

Following this initial screening process, site-specific impact analyses are
performed to determine the maximum ground level impacts for various pollutants
emitted by each power plant type and size If these impacts are found to
exceed the state or federal AAQSs, it is as;umed that the plant type and'size
in question could not comply with NSR regulations. If ambient air quality
data are available for the general site area, these data are used to establish
background air quality. If the plant impacts plus the background air quality

E-E@6 CPP ae

TABLE 3--AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS

Pollutant Average Time California Standards National Standards

Concentration Primary Secondary

Oxidant 1 hour. 0.10 pp@
(200 ug/m

Ozone I hour 240 ug/m 3 Same as Primary
(0.12 ppm) Standard s
Carbon Monoxide 12 hour 10 ppm 3
(11 mcf/m Same as
3 Primary
8 hour 10 mg/m Standards
(9 ppm)

3
I hour 40 ppm 4-0 mq/m
(46 mg/m 3 (35 ppm)

3
100 uq/m
Annual Average
Nitrogen Dioxide Same as
(0.5 ppmL Primary
1 hour 0. 05 ppill
(470 jjg1m3) Standards
3
Sulfur Dioxide Annual Average - so ug/m
(0.03 ppml-
24 hour 0.05 ppm 3 365 uq/m
(131 ug/m (0.14 ppm)

3 hour 1300 uq/m
(0.5 ppm)

1 hour 0.5 Ppm 3
(1310 uq/m

Suspended Particulate Annual Geometric 60 uq/m 3 75 uq/m3 60 uq/m3
Matter Mean
24 hour 100 uq/m3 260 uq/m3 150 uq/m3

Sulfates 24 hour 25 uq/m3

3
Lead 30 day 1.5 uq/m
Average

Calendar M3 1.5 uq/m3
1.5 ug/
Average

Hydrogen Sulfide I hour 0.03 ppm
(42 ug/M3)

Hydrocarbons (Corrected 3 hour 160 ug/m3 Same as
for methane) (6-9 a.m.) (0.24 ppm) Primary Standards

Vinyl Chloride 24 hour 0.010 ppm
(Chloroethene) (26 ug/m3)

Ethylene. 8 hour 0.1 Ppm
p

I hour 0.5 ppm

-Visibility Reducing Iobservation In sufficient amoint to reduce the
Particles prevailinq visibi Ity to less than 10
miles when the relative humidity is
less than 70%.

concentraJon are found to' 'cause an 'ambient air quality standard violation
where no-Wolation previously existed, noncompliance with NSR is once again
assurfied.:Z@_'

If there dre inadequate existing air quality data, cumulative concentrations
.a.re as sume *be lets than the standards. The pollutants for which impacts
"d t 6
-are calculatedare@oxides-of nitrogen (NOx), sulfur dioxide (S02) and particu-
Lates (TSP). Because of the complex mechanisms involved in their formation,
and because of insufficient 'background data, the impacts of reactive pollu-
tantsjoz`@'e and sulfate (SO01 ate not d6termined.
on

Maximum local impacts are calculated with a numeric@al simulation model, SMOG..
SMOG is a refined3-version of IMPACT I a 'model developed by Science Applica-
tiont, Inc. 'for the CEC and Air Resources Board (ARB).
The plant emissions chatacteristics are shown in Appendix D.4 Those meteor-
-ological parameters (stability, wind speed, and direction) which resulted in
the greatest impacts (over a one--@hour averaging time) are selected as
representative 6f."wor'st case" conditions. Further details on impact analysis
are discus-s6d under Air Quality Impact Analysis.

NSR regulations also require that if@a new source would prevent the attainment
of standards (i.e.,-ambient air quality standards are already exceeded) it
cannot be built unless emission offsets, or trade-offs, are obtained. Trade-
offs ate reductions in emissions from existing sources in the same general

1. The greatest of the 'second h1ghett,values recorded in any of the most
recent four years of ARB published air quality 'data (1976 - 1979).

2. It is theoretically possible that trade-offs (reduced emissions from
existing sources) would reduce background pollutant levels at the worst
case impact area sufficiently to prevent the plant from causing ambient
standard violations. However, this-possibility is rather unlikely, and
was discounted *as an option for this study.

3. Refined by the ARB Rdsearch Division.

4. Thes`e values do not include emissions associated with cooling towers, or
fuel @handling, ttan8p6tt,a:nd storage. Transport emissions could vary
'widely depending bn the gotifte of fuel. Handling and storage emissions
may be very low if precautions,are taken. Cooling tower particulate
.emissions (if cooing towers are employed).also vary widely depending on
the qua'lity of tooling water used and tower operating conditions. In
-addition, some local air regulatory agencies (e.g., the South Coast Air
Quality Manageme'fit'District)-aire not concerned about cooling tower emis-
sions.

17
zEE-6 CPP .4e

area as the proposed new source.5 These trade-offs must usually be obtained
at a ratio of at least 1.2 to 1, that is, emission reductions must be a
minimum of 20 percent greater 'than the added emissions from the new source.
The AAQS being violated in the vicinity of the proposed new plant determines
what trade-offs must be obtained. Table 4 indicates the emissions for which
trade-offs must be obtained as a function of which AAQS are violated.

Based on earlier site.screening, including elimination of sites located in or
near complex terrain, only a portion of the coastal and Bay Area counties
contained potential sites. The status of ambient.air quality in each of these
counties is shown in Table 5.

As explained in the footnotes in Table,4, additional particulates may be
traded off in lieu of HC, NOx and/or S02 in the case of Total.Suspended
Particulate (TSP) AAQS violations. , Unless HC, NOx., and/or S02 had to be
traded off for other reasons (e.g., ozone or S04 AAQS violations), it is
assumed that extra particulate trade-offs would be cheaper, and therefore the
preferred option. The average annual organic,*sulfate, and nitrate fraction
of TSP in each of the counties considered is shown in Table 6.

The trade-offs in each county which could potentially be applied to power
plants are obtained from the CEC staff report, Statewide Emission Trade-off
Inventory (see References). The required trade-offs, for each plant type and
size at each potential site, are calculated based on Tables 4, 5, 6, and
Appendix D. A trade-off ratio of l.'2:1 is assumed. The required trade-offs
are then compared against the potential trade-offs shown in the CEC trade-off
report for each county to determine whether the NSR trade-off requirements
could be met for each plant typetsize and each possible site. For reasons
explained in the report, only 20 percent of the potentially available trade-
offs in a single county (the Bay Area Air Basin is treated as a single
county" for these purposes)6 are considered to be applicable to a specific
energy facility.

Emission Limitations

Emission limitations established by the local air pollution control districts
(APCDs) place specific limits on the quantities of pollutants which may be
emitted by power plants and regulate the quality of fuel used in the plants.
A summa *ry of the APCD emission, limitations applicable to power plants is in
Appendix D. - These limitations are compared with the plant emissions
characteristics and fuel specifications also described in Appendix D to deter-
mine which facility/location combinations will comply with emissions

@5. According to NSR regulations adopted by the ARB for local Air Pollution
Control Districts (APCDs), trade-off sources should generally _.be within
15.miles of the new source or anywhere upwind (prevailing winds) in the
same or adjoining counties within the same air basin.,

6. All the potential site areas considered are adjacent to the bay itself,
and hence relatively close to one another. In addition, trade-off avail-
ability in any individual county on the.bay varied widely, even between
adjacent counties. Therefore, it was considered reasonable to pool the
potentially available trade-offs for the entire bay area.

EE-6 CPP ae

TABLE 4--TRADE-OFFS REQUIRED FOR AAQS VIOLATIONS

Emissions-for which Trade-offs
AAQSl Violated Must be Obtained2

Ozone hydrocarbons-(HC), oxides of
nitrogen(Nox)5

NO2 NOx
TSP HC, NOx particulates, S02 3

S02 S02

S04 S02

4
Carbon Monoxide (CO) None

1. State of federal AAQS..

2. Based on ARB, policy.

3. Current ARB staff policy holds that either full trade-offs be obtained
for each of these,or extra, particulates be traded off to account for
organics,nitrate,and sulfate particulates formed from HC, NOX 2 and S02
emissions. The quantity of extra particulates trade-offs is determined by
the', existinq fraction of ambient particulates comprised of organics,
nitrates or sulfates.., In other words,if sulfate accounts for 15 percent
of the ambient TSP levels, and,S02, trade-offs are not being obtained,
particulate trade-offs would have to be increased by 15 percent.

4. ARB considers power plants to be a minor source of CO, and ordinarily
does not require trade-offs for CO emissions from them.

5. Based, on, the ARB Model New Source Review Rule, it was assumed that NOX
trade-offs for ambient ozone,standard, violations- would not be required.
except in the Bay Area,South Central Coast and South Coast Air Basins.

EE6,CPP ae 19

TABLE 5--STATUS OF COMPLIANCE WITH STATE AND FEDERAL

AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS

TSP 0 NO so so
COUNTY 3 2 2 4
STATE FED STATE FED STATE FED STATE FED STATE

Del Norte x 0 ? ? ? ?

Humboldt x 0 ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

Alameda x x x x x 0 0 0 0

Contra Costa x x x x 0 0 x qO 0

Marin x 0 x x 0 0 0 0 0

San Francisco x 0 x x x 0 0 0 0

San Mateo x x x x x 0 0 0

Santa Clara x x x x x 0 0 0 0

Salano x 0 x x 0 0 0 0 0

Monterey x x x 0 0 0 0 0 x

San Luis'Obispo X x x x 0 0 0 0 0
Santa Barbara x x2 x x .0 0 0 0 0

.Ventura x x x x x 0 x 0 x

Los.Angeles x x x @x x x x x x

@San Diego x x x X, x x 0 0 x

Source: California Air Quality Data, Cal'ifornia Air Resources Board, Yearly Summaries
from 1976-1979.

2. North county Only.

X Violations reported.

0 No violations reported.

No data available; no violations assumed.

NOTE: Each of the above counties (or portions of these counties) is classified by EPA as
attainment, nonattainment or unclassified, with respect to compliance with federal
standards. However, these classi.fications change, based upon ambient air quality
data. Since this report is investigating future siting opportuni.ties, analysis
was based on air quality data rather than EPA classification.

20.

TABLE 6--PERCENT OF AVERAGE ANNUAL TSP CONCENTRATIONS COMPRISED

OF ORGANICS, SULFATES ARD NITRATES

County Organics Sulfates Nitrates

Del,Norte, Humboldt No Data Assumed negligible
3 12.5% 15.4%
Alameda 7.0%
Contra Costa* 7.0% 3 12.7% 10.0%

3
Marin 7_0% 10.% 5.8%
San Francisco 7 .0% 3 22.8% 10.7%

San Mateo 9.4% 8.3% 8.5%

Santa Clara 8.4% 6.9% 8.5%

Solano 7.7% 11.3% 8.7%

Monterey 2.5% 4.1% -4.8%

San Luis'Obispo 1.5.4% 7.2% 5.9%

Santa Barbara 7.7% ',9.3% 10.0i

Ventura 7.9% 11.5%
Los Angeles 2@%`2 14.8% 13.5%

San Diego 7. 7% 9.2% 10.9%

1 . Source: 'Alan T&h,g:ren, Tech -Servltoes "'Div:isio:n, ARB, June 1980.

2. Based on 'Rtv.erside data:;; -,no _L...A. ,,or,,,ga-ni-.c .-d.atta available.

3. Data f or thi s county 'n6.t ava116.bl,.'e - lus@ed -.,ari thrReti c:.mean of values for
San Mateo, 'Santa .'C,I-,alra,, nd SoTano counti;es.

limitations. It should be noted that these limitations are an anachronism
when applied to sources subject to NSR regulations. NSR regulations already
require the use of Best Available Control Technology (BACT) to minimize source
emissions and may also require trade-offs to mitigate the impact of those
emissions. Emission limitations which apply to major new sources, are
generally a holdover from the time when such limitations were the only way to
regulate such sources. Nevertheless., these limitations are still in effect
throughout California, and most have the weight of federal authority because
they have been approved by EPA as part of the State Implementation Plan (SIP).
Once approved, the local APCDs are mandated by EPA to implement and enforce
them.

Some APCDs have made changes in their emission limitations without obtaining
official approval from EPA.to modify the SIP accordingly. In such cases, the
emission limitations which appear in the APCD-published Rules and Regulations
are not part of the SIP, and the old limitations are still in effect from
EPA's perspective. An example is Rule 67, originally adopted by most Southern
California counties but later replaced with other emission limitations. Rule
.67 was an extremely stringent regulation developed specifically to preclude
new, power plants from bei ng constructed in Los Angeles County prior to the
development of NSR regulations. While this rule (and similar rules with
different-numbers) was repealed in Los Angeles, San Bernardino, Orangel River-
side and-'Imperial7 counties, EPA never approved the changes, and, hence thes Ie
rules would still be enforced at the federal level., To the extent known, the
emission limitations which are in effect only at the local level, at both the
Jocal and federal level, and only at the federal level have all been con-
sidered.in assessing compliance.

.Prevention of-Significant Deterioration

PSD regulations, promulgated by EPA,. are intended to prevent the, air quality
in areas which are cleaner than required by the AAQSs from deteriorating,sig-
nificantly. California is currently divided into two types of PSD areas:
Class I and Class II. Class I areas consist of national parks and wilderness
areas and other areas designated as Class I by EPA based upon ARB recommend-
ations and proposals (includes large national monuments,'etc.)., The remainder
of the state is Class II. At the present time, only significant deterioration
Of S02 and TSP is restricted. - It is anticipated that other pollutants may be
similarly restricted in the future. In addition, EPA is currentlyin-the pro-
cess.o,f developing visibility impact regulations for Class I areas. For pur7
poses of this study, however, only power plant impacts on ambient S02 and TSP
concentration are considered.

If an area is nonattainment8 for either S02 or TSP, it is.considered a,Class. I
Or II area only forthat pollutant which is in attainment.. Since much of.the
state is nonattainment for TSP,.mahy areas are Class.I or Class II for S02
only. The San Joaquin Valley portion of Kern County and the South Coast- Air

7. This rule was later readopted by Imperial County.

8. The terms "attainment" and "nonattainment" refer to national ambient
Air quality standards only--not state standards.

CPP ae
22

Basin' are,,currently designatedt as nonattainment areas for both S02 and TSP9'
although ARB has proposed redesignation to attainment status for S02 in both
areas. In these areas, PSD would not apply.

The specific limits of air quality deterioration allowed under PSD regulations
for S02 and TSP are shown in Table 7.

Details,on air quality. impact analysis calculations are provided in the fol-
lowing section.

Air Qualit Impact Analysis

Air quality impacts are determined by using SMOG,, a three-dimensional,
gridded,.numerical model. SMOG is used because of this model's ability to
realistically simulate the-effects of complex terrain which al ,ter tbeivind
flow, and therefore, pollutant concentrations.

Because of. the widely varying coastal terrain, impacts on each undesignated
area are determined by separate applications of the model.. Terrain elevations
of areas,surroundi,ng each site are obtained.from Lawrence Livermore Labor-
atory's digital reproduction of USGS 15 minute topographic maps. Cell -sizes
are I minute by 1 minute in the horizontal directions (approximately .1,400 by.
1,8'50 meters)._ Vertical cell depth is between 100 and. 200 meters, depending
on the height of the surrounding terrain.

The@-condition which produces. the@ worst case ground level impact is that of
plume impaction on elevated'terrain. In this case, the plume trajectory is
intercepted by high ground, causing large ground level pollutant concen-
The meteorological condition which produces this worst case
impaction is very stable air (Pasquill Stability Class F) and a wind.speed of
two 'meters per second. The wind is directed from the source to the highest
terrain point on the modeling grid,within a 10 kilometer radius of the source.
The as,sumption is made that this@condition persisted without variation until a
steady.state,concentration is predicted at the point of*maximumAmpact.- This
insure&that the worst case value-wouMbe obtained.

Three simulations are performed at each site, one for each power plant type
(direct-fired coal, steam turbine, and.combined cycle). Results from -these
simulations are adjuste& using the emission characteristics of each plant
type, fuel, and pollutant species to determine the worst case one hour impacts
of S02, NOX,,and,particulat.es.

Since the availability of actual meteorological data for most of the sites
considered is limited*,. impacts over@ longer averaging periods are estimated
from the one hour values.. [email protected] impacts are determined based on
the assumption that ' the meteorological condition responsible for the worst
case impact. could be reasonably be expected to persist for three hours.
Therefore, three hour impacts are assumed equal to the one hour worst' case
values. Impacts for 24-hour-periods are derived, using an approximation method
developed'by the@Tennessee@VAlley Authority.9

9. Montgomery, T.L. and Coleman, J.,, 1975; Empirical Relationships Between
Time-Averaged S02 Concentrations; ES&T, Volume9, #10.

TABLE 7--ALLOWABLE PSD DETERIORATION INCREMENTS

@Max. AllowableIncrease (ug/3)

Pollutant Avera@ing Time Class I Areas Class II Areas

TSP Annual geometric mean 5 19

TSP 24-hour maximum 10 37

S02 Annual arithmetic mean 2 20

S02 24-hour maximum 5 91

S02 3-hour maximum 25 512

EE-6 CPP ae

Using this-method, the one-hour averages are multiplied by a factor.of 1/7 to
deter.mine."-the 24-hour average values.

The PSD Class I and Class Il increments are compared directly to the results
in order f& 'determine if violations of PSD regulations would result. However,
calculated,,impacts cannot be compared directly with the ambient air quality
standards' (to determine-compliance with NSR regulations) because specific
background,pollutant concentrations for given site locations must be added to
the maximum, ground level impact of the powerplant to determine. the total,
pollutant.,., concentration. For this report, background concentrations were
obtained from ARB published air quality datalO for the years 1976 through
1979. The greatest of.the second highest concentrations for a calendar year,
from a monitoring station within approximately 20 km of each site considered,
are used as representative worst-case background concentrations. Where no
background values are, available (generally due to the absence of monitoring
stations), it is assumed that background concentrations are negligible.

Summary

In an earlierCEC staff report, Air Quality Statewide Coal Plant Area
Screening Study (Anderson, M., et al., February 1979), the conclusion was
reached that trade-off availability was the limiting factor in siting a 500 MW
coal power plant. In this later study, trade-offs are again the limiting
factor in siting any of the power plant types considered. Terrain impacts for
the nine UAs@described in this report are not a large factor primarily because
these site& were previously screened for nearby elevated terrain vr@ich would
cause the worst case plume impaction. Each .county containin Ig an area consid-
ered in this study.is in violation of at least one state or federal TSP stari-
dard, and all but Del Norte and Humboldt counties are in violation of state or
federal ozone standards. Therefore, some trade-offs ate required in each area
considered.. Trade-off data i-s obtained from the CEC staff report Statewide
Emission Tradeoff Inventory (see- References). Industrial centers, not
surprisingly, have by far the greatest amount of potential trade-offs. Contra
Costa and Los Angeles counties, for example, are two of the largest sources of
potential trade-offs.

In general, large direct-fired coal (500 or 1,300 MW) or oil (800 or 1,300 MW)
plants probably cannot be sited in most of the areas considered. However,
except where no trade-offs at all were available, a methanol, natural gas, or
coal:gas plant,,especially small (up to 500 MW) sizes, could probably be sited
in most of the areas considered.

NOTE: Public Health

The air q-uality analyses also serve as the basis for the consideration of
public health questions involving fossil-fueled power pliant expansion. There
are other pollutants of concern in addition to those included in the air
quality analyses., These other pollutants (such as trace metals and poly@yclic

10. Source: California Air Quality Data, California Air Resources Board.
Yearly Summaries 1976 through 19M

pv-A rPP

aromatic hydrocarbon.s) are currently unregulated with regard to emission or
ambient air quality standards. Because of this, there is little information
on ambient levels of these pollutants. In addition, the equity, or adequacy
of air pollutant offsets to protect public health,can only be determined by a
detailed site-specific.analysis which may involve a*ir quality impact modeling
Since there is no practicable method to "map" constraints related to the
health concerns involving nonregulated pollutants and trade-off, adequacy,
these factors were not included in this study.

NOTE: Cooling Tower Emissions

Cooling tower emissions are not specifically considered as an air quality
screening factor in this study. Specific predictions about sucb emissions and
their effects are difficult to make. In addition, regulatory agencies gener-
ally. do not consider cooling tower emissions to be a serious air quality
problem. The issue is'noted here, however, because, while opportunities for
once-through" cooling are a primary reason for coastal power plant siting, if
such once-through opportunities ate prohibited or restricted by water quality
regulations, cooling towers may have to be used at coastal sites.

Some coastal plants have access to as many as three types of cooling water:
ocean water, fresh water, and waste water (of varying quality). The emissions
from the cooling towers could vary widely depending upon the type and quality
of cooling,water used and the cooling tower design (e.g., number of cycles of
concentration, wet, wet-dry, or dry designs, and drift controls). Cooling
tower. emissions are usually particulates dissolved or suspended' in water-
droplets called "drift" which escape from the towers during operation. Much
of the drift settles on ground or on other surfaces within a relatively short
distance of the towers before the liquid portion evaporates. Some of the
drift, however, may remain airborne as it evaporates, leaving suspended
(airborne) particulate matter..

Cooling tower transport models (which estimate airborne particulate matter
concentration) and deposition models (which approximate drift settling) have
been developed and are in the final stages of validation. However, to date
these models-have not been used to determine the concentrations of suspended
particulates resulting from cooling tower operation. Cooling tower drift is
rarely an issue in the air regulatory processes of the ARB and the Air Pollu-
tion Control Districts (APCD). Towers may even be specifically exempted from
.APCD regulations as in the South Coast Air Quality Management District.

In view of these limitations, cooling tower drift is not conside.red as a
screening factor in this study.

EE-6 CPP ae

GEOLOGY

Nuclear

o Coastwide
o Non-nuc,lear

Lands'cA-pe Instability

o Active,.Sand Dunes
o Quaternary Landslides
o Steep Riverbank Slopes/Recognized Sea Cliff Instability

Fa ults and.Related Seismic Hazards

o Ground Surface Rupture
o Seismic Shaking
o Seismically Induced Liquefaction

Selected Mineral and Geologic Resources

o Fossil Fuel Production
o Other Mineral Deposits

This section -includes an analysis of selected geological conditions at the
five CCC UAs. It also discusses coastwide conditions affecting opportunities
tollocate nuclear facilities-. These analyses are intended to identify poten-
tial effects from the, major. geological constraints on opportunities for
nuclear and non-nuclear power plants. The geological factors considered In
these analyses are identified above.

The nuclear opportunity discussion applies to approximately 141 CCC UAs
initially identified*;.BCDC UA's are not c:onsidered in this nuclear opportunity
analysis due to the@prohibitive effects of population density criteria. The
non-nuclear analysis at the five CCC UAs is based on extensive information And
research provided by,Cal.ifornia Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG) staff on
these specific areas.

Nuclear--Coastwide

Due to the safety-critical nature of,nuclear power plants, natural conditions
which-are adverse to the safe ope-ration of these facilities often become
severe and/or exclusionary constraints in the site selection process.

Geologic hazards are safety-critical siting parameters and play a significant
role in'the siting of nuclear power plants in California. The presence of
geologic hazards or adverse, conditions creates a degree of constraint to
siting that will vary from nominal to prohibitive, depending on the
conditions, severity, and the alternatives for mitigating impacts.

In addition to the actual exposure to hazards, the conservative nature of the
NRC geologic/seismic siting and 'design criteria which are used to evaluate

EE-6 CPP ae 27

conditions and develop design increase the degree of constraint created by
potentially adverse geologic conditions. The NRC siting criteria require an
applicant to show positive evidence that geologic hazards do not exist at a
proposed site or can be acceptably mitigated prior to NRC acceptance. Thus,
in regions of high.seismicity and known active faulting, the temporal costs
and potential failure.associated with meeting the NRC siting. criteria create
an.additional constraining effect.

Fundamental geologic factors within the coastal zone of California whfch@ could
render a proposed site unacceptable would Include:

o The potential for surface rupture along faults;

o The potential for strong ground shaking during an earthquake; and

o Adverse foundation conditions/slopes instability.

The most favorable geologic setting for a nuclear power plant is one which
lacks the factors listed above. However, in addition, the favorable setting
should have the geologic ingredients to show positive evidence that adverse
geologic conditions do not exist. A favorable setting, for example, would be
laterally continuous, sufficiently old, undeformed stratigraphic horizons, in
demonstrating the lack of surface faulting.

Virtually the entire length of the California coastline represents a'region of
high seismicity and known active and Quaternary faulting (see Figure 3). This
region also generally lacks the characteristics necessary to demonstrate
geologic stability. Within certain areas of the coastline, sufficiently old
(35,000 ybp) marine and alluvial terraces exist which might be used to demon'-
strate local geologic stability. However, these are limited in extent and
generally fall short -of providing substantial positive evidence of geologic
stability.

The staff effort to assess the potential for nuclear power plant siting in the
Coastal Zone focuses on identifying those UAs containing favorable geologic
conditions not previously excluded by population density constraints. The
effort represents a cursory.review of Quaternary faulting and the' presence of
Sufficiently old coastal marine and alluvial terraces at a scale of 1:250,000.

In assessing the UAs, known Quaternary faults are delineated using five-mile
half width bands (see Figure 3) to be consistent with NRC siting criteria
(Appendix A, 10 CFR, Part 100). These criteria require detailed studies for
all questionably capable faults within five miles ofa proposed nuclear power
.plant. Experience has shown that when conducting detailed studies in areas of
known Quaternary faulting, additional faults will usually be disclosed., Thus,
the presence of Quaternary faults is usually indicative of more complex pro-
blems. Results of such studies can create costly delays to a project and
ultimately turn up negative results. For that reason, the five-mile half
width band used for this study is considered a severe.constraint to locating
nuclear power plants.

For this study, areas which are not traversed by known Quaternary. faults and
containing coastal marine, and alluvial terraces which are probably greater

EE-6 CPP ae 28

"Y'

identified on the
than 35,000. years in age and extensive- enough to be
1:250,000 p@@ale geologic map,-if present, are-considered areas with potential
for siting. The presence of these deposits, if undeformed and
widespread, could provide the evidence necessary to demonstrate geologic,
stability within an area.

The res..ul;s of the overview assessment are as follows. From a geologic per-
spect,ive,.6pportunities for nuclear power plant siting could not be identi-,
fied; that is.- no marine or alluvial terraces of sufficient age could be
ideintified'@@in areas not traversed by (within 5 miles of) known Quaternary
faults within the 141 CCC UAsA

In addition., due to the presence of Quaternary faulting, the apparent lack of
ingredients to demonstrate geologic stability, and the associated uncertainty
in meeting the NRC geologic/seismic siting criteria,.constrai.nts on nuclear
facilities probably range from'severe'to prohibitive.

These, results are intended -to be only a general indication of opportunities
for locating new nuclear facilities in the CCC UAs. This analysis is not a
detailed site review, nor does it consider opportunities in the extensive
designated areas of the CCC jurisdiction. The noted 'conclusions are thus
clearly qualified and do not purport to be, and should not be interpreted as,
conclusive with respect to opportunities to locate new nuclear power plants
along.@the coast.

NON-NUCLEAR

Geological factors can play a significant role in the siting of non-nuclear
(i.e., nonsafety-criti.cal) power-plants in the coastal zone of California.
The degree of significance depends on parameters such as facility type (base
load versus peaking), potential co.sts:due to failure (including environmental
costs), and exposure to.hazards. -Although geological factors usually do not
prohibit the siting and construct-ion,pf,nonsafety-criticaI facilities, such as
non-nuclear thermal pqwer,plants, adverse geological conditions can often
times-make site preparation and mitigation extremely expensive and time-
consuming. In-this situation (assuming noiother trade-offs), a site may be
excluded in @favor of one with more acceptable geological conditions.

UA Analysts

'The following is a discuRs1pn of opport 'unities/constraints for power plant
locations at all of the five @CCC UAs. As noted, BCDC UAs are not discussed
due to lack of existing data, -The following discussions are based on exten-
sive research of existing data conducted by CDMG. Analysis is done by CEC
s taff .

Crescent Cit-,y-!--UA 1A.and 1B

o Faults

The -trace of a probable fault i,.s.pps-tulated to exist along the Klamath
Mountains hill front in -.the sou@thern and eastern portions of undesignated
area I B. In , a.d.di t,i..On;, several faults of possible significance to both
undesignated areas have been identified by the CDMG@in the Crescent City
area.

EE-6 CPP ae

cl 11

QUATERNARY FAULT

RESTRICTION ZONES

URCE: CAWORNIA GIVISION Of MINES ANO GEOLOGY 1977

CALIFORNIA ENERCY COMMISSION

MAP PRODUCED By

DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES. U.C. DAVIS

FIGURE 3

Potentk41 constraints to power plant development derive from both the
potent,i@al for surface rupture and strong-earthquake shaking. The 16.vel
of constraint to power plant-siting that these faults pose is considered
to be nominal to moderate. Avoidance of these faults should minimize the
fault rupture hazard in,the southern and eastern portions of UA 1B. The
potenbl,al, however, for associated strong earthquake shaking in both UAs
IA and-,1B may necessitate spe-cial design and construction techniques.

o 'S-eismically Induced Liquefaction

to.th,'UAR@ 1A and 1B are extensively underlain by potentially liquefiable
Quaternary sedimentary deposits. Within the two areas, only a small
triangiar area of about 0.75 square mile (8500' x,2500') is not'underlain
by potentially liquefiable materials.

The level of constraint that these potentially liquefiable materials pose
to power plant siting ranges from moderate to potentially severe. Site-
specific subsurface investigations would have to be conducted to deter-
mine the level of constraint at any particular proposed site.

Power plant siting opportunities appear -to exist in,the flatland port-ions
(excluding the 'southern portion of "undesignated" area 1B) of both
undesignated" areas. -However,.d.etailed site-specific subsurface studies
to asses-s the liquefac,tion potential must.be conducted to determine the
suitability of the selected site.

Samoa Sj)1.t--UA .2

o Active Sand Dunes

UA 2 is underlain entirely by-sand dunes. The degree of constraint posed
by these sand dunes depends on the site-specific soil density, ground-
water level and dune stability.. Constraints from active dunes could
range from nominal,to.severe.

o SeismicAlly Induced Liquefaction

A major proportion of this UA is underlain by potentially liquefiable
Quaternary alluvium, beach -sand, and dune sand. The potential for
liquefaction could.present a,moderate to severe constraint to non-nuclear
power'plant siting in this area.

o Faults

.The North Spit fault (Elk River'Segment) is a northwest t Irending fault
which crosses the-southern portion 6f-UA 2.

Potential con�traint@s' to powe'r @:plant.@,development derive from potential
surface ruoture andAst'rong-earthquake shaking. 'The level of constraint
is considered to @be '-ftominal 'to =d6rlte. It is believed that several
more faults could be identified @through the study area if an intensive
-investigation was conducted..

.31
EE-6 CPP ae

Siting opportunities appear to exist; however, detailed site-specific
subsurface studies to assess.liquefaction potential must be conducted to
determine the suitability of the selected site.

Salinas River--UA 3A and 3B

o Faults

A splay of the King City Fault (a potential source of damaging earth-
quakes) crosses a. very small area at the northern end of the
undesignated" area at Lapis Landing.

The level of constraint to power plant siting from this fault is consid-
ered to be nominal to@moderate. Avoidance of the fault should minimize,
the fault rupture hazard; however, the potential for strong earthquake
shaking may necessitate special design considerations.

o -Seismically Induced Liquefaction.

Seismically induced liquefaction potential is shown to exist at two very
small areas in the southern portion of the "undesignated" area. These
areas are further classified In the CDMG Report as "dune deposits
presently stabilized."

The level of constraint posed by these areas is considered to be nominal
because these areas.are small and avoidance would be relatively simple as
a mitigation measure.

o Dune Deposits.

Dune deposits which are presently stabilized exist throughout the
undesignated" area.

The level of constraint that these dune deposits pose to power plant
siting depends on the site-specific soil density/dune stability
characte.risti6's and. could range from nominal to potentially severe.
Typical mitigation for this condition would include special foundation
design and preparation and/or arrangement of facilities in order to
reduce the impact of dune, instability to the proposed facilities. Sub-
surface studies should be conducted as wellP to determine whether and to
what degree these materials are potentially liquefiable.

o Selected Mineral Resources (Sand).

CommerciaI quality sand is being mined in several locations near the
beach by Lone Star Industries. However, these localities could be
avoided in the siting process, mitigating the land-use conflicts. The
level of constraint posed by the presence of this valuable commodity is
-considered nominal to moderate.

Siting opportunities appear to exist throughout most of the area. However, as
mentioned above, detailed subsurface studies should be conducted to determine
whether or not potentially liquefiable materials exist over a.much larger area
than, that indicated in the CDMG study of the area.

EE-6 CPP ae

Santa Maria River--UA 4A and 4B

0 Active.'Sand Dunes.

A large--percentage of the area is 'underlain by sand dunes known as the
"Guadalupe Sand Dunes." Thedegree of constraint these sand dunes pose
to powe.r plant siting depends on the site-specific soil density/dune
s-tabilfty (characteristics which are not discussed in this study) and
could range from nominal to severe. However, oil and gas wells and
associated pipelines have been successfully sited and constructed on
these dunes, indicating that the dunes are relatively stable and would
probabl4 pose a constraint. level in the nominal to moderate range.
Typical mitigation for this condition would include special foundation
design,,arid/or arrangement of facilities in order to reduce the impact of
dune instability to the proposed facilities.

o.Seismically Induced Liquefaction.,

The entire "undesignated" area i's underlain by potentially liquefiable
sediments. -However, detailed subsurface investigations may show that an
area large enough for the power. generation facilities could exist which
is not underlain by liquefiable materials. Depending on the results of
subsurface studiesi constraints due to seismically induced liquefaction
could range from nominal to severe.

If a facility must be constructed on liquefiable materials, extensive and
expensive site preparation (e.g., excavation of liquefiable materials)
and.special foundation design can be employed to mitigate the hazard.

0. Areas of Fossil Fuel Production (Oil).

The Guadalupe Oil Field generally underlies the Guadalupe dunes area in
the northwestern part of the Santa Maria River "undesignated" area.

Another small (about one,half square mile) unnamed oil field is located
in the southeast portion of the "undesignated" area.

Potential adverse conditions associated with fossil fuel production
(e.g., differential settlement And induced seismic1ty) have not been
reported in the literature for this area. Therefore, no geologic con-
straints related to.fossil fuel production are anticipated.

Three oil fields exist within the Santa Maria River area with an e.sti-
mated 100 to 600 million barrels of oil remaining to bediscovered.
These fields include the Guadalupe field, the Santa Maria Valley field,
and an unnamed field neat the.town.of Guadalupe.. In addition, enhanced
oil recovery.(EOR) methods are currently being used in this area (steam
injection). The production attributed to thermal EOR at the Guadalupe
field during. 1976 was 33 percent or 380,000 barrels (CEC Consultant
Report P500-7-8-15; Table 4).

The potential for'EOR cogeneration development in the Santa Maria River
area is identified 'here as:a potential siting opportunity for a preferred

33
EE-6,CPP ae

electric generation alternative. Analyses to. further define this
potential would include air quality impacts/trade-offs, water supply
implications and estimates of the potential for generating capacity.

Tijuana River--UA 5

o Active Sand Dunes.

A very small strip of land (about 3,000 feet long and 150 feet wide)
along.the beach in the community of Imperial Beach is comprised of active
sand dunes. Due to the limited extent of these dunes, the level of
constraint that they pose to the siting of non-nuclear power plants is
judged to be nominal.

o Quaternary Landslides.

A large portion of the UA 5 in the Border Highlands area along the
California/Baja, California border consists of Quaternary landslides.
The total area included in the "unde�ignated" area is about one-half
square mile (I mile long and 1/2 mile wide). About 15 percent of this . is
underlain by Quaternary landslides with an addition of 3 to 4 percent
underlain by potentially "unstable slopes." The term "unstable slopes"
in this area is defined by CDMG as "areas of high slope angle in poorly
consolidated seldments."

The.level of constraint posed by these landslides and potential land
slides to the siting of non-nuclear power plants in this "undesignated"
area is judged to be moderate.

o Seismically Induced Liquefaction.

Potentially liquefiable materials underlie large portions of the UAs in
the Imperial Beach 7-1/2 minute quadrangle study area. Interstate
Highway 5, north of the community of South San Diego at the southern end
of San Diego Bay, is underlain by potentially liquefiable materials.
About 60 percent (CEC estimate) of the UA 5 along the Tijuana River at
the Calif,ornia/Baja, California border is underlain by potentially lique-
fiable materials.

The, level of non-nuclear siting constraint posed by these potentially
liquefiable materials In both of the above-described "undesignated" areas
is judged to be moderate to potentially severe.

o Faults.

Several splays of an active/potentially active fault system occur in
UA 5 in the Border Highlands area-along the California/Baja, California
n
border.

The level of constraint to non-nuclear power plant siting.posed by this
fault system Is judged to be nominal to moderate.

EE-6 CPP ae

Siting-opportunities appear to exist throughout most of the area except
in the Border Highlands area where much .. faulting and slope
instability/landslides exist. The actual verification of siting
opportunities, however, depends on site-specific subsurface exploration
to evaluate the liquefaction hazard as well as any other potentially
`I'ite condi-tIons.
adverse s

EE-6 CPP ae

PUBLIC FACILITIES

Urban Areas Rail. Lines/Transportation
Cultivated Agricultural Lands Available Land
Recreational Activity Areas Cultural Resources
Military Bases Transmission Lines
View Protection Nuclear.Population Restrictions

This is a discussion of the effects of the public facility evaluation factors
on all nine UAs. This analysis considers the general effects of a variety of
factors associated with land use and development on opportunities for new
power plants. The effects of these factors can vary widely with the type or
size of power plant facility. Their impacts can occur on both a regional and
a site specific basi.s. Due to the limitations of thescope of this study,
potential effects, are not considered from a site-specific' perspective but
rather from the broader perspective of each undesignated. area.

For a .more extensive discussion of opportunities for transmission line
corridors, see Appendix F.

CCC UA Analysis

Crescent City--UA 1A

This 300 acre UA is undergoing single family subdivision with many parcels
developed. A mobile home park is located at Old Mill Road and Lake Earl
-Drive. The northwest portion of the UA is in grazing. The.Del Norte County
General Plan designates the area generally according to existing land use:
,subdivisions in residential, mobile home.park in commercial, grazing in agri-
culture with five acre minimum lot sizes. Industrial land uses are not
located or planned in this UA.

Vehicular transportation access into the county is limited to two highways,
101 and 199. There are no rail lines in Del Norte County due to the terrain
difficulty. Crescent City Harbor use currently is limited to fishing/pleasure
craft and oil barges. Planned expansions of the harbor would not be enough to
accommodate large shipments of.oil or coal. Sand accretion and bottom rocks
also constrain harbor expansion.

There.-are no major transmission line rights-of-way in this area. The develop-
ment of such corridors is possible, but only at high construction cost due to
terrain difficulty (see Appendix F).

Existing land uses, ongoing development, and difficult access within this UA
severely constrain opportunities for new power plants. Facilities using once-
through. cooling would be the best alternative for the amount of land
available.

Crescent City--UA IB

The county's major industrial area is located in this UA, along with
recreation and scattered residential uses. Land uses in this UA are admin-
istered by four jurisdictions. The City of Crescent City administers the
western portion of this development 'except for small scattered vacant lots.

EE-6 CPP ae

A small subdivided vacant portion of the UA east of Highway 101 lies in the
jurisdiction of the Crescent City Harbor District and is planned for harbor-
related uses`, including tourist and commercial. The southern portion of the
UA is within' the boundary of the Redwood National Park under the administra-
tion of the. National Park Service. The largest portion of the UA is
administered by Del Norte County and includes the county's prime existing and
planned industrial areas as well as, agriculturally zoned lands currently in
grazing. Highway 101, south of Sitka Spruce Grove and Bluff Road is'
designated, as a view corridor in the Del Norte County Draft Local Coastal
Program.

Major vehicular access is limited to two highways,101 and 199. Rail lines do
not exist, and their construction is limited by the difficult' terrain.
Planned expansion of Crescent City Harbor will not accomodate large shipments
of oil or coal. Major transmission line corridors do not exist, and the cost
of their construction would be increased by the terrain difficulty..

Cresce nt City has planned for moderate residential and commercial growth based
on increased recreational use of the area,.

Samoa Spit--UA 2

Land uses in this UA include industrial (paper mills), military reservation
(Coast Guard), and residential. Planned land uses are for generally limited
industrial and regional park proposals. The coast and dunes are designated by
Humboldt County as environmentally sensitive/open space, and Humboldt Bay is
designated as biologically sensitive estuary.

The one rail line into the county leads south to its first east-west con-
nection in southern Sonoma County. Frequent washouts of this line in the past
have required increased truck delivery of goods. Humboldt Bay currently is
not deep enough to handle large oil or coal deliveries, and dredging may be
expected to conflict with its biologically sensitive designation. New trans-
mission lines would be required for all but small power plants.

Scattered vacant areas of up to 20 acres exist in this UA, including the air
strip owned by the City of Eureka. Louisiana-Pacific proposes a 40 MW wood
waste cogeneration facility on one of theIr Vacant parcels.

Salinas River-UA 3A

Land uses in this UA include industrial (sand plant), residential, and agri-
cultural. Approximately 400 -500 Acres within this UA are vacant or in low-
intensity uses.

Planned land uses with-in the City of Marina include high intensity industrial

and low intensity residential. Designations in the Monterey County juris-
diction include general agricultural and open space. Urban growth planned by
Marina (from 23,000 to 48,000 by 2,000) may be expected to expand into county
areas. Dunes in. this area are recommended for inclusion in the Salinas
Wildlife Refuge due. to their scenic and, natural resource value.

The major vehicular access to this area is on highway 1. A Southern Pacific
railroad spur serves this area. No major transmission line corridor exists in
this area; however, construction is possible over relatively easy terrain.

EE-6 CPP ae

The City of Marina may be expected to absorb much of the regional growth on
the Monterey Penninsula., This growth will also be dependent on the activities
of Fort Ord, a major area industry.

Salinas River--UA 3B

The majority of this UA is located within the Fort Ord military reservation.
It is used for military training and is in the flight path of missile
launching operations. Artillery shelling occurs adjacent to the study area.

A small portion within the City of Marina is developed in residential with few
vacant lots.

Santa Maria River--UA 4A

The major land uses in this UA area are industrial (refinery) and agricultural.
(intensive cultivated row crops). The refinery occupies approxiately 50'acres.
with an additional 250 acres within the UA acting as a buffer. West of the
UA are the Guadalupe Dunes,.which the County of San Luis Obispo designates as
recreation.with a sensitive resource overlay due to high environmental quality
and special ecological/educational significance. An oil field currently
operates on the dunes.

The major vehicular access is on Highway 1. Rail lines are available.
Existing transmission line corridors can be extended to serve this area.

Growth is occurring in this area although serious water supply problems exist.
Housing developed for the construction of the Diablo Canyon power plant could
support construction workers in this area, provided that the growing community
,does not absorb it. In addition, development of the MX missile test site, the
space shuttle, and the LNG terminal could impact the use of existing available
housing.

Santa Maria River--UA 4B

Thi's UA lies in two counties, San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara. Major land
uses are industrial (oil@extraction and sand plant) and agriculture. Land use
designations generally follow the existing land uses with San Luis Obispo
County designating the Guadalupe Dunes as recreation with an energy extraction
overlay. These sand dunes have been further designated as a national natural
landmark.by the Department of the Interior in.recognition of ecological and
scenic values. A study for management of energy development in the dunes area
identifies tile riparian habitat along the Santa Maria River as the most sen.-
sitive resource within this UA.

Housing support, transportation and transmission corridor access in this area'
are readily available, as noted in the discussion for UA 4A above.

County plans indicate the intent to maintain long-;-term recreational and agri-
cultural uses in this area. However,.other major.projects proposed for this
area of the coast (Santa Barbara County) include the Liquefied Natural Gas
Terminal, the MX missile test system, and a space shuttle base, and are
current significant growth issues. Land is available within the UA for a
variety of power plant.sizes if agricultural land is converted.

EE-6 CPP ae

Tijuana River--UA 5

This UA is composed of approximately 300 acres of undeveloped mesas. A sand
and gravel- operation is proposedfor this area pending approval of extraction
and rehabilitation plans by the City of San Diego. A specific plan for this
area desigp4tes commercial/recreation,which would allow trailer camping and
off-road vehicle use., Implementation of the specific plan may be delayed
pending completion of the proposed, mining operations.

Vehicular access.in the immediate area is,limited.to one surface street across
the@ Tijuana River to San@Diego. There are no rail lines in the immediate
vicinity. Transmission lines.-may readily connect to the existing system.

Regional housing projections indicate that demand associated with power plant
operation and construction could probably be accommodated.

Flood flows in the Tijuana River cannot be controlled by United States juris-
dictions. and may be expected to isolate this area on a seasonal basis.

BCDC UA Analysis

Oleum--UA 6

This UA is designated by Contra Costa, County for industrial land use. It is
identified as. one of the best undeve loped water ports in the bay area. The
area is currently undeveloped, but a'permit for a 300 acre oil refinery has
been issued. This operation will cover the majority of the existing UA but
would be highly compatible with a-power plant.

Transportation and transmisston line access is 'readily available in the area.

Point San Pedro@@UA 7

The major land use in this,,UA.is a quarry operation. The topography of the
area consi.sts of rolling terrain with *steep slopes due to tile quarry
operation. Adjacent land uses consist of residential homes. TIle (JUarry oper-
ation is expected to exist for 12 - 15, years. and planned land use consists of
single and multi-family resident-s-and a shoreline park. It is considered to
be severely constrained by planned uses; however, it is included in.this
report as a marginal opportunity.

Visitacion--UA 8A

This UA includes approximately-53, acre-s of undeveloped land fill. Other por-
tions are occupied by! indus,trial,and-recreational uses. Most of the area is
designated by the City of South, San Francisco as industrial. Specific
portions of the area are in BCDC Park Priority Area. In the PGandE Combined
Cycle NOI,. a proposed site w1th1n this area was found unacceptable for a
combined-cycle power plant. due to impacts on biological. and recreational
resources.

V,V-r, r D@v

Visitacion--UA 8B

This UA includes a vacant bay fill parcel of approximately 30 acres. Land.use
designation is industrial. Transportation and transmission line access is
readily available.

Visitacion--UA 8C

This UA Includes 30 acres of unused, unimproved bay fill. The City of
Brisbane designates it as industrial. Transportation and transmission line
corridor access is readily available. A site within this area was found
acceptable for a combined-cycle power plant during the PGandE Combined Cycle
NOI proceedings.

North San Jose--UA 5

This UA is currently in agricultural land use, and designated as heavy.
industry by the City of San Jose. Transportation and transmission line access
is readily available. A portion of this area was.conditionally approved as a
combined-cycle power plant site during the PGandE combined cycle NOI
proceedings.

CULTURAL RESOURCES

The preparation of this section dealing with cultural resources involved an
archival search resulting in a preliminary assessment of the cultural
resources in the five CCC undesignated areas. In this effort, the regional
offices of the California Archaeological Site Survey.(Office of Historic,Pre-
servation) were consulted. The information provided is not intended to
represent a resolution of the cultural resource.issues or these undesignated
areas. Prior to certifying these areas for power plant development _(orany
other development) an intensive historical, archaeolgical, and ethnographic
study must be conducted.

This section briefly discusses the range of cultural resources known to be
associatedwith coastal locations. It does.not specifically describe or iden-
tify loc.ations.of known resources in the interests of protecting such
resources.from vandalism and unauthorized collection. Table 8 summarizes the
known status of cultural resources in the region of each of the five CCC
undesignated areas considered. - This section makes no attempt to identify
cultural resources associated with the BCDC undesignatedareas due to the
known disruptive effects of intensive urban development and bay till on such
resources.

Background

Early Man in California. The initial migration of early people from the Old
World across the Bering land bridge to North America occurred 25,000 to
100,000 years before present (B.P.). The land bridge provided a broad tundra
and grassland access for many species, including Homo sapiens, to enter. North
Americ.a... The land bridge had a periodic existence that was interrupted

EE-6 CPP ae 40

TABLE 8 CULTURAL RESOURCES (CCC@

PRESENT PRESENT
UA ARCHAEOLOGICAL HISTORICAL ETHNOGRAPHICALLY. ARCHAEOLOGICAL HISTORICAL NON-
NME NO SURVEYED SURVEYED SURVEYED SITE. SITE' SENSITIVE, SENSITIVE

1A
Crescent City l-B X X
X X X X

Somoa Spit 2 X X X X X X

3A
Salinas River 3B X X X X X

Santa Maria River 4A X X X
4B

Tijuana River 5 X X X X X

BCDC cultural resource areas are excluded due to the disruptive effects of urban development and bay
fill on such resources.

several times by rising sea levels (marine transgressions). Once across the
bridge, southerly migration was possible only intermittently because of ice
bai@riers across Canada during glaciation. According to Stewart (1973), the
most likely times for man's descent into what is now the United States were
when land corridors opened through the ice east of the Rocky Mountains approx-
imately 14,000 10,000 B.P., 28,000 - 23,000 B.P., and 50,000 B.P. In con-
trast, MacNeish (1976) has estimated man's entry into the New World at 70,000
B.P. + 30,000. If initial human occupation was earlier than 50,000 B.P., a
migratory route down the now submerged paleo-coast of the Pacific may have
occurred.

Radiocarbon dates of 37,000 B.P. and 4.0,000 B.P. have been proposed for human
occupation of the Santa.Barbara Channel islands. These dates, however, pro-
vide us only with indirect evidence of early human occupation because the
material dated (charcoal, mammoth bones)'was associated with human remains.
direct radiocarbon date of 17,150 B.C. + 1,470 has been proposed for skeletal
material.(cranium and tibia) found'in 1933 in Laguna Beach (Stewart 1969)., A
skull found in 1936, "Los Angeles Man," has yielded a radiocarbon date of
23,600 B.P. A human cranium found at Del Mar in 1929 has been dated at 48,000
B.P. by amino acid raceization. Most archaeological material, however, has
been dated at 10,000 B.P.

It is not:certain when the California coast was first.occupied because world-
wide rising sea level (eustatic variation) has submerged the archaeological
remains of those early coastal dwellers. Sea level may have reached a low of
144m (472 feet) below present mean sea level (MSL) 40,000 B.P. and 124 m (407
feet) below present MSL 18,600 B.P.. This means that much of the early coastal
region probably occupied by the earliest Californians is, presently submerged,
and at great depths in some areas (BLM pp. 3 -.160).

Historic Development. In 1542,. Juan Rodriguez Cabrillo became the first
European explorer in California.. The second was Sir Francis Drake, whose
GOLDEN HINDE entered California waters in 1579. Colonization, however, did
not soon follow. The founding of San Diego in 1769 marked a change in Cali-
fornia cultural and settlement.patterns. The Mission Period, during which 21
missi'ons were founded by the Franciscans, had a drastic effect on the Native
American population, which had numbered about 300,000 at the time of contact.

Mexican colonists soon followed to Alta California to establish large ranches
for which.laborers were needed.

Spanish control of California was lost in 1821, and California became a
-Mexican land. In 1833, the missions were secularized and much of their
holdings were dispersed by land grants. Throughout the period of Spanish and
Mexican rule the Native American population rapidly decreased as a result of
war, disease, and slavery.

Russian fortunes rose and fell rapidly in California. Pursuing seals and sea
otters from.the Aleutians to Baja California, Russian interests moved further
southward as the resource decreased. Arriving in what is now Sonoma County

42
EE-6 CPP ae

in 1812. the..Russians established Fort.Ross- as a. hunting base and an agri-
cultural-supply station for their Alaskan colonists. Fort Ross was sold to an
American, John Sutter-, in 1841.

The,discovery of gold in 1848 resulted not: only in the "Forty-Niner" movement,
but also marked 'the begginning,,of a mass westerly movement to the "Golden
State" that continues today.

Mexican rule had ended in 1846. By:this time, the original population had
been decreased, by two-thirds to 100,000. By 1870 this number had. been further
reduced to an, estimated 58,000.

Along with the migration of Americans to California came immigrants from Asia
and Europe., Some of the groups well represented in California development
include the Chinese, Japanese , Filipino, Irish, Finns, Swiss, Scots, Yugosla-
vians., Italians., and Germans. Much acculturation has occurred between Native
Americans, early immigrants, and later groups. Nevertheless, there remain a
number of groups today that continue; to maintain distinctive ethnic identities
and, socioeconomic ties within their communities e.g., the Genovese and the
Scots-Irish of Santa Cruz.

Onshore,Cultural Resources. The coastal lands contain numerous archaeological
sites. The heavier concentration of sites recorded in some counties is par-
tially a reflection of large indigenous populations and partially the result
of intensive surveying. Other areas northward have not been as intensively
surveyed as others.

In recent years, there has been an increased interest in historical
archaeology. California's long history has, provided a wealth of archaeological
material.

Contemporary Native Americans. There are presently about 15 - 20,000 Native
American residents in the coastal counties. Many of the Native American
residents who are descended from local indigenous peoples continue many tradi-
tional beliefs and pract1ces.

Subsistence gathering continues today between Bodega Bay and Fort Bragg both
inland and on the coast. The intertidal zone is especially important to
coastal dwellers. Although not well documented, family-gathered, foodstuffs
account for up to 25 percent of total subsistence for some Native American
families (BLM ET S Vol. 1, p. 3- 164) Traditional medicines, herbs, and
teas are a1so gathered.

BLM has documented gathering for ceremonial purposes in Del Norte and Humboldt
counties and the Point Conception area.

Both subsistence and ceremonial gathering has been reduced in recent years
because of a decrease in the supply of traditional plant and animal foods and
a lack of access to traditional gathering sites many of which are not
privately owned. Although the intertidal zone is controlled by the state,
beach access in many areas is restricted by private property owners. Some of
the traditional dances (e.g., White Deerskin) are now held every other year,

43
EE-6 CPP ae

instead of-annually as in the past, due to current insufficient supply of the
traditional foods that are served as part of the dance cermonies (BLM EIS Vol.
1, pp. 3 - 10).

There are numerous geographic landmarks and areas that are of qpecial concern
to indigenous groups because they would be termed "sacred." However, the
traditional Native American world view does not divide the world into things
that are religious or nonreligious, sacred or nonsacred.

Some of,the landmarks of concern to contemporary Native Americans are
important because they were traditionally used by their ancestors. Many of
these places are still being used in traditional ways. In addition, there has
been a resurgence of interest in Indigenous practices and beliefs that has
resulted in a syncretic religious movement involving both young and old. The
result is that some traditional ways have been adopted not only by those
individuals for whom these beliefs and practices were part of the cultural
experie nee they have known from childhood.

Offshore Cultural Resources. The offshore region of California is rich in
cultural resources. ' Types of submerged resources are aboriginal remains and
sunken ships and artifacts. The fields of prehistoric and historic marine
archaeology in this region have begun to develop only recently. Thus far,
most prehistoric marine work has occurred in Southern California in San Diego
and in the Santa Barbara Channel area. This does not necessarily reflect a
I.ack of,resources along the central-and northern toast, only a lack of inves-
tigatio,n::in those areas. A major importance of these resources is their
potential contribution to anthropological knowledge and theory about man's
beginnings in the New World. There is arelatively good chance of pieserv-
.ation of large quantities of submerged prehistoric resources.

Shipwrecks.. Shipwrecks are important because they capture an instant in the
life of a culture and preserve It fairly intact. On board a ship are nearly
all the necessities and many of the amenities of contemporary life. Tools for
carpentry, sailmaking., shoe repair, cooking,, and eating were often present, as
well as cargo and personal items of passengers and crew. Due to long lengths
of'time awayfrom ports, much had to be carried along to maintain the vessel
and personnel. Sinking was generally in the violent circumstances of war,
storm, orsudden encounter with unseen reefs or rocks, none of which usually
provided ample warning or opportunity to salvage. Materials recently salvaged
from old wrecks include such small and perishable items as fabrics', spools of
ribbon,. hats, shoes, foodstuffs, awls, and needles. Increasing numbers of
shipwreck artifacts have been recovered offshore of California in recent
@years BLM (1979) conducted an in-house study to compile available shipwreck
data.. This study identified 1,276 vessels of historic interest that were
reported lost. Of these wrecks, 145 were reported grounded and the remainder
reported lost offshore. Most of the offshore losses have been reported in
state, rather than federal, waters.', Though the locations of historic ship-
wr,ecks have been in some cases precisely noted, they are often many miles from
the location of their reported loss. Locat.ional errors have occurred because
of navigational error, loss report error, or because of vessel drift. It,is
not uncommon for an abandoned damaged ship to drift for a long distance prior

EE-6 CPP ae 44

to eventua@ sinking. For these reasons, it is very likely that.many of the
shipwrecks,@reported in state waters actually occurred in federal waters.

NUCLEAR POPULATION RESTRICTIONS

Title 10 qf the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 100 contains the basic
criteria,applicable to nuclear power plant site selection. These criteria are
used by the'NRC and were established to minimize exposure of individuals out-
side the s-t*ation to radioactive substances released during a nuclear power
plant, acci.dent. In order for an applicant to obtain a license to operate a
nuclear power plant, 10 CFR Part 100 "Reactor Site Criteria" requires, the
following;

o An "exclusion area" surrounding the reactor in which the reactor licensee
has the authority to determine all activities, including exclusion or
removal of personnel and property;

o A "low population zone" (LPZ.) which immediately surrounds the,exclusion
area in which the population number and distribution is such that."there
is a reasonable probability that appropriate measures could be taken in
their behalf" in the event of a serious accident;

o The exposure of individuals to a postulated release of fission products
'(as a consequence of an accident) be less than certain prescribed values
at any point on the exclusion area boundary and on the outer boundary of
the LPZ;

o That the "population center distance," defined as the distance from the
nuclear reactor to the nearest boundary of a densely populated center
having more than 25,000 residents, be .at least one and one-third the dis.-
tance from the reactor to the outer boundary of the LPZ.

These criteria ate considered'inflexible and legally binding.

Areas of low population density.are pre,ferred for nuclear power station sites.
High population densities projected for -any time during the lifetime of a
station are considered during both the NRC staff reView.and the public hearing
phases of the licensing process. If the population density at the proposed
site is not acceptably low, then the applicant will be required to give
special attention to alternative sites-with lower population densities.

If-the population density, including.weighted transient population, projected
at the time of initial operation of a nuclear power station exceeds 500
persons per square mile averaged over Any radial distance out to 30 miles
(cumulative.popula,tion at a distance @Ivided by the area at that distance), or
the projected.population. density over the lifetime of the facility exceeds
1.,000 persons per square ml,` le averaged' oVer.any radial distance out to 30
miles, special attention,should' be@given to the consideration of alternative
.sites with lower population densities;.

Transient population should be included for those sites where a significant
number of people (other thanth6se just passing through the area) work, reside
part time, or engage, in recreational activities but are not permanent

residents of the area. The transient population is weighted by the fraction
of time the transients are in thearea.

Historically, the NRC staff has found that a minimum exclusion distance of 0.4
mile, even with unfavorable . design basis atmospheric dispersion
characteristics, usually provides assurance that engineered safety features
can be designed to bring the calculated dose from a postulated accident within
the guidelines of 10 CFR Part.100. If the minimum exclusion distance is less,
than 0.4 mile, it may be necessary to place special conditions on the station
design (e.g., added engineered safety features) before the requirements of 10
CFR Part 100 are met. Also, based on Past experience, the NRC staff has found
that a distance of three miles to the outer boundary of the low population
zone is adequate.

At present, NRC siting policy is being revised. Parallel changes are also
occurring In.emergency planning requirements for new and existing plants.
Rule changes under the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) Alternate
Site Reviews are also being developed for consideration of alternative sites.
Rule changes in all three areas will be applied in the future licensing of
nuclear power plants and will be used as site selection factors for any new
nuclear power plant.

The development of new rules for NRC siting criteria is in compliance with
Section 108 of the 1980 NRC Authorization Bill. This new rule development is
specifically intended to separate siting criteria from engineered reactor
safety systems. In the past the NRC permitted plant design features to
compensate for unfavorable site characteristics. The new rules are intended
to increase the emphasis on remote siting as-well as considering safety-design
,.features.

These proposed rule changes are in NUREG-0625 and in the NRC's "Modification
,of the Policy and Regulatory Practice Governing the Siting of Nuclear Power
Reactors." The final rule changes are expected.to be promulgated by the NRC
in June 1982.. The changes will modify 10 CFR Parts 100, 50,. and 51 with
regard to nuclear power plant siting and licensing criteria.

U.S. Atomic Energy Commission Accident Analysis Branch (WASH-1308, 1973)
recommendations specify population number criteria which are used by CEC staff
in this study as screening factors. These criteria are recommendations only
and do not have the force of adopted rules. The criteria indicate that
nuclear power plant sites should be considered prohibited in areas:

o 'Within a 4 mile radius of any 25,000 persons population center (PPC);

o Within a 5.mile radius of any 30,000 PPC;

o Within a 50 mile radius of any 5003,000 PPC;

o Within a 40 mile radius of any 2,000,1000 PPC; and

o Areas with densities greater than 500 persons.per square mile.

EE-6 CPP ae 46

These screeni.ng, criteria are also used in mapping efforts for the CEC
sponsored study, "Underground Siting.of Nuclear Power Reactors, Determinaition
of Site Chara-c-teristics and General Availability in California," (January
1978)

In this study,, based on, these screening criteria and the NRC's siting
criteria,, urban and: near-urban areas are considered not to provide
opportunities-for the locatiom of newnuclear power plants.

EE-6 CPP,ae, 47

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

Legally Protected Species Areas of Special Concern
Commercial-Recreational Species o Wetlands o Estuaries
Species of Special Concern o Riparian Areas o Natural Areas
o Refuges and
Reserves

This section examines the general physical and biological characteristics of
the nine UAs and their vicinities to determine areas of potentially signifi-
cant impact and to identify biological factors of major co ncern.

Three general categories of physical characteristics are used to determine the
areas of potentially significant impacts around each site, including:

o The areas of potential power plant development within the CCC
undesignated area;

o The prevailing water movement, ambient temperature ranges and other
oceanographic data used to determine potential areas of aquatic
biological impacts; and

0 The prevailing- wind direction, meteorologic data, and terrestrial
characteristics used to determine the potential air quality impacts on
biological resources. This study area does not usually exceed a 10 mile
radius around the plant and is'sometimes, much smaller depending on the
extent of the anticipated impacts.

@The general biological resources within this power plant study area are des-
cribed and mapped in terms.of terrestrial and aquatic biological resoiirces.
Resources considered included the types of dominant native vegetative habi-
tats; the quality of wildlife habitat; the types and quality of aquatic-
habitats; and the associated mammals, fish, invertebrates, vegetation, and
planktonic species that are important to the area. Four biological fact 'ors of
major concern are studied in more detail: rare and endangered species, areas
of critical biological concern, species of special concern, and commercial and
recreational resources. Definitions of these factors are,in Appendix C.

Possible development impacts on the general biological resources and biolog-
ical factors of major c.oncern,for each site are evaluated for the four facil-
ity types as described in Appendix B. Assuming a once-through cooling system,
development constraints at each site are determined according to the potential
for significant adverse impacts on the biological resources, and the,ability
to mitigate these impacts to an acceptable level. CEC staff policy,on wetland
giting.and mitigation is further discussed in Constraints and Opportunities
for Power Plant Siting: Technical Issues, Appendix 7 (see References).

CCCUA Analysis

UNDESIGNATED CRESCENT CITY AREA--UA 1A and 1B

EE-6 CPP ae

Physical Characteristics

UA 1A is located inland of Point St. George occupying the western half of
Section 17, Township 16N, Range 1W, Humboldt Base and Meridian. The area for
potential powerplant development is inland from the coast approximately one
mile and is bounded by Lake Earl Drive to the east, Crescent City to the
south, County Airport to the west and Lake Earl to the north.

A second portion (1B) of this area is located along U.S. Highway 101 from
Cushing Creek in the south to Elk Creek and Crescent City to the north. The
northern half of this area runs from Humboldt Road in the east to the Crescent
City waterfront. The southern half sets inland from Crescent Beach and runs
along U.S. Highway 101.

Prevailing winds are from the north and northwest with occasional gusty winds
from the south and southwest during winter storms. The potential areas of
high air quality impacts include parts of Crescent City, Elk Valley and
Redwood National Park.

The prevailing water movement is onshore tidal movement from the northwest.
Depending on the location of the intake and discharge facilities, the area of
potential water quality impacts from Pelican Bay to Crescent Beach.

Biological Characteristics

The biological resources within UA 1A include three major types of native
terrestrial vegetation: north coastal forest, coastal prairie, and small
patches of wetlands associated with the area's high rainfall and high ground
water table. The prairie grassland, forest and pockets of wetlands provides
good habitat for a diversity of wildlife despite the increased urban develop-
ment in the area.

The biological resources of UA 1B include five major types of terrestrial
vegetation: norht coastal forest, coastal prairie, freshwater marsh, riparian
forest and coastal scrub. Much of the northern half of UA 1B has more
open space and some high quality wildlife habitat associated with the Bower
Ranch wetland areas and Redwood National Park land.

The surrounding areas that could be impacted from development have, in addi-
tion to the five vegetation types already mentioned, two other habitat types:
coastal redwood forest to the south and east of UA 1A and 1B and coastal sand
dune vegetation to the west of UA 1A. MUch of the surrounding area that could
be affected by air quality emissions or construction of facilities associated
with power plant development (cooling water pipelines, transmission lines, and
fuel transportation) is relatively undisturbed and of high wildlife value
(CDFG, 1975).

Five aquatic habitat types are within the area of potential cooling water dis-
charge: open water, rocky intertidal, kelp bed, sandy intertidal and protected
harbor. Both the rocky intertidal area around Point St. George and the sandy
intertidal area of Crescent Beach are of high biological valure for their
abundant and diverse fauna (Boyd and DeMartini, 1977).

EE-6 CPP ae

Biological Resources of Concern

Biological concerns in the vicinity of UA 1A and 1B include rare and
endangered species, areas of critical concern, species of special concern, and
commercial and recreational resources.

Rare and Endangered Species

The Aleutian Canada goose (Branta canadensis leucopaeia) utilizes the Crescent
City-Point St. George area as its spring staging ground and to a lesser extent
as a fall and winter feeding area (National Fish and Wildlife Laboratory,
1980). The' coastal prairie habitat and offshore rocks around Point St.
George are an essentialspring staging area (Woolington, 1980) and development
of the area should be avoided.

Areas of Critical Concern

o Wetlands. Several areas of freshwater marsh occur within UA 1A and 1B
and in the areas of potential indirect impacts. Several small pockets of
seasonal wetlands occur in and around UA 1A and 1B. These areas are of
high biological value and should be avoided. If power plant development
occurs, mitigation will.be necessary. Larger wetland areas that are also
of concern and could be impacted include: Lake Earl wetlands,which is
within 1/2 mile north of UA IA; Crescent marsh which is within the Bower
Ranch area of UA IB; and Redwood Park marsh which is west of UA 1B along
the coastal dunes of Redwood National Park.

o Riparian Area. Several valuable riparian habitats occur east of UA 1A
and within UA 1B. These areas should be avoided by development. Some
level of mitigation might be required for potential indirect impacts such
as increased siltation and adverse air emission effects on important
habitat.,

o Officially Protected Areas. Two.areas within UA 1B have recently been
acquired by government agencies for the preservation of their natural
resources. Development in most of the southern half of UA 1B.should be
prohibited within the Redwood National Park property and the California
Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) Wildlife Area at.Bower Ranch.

o Natural Areas. Two areas identified by the California Natural Areas
Coordinating Council. (CNACC, 1978) could be potentially impacted by
power plant development. Lake Earl and Lake Talawa area (CINACC 081212)
identifies valuable sand dune vegetation/wetland habitat to the west of
1A. If cooling water facilities are routed through this area, careful
planning will be required to avoid valuable habitat and to mitigate for
possible habitat loss. Crescent City Sitka spruce stand (080380), which
was identified for its high value coastal forest and sand dune.habitats,
is located within UA 1B. Although some of this natural area has recently
been protected under the CDFG Bower Ranch. wildlife area acquisition,
other areas of equally high biological value remain under private,owner-
ship and should require some level of avoidance or, mitigation, if
development is to be considered in the area.

EE-6 CPP ae

Species of Special Concern

Menzie's wallflower (Erysium menziesii) has been sited in several localities
This plant is listed
along the coast from Point St. George to Whaler Island.
by the California Native Plant Society (CNPS, 1980)- and Smithsonian Institute
(Ayensu and.DeFillip, 1978) as endangered and could be directly impacted by
development on its coastal strand habitat. Two other CNPS (1980)-listed
plants have"been sited within two miles of UA 1A; however, the known plant
locations ate not anticipated-to be significantly impacted.by development..

Another species of special concern is the ring tailed cat (Bassariscus
astutus), wh"ich'CDFG recognizes as a fully protected species. The ring @ail
cat'is known to inhabit the area (CDFG, 1975). A more detailed site-specific
analysis would be required before recommending any level of avoidance or miti-
gation.

Commercial and Recreational Resources

Terrestrial resources within the vicinity of UA 1A and 1B which may require
some mitigation for direct and/or indirect impacts include: coastal and red-
wood-forested areas and species such as the Roosevelt Elk (Cervus carradens is
roosevelti) and the Black Tailed Deer (Odocoileus hemionus columbians).

Aquatic resources are of even greater concern with the rocky shore and kelp
bed habitat offshore supporting a valuable fishery resource. In addition,
many of the offshore rocks supply bird roosting and marine mammal hauling out.
grounds.

Overall Site Evaluation. Limited development is possible on UA IA with pro-
bly the most severe 11mitation associated With cooling water facilities. If
the facility was developed toward the west, extensive mitigation or avoidance
might be required by the pipelines going through high value sand dune and wet-
lands areas and endangered species habitat. The closest source of cooling
water is the nearshore habitat around'Point St. George which is of.high com-
mercial and recreational value. These off-shore marine resources might
require extensive mitigation or avoidance with the most severe limitation
being placed on large facilities such as nuclear and coal units which require
a large volume of cooling w&ter and can potentially cause more extensive
impacts. On-site wetlands would also require some mitigation or avoidance
with more limitations being placed on larger facilities as is required for
coal-fired units which could potentially impact larger areas of protected
wetlands. Other potential limitations could also occur from indirect impacts
on surrounding areas of riparian zones, wetlands, officially protected areas,
species of special concern habitat and commercial and recreational resources.

Power plant development in UA-113 would have to avoid the officially protected
areas recently acquired by CDFG and.the National Park Service. Other than the
possible limitations from effects on surrounding areas already mentioned for
UA 1A, a most severe limitation in the northern part of UA 1B would be from
direct impacts on the Sitka spruce natural area and on the riparian
corridors.

EE-6 CPP ae
51

..SAMOA SPIT--UA #2

Physical Characteristics

UA 2 is located on the Samoa Peninsula from the Highway 255 bridge south to
the channel entrance of Humboldt Bay. The prevailing winds are northerly
during the summer and southerly gail force during winter storms. The predom-
inatiE@ ocean current is an offshore southerly direction with a seasonal
northerly surface flow during the winter storm period.

Biological Characteristics

The undeveloped area of UA 2 is predominately sand dune habitat with small
patches of salt and freshwater marsh, coastal scrub, and coastal pine forest.
The area supplies habitat for several species of special concern and is valu--
able wildlife habitat for upland game species (CDFG, 1973). Terrestrial
habitats surrounding UA 2 which would be indirectly affected include: salt
and freshwater marsh along the shores of Humboldt Bay; sand dune vegetation on
the South Spit and Elk River Mouth; coastal prairie-scrub in the undeveloped
areas around Eureka; and coastal forest north' and east of UA 2. These areas
provide a diversity of wildlife habitats, much of which is of great value to
special concern and/or commercial and recreational species.

-Aquatic habitats which could potentially receive impact include the open water
and sandy shore environment where cooling water facilities are likely to be
placed, and the Humboldt Bay estuarine environment that could be indirectly
impacted. Both areas are of commercial and recreational value with fishing
and clamming occuring along the spit as @well as inside the Bay. However,
Humboldt Bay provides a much more abundant and diverse@ spawning and feeding
habitat for numerous species of waterfowl, marine mammals, anadromous fish,
and important game species.

Biological Resources of Major Concern

There are four biological factors of major concern which could potentially be
affected by development at UA 2, including: rare and endangered species,
commercial and recreational species; areas of critical concern; andspecies of
special concern.

Rare and Endangered Species

The.California brown pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis californicus) and the
American peregrine falcon (Palco peregrinus anatem) utilize the habitats in
and around UA 2 for feeding. Considering the fact that these species
currently coexist with industry already on the spit, and that nesting does not
occur in the immediate area, it is not anticipated that powerplant development
would create a significant impact on either species.

Commercial and Recreational Species

A significant portion of California's commercial fishing industry utilizes
Humboldt Bay and the surrounding ocean waters. Water quality impacts could
directly affect the commercial and recreational flatfish fishery offshore. Of

EE-6 CPP ae

greater concern is avoidauce of potential impacts on the nursery and spawning
capacity of Humboldt Bay. Cooling water impacts near the entrance channel
coul&adversely affect the anadromous and oceanic gamefish that go to and from
the Humboldt Bay estuary.

The nearshore area is a valuable-recreational shellfish and game fish habitat
which might require some level of avoidance or mitigation for potential
impacts from t-hermal discharge. The high value of recreational resources of
Humboldt Bay, especially the abundant water fowl and water-associated bird
populations, may. also require some level of avoidance or mitigation due to
potential ai@ quality impacts on important habitat.

Areas of Critical Concern

Areas of@critical biological concern include wetlands, Humboldt Bay estuary,
and natdral areas.

o Wetlands. There are several areas of freshwater and saltwater marsh to
the north, east, and south of UA 2 that could be indirectly impacted by
development. Smaller pockets of freshwater marsh are also located in UA
2. Varying levels of avoidance or mitigation would be required for
potential impacts on both the on-and off-site wetland areas.

o Estuaries. Humboldt Bay is a major nursing and feeding ground for many
valuable aquatic species and water-associated birds and mammals. This
high quality estuarine habitat i,s downwind of UA 2 and might require
Varying levels of mitigation or constraint due to potential air quality
impacts.

0 Natural Areas4 A U.&. Army Corps of Engineer's "Area of Environmental
Concern" (AEC) is located within UA 2. AEC #27, the North Spit Beach,
and coast-guard station encompass much of the southern end of the spit
and extend up the west side of New Navy Base Road. This area was
identified for its high quality dune habitat, and potentially significant
impacts might occur if development occurs in this area. Several other
areas identified by the Corps of Engineers, Humboldt State University
biologists (Environmental Research Consult-ants, 1974), and CNACC (1978)
are within the vicinity*of 'UA 2 and may require varying levels of
mitigation or constraint.

o Officially'Protected Areas,. Humboldt Bay National Wildlife Refuge comes
within one-half mile east ofIJA 2. This refuge contains high quality
wetland and mud'fldt habitat wi,th a high concentration of aquatic life,
waterfowl and shorebirds. The potential for adverse air quality impacts
on the refuge may require some developmental limitations or mitigation.

Species of Special Concern

Several plant species li-sted by CNPS and the Smithsonian Institute (SI; Ayensu
and DeFillips, 1978) as rare, threatened, or endangered occur within the area
of potential impacts. Of greatest concern,are three species which inhabit
dune or w6tland habitat.and have been sited within UA 2. Known habitat areas
should be avoided and some mitigation may-be required for the CNPS and SI

53
EE-6 CPP Ae

Biological-Resources of.@@ Concern

Biological concerns in the vicinity of UA 3A. and 3B include: rare and
endangered species; areas of critical concern; and species of special
concern.

Rare and Endangered Species

The sand dune habitat in and around UAs 3A and 3B is either an established or
poItential habitat for the Smith's blue butterfly (Shijimiaeoides enoptes
smithi), (which is on the federal endangered list and proposed for the state
rare Tist) and the state rare listed Santa Cruz wallflower (Erysimum
teretifolium). Endangered species area #10, officially set aside by the
U.S. Army for the protection of the Smith's blue butterfly and the CNPS listed
rare plant coast wallflower (Erysimum ammophilum), should be avoided by all
development; and the potential habitat along the rest of the coast may.require
significant levels of avoidance or mitigation. Moderate numbers of southern
sea otter (Enhydra lutris nereis), which are federally listed as threatened,
forage in the offshore/nearshore area. The presence of the sea otter would
require a moderate level of limitation or mitigation due to potential water
quality impacts and offshore fuel transportation systems.

Areas of Critical Concern

The areas of critical biological concern in the study area include: wetlands,
riparian, and natural areas.

o Wetlands--Several seasonal freshwater ponds provide valuable' habitats
within UA 3A. These ponds may require avoidance or mitigation, 'and
therefore may limit the potentially developable land area.

o Riparian--Adverse air quality impacts on the riparian woodland along the
Salinas River, two miles east of UA 3A. may require nominal levels of
mitigation.

o Natural Areas--Three natural areas, identified by CNACC (1978), could be
Tffected by development. The Salinas River (271904) is of concern, for
its riparian community, previously mentioned, and for the saltmarsh
habitat two miles north of UA 3A at the river mouth. This area is a
potential endangered species habitat for the California clapper rail
(Gill, 1979) and California least tern (Atwood 1977) as well as valuable
aquatic and waterfowl species habitat. The Marina dunes (271310)
stretch from the Salinas River mouth to Fort Ord. UA 3A access to the
ocean is within this natural area. Fort Ord dunes (270630) encompass
most of UA 3B and are identified for their valuable dune and beach
habitat.

Species,of Special Concern

Several species identified.by the CNPS as rare or endangered occur in the sand
dune vegetation both in and around UA 3A and UA 3B. These species include the
rare Monterey ceanothus (Ceanothus rigidus) and coast wallflower.(Erysimum
ammophilum), and the endangered Sandmat Manzanita (Arctostaphylos pumila),

EE-6 CPP ae

Eas-twood's ericameria (Ericameria fasciculata)-, Seaside bird's beak
(Cordylanthus rigidus ssp.. li.t.to:ralis), and Menzies'wallflower (Erysimum
menziesii)-.-' These species may require avoidance, depending on the size and
location of.the development, with larger facilities sited within the dune area
of UA 3B of-greatest concern.

Overall Site Evaluation

In UA 3A, protected animal species are the most significant concern limiting
development. Direct impacts on the dune habitat and potential air quality,
impacts orr -',-the endangered Smith'-s blue butterfly may severely limit large
facilities@ with significant air quality emissions. The threatened southern
Sea otter would severely limit facilities with large cooling water demands and
associated discharges and/or facility types with potential adverse impacts
related to offshore fuel transportation systems, such as oil tanker off-
loading facilities. Other biological factors that are of concern and may
limit expansion to varying degrees include the numerous plant species of
special concern within the vicinity,onsite wetland areas, downwind riparian
habitat, and nearshore/offshore commercial and recreational fish species.

In UA 3B protected animal species are of significant concern with prohibition
status recommended for the U.S. Army designated Species Area #10. The Fort
Ord dunes natural area sand dune habitat, although largely re-established with
nonnative vegetation, is a high quality wildlife and plant species special
-rate levels.of avoidance or mitigation.
concern habitat and may require mode.
The commercial and recreational fish species off the coast may also limit
expansion.

SANTA,MARIA RIVER--UA 4A AND 4B

Physical Characteristics

UA 4A is a several square mile, irregularly shaped parcel inland of Oso Flaco
Lake. and Nipomo Dunes. The parcel is bounded by the Southern Pacific Railroad
track to the west, Callender Black Lake Road to the north, and U.S. Highway I
to the east.

UA 4B is a several square mile, irregularly shaped parcel inland of the Santa
Maria River mouth. The parcel centers around the Santa Maria River west of
Guadalupe and inland of Guadalupe dunes and Mussel Rock dunes.

The prevailing winds are from the northwes.t with some gusty winds from the
South during winter storms,. The Santa Maria Valley and Nipomo mesa to the
east-southeast of UA 4A and 4B would-be the area.subject to the most signifi-
cant air quality impacts. The alongshore water movement from the northwest
will cause the most significant water quality impacts to occur off the coast
of the Nipomo dunes and to the Mussel Rock and Pt. Sal area.

Biological Characteristics,

.Most of the Santa Maria Valley study area is used for agriculture wit h some
remnant areas of riparian woodland, coastal prairie-grassland, fres@hwater
marsh and mixed evergreen forest on the Nipomo mesa. The most valuable native

FF-6 CPP

vegetation and wildlife habitat areas are west of the sites, which include:
sand dunes, salt marsh, freshwater marsh, tidal mudflats, riparian, and
coastal strand habitats. The Niporo dunes supports a high quality wildlife
community (CDFG, 1976) and is listed as one of the highest valued natural
areas in California by CDFG, California Department of Parks and Recreation
(CDPR, 1971) and by the Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service (HCRS,
1974).

Aquatic resources that could be potentially impacted include sandy shore, open
water, rocky intertidal and kelp bed habitat. The nearshore areas are of high
value for shellfish, bottomfish, rockfish and marine mammal resources
especially in the Mussel. Rock-Pt. Sal area where there is a higher diversity
and abundance of marine fauna and flora.

Biological Resources of Major Concern

Within the vicinity of UA 4A and 4B the major biological resources of concern
include: rare and endangered species, areas of critical concern, species of
special concern, and commercial and recreational resources.

Rare and Endangered Species

Seven protected animal species may exist in the Nipomo-Mussel Rock dunes area
The American peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum), the., southern bal;
eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus leucocephalus) and the California brown
pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis californicus) occasionally forage in the area
but are not known to utilize the area for nesting.

Local. hiologist.9 linve also identified t1iree other protected animal species
that may be in the area: the Belding's savannah sparrow (Passerculus
sandwishensis beldingi) in the Santa Maria River salt marsh and the Globose
dune beetle (Coelus globosus) and Morro Bay blue butterfly-(Plebejus-icariodes
moro-ensis) in the dune vegetation of Nipomo and Mussel Rock dunes, (Envicom,
1980). The most extensive constraint on development would be the known and
potential nesting habitat of the California least tern (Sterna albigrons
browhi) (Atwood, et al., 1977). In addition to the Mussel Rock dunes nesting
area, both the offshore area.and Santa Maria marsh foraging area are also of
concern.

Areas-of Critical Concern

The areas of critical biological concern within the study area include: wet-.
lands, riparian, officially protected areas, and natural areas.

o Wetlands. The salt and freshwater marsh areas at Santa Maria River mouth,
Oso Flaco Lakes and the extensive system of coastal marshes and lakes
within the Nipomo dunes are a major concern. These wetland areas could
bxtensively limit the placement and operation of cooling water facilities
from the two inland sites.

o Riparian. Adjoining the Santa Maria River and its tributaries are several
areas of valuable riparian habitat. This habitat should be avoided by

EE-6 CPP ae

development within the sites and potential air quality and water quality
impacts on the surrounding habitat may require some level of constraint
or mitigaiion.,

o Officially Protected Areas. Several sections of Nipomo dunes north of
Os,o Flaco Lake are owned by-CDFG and CDPR. They are managed as wildlife
areas or state parks. Most of these areas should not be significantly
affected.-by power plant development,.with the exception of potential
cooling water facility impact which may require some mitigation or
avoidance-.

o Natural Areas. Two CNACC natural areas could be impacted by development
at UA 4A. Black Lake Canyon (200255) identified for its high value
riparian and freshwater marsh habitat is northeast of the site and may be
impacted by adverse air emissions. Nipomo dunes (401455) which has
already,been mentioned as rare and endangered habitat and a wetland area
is-west of both sites. This is the largest remaining coastal dune com"
plex of the state's diminished dune habitat. This area along with two
similarly valuable areas to the south, Guadalupe dunes (420790) and
Mussel point (421396) may-be affected by cooling water facility construc-
tion which would require some avoidance of certain areas or mitigation
depending on the loca-tion.

The HCRS has also,identified the Point Sal-Nipomo dunes area as a national
natural landmark due to its high value biological resources. (HCRS, 1974).
The area designated by HCRS includes a combination of private and public land
from Pismo Beach to Point Sal. While most of UA 4A and 4B are east of the
natural landmark, cooling water facilities must travel through the area which
may require varying levels of constraint or mitigation.

Species of Special Concern

Four CNPS- and Smithsonian-listed plant species have been sited within the
vicinity of UA 4A and 4B.. San Lui.s Obispo mona.rdella (Monardella undulata
var. frutescens), crisp monardella (M. crispa)., Blochman's leafy daisy
(Erigeron foliosus var. blochmaneae) and a pholisma (Pholisma arenarium) have
been located both in and around UA 4A. Six other listed plant species are
also sited within the area of potential impacts, including: Nipomo mesa
lupine (Lupinusinipomensis), Gambel's@watercress (Nasturum loncholipi. .s), surf
Th_oT_h_o
thistle (C. lum) beach spectacle (Dithyrea maritima), and soft-
_phi.
leaved paintbrush (CastillejA mollis)., This large number rare and
endangered plants may require extensive mitigation or constraint of develop-
ment. The same species are also foun&in and around UA 4B with the addition
of the black flowered figwort (Scrophularia-atrata) @in the vicinity to .the
southeast. Although fewer plants have been sited in UA 4B than in UA 5P
development may still be severely limited depending,on the placement of
cooling water facili-tie.s:to the west and potential air quality impacts on
downwind rare plants.

Other species of special concern include several protected species of raptors,
shorebirds and water associated birds that heavily utilize the Nipomo dunes
area. Several endemic insect species of the Nipomo dunes system are of

EE 6 CPP ae

concern to local biologists and three species of local reptiles and amphibians
are considered rare and threatened by some authorities (Envicom, 1980). In
addition, several remnant stands of giant Coreopois (Corcopsis gigantea) are
of concern because Nipomo dunes has the northern-most population of this
,unique species, and it is rapidly declining due to heavy recreational use of
the area. All of these species.of special concern may be affected if proper
planning and mitigation is not used. in cooling water facility development
through the Nipomo dunes habitat.

Commercial and Recreational Resources

The high quality of recreational resources within the Pt. Sal-Nipomo dunes
area is of greatest concern. Within the vicinity of UA 4A and 4B are several
high use resources including: sport,fishing for offshore/nearshore bottomfish
,and rockfish species, clamming for Pismo clams, bird watching and nature
study. As was the case for the Nipomo dunes species of special concern, these
recreational re@ources may require some constraint or mitigation, especially
from potential cooling water facility impacts.

Overall Site Evaluation

All development within UA 4A would be most severely constrained by potential
construction effects on the CNPS listed plants I and valuable Nipomo dunes area
t.o the west, with the most extreme limitations being placed on %coal and
larger facility types. Some additional constraints or mitigation may be
required for potential- air quality impacts on downwind CNPS listed plants,
natural area and riparian habitat. Offshore cooling water impacts would also
require some additional levels of constraint or mitigation due to potential
sea otter habi.tat and recreational fish and shellfish.resources.

Development on UA 4B would require similar levels of constraint or mitigation
for air and water quality impacts on the surrounding area. Construction,
impacts on the onsite CNPS, listed plants may be less severe since most of the
@area is currently used for agriculture or oil prouction and only one species
has been sited to date. Cooling water facility construction may be more
severely limited since valuable riparian habitat occurs onsite and to the
west,, wefland habitat occurs along the Santa Maria River mouth and the
endangered California least tern nests along the Mussel Rock dunes, an area
previously set aside as an undesignated area corridor through the dunes.

UNDESIGNATED TIJUANA RIVER AREAS--UA 5

UA 5 is the southernmost undesignated parcel in California. 'This small
parcel is set back two miles inland along the United States-Mexico border.
The site is bounded on the south by the border, the north and east by Monument
Road and the west by Smugglers,Gulch..

Within the undesignated area there is a plateau which has not been developed
and is a potential site if the terrain is not too. steep for development.

The prevailing wind direction is from the northwest in winter and southwest in
summer, with the area of significant air quality impact located inland of the

.58

EE-6 CPP ae

potential sitC@'. Prevailing water movement i's an onshore tidal flow from the
west-northwes t-with some seasonal. freshwater flooding of the Tijuana River
Channel.

Biological Characteristics
Y
In the vicinity of the site,. six major types of native vegetation occur in
remnant pockets in and around the developedvicinity, including: salt marsh,
freshwater marsh, coastal-prairie scrub, coastal strand, coastal sagebrush,
and riparian'habitat. Very high quality wildlife habitats are associated with
the wetland areas of theTijuana River es-tuary, and alongthe ocean shore from
Silver Strand south to Border Field.

There are three major aquatic habitats of concern: estuary, sandy shore, and
open ocean. The estuarine habitat of the Tijuana River and associated Oneonta:
Slough as well as the vicinity's sandy sho,re and open water areas provide
excellent quality nursery and feeding habitat for an abundant and diverse
population of. fish.and invertebrates and the water-associated birds that prey
upon them.

Biological Resources of Concern

The major biological resources of concern include: rare and endangered
species, areas of critical concern, species of special concern, and commercial
and recreational resources.

Rare and-Endangered Species

One state and federally listed.endangered plant has been sited in the salt
marsh habitat of Tijuana Slough. The salt marsh bird's beak (Cordylanthus
maritimus ssp maritimus) which.was at one time thought to occur at only one
location in the United States in the Tijuana Slough (International Boundary
and Water Commission, 1974) has been sited in several localities within the
Slough area.

The Tijuana River estuary supplies habitat for six state and federally pro-
tected bird species: light-footed clapper rail (Rallus longirostris obsole-
tus), California black rail -(Leiterallus jamaicensis coturniculus), Belding's
savannah sparrow (Passerculus sandwishensis beldingi), and California least
tern (Sterna albifrons browni),, all of which reside in the area's salt marsh
habitat; the California brown pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis californicus)
which forages off the coast; and the American peregrine falcon (Falco pere-
grinus anatum) which is-an occasional visitor. The four salt, mar sh residents
and endangered plants are of greatest concern. Areas adjacent to
Oneonta Slough provide habitat for one-third ofthe known remaining population
of light-footed cl,apper rails.

Additional.species using this marsh habitat which are considered locally rare
include the western snowy,plover, elegant tern, Bell's vireo, and the golden
eagle.

EE-6 CPP ae ..59

Areas of Critical Concern

Areas of critical concern include: wetlands, estuaries, natural areas, and
riparian habitat.-

o Wetlands4 The freshwater and salt marsh of Tijuana Slough and.riverbed
wL require moderate.levels of constraint for air and water quality
impacts from the border site and the two mile stretch of cooling water
pipeline which may be necessary for the Border.Field area. Power-plant
development with associated of the air station site as well as any cool-
ing water facilities through the marsh from the air station or border
site should be avoided.

6 Estuary. The high quality estuarine environment would require nominal to
moderate levels of constraint on the two sites for potential water
quality impacts. Discharge of any waste water and/or site run-off would
require compliance with all applicable water quality standards. Nuclear,
coal, and large facility types requiring large cooling water supplies
would be the most limited constraint for the site.

o Riparian. Several areas of remnant riparian woodland occur along the
Tijuana river and its tributaries. Moderate levels of constraint would
be required of development at the air station or border sites.

o Natural Areas. The natural areas of major concern near the border area
is the Tijuana Slough and riverbed west of Hollister Road. The Tijuana
River estuary is considered to be one of the best remaining functional
wet'land systems in California. Much of the area has recently been
.acquired by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which plans to manage the
area as a wildlife refuge. The area, which includes Oneonta Slough, is
under consideration for estuarine sanctuary status. Areas of the marsh
adjacent to the acquired refuge are either proposed for acquisition or
are at least being considered for inclusion in a cooperative estuarine
marsh management program proposed by governmental interests presently
responsible for management of the lands. The high quality of this es.tu-
arine marsh, which supports numerous legally protected species, will
requite that development associated with power generating facilities
avoid critical habitat areas. This includes appurtenant facilities such.
as cooling water intake and discharge lines and electrical transmission
lines. CNACC and HCRS have identified two areas along the coast for
their high quality biological resources and endangered species habitat,
Tijuana Slough (372051) and Border Field State Park (370270).

Species, of Special Concern

One CNPS-listed rare plant has been located on the border site. Baja Cali@
fornia manzanita (Ornithostaphylos op2ositifolia) may occur along the.plateau
of UA 5 which would require avoidance or mitigation. Nine other plant
species listed.as rare or endangered have been sited in the Border Field area,
to the west and plateau areas east of the Tijuana River (CNPS, 1980)., Poten-
tial air quality impacts from development at the border site may r'equire
nominal to moderate levels of constraint.and the border site would be further
constrained by potential cooling water facility construction impacts on the
rare plant species habitat around Border Field.

60
EE-6 CPP ae

Other species of special concern include: the only United States breeding
colony of elegant tern -(Thalas.eus elegams) (east of the radio station), an
abundant,and,,Oiverse shorebird-popullation utilizing the surrounding shore and
wetland hahi'tat, and a variety of raptors Which forage and roost in the
surrounding undeveloped habitat. These species of special concern may also be
moderately impacted by development at the site.

Commercial and RecreatiopalResources

Several c-ommercial fish species use the Tijuana est.uary as a spawning and nur-
sery area. 'This habitat, plus the of.fshore/ne'arsh.ore commercial fishing for
spiny lobst@r, northern anchovy,.and b@ot-tomfish species may require moderate
levels of -c-onstraint due to.potential cooling water impacts. Recreational
resources such as sport fishing, bird watching, clamming, and nature study
would also require some avoidance ormitiga-t;i-on for potential impacts on the
high quality biological resources of thearea.

Overall Site Evaluation

Development on UA 5 may be moderately to severely constrained by potential
cooling,water facility construction impacts on the wetland, state park acqui-
sition.and endangered species habitat to the west, and by potential on-site
impacts on a CNPS-listed, rare plant. If cooling water intake and discharge
lines can be placed along Monument Road, it is probable that ocean cooling
water access will not be a significant problem. Although sections of Monument
Road are within the 100-,year floodplain of the Tijuana River, critical habitat
areas would be avoided if-pipelines generally followed its route to provi.de
o.cean cooling water access* Coaland large fos.sil fuel facilities would be
the most severely constrained due to this potential on-site impact and poten-
tial air quality impacts on -the CNPS-listed plants and riparian habitat to the
east. Additional constraint-would also be requi-red for potential water quw-
lity impacts on the Tijuana River estuary, offshore commercial fishery,
Tijuana Slough and near-shore recreational -,resources,.-

EE-6 CPP ae @6.1

BCDC UA ANALYSIS

OLEIUM UA--6

Physical Characteristics

UA 6 is located on the southeast shore of San Pablo Bay just north of Davis
Point. The potential development area covers the waterfront area east of
Davis Point and the inland valley area around Tormey. The prevailing wind is
from the west-northwest with the area of significant air quality impacts
located to the east along Carquinez Strait and inland up the Canada del.
Cierbo. The prevailing water movement is an alongshore tidal and net outflow
through the Carquinez Strait.

Biological Characteristics

Four terrestrial vegetation types occur in the undeveloped portions of the
study area: coastal prairie-scrub, mixed evergreen forest, coastal sagebrush,
and salt marsh habitat. The.inland undeveloped area provides good quality
wildlife habitat for a variety of upland game and raptor species, and the
remnant sections of native vegetation along the shore provide good quality
habitat for water-associated birds.

Three aquatic habitats dominate the estuarine environment near UA 6: mud-
flats.'rocky shore and@open water of Carquinez Strait.and San Pablo Bay. The
nearshore and intertidal habitats support an abundant population of fish,
waterfowl, and invertebrates. The open water area of the Carquinez Strait is
themost important migratory route for anadramous fish in California.

Biological Resources of Major Concern

The major biological factors of concern are rare and endangered species, areas
of critical concern., and commercial and recreational resources.

'Rare and Endangered Species

Several Areas of salt marsh habitat along the Carquinez and Mare Island
Straits support California clapper rail (Rallus longirostris orbsoletus) and
salt marsh harvest mouse (Reithrodontomys ravive;tris). Some of these
habitats could be moderately to nominally affected by potential air and,water
quality impacts.

Areas of Critical Concern

Areas of critical biological concern include wetlands, estuaries, and natural
Areas..

o Wetlands. Several sections of.salt marsh habitat occur within the
vIcinity of UA 6. The Selby Marsh is within the immediate vicinity of UA
6 and should be avoided as a development site for a power plant and
cooling water facilities. The Selby Marsh and other nearby marsh
habitats may also require moderate levels of constraint or mitigation for
potential air and water quality impacts.

EE-6 CPP ae

o Estu@tries. The offsh6fe/nearshor.e waters are part of thelargest estuary
system (.San Francisco Bay-Sulsun'Margh) in California. The Oleum area is
of major concern because migratory fish species congregate there while
or ientating theniselves.to the transition between San Pablo Bay and the
Carqlkinez Strait. Intake and discharge impacts within the Oleum area
could,significantly affect the valuable estuarine habitat of the area-,
which would require s1gnifiltant constraints, especially for facilities
with'large cooling water requirements.

o Natut-al Areas. Four CNACC. natural areas are in the vicinity of UA 6,
including: Selby Grassland (071930), Davis Point (070410), Mare Island
Marsh (481320), and Southhampton Bay area (481970). The coastal prairie
scrub habitat of Selby grassland is of concern since it is located
adjacent to UA 6 and could be impacted by development or air quality
emissions.

Commercial and Recreational Resources

There are three local resources of major concern: Anadromous fish migrating
through Carquinez Strait, shellfish beds, and waterfowl areas along the east
shore of San Pablo Bay. All of these resources could be impacted by decreased
water quality associated with energy facility development.

Overall Site Evaluation

Moderate levels 'of constrairit or mitigation would be required for nuclear,.
coal, and other fuel type facilities with large cooling water requirements due
to potential impacts on the surrounding estuarine and salt marsh habitats, and
the commercial/recreational resources they support. Downwind wetlands and
endangered species habitat may require moderate levels of constraint or miti-
gation for coal and fossil fuel facilities with large air quality impacts.
Nominal levels of constraint or mitigation would be required on all facility
types for potential air quality impacts on surrounding natural areas, wet-
lands, and endangered species habitat. Potential water quality impacts on
surrounding wetlands, estuarine environment, and commercial/recreational
resources would also require nominal levels of mitigation for all facility
types.

POINT SANPEDRO-@-TiA 7

Physical Characteristics

UA 7 is located on the west side of San Francisco Bay along the waterfront of
San Rafael Bay. the Prevailing wind is from the west-northwest with the area
of significant air quality impacts dispersed along San Pablo and San Francisco
Bays. With the poor watd'r circulation characteristics of the shallow San
Rafael Bay, discharge facilities would have to be located out in the deeper
water areas of San Francisco Bay. The prevailing water movement is a strong
tidal flow through the San Pablo Strait.

.Biological Characteristics

UA 7 is dominated by waterfront development and degraded fill habitat with
some remnant patches of three types of native terrestrial vegetation in the

'63

vm_r, rDv

vicinity of the sites including coastal prairie-scrub, coastal woodland, and
salt marsh habitat. These remnant native vegetation. areas and some of the
waterfront area supports moderate populations of upland game species and
water-associated bird species. Two aquatic habitat types dominate intertidal
mudflats and the San Francisco Bay estuarine environment. The aquatic habi-
tats In and-around San Rafael Bay provide valuable spawning and feeding
grounds for an abundant and diverse population of fish, invertebrates and
water-associated bird species..

Biological Factors of @1@ Concern

Major biological factors of concern include rare and endangered species, areas
of critical concern, species of special concern, and commercial and
recreational resources.

Rare and Endangered Species

Several areas of remnant salt marsh habitat are within the vicinity including
the Triangular marsh to the south and San Rafael marsh at the mouth of San
Rafael Creek. These areas provide marginal habitat for the state and
federally. listed endangered California clapper rail (Rallus longirostris
obsoletus). The critical habitat andthe surrounding nearshore feeding area
would require nominal levels of constraint or mitigation for potential water
quality impacts.

Areas of Critical Concern

Areas of critical concern include wetlands, San Francisco Bay estuary and
natural areas.

o. Wetlands. Remnant sections of salt marsh habitat, such as the San'Rafael
marsh, Triangular marsh and tidal mudflat along the shore of San Rafael
Bay, could be affected by potential water quality impacts. Discharge
facilities would have to be located in the deep water areas of San
Francisco Bay beyond the shallow water area,of San Rafael Bay to avoid
severe water quality impacts on the wetlands in the nearshore area where
water circulation is poor.

o Estuaries. The shallow water areas of San Rafael and San Francisco Bays
should be avoided due to thermal discharge impacts, and the impacts on
the estuarine habitat offshore may require nominal levels of mitigation.

Natu al Areas. Two areas of remnant salt marsh habitat, San Rafael marsh
(212335) and Triangular marsh (212090), and the shallow water habitat
around West Marin Island (212335) are the areas identified by CNACC which
could be affected by potential water quality impacts. These areas are
identified for their valuable aquatic resources and water-Associated bird
habitat which would require nominal levels of constraint or mitigation
for potential cooling water impacts.

Species of Special Concern

Several spec 'ies of water-associated birds and raptors feed in and around San
Rafael Bay including several species of herons and egrets that nest' on West

EE-6 CPP ae 64

Marin I s land. Nominal levels of cons@traint or mitigation would be required
for water quality,impacts on,the nearshore feeding habitat in addition to con-
struction impacts on the marginal waterfront habitat within the two sites.

Commercial and Recreational Resources

The hearshore estuarine habitat around UA 7 provide!s valuable spawning and
feeding grounds for a number of commercial and recreational fish and shellfish
species. -This nearshore habitat would require nominal levels of constraint or
mitig'ation-for potential water quality impacts..

Overall Site Evaluation

All facility types with significant discharge requirements would have to place
discharge facilities in the deeper water areag of San Francisco Bay to mini-
mize the potential of severely impacting the nearshore shallow. water
environment. Nominal levels of constraint or mitigation would be required for
potential wa-ter quality impacts on the nearshore estuarine and wetland
habitats that support valuable populations of endangered species, species of
special concern, and commercial and recreational. species.

VISITACION UAs--8A, 8B, and 8C

Physcial Characteristics

All three UAs are located along a-three-mile stretch of industrial waterfront
from Visitation Point to Point San Bruno in the city of South San Francisco,
'San Mateo County. Prevailing wind-direction is from the west-northwes.t with
the area of significant air quality impact to the east-southeast over San
Francisco Bay. Prevailing water movement is onshore tidal flow with a minimal
water circulation condition occurring in many of the shallow water areas@close
to shore.,

.Biological Characteristics

All three UAs are dominated by industrial development or open areas disturbed
by recent landfill activities with remnant patches of coastal prairie-scrub
and salt marsh vegetation. The UAs, with their limited vegetation cover, are
of minimal wildlife value. However, the San Bruno Mountain area just inland
supports an abundant wildlife population.

Tidal mudflats, protected harbor and open water habitats of San Francisco Bay
are within the vicinity of three UAs and could be impacted by potential water
quality impacts. The:nearshore habitats provide: spawning and feeding grounds
for an abundant and diverse,population of fish, invertebrates, and water-
associated bird species.

.Bio,logical Resources of 11@1@ Concern

Major biological factors of concern include rare and endangered species, areas
of critical concern, , species of sp,ecial concern, and commercial and
recreationalresources.o.

vv-r, rpp

Rare and Endangered Species

Several state-listed endangered species occur in the San Bruno Mountain area
including the San Bruno elfin butterfly (Callophrys mossi boyensis),..Pacific
manzanita (Arctostaphylos pacifica), and San Bruno Mountain manzanita (A.
imbricata). Nominal levels of con aint or mitigation may be required for
transmission line impacts on the San Bruno Mountain critical habitat areas.

Areas of Critical Concern

.The areas of critical concern Include wetlands, natural areas, and the Sari
Francisco estuarine environment.

o, Wetlands. Small pockets of remnant salt marsh and tidal mudflat habitat
occurs in the vicinity of the potential sites. Power plant discharge
impacts on these habitats would be severe in the shallow nearshore
environment due to its limited water circulation capability. Moderate
levels of constraint or mitigation would be required for all facility
types with a significant discharge requirement, and discharge facilities
would have to be placed far offshore in the deep water channel of the bay
where tidal mixing and water circulation is more adequate than in the
nearshore environment.

o Natural Areas. CNACC identifies (411905) the San Bruno Mountain area,
inland of the potential sites, as one of the last areas containing a
sizable portion of coastal prairie-scrub and coastal woodland habitat
typical of the Northern San Francisco Peninsula. This area of remnant
vegetation, and the valuable wildlife community it supports, could
require nominal levels of mitigation for Increased use of ,the existing
transmission line corridor through the San Bruno Mountain area.

.@o Estuaries. As mentioned In the wetlands section, the nearshore estuarine
environment should be avoided by thermal discharges, and would require
moderate levels of constraint or mitigation for potential water,quality
impacts.

Species of Special Concern

Several plant species identified by CNPS as rare or endangered are found in
the San Bruno Mountain area and may be adversely impacted by increased. use,of
existing, transmission line corridors. The CNPS-listed endangered San Fran-
cisco owl's clover (Orthocarpus floribundus) has been found in the immediate
vicinity of UA 8A and could be affected by power plant construction or air
quality impacts. Several species of shorebirds and water-associated -birds
utilize the nearshore estuarine environment, and to some extent, the degraded
waterfront habitat in- and around 'the potential sites. These species of
special concetn would require varying levels of nominal.constraint or mitiga-
tion for all facility types.

Commercial and Recreational Resources

Several important commercial and recreational fish and shellfish species,occur
in the nearshore estuarine environment adjacent to the three UAs. The near-
@shore environment provides essential spawning and feeding habitat for these

EE-6 CPP'ae
66

species aEd. as mentioned in the previous wetland and estuarine sections,
would require moderate levels of constraint.or mitigation for potential water
quality impacts.

Overall Site Evaluation

All facili.tly types with a significant discharge requirement would require
moderate levels of constraint or mitigation for potential water quality
impacts on the nearshore estuarine And wetland habitats, and the commercial/
recreationaJ resources they support. As part of the required constraint,
discharge,facilities woul&have to be placed one to two miles offshore in the
deeper water channel of the bay where there is more tidal mixing and water
circulation than in the shallow nearshore area. Nominal levels of mitigation
or avoidance would also be required for transmission line impacts on the San
Brun 6 Mountain natural area, and the critical habitat it provides for
endangered species and species of special concern. Species of special concern
utilizing the area.in and around.the UAs would also require nominal levels of
mitigation, especially for larg.@r facility types with greater air and water
quality impacts.

NORTH SAN JOSE--UA 9

Physical Characteristics

UA 9 is on the west si'de of Zanker Road, halfway between Highway 237 and the
San Jose-Santa Clara sewage treatment plant., The prevailing wind is from the
no th-northwest with the area of significant air quality .impacts located in
the urban agricultural areas to the south@southeast. Due to the potential
water quality problems associated with the shallow South Bay environment, dis-
charges from a power plant in this area would probably have to be released
north of the Dunbarton. Bridge. The deep water channel area north of the
Dunbarton Bridge has a greater tidal action and water circulation capability
than the South Bay region (South Bay Discharge Authority 1973; U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, 1976) and would not be as severely impacted by discharges as
would the waters around North San Jose.

Biological Characteristics

The terrestrial habitat in and,around the site is dominated by industrial,
urban, and agricultural development with remnant patches of coastal prairie-
scrub, salt marsh, and'riparian habitat. The agricultural areas and remnant
native vegetation on-site and downwind of the site support moderate popula7
ti.ons of upland game species.

The tidal mudflats, salt ponds,. and open,water habitats of the South San
Francisco Bay support a large number of marine and estuarine species of fish
and invertebrates with an associated population of waterfowl and shorebirds.

Biological Resources of @@ Concern

Major biological factors of concern include: rare and endangered species,
areas of critical concern, species of. special concern, and commercial and
recreational resources.

EE-6- CPP ae

Rare and Endangered.Species

The salt marsh habitat one mile, northwest and several other salt marsh
habitats throughout the South Bay support the endangered slat marsh harvest
mouse (Reithrodontomys raviventris) and California clapper rail (Rallus
longirostris obsoletus). Potential water. quality impacts on the critical
habitat of these two species would prohibit cooling water discharge South of
Dunbarton.tridge, and may require moderate levels of constraint or mitigation
,for facilities with significant cooling water requirements that discharge
north of the bridge.

Areas of Critical Concern

Wetlands, estuaries, natural areas, and the National Wildlife Refuge assoc-
iated with the South San Francisco Bay are of major concern. As mentioned in,
.the previous section, potential water quality impacts on the areas of critical
concern would prohibit thermal discharges into the bay south of Dunbarton
Bridge. Cooling water facility construction of a pipeline from the UA 9 to
the Dunbarton Bridge area would require an extensive level of constraint or
.mitigation for the South Bay.'s areas of critical concern. This would supply
.all power plant types with significant discharge.

Species of Special Concern

Of concern are several CNPS rare and endangered plant species, shorebirds,
Vater-associated birds, and raptors that inhabit or utilize the South Bay.
Water quality impacts mentioned in the previous sections could affect the
'habitat or food supply of these species of special concern and would require
moderate to severe levels of constraint or mitigation.

Commercial.and Recreational Resources

Numerous fish, invertebrates and waterfowl species of commercial or
recreational value utilize the South Bay environment and would requiresimilar
levels of constraint or mitigation as mentioned in the previous sections.

Overall Site Evaluation

All facility types that require a significant level of thermal discharge
capability into the San Francisco Bay would be severely restricted for poten-
tial water quality.impacts. Due to the minimal water circulation south of the
Dunbarton Bridge, thermal discharges from the. North San Jose site would
severely impact the high quality biological resources of the. South Bay.
Potential water quality impacts on the South Bay's endangered species habitat,
areas of critical concern, species of special'concer.n, and commercial/ recre-
ational resources would. prohibit discharges south of the Dunbarton Bridge and
severely limits all facility types from discharging north of the bridge.
These impacts may be mitigated by the,use of cooling towers, however, this
site is included as a marginal opportunity.

EE76 CPP ae 68

Water resources

cooling water availability
once-through cooling impacts
waste disposal impacts
water quality standards
waste water availability
flood hazard

This water resources analysis considers the six factors noted above int he
investigation of potential limits of new power plant opportunities at all nine
uas. Depending on the nature of severity of the potential problems indenti-
fied, the technical opportunity of locating new power plants within specific
undesignated areas is determined. The economic feasibility of such location
is not determined, since the study is not site-specific. Opportunities, pro-
hibitions, and constraints which may affect facility size and fuel type are
identified on an area-by-area basis. Potential mitigation measures to offset
constraints are noted where appropriate.

Tables 10, 11, and 12, at the end of this section, summarize the information
developed in the narrative analysis.

CCC UA Analysis

Crescent City--Ua Ia and Ib
Marine biological constraints at this location indicate that opportunities are
not available for facilities larger than 500 MW. Constraints on the develop-
ment of a cooling wate intake/discharge facility include the presence of an
area of special biological significance to the south of Point St George.
Rocky marine habitats, including kept beds, are scattered throughout the
shoreline and near shoreline areas. Points of intake and discharge for a
500 MW facility should be limited to beyond the 30-foot contour depth north of
Point St. George and 1/2 mile or greater offshore. South of Point St. George
it should be placed beyond the 60-foot contour depth and greater than one mile
offshore. Special car should be taken to avoid impacts on the redwood
National park area of special biological significance, which extends 1,000
feet offshore but is south of potential siting areas.

Power plants of 500 MW or less should not pose a significant problem except in
the case of coal-fired facilities. Both the lack of sufficient land area, as
well as heavy rainfall, make it unlikely that waste generated from a coal-
fired facility could be properly handled and disposed of in this area.

the damage to Crescent City associated with the tsunami of 1964 indicates its
susceptibility. UA 1A, at an elevation of 50 feet, was not inundated in 1964.
Standard construction technologies could elevate a potential size in this area
if more detailed analysis indicated tsunami hazard. Portions of this area
would be subject to inundation to the 10 foot contour in a 1:100 year flood

EE-6 CPP ae

event and would require design consideration. Local supplies of fresh or
waste waters are insufficient to meet the cooling water requirements of the
power plant types And sizes considered in this study.

Samoa Spit--UA 2

Due to the high value of habitat for both fisheries and shellfish, this power
plant. siting location should be limited to no greater than 500 MW capacity
facilities. Intake and discharge facilities should be directed toward the
ocean rather than.the bay side, and should extend offshore and terminate
beyond the 30-foot contour and approximately 1/2 mile or greater offshore.
The proper disposal of-wastes can be achieved for 500 MW facilities or less
except for coal. Due to lack of available land area, as well as heavy rain-
fall, it is unlikely that coal-fired power plant wastes can be disposed. of in
a satisfactory manner in this location. Waste disposal does not appear to be
a significant problem for other types of generating facilities.

Water quality standards conformance should be possible for facilties provided
that intake and discharge occurs to the ocean side of Samoa Spit, as opposed
to inside Humboldt Bay.

The seaward side of the North Spit would be subject to tsunami run-up and
flooding to an elevation of 11.5- feet from a 1:100 event and 22 feet in a
1:500 event. The bay side of the.North Spit would be vulnerable to high and
wind-driven tides in the bay. The marshy area south of Rolph School and east
of Samoa Road would be subject to flood Inundation in a 1:100 year event.
Industrial waste water discharge tothe ocean in this area totals 52,OMacre
feet per year (AFY) and could be used to serve the needs of the power plant
..types and, sizes considered (see Table 9).

Snlina-, River--UA 3A and 3B

The occasional presence of the endangered southern sea otter as well as
important commercial and recreational fish species in the nearshore and off-
shore area should constrain development in this area to 500 MW capacity.
Potential problems associated with waste disposal and water quality standards
conformance do not appear to be significant for any of the 500 MW generating
typpsof power plants except coal, which should be limited to small'facility
types.

UA 3A does not appear to be subject to tsunami run-up or 1:100 flooding. The
southern portion of UA 3B, susceptible to tsunami hazard, is characterized by
low potential damage, but design considerations would minimize this potential.
By 1985, the Monterey Water Pollution Control Agency's regional treatment
plant will.be discharging 23 million gallons per day (MGD) (23,500 AFY) to the
Pacific Ocean at a point just north of UA 3A. This volume should be adequate
to meet the needs of any of the power plant types and sizes considered.

Santa Maria River--UA 4A and 4B

Development of facilities in these areas should be limited to 500 MW due to
the presence of high value commercial and recreational marine resources as,
well,as the endangered southern sea otter. Points of intake and discharge

70
EE-8 CPP ae

should extend beyond' the 30-foot contour and.,approximately 1/2 mile or greater
offshore. Significant impacts upon-kelp beds in this region are more likely
to be avoided at this location. Although there are no presently developed
waste disposal sites whlch@could contain wastes from coal-fired facilities, it
appears possible to construct-such facilities which would be necessary for a
500 MW coal-fired power plant.

Conformance with water quality standards applicable for 500 MW power plants-or
less does not appea-r to be a problem at,these undesignated areas.

This are;i'of the central California coastline is not subject to tsunami. UA
4A should not be subject to 1:100 flooding from Oso Flaco Creek although
po
nding does occur in re-sponse to heavy rains. UA 4B is subject to 1:100
flooding below tbe' 60-foot contour in its eastern half and below the 40-foot
contour in its western half. Alternate water supplies a*re not available.

Tijuana River--UA 5

It appears that cooling water could be made available for large size facil-
ities at each of these undesignated areas. Careful study will be necessary to
determine design and location of intake and discharge facilities' which will
minimize impacts to important' marine and estuarine aquatic resources. This
may require extension of intake and discharge lines to as much as a mile or
more offshore.

There,is not sufficient land area at any of the undesignated areas to acco-
modate wastes generated by coal-fired facilities,. Disposal of wastes from
other types of facilities does not appear to be a problem.

Conformance with water quality standards will not be a constraint for develop
ment of any plant size at any of the undesignated- areas.

Potential for structural damage from a tsunami is nonexistent at UA 5.
However, the area southeast of the air station is flood prone. Flood waters
would not teach the hilly portions of UA 5 but would extend from the Tijuana
Rivet to.Monument Road.

An existing waste water pipeline transports 14,600 AFY of effluent from
Tijuana, Me:kico,. along Interstate 5 to the Point Loma treatment plant.. This
volume could meet requirements of all but the 1,200 MW nuclear and direct-
fired coal plants. A proposed regional treatment plant to be located soiith of
San Diego Bay wouldhave an output 'of 150 -200 MGD (168,000 - 224,000 AFY).

BCDC UA.ANALYSIS

Once-through cooling probably, cannot be employed at any of the areas con-
sidered.in the San Francisco Bay., with the possible exception of Oleum.

The volume of water necessary tomeet the 40*F once-through cooling water
requirement imposed by the State Thermal Plan and the San Francisco Bay
Regional-Water Quality Control Board Basin Plan #2 would cause severe and

jz.Fw--R! i'PP

TABLE 9: COOLING WATER DEMAND (AFY)*

Technology
NUCLEAR COAL STEAM TURBINE COMBINED CYCLE
Cooling Size
Water S MI L S M L S M L S M L

WATER USE 1400 6450 17000 1100 5500 13000 970 4650 11640 550 2800 6700

150- .360- 150- 360- 150- 360- 150- 360-
BOILER FEEDWATER 30-40 200 480 30-40 200 480 30-40 200 480 30-40 200 480

100- 500- 1200-
NO x CONTROL 200 1000 2400

1430- 6600- 17360- 1130- 5650- 13360- 1000- 5000- 12000- 600- 3300- 7900-
TOTAL WATER USE 1440 6650 17480 1140 5700 13480 1010 5050 12180 760 3800 9100

These figures assume the use of.cooling towers, rather, than once-through cooli.ng.

unacceptable impacts to the estuarine ecosystem. The requirement to meet 4*F
T in estuarine and-bay water essentially precludes the possibility of miti-
gating erit,.iainment1mpActs@due to the.significant volume of water required to
meet this requirement.. Options for cooling include use of reclaimed waste
water, or estuarine-water in cooling towers (see Table 10-). It is unlikely
.that fre,s water -would be used because1t is:in short supply in this basin.
The South Bay is@designated as alwater quality limited segment, which essen-
tially precludes the use of that area.for.purpose.s of power'plant discharges.

Flood Hazard (See Tablell)

Tsunami-"With the exception of the.Oleum and North-San Jose siting areas, all
other areas adjacent to the San Francisco Bay are subject to tsunami- run-upo
However, the ground,surface elevation of,the Visitacion site is above the
level of the 1:500 year tsunami and renders-it invulnerable to flooding. The
remaining siting areas are vulnerable to floodingfrom tsunami run-up. . Facil-
ities located in these areas would have to be elevated 4.3 to 7.5 feet above
mean sea level (MSL) to avoid this-hazard.

Seiche--Historically, there is little,evidence of seiche damage within the San
Francisco Bay -region. The San Andreas Reservoir and Crystal Springs Lake were
respectively astride and near the .1906 surface rupture zone, but no evidence
of major seiching w4s.noted by investigators of the San Francisco earthquake
(NOT Ref. 32).

According to PGa.ndE's review of.geol,ogic and seismic literature presented in
the "Combined Cycle NOT,," nowritten reports of locally generated seiAes with
in.the South Bay area were discovered. Since there are no other natural,
existing enclosed or restrict ,ed basins of-water near the undesignated siting
areas, the only other current-seiche potential might come from the bay itself.
Iti,s extremely doubtful that, even given the -right combination of earthquake,
stage of tide, and,wind direction., any seiche could traverse areas adjacent to
the site areas with enough vigor to.cause damage.

The potential seiche hazard would be overshadowed by.the tsunami hazard and
design precautions-for tsunami damage (e.g.., elevating the foundations or con-
stricting protective levees) should lower seiche damage as well.

1:100 Overland FloodiAg-70f the,sitlng areas under consideration only the
North San Jo'se site' f's-vulnerable to total inundation. Point San Pedro arid
Visitacion Point contain flood@prone portions which should be avoided in
siting permanent structures.

.1:100 Bay Overflow F16oding--The Oleum, Point San Pedro, and two Visitacion
sites (UA 8A and 8B) are not yulnerable to flooding from increased water
surface elevations and high velocity tides in the San Francisco Bay. The
remaining siting areas are,subject to overflow and back-up flooding from the
bay and would require commpnsu ate@mitigation,.

Availability of Alternative Water Supplies

An amount of waste water adequate to meet the needs of the types and sites of
plants envisioned is available in all.BCDC areas except Point San Pedro. At

vv.-.q rpp

TABLE 10: LAND ACREAGE ASSUMPTIONS FOR COOLING PROCESSES

Plant Cooling Method

Once-Through Alternative Method
(Cooling Tower, Spray Pond)

Type Size (MW) Acres/MW Acres Acres/MW Acres

NUCLEAR* S_ 100. .01 1.0 .2 20.0
M_ 500 .01 5.0 .2 100.0
I- 1S200 .01 12.0 .2 240.0

COAL** S_ 100 .5 50 1.0 100
M- 5.00 .5 250 1.0 500
L- 11,300 .5 650 1.0 1,300

STEAM S- 150 .024 4 .2 30
TURBINE M- 500 .024 12 .2 100.
L- 80 .024 20 .2 160

COMBINED S- 400 .025 10 .3 120
CYCLE M- 500 .025 13 .3 150
L- 1,300 .025 33 .3 390

It is recommended that only small facilities be developed in the San Francisco
Bay Area. Such facilities could be accommodated at the Pt. San Pedro, Oleum,
Visitacion, and possibly at North San Jose, provided that discharges from that
site can be directed to an area in the Bay north of.the Dunbarton Bridge to
avoid the water quality limited area of the South Bay. Once-through cooling
could occur for small facilities at Oleum. Use of once-through cooling at
@this area will require utilization of waste discharge permits which presently
apply to facilities that exist at that location. It does not appear that land
area exists to accommodate coal storage and waste disposal facilities. at the
Pt. San Pedro site. Otherwise, waste disposal is not expected to be a
problem. Conformance with water quality standards can be achieved at each of
the sites evaluated.

*Physical plant area only; does not include exclusion zone.

**Includes on-site fuel and waste storage; extremely site dependent.

.74

EE-8 CPP ae

this Marin County site, the Amount ,of waste water available would only meet
the needs of the small plants (100-400 MW) and the medium-sized (500 MW)
combined-cycle plant.

Because of limited local supplies, little if any fresh surface or groundwater
supplies would be available for power plant cooling at Any of the areas.

TABLE 11: FLOOP HAZARD AND ALTERNATIVE WATER SUPPLY ANALYSIS.FOR CCC AND BCDC AREAS

SITE UA NO._ FLOOD HAZARD ALTERNATIVE WATER SUPPLY

Bay
Overland Flooding Source of
1:100 Tsunami Seiche 1:100 Available Alternat*ve Water Sup
_ply
Crescent City .1 Partial No Possible N/A No No Sources
Samoa Spit 2 Yes Yes Yes Yes Crown Simpson Pulp Company
Louisiana Pacific Company
Salinas River 3A No No No N/A Yes Monterey Water Pollution
Control Agency
Salinas River 3B No Partial No Monterey Water Pollution
N/A Yes
Control Agency
Santa Maria River 4A Partial No No N/A No No Sources
Santa Maria River 4B Partial No No N/A No No Sources.

Tijuana River 5 No No No N/A Yes Waste Water Pipeline for
Tijuana
OleUm 6 No No No No Yes San Francisco Bay Area Plants
Pt. San Pedro 7 Partial 4.9-8.3 ft. No Partial Partial Central Marin Sanitation
Yes District
Visitacion 8 No 4.4-6.3 ft. No No Yes So. San Francisco Joint
Yes Outfall
Visitaci.on 8 No Yes No No Yes So. San Francisco Joint
Outfall
Visitacion 8 Partial Yes No Yes- Yes So. San, Francisco Joint
Outfall
N. San Jose 9 Yes No No Yes Yes City of San Jose

TABLE 1.2: WATER QUALITY AND WASTE DISPOSAL (CCC and BCDC)

COOLING ONCE-THROUGH WASTE WATER QUALITY
WATER, CO'OLING DISPOSAL -STANDARDS OTHER COMMENTS
SITE UA NO. AVAILABILIT-Y IMPACTS IMPACTS CONFORMANCE A LIMITATIONS

Crescent IA & 1B M. M M M No opportunity
City (No Coal) (No Coal) for coal

Samoa ' 2 M M M M No opportunity
Spit (No Coal.) (No Coal) for coaT
SAI tnas SA & 3B. X M M M Coal f i red 1 imi te.d, to
ki (No Coal.) (No Coal) small size facil,ity
Sa,rita Maria, 4A 4B_. M K M M See text for intake/
R iv
er discharge, I.imitati,oos
Tijuana L L L No opportunity for
'N@ -, - , , 5
River- (No. Coal) (No CoW, coal,

Oleum @6 S S S S

Pt., San 7 S 0 S S No coal, no once
Pedro (No Coal), (No. Coal) through cooling

Visitacion 8.A,B,C S 0, S S No once through
cooling
N. San S 0 S S No once-through
Jose cooling

SETBACK RANGES

Setback Analysis

o Breakeven Cost
0 System Description
o Setback Results
0 Setback Opportunities

SETBACK ANALYSIS

This section is a discussion of setback siting analyses and opportunities. It
contains a limited description of the analyses, results, and application of
setback criteria results and setback opportunities. A more extensive discus-
sidn of setback systems and assumptions is contained in Appendix E of this
report.

Thermal electric power generation plants produce waste heat regardless of fuel
source due to basic thermodynamic laws. The amount of these wastes depends on
the fuel type, technology, plant design, generating capacity, and other'
factors. . The principal benefit of locating a thermal powerplant in the
'coastal zone is the availability of ocean water as a source of cooling and
dissipation of thermal wastes. Due to.Califo,rnials strict environmental regu-
lations on thermal discharges and land use restrictions along the coast,
siting.of coastal power generation, facilities is often limited. Siting the
facility a distance back from the water's edge should increase the siting
opportunity by reducing potential land use conflicts. However, the distance a.
facility can be "setback" is limited by the cost penalties of pumping the
ocean cooling water. In order to assess the energy and cost penalties of
coastal setback siting for conventional base load plants (nuclear, coal, oil-
or gas-fired boilers and combined-cycle facilities), staff estimated the
capital cost, penalties, operational costs, and energy requirements. of
locating plant facilities away from the coastline at various elevations above
sea level and setback distances (see Table 13 and Figure 4). This nonsite-
specific analysis is intended to:

o Determine the pumping energy required to supply once-through saltwater
coolant to four base load power plant types (nuclear, coal, oil,j or.gas-
fired boiler and combined cycle) located at various elevations. (50' to
1,000") above sea level and setback distances (100' to 27,000').

o Determine the energy benefits and cost penalties of installing, a hydro-
electric turbine/generator powered by the return water flow from the set-
back facility.

o Determine the rough order of magnitude (ROM) construction and,opdrat.ing
costs in 1980 dollars to construct and operate, using various'power plant
fuels, the saltwater once-through coolant systems for the four base.load
power plant types. The submerged saltwater intake system and the ocean
,thermal diffuser system are not included in the comparative analysis
because they are common in siting opportunities.

EE-8 CPP.ae 78

Determine the net cost penalty (1980 dollars) of the once-through salt-
water cooling systems using replacement power costs of 60 mil/kWh.

Determine the breakeven cost (ROM) for once-through saltwater cooling vs.
cooling tower systems as a function of plant elevation and setback dis-
tance for a 1,200 MWe nuclear and a 500 MWe combined-cycle power plant.

Determine the total annual operating pumping cost penalties (ROM) of a
1,200 MWe nuclear and a 500 MWe combined-cycle power plant, using salt-
water cooling tower, as a function of plant elevation (50' and 1,000')
and setback distance (100' and 27,000').

Determine the construction cost penalties (ROM) for a 1,200 MWe nuclear
and a 500 MWe combined-cycle power plant, using saltwater cooling towers,
as a function o plant elevation (50'and 1,000') and setback distance
(100' and 27,000').

Breakeven Cost
Figure 4 is depiction of the most cost effective cooling system for various
combinations of eleveation and setback distances from the coast. It is based
on 1,200 MW nuclear and 500 MW combined-cycle power plants.

System Description

Figure 5 is conceptual representation of a base load power generating plant
using once-through saltwater cooling. The pump station and hydroelectric
turbine/generator facility houses the cooling water pumps, wet wells, turbine/
generator, cooling return energy dissipator, and other components related to
the intake/discharge system.

The saltwater intake pumps discharge the saltwater coolant into underground
pipes which convey the water to the power plant condenser. After picking up
waster heat in the power plant condenser, the heated sea water flows by gravity
to the hydroelectric generating facility. If the hydroelectric generating
facility is not in use, the sea water flows through a suitable energy dis-
sipator. The return water flows into the ocean through the wet wells and
offshore diffuser.

TABLE.13 SETBACK PUMPING COSTS

MW RECOVERED INSTALLED LAPITAL INSTALLED CAPITAL
K4 REQUIRFD THROUGH COST FOR PUMPING COST FOR HYDR6t"1ENE1UJION
-6
P(X4ER PLANT CASE TO PUMP HYDROGENERATION (IgRo i w-61 (iggo t in

Setback 100' & Height 50'
500 MW Nuclear 8.36 3.38 8.51 5.11
1200 MW Nuclear 20.0 8.40 16.1, 10.5
500 MW Coal 3.56 1.42 5.36 3.02
1300 MW Coal 9.24 3.76 9.03 5.52
150 MW Steam Turbine 1.60 0.62 4.08 2.16
500 MW Steam Turbine 5.32 2.14 6.50 3.79
800 MW Steam Turbine 7.12 .2.88 7.66 4.60
400 MW Combined Cycle 2.50 0.98 4.67 2.57
500 MW Combined Cycle 3.10 1.23 5.06 2.82
1300 f-1W Combined Cycle 8.08 3.28 8.28 5.00

Setback 27,000' & Height 1000'
500 MW Nuclear 107. 60.6 119. 66.3
1200 141 Nuclear 251. 145. 235. 1.57.
500 M1.4 Coal 45.4 25.8 57.1. 29.1
1300 f1W Coal 116. 67 .1 116. 73.3
150 MW Steam Turbine 21.0 11.6 33.8 13.9
500 f-W Steam Turbine 67'. 4 38.6 76.2 42.8
80& fOl Steam Turbine 89.7 51.7 @94.7 56.7
400 11W Combined Cycle @32.2 18.0 44A 20.8
500 MW Combined Cycle 39.9 .22.5 52.1 25.6
1300 MW Combined Cycle 102. 58.6 104.

Includes in@tall,ed p.ipelines.

.Figure 4: Breakeven Costs(5etback Siting)

240
44
T

--7T

T@
2bo

4. . .

------ --- -
r7l
-T
T
ltb roirmk @l vt a

60 CD
7-

CT
4-

7-,
m - ------
f

-Tl
86
U I 1.@ I
-7-

40
---cit--@ -LO'L COME EFFE.Ct'r'VE
os@ -VE-
OTC ONCE-THROUGH,-COU-ING-C E F F-E C-T-1

0
0 5000 10000 15000 20000
SETBACK DISTANCE (Feet.).

Power Plant

'tan pipe

W
>

Pump Station
Hydro
generator

.5FA.C.H.

WATER

SUMMARY OF SETBACK RESULTS

These results are based on the independent CEC staff study noted above.
A. Approximately 40 to 60 percent of the energy required to pump the
once-through cooling water can be recovered by the hydroelectric genera-
ting facility at a capital cost of 1,100 to 3,500 $/kW. Nuclear power
plants benefit more than other power generation technologies by the
comparatively larger volume of cooling water required.

B. The total annual costs (in 1980 $) for power plants with coastal setbacks
of 27,000 feet and heights of 1,000 feet range from 10 to 90 million
dollars depending on the type and the size of the facility. Due to the
high price of synthetic fuels, power generating technologies utilizing
these fuel types are penalized more in operating costs for increasing
setback distances and elevations than power generation technologies
utilizing convention fuels.

C. For a setback of 27,000' and 1,000' elevation, the hydroelectric genera-
tion breakeven (i.e., revenue = cost) electric power price is in the
order of 60 mils/kWh or more in order to justify the facility investment
cost.

D. As the elevation head decreases, the capital and operating costs
decrease; however, the breakeven price of power increases because of the
lower hydrostatic head and less opportunity for power recovery.

E. The setback distance is not the major contributor to the net penalty for
once-through saltwater cooling for a power plant. Rather, the elevation
is the most critical variable as well as the required condenser cooling
water flow for the power plant. The net caost penalty for a 1,300 MWe
combined-cycle power plant at 1,000' elevation and 27,000' setback is
approximately one-half that of a 1,200 MWe nuclear plant at the same set-
back conditions (or 20 million 1980 dollars vs. 37 million 1980 dollars).
At 100' setback these costs would be $17 and $30 million, respectively.
Approximately 80 percent of the cost is attributable to elevation.

F. The breakeven of trade-off cost analysis for saltwater cooling tower
system in lieu of the once-through saltwater cooling system indicates
that a cooling tower system is more cost effective for a 1,200 MWe
nuclear power plant at an elevation in excess of approximately 150' when
sited near the shoreline. For a 500 MWe combined-cycle plant, the
shoreline between breakeven elevation is 240'. At a fixed plant site
elevation 50', the breakeven setback distance is approximately 16,000'
for both the combined-cycle and nuclear plants. Beyond these setback
distances, a saltwater cooling tower system is more cost effective.

G. The maximum total annual operating cost penalty of a 1,200 MWe nuclear
and a 500 MWe combined-cycle power plant using saltwater cooling towers
is approximately $7 million and $1.4 million, respectively. At 1,000'
plant elevation, the operating cost is primarily due to the make-up
coolant pumping costs, attributable mainly to elevation rather than the
setback distance.

H.'' Cooling tower heat,dissipation syst.ems construction cost penalties for a
1,,200 MWe nuclear plant range from $15 millionto $38 million for and $2
million to $9 million for a 5100 MWe combined-cycle facility.

Th e above results.(wheti referring to annual costs) are based on the assumption
of a 50 percent capacity factor for the hydroelectric generating facility. At
.higher.capacity factors, the' annual operating cost would decline.

EE78 CPP ae

SETBACK OPPOTUNITIES

Table 14 is an application of these setback criteria results to the
location/terrain characteristics of the nine UAs. It is based on extrap-
olation of numerical values from the line graphs in Figure 4.

TABLE 14: SETBACK OPPORTUNITIES

Range of
Range of
UA Setback Distance Setback Elevation
Name (Feet) (Feet)

Crescent City 1 A 6,000 40
Crescent City 1B 2,000 40 - 240
Samoa Spit 2 Waterfront Location
Salinas River 3A 4,000 - 5,000 50
Salinas River 3B 2,000 100
Santa Maria River 4A 2,000- 16,000 60
Santa Maria River 4B 3,000 - 14,000 60
Tijuana River 5 10,000 14,000 50 - 200
Oleum 6 Waterfront Location
Point SanPedro 7 Waterfront Location
Visitacion 8 Waterfront Location
North San Jose 9 6,000 - 14,000 20

This table indicates that setback opportunities using once-through cooling are
generally available to all of the 5 UAs located inland of the water's edge.
This determination is based on the numerical setback criteria noted in
ResultF above and applies to the 500 MW combined-cycle facility. An
application of air quality factors and these setback criteria indicate that no
setback opportunities exist outside the CCC coastal zone jurisdiction behind
undesignated or partially designated areas which would increase the opportu-
nities noted above in Table 14.

85
EE-8 CPP ae

CHAPTER 4: INSTITUTIONAL FACTORS

Opportunities to construct various types of power plants are affected by
various energy policies and laws. The results of the screening analyses in
@Chaptei 3 must also be examined in the context of broader institutional
fact(ors.. This chapter describes three institutional factors which may con-
..strain new power plant opportunities--the Federal Powerplant and Industrial
Fuel Use Act (PIFUA), the demand and supply forecasts of the CEC's 1981
Biennial Report, and state nuclear waste disposal laws. The limitations.and
probable effects of these three factors on opportunity results are discussed
below for purposes of general information, and in more detail in Chapter 5:
RESULTS.

EE-8 CPP ae
86

INSTITUTION FACTORS

PIFUA
1981 Biennial Report
Nuclear Waster Disposal Laws

PIFUA

The Powerplant and Industrial Fuel Act of 1978 is one of several bills encompassed in the National Energy Act. PIFUA places restrictions on the types of fuels which could be used in industrial processes, including electricity generation. The restrictions which apply to power plant fuel use can be summarized as follows:

1. Unless an exemption is obtained, new power plants cannot use natural gas or petroleum as a primary fuel, and must be able to use coal or other alterantive fuels.

2. The use of natural gas in existing power plants will either be prohibited or restricted, depending upon past gas usage, on or after January 1, 1990.

3. The Secretary of the Department of Energy is authorized to prohibit the use of petroleum or natural gas or both as a primary source in existing plants if he makes certain findings regarding the ability of such plants to use coal or other alternative fuels.

PIFUA grants temporary or permanent exemptions to requirements of the act due to lack of alternate fueld supplies, site limitations, environemtnal limitations, emergencies, reliability problems, and other factors. Peaker facilities (for example, combustion turbines) operating no more than 1,500 hours per year, and cogeneration facilities are also exempted.

In spite of the exremption provisions of the act, PIFUA will severly restrict the comstruction of new oil- or natural-fired power plants. This means that, in most cases, new power plants will have to be fueled with synthetic fuels,m producted either on or off the plant site, or with coal. There is currently a wide interest in amending PIFUA to permit the use of natural gas as an interim fuel in the transition to the use of synfuels. Pending Congressional action, the restrictions of PIFUA on cosntruction of new natural gas-fired power plants remains as originally promulgated.

1981 Biennial Report.

Pursuant to Public Resources Code, Section 25309(b), the CEC may not approve construction of new electric power plants unless it finds that the project is in conformance with the commission's adopted 12-year forecast, the CEC is required to balance growth and development, protection of public health and safety, preservation of environmental quality, maintenance of a sound economy and conservation of enerfgy and resources. Based upon these Institutional

requirements, the CEC has developed and adopted five. specific c 'riteria to
evaluate demand and six energy supply priorities to ensure that balanced
growth and adequate electricity supplies will continue to, be available. The
five specific demand criteria are:

o ElectricIoad Growth

o Reserve Margin

o Retirements

6 Contract Expirations

o Fuel Displacements

The. CEC's adopted statewide and service area electric -load growth forecast
shows that projected peak demand will grow at 1.65 percent.annually and that
.sales will grow at 1.44 percent annually, through the year 2000. However,
taking into account the five demand criteria, California will need 13,647 MW
of additional electric capacity through the year 1992. To this extent, there
is a broad array of supply options available to meet the state's electricity
needs. Under state law, the utilities have the initiative of deciding which
of.the available 'options actually will be developed. However, the CEC has
identified the supply priorities of preferred technologies that should be
developed for future electricity supplies. These are:

Priority Source

1 Conservation and Power Pooling

2 Renewable Resources and Geothermal

3 Fossil Cogeneration, Fuel Cells and Interutility
Transfers

4 Repowering (Natural Gas) and Natural Gas
Fuel Switching

5 Synthetic Fuels and New.Conventional Reservoirs

6 Direct-Fired Coal

These preferred electricity supply options favor investment in energy.effi-
ciency and a more diverse, renewable electricitysupply base. As a result of
the CEC's specific demand criteria and energy supply priorities, opportunities
arelimited for new conventional coastal zone power plants. However, these
technologies, or more importanti the opportunities for siting new.coastal
power plants must be actively considered as a contingency measure. The CEC's
energy policies are intended to define a more desirable energy future. Yet,
because of the uncertainity associated with energy planning and technology
development, the CEC goals may not be achieved. Actual demand for electricity
may be higher than anticipated despite the strong emphasis on conservation.
The development of conventional technologies, such as clean fuel fired

EE-8 CPP ae

combinedcycle, is a relatively,,cextain electrical energy supply option. The
res'ults of this study increase the certainty@of finding acceptable sites for
these teahnologie&@ Thus, this,[email protected] relatively certain option as
a: contingency,,if CEC preferred goals are not achieved..

Nuclear Waste Disposal Laws;-

Section 25524.2.(Public Resources-Gode)., of-the Warren.-Alquist Act specifies,
in part, that

"No nuclear fission thermal:power@plant, including any to which the pro-
sions of this -chapter: do,not otherwise apply, but excepting those
exempted herein,, shall be permitted land use in the state, or where
applicable, be certified-by the Commi'ssion until both conditions (a) and
(b) have been met:

The Commission finds that there has been deve,looed-and that the United
'States through its authorized. agency has approved and there exists a
demonstrated technology-or means for the disposil of high-level nuclear
waste.

The Commission has reported" its findings and the reasons therefore pur-
suant to paragraph (a), to-the Legislature. Such reports of findings
shall be assigned to appropriate policy committees,for review. The Com-
mission may proceed to cert4fy nuclear fission'the,rmal powe-r plants 100
legis lative days! after reporting,its findings unless within those 100
days either house of tbe,Legis,lature adopts by a majority vote of its
members a resolution, disaffirming.the finding$ of the Commission made
pursuant to paragraph

Though this section, development of new; nuclear fission capacity of 50 MW or
more might be constrained in- California,,including the undesignated coastal
areas considered in thi's study.., However, the Eastern and Southern Federal
District Courts have held this,,. section and- other sections of the Warren-
Alquist- Act to be unconsitit@jtional on thegroufids of federal preemption. The
CEG is now appealing-tbis@decisl,on' before the 9th Circuit Federal Court of
Appeals. As of this writing, no-decialon has been issued. The potential
limitations of this or other state laws on@the results of this study therefore
may not be determined at thi.s-t1me.

In summary, this section indlcates@ that opportunities for some types of new
coastal power plants are also constrained to a significant degree by institu-
tional factors. PIFUA restricts the construction of new oil-or gas-fired
power plants; nuclear laws (pending legal review) restrict new nuclear plants,
except those under construction-at. Diablo Canyon and,San Onofre. CEC supply
criteria establish a priority orderfor development of various power plant
types. Coal is given,a low priori,ty; thus, most opportunities exist for
limited alternative fuel technologies. This would limit siting opportunities
for conventional power plants-wtth the exception of.coal gas or synthetic
natural gas.,

EE-1-8 CPP ae@

CHAPTER 5: RESULTS

This chapter describes the results of screening 200 undesignated coastal areas
.for opportunities for new power plant locations. The information developed
here is the result of scre'eni Ing opportunities for 30 plant and fuel combin-
ations at these areas with 27 screening factors. The results are summarized
in several different formats so that different characteristics of the infor-
mation can be emphasized and clarified.

The results indicate opportunities for 3,700 MW 49400 MW of new power plant
capacity at nine coastal locations. The major coastwide prohibition is the
effect of air quality factors on pervasive rugged coastal terrain. The major
constraint at the nine UAs described in this report is the effect of once-
through cooling system entrainment and thermal discharge on marine and estua-
rine biological resources. The CEC staff has determined that the opportun-
ities identified in this study and the previously published expansion study
should be adequate to meet the needs identified for coastal locations in the.
CEC-adopted 1981 Supply and Demand Forecast through the year 2000.

In the following sections of.this chapter, results are first described on the
basis of individual area profiles. For each area, opportunities are described
in terms of the various plant and fuel types, and plant sizes. Prohibitive
and severe constraints associated with specific screening factors are identi-
fied. . Table 15 collates these results in a comprehensive format. 'It tabu-
lates the opportunities for each area by plant and fuel type and by.pla,nt
size. The table graphically displays the overall results for comparison -in a
simple for-mat.

Second, the results are summarized in terms of the opportunities for the four
plant types. Opportunities as well as prohibitive and severe constraints for
each different plant type are noted.

Third,. the results are summarized of the basis of the major screening factors.
The effects of the factors with the'most significant impact on opprtunities to
locatenew coastal power plants are discussed. The technical factors are air
quality,.biological and water resources, geology, and public facilities.

Tbe..insti@utional factors are PIFUA, CEC supply criteria, and the state's
nuclear waste disposal laws.

The.chapter concludes with a summary discussion of the opportunities ..for new
.Coastal power plants associated with.CCC and BCDC undesignated areas.

NOTE:

The noted opportunities are.not intended in any way to.conflict with or other-
wise constrain the intentions of current land owners or local planning
efforts. . There is no intent to preempt land use rights in a manner which
would support a claim of inverse condemnation. Any action to construct power
plants at any of the areas identified in this study will require conformance
with legal certification procedures, as noted in Appendix A.

90
EE-8 CPP ae

While there is currently no necessity to develop any of the nin opportunities identified in this report report, a future change in the CEC demand forecast (i.e. BR) may require development of one or more of these UAs.

91
EE-8 CPP ae

RESULTS: AREA PROFILES

CCC UA Analysis

Crescent City--UA 1A and 1B

UA 1A (Del Norte County: CCC Map 2) is setback approximately one mile from
the coast in the vicinity of Point-St. George. It is located between Lake
Earl to the north and Crescent City to the south. . It is comprised of level
terrain. Opportunities are generally located in the western half of this UA.

UA 1B (Del Norte County: CCC Maps 2,and 3) extends south from Crescent City
to the vicinity of Cushing Creek. The northern portion borders the coast and
the southern portions include setbacks of up to 1500 feet behind a partially
designated area. The terrain slopes from 20 to 200 feet in elevation. Oppor-
tunities are generally located in the northern one-third of this UA.

Nuclear opportunities are not available in this area due to quaternary fault
constraints. Coal opportunities are not available in this area due to.air
quality impacts and water quality waste disposal impacts. Steam Turbine
opportunities exist for small and medium facilities (150 - 500 MW) which are
coal',gas or methanol-fired. Large facilities (800 MW) are prohibited by
impacts to marine biological resources associated with once-through cooling.
Oil fuels are prohibited by air quality impactso Wetland and endangered
species habitat impacts are severe, but not prohibitive constraints. Combined
Cycle opportunities are limited to small.and medium size facilities (400
MW) due to marine biological impacts associated with once-through cooling.
Air quality impacts would preclude the use of fuel oil. Wetlands and endan-
gered species habitat impacts are severe,. but not prohibitive constraints.
Cooling Water (ocean) supplies are available for up to medium size facilities.
,Available Land constrains development of facilities requiring cooling towers
or development requiring more than 100.acres. Current and planned development
will be further limiting to currently identified opportunities. Setback,
opportunities exist; however, a corridor is required at UA 1A for access to
the ocean water for cooling.

Samoa.Spit@-UA 2

UA 2 (Humboldt County; CCC Map 14) generally covers the southern five miles
of the North Samoa Spit. The westerly (seaward) portion is composed of sand
dunes and the easterly (bayward) portion supports industrial and residential
land uses, the Coast Guard reservation and vacant airport.facilities. Oppor-
tunities are generally located in the northern one-third of this UA,

Nuclear opportunities are not available due to quaternary fault and population
density impacts. Coal opportunities.are not available due to waste.disposal
water.quality impacts. Steam Turbine opportunities are limited to small. and
medium plant sizes (150 MW) due to marine biological impacts associated
with once7through cooling. intake and discharge should occur only in ocean
waters. Rare and endangered plants are and area of environmental .concern
impacts are severe, but not prohibitive constraints. Combined Cycle opportu-
nities, are limited to small and medium plant sizes (400 - 50b MW) due t 'o
marine biological impacts associated with once-through cooling. Intake and
discharge should occur only in.ocean waterso Rare and endangered plants are

EE-:8 CPP ae 92

an area of environmental concern. Impacts are severe, but not prohibitive
constraints.- @Cooling Water. (,Ocean).supplies are available for small and
medium-size facilities. Once-through cooling Impacts preclude large size
f acil Ities. `_1vailable Land exist-s for small.or medium size facilities
assuming once-through cooling. Se,fback opportunities are not required due to
the area's wa'terfront location.

Salinas River,7@UA 3A and*3B

UA 3A (Monterey County: CCCMap 78) is located between the mouth of the
Salinas River and the City of Marina. It is setback approximately 1,800.f6et
from the coast with the exception of a 1,,,200 foot wide corridor leading to the
ocean. A pocket designated wetland and estuary lies' in the middle of this
UA. Opportunities in this UA are generally located directly inland 'of the
corridor to the ocean.

UA 3B is located on the ocean at the @n6rthern boundary@of Fort Ord. It is
approximately five miles in length and includes the Indian Head Beach area.
Opportunities are generally located in the pockets of elevation of. less than.
100 feet.

Nuclear opportunities are not available due@to quaternary fault constraints.
1 opportunities are limited to a small size facility (100 MW) due to waste
disposal and water quality constraints. Protected animal species are a
severe, but not a prohibitive constraint. -Steam Turbine. opportunities are
limited, to small and medium size facilities (150 - 500 MW) due to com-
mercial/recreational/endangered -species impacts associated with once-through
cooling. Protected animal species are a severe., but not prohibitive con-
straint. Combined Cycle opportunities are limited to small and medium size
facilities T400 - 560-MW) due to commeircial./recreati-onal/endangered species
impacts associated with once-through cool:ing. 'Protected animal species
impacts are a severe, but not a prohibitive constraint. Cooling Water (ocean)
supplies are available for medium (500 MW).,plant sizes. Impacts on com-
mercialtrecrea:,tional/protected species preclude large facilities. Available,
Land exists for all size facilities including-alternative cooling methods. UA
3B Ts severely constrained'by.a variety af land and air military operations.
Setback opportunities exist.

Santa Maria River--UA 4A and 4B

UA 4A (San Luis Obispo County: CCC Map 10.9) is immediately north of the mouth
of the Santa Maria River. It is setback from the ocean at an elevation
ranging from 100 - 200 feet. It is entirely separated from ocean access by a
full designation. Opportunities are generally located in the southwestern
portion. of this UA.

UA 4B (San Luis Obispo and Santalaxbara,Courities': CCC Maps 110 and 111) lies
astride the Santa Maria River Channel and'the county line.. The majority of
the parcel is setback one to two @miles., with ocean.access precluded by a
designated area. Terrain is rel-ati'vely:'evem, ranging from 40 to 80 feet in
elevation. Opportunities are generally flocated in 'the soufhern half of-this
UA.

E-E-8 CPP ae
93"

Nuclear opportunities are not available due to quaternary fault and population
density constraints. Coal opportunities are limited to a medium size facility
(500 MW) due to waste disposal, water quality impacts, and air quality trade-
off. constraints. Commercial/recreational/endangered species, wetland and
riparian habitat, CNPS-listed plants and the Nipomo dunes are severe con-
straints, but not prohibitive constraints. Steam Turbine opportunities are
limited to a medium size facility (500 MW) due to waste disposal water quality
constraints. Lack of air quality trade-offs limits oil-fired plants to small
sizes. Commercial/ recreation/endangered species, wetland and riparian
.habitat, CNPS-listed plants,.and the Nipomo Dunes are severe, but not prohib-
itive constraints. Combined Cycle opportunities are limited to medium size
facilities (500 MW) due to waste disposal and water quality constraints. Air
@quality trade-offs are not available for oil-fired plants. Commercial/
recreational/endangered species, wetland and riparian habitat, CNPS-listed
plants, and the Nipomo Dunes are. severe, but not prohibitive constraints.
SooLin& Water (ocean) supplies are available but limit facilities to medium
sizes due to -once-through cooling impacts on marine biological resources.
Available Land exists for all plant sizes and all cooling processes. Air
Quality regulations in Santa Barbara County severely restrict all plant types
and sizes to the point of prohibition on UA 4B. Other constraints and oppor-
tunities are as noted above. Setback opportunities exist; however, both UAs
would require a corridor for power plant access to ocean water for cooling.

Tijuana River--UA 5

UA:5 (San Diego County: CCC Map'161) is located immediately on the United
States-Mexico border in the floodplain of the Tijuana.River. It is setback
approximately two miles from the ocean behind a full designation. The UA con-,
sists wholly of mesa-type terrain with elevations ranging from 20 to 285 feet.
'Opportunities are generally located in the immediate western portion of this
UA.

Nuclear opportunities are not available due to population density constraints.
Coal opportunities.are not available due to waste disposal water quality con
straints. Air quality impacts limit opportunities to small size facilities
(100 MW). Wetlands, endangered species and natural areas are severe, but not
-prohibitive constraints. Steam Turbine opportunities are available for all
size facilities (150 - 800 MW) for natural gas, coal gas and methanol fuels.
Oil-fired plants are limited to small size facilities (150 MW) only due.to air
quality impacts. Wetlands, endangered species and natural areas are severe,
but not prohibitive constraints. Combined-Cycle opportunities are limited to
medium size facilities (400 - 500 MW) due to air quality impacts. Wetlands
endangered species and natural areas are severe, but not prohibitive con-
.straints. Cooling Water (ocean) supplies are available for large size facil-
ities.. Intake/discharge structure design and location requires mitigation due
to potential impacts on marine and estuarine organisms. Available Land exists
for. all size structures, assuming once-through cooling. Fewer constraints
exist on UA Setback opportunities exist; however, a corridor is required
at this.UA for access to ocean water for cooling.

EE-8-CPP ae 94

BCDC UA Analysis

Oleum--UA 6

UA 6 (Contra Costa County: BCDC Maps 10 and 12) is located approximately one mile northwest of the existing Oleum power plant. It lies at the mouth of CAnada del Cierbo on the southern bank of the mouth of the Carquinez Straits. Construction of an oil refinery has already been permitted in this UA by BCDC.

Nuclear opportunites do not exist due to population density constraints. Coal opportunites are not available due to waste disposal and water quality impacts. Air quality opportunites are available for a medium size facility (500 MW). Steam Turbine opportunites are limited to a small size facility (150 MW) due to impacts on the bay's estuarine ecosystem associated with one-through cooling. Estuarine and salt marsh habitat, commercial/recreation species, wetlands and endasgered species are moderate constraint. Combined Cycle opportunites are limited to a small size facility (400 MW) due to impacts on the bay's estuarine ecosystem associated with once-through cooling. Estuarine and salt species are moderate constraints. Cooling Water (bay) supplies are severly constrained due to impacts on estuarine ecosystem with the volume of water required to achireve thermal gradient requirements; however, once-through cooling may be possible for a small facility. Land requirements for alternative cooling methods will further limit facility size. Setback opportunites are not required due to the area's waterfront location.

Point San Pedro--UA 7

UA 7 (Marine County: BCDC Map 13) is located in an unincorporated area of Marin County on the southern side of the Point San Pedro peninsula. This UA lies bayward of San Pedro Road and Ecompasses weland, quarry, and commercial land uses. Evelvation ranges from 0 to 200 feet. The UA, which is flanked by designated areas is one-half mile long and one-half mile deep (to San Pedro Road). Opportunites are generally located on the southern part of the UA that is currently a quarry mining operation.

Nuclear opportunites are not available due to population denisty criteria.
Coal opportunbites are not available due to lack of available land for fuel and waste sotrage facilities. Steam Turbin opportunites are limited to a small size facility (150 MW) due to thermal gradient impacts on the estuarine ecosystem. Combined Cycle opportunities are limited to a small size facility (400 MW) (coal gas and methanol fuels) due to thermal impacts on the estuarine environment. Oil-fired facilites are prohibited due to air quality impacts. Cooling Water (bay) supplies are not available for once-through cooling due to the necessity to meet thermal gradient discharge requirements. Alternative water supplies (waste water) are available. Available Land exists to support small size facilities. Cooling towers will further constrain noted opportunities. Setback opportunites are not required due to the area's waterfront location. Due to limited availability of land and potential sesthetic impacts, this UA is considered only a marginal opportunity.

95
EE-8 CPP ae

Visitacion--UA 8A, 8B, and 8C-_

UA 8A (San Mateo County: BCDC Map 29) is located on Oyster Point in the City
of. South San Francisco. Most of the site is undeveloped land fill.

UA 8B (San Mateo County: BCDC Map 29) is located on Sierra Point in the City
of South San Francisco. Most of this area is unimproved bay fill.

UA 8C (San Mateo County: BCDC Map 29) is located on Visitacion Point in the
.City.of Brisbane. Most of this area is unimproved bay fill.

opportunities are not available for any.of these areas due to popu-
lation density constraints. Coal opportunities at all ar6as*are limited to a
small size facility (100 MW) by thermal discharge impacts on the estuarine
ecosystem and by lack of available land. Steam Turbine opportunities at all
areas are limited to a small size faciliTy_(1_5OMW) by thermal discharge
impacts on the estuarine ecosystem. Combined Cycle opportunities at all areas
are limited to a small size facility7(400 Ri4 by thermal discharge impacts on
the estuarine ecosystem. Cooling Water (bay) supplies are not available for
onc,e-through cooling due to the necessity to meet thermal gradient discharge
requirements. Alternate water supplies. (waste-water) are available.
Available Land exists to support small size facilities. Use of cooling,
towers may further constrain noted opportunities. Setback opportunities are
not required due to the area's waterfront location.

NOTE: The identification of combined-cycle opportunities at UA 8B (Oyster
Point) is not intended to be inconsistent with@CEC findings thatthis site was
not preferred for such a facility. As noted in Chapter 2 of this report, this
.study assumes that problems identified in the PGandE Combined Cycle NOI pro-
ceedings would have to be resolved prior to any construction. The findings of
relative acceptability made in the PGandE Combined Cycle NOI proceedings with
respect to all of the various sites in that study are not inconsistent with
.,this subject study.

..North San Jos'e--UA 9

UA 9 (Santa Clara County: BCDC Map 22) is. located in the City of San Jose.
Itis set back approximately one mile from the southern end of San Francisco
Bay between Highway 17 to the east and Highway 237 to the south. Principal
land uses are agriculture and sewage treatment facilities. Opportunities are
generally located southeast of the San Jose-Santa Clara Sewage Disposal
Plant.

Nuclear opportunities are not available due to population density constraints.
Coal-opportunities are limited to a small size facility (100 MW) due to ther-
mal discharge impacts on the estuarine ecosystem. Steam Turbine opportunities
are limited to a small size facility (150.MW) Ke to thermal discharge
impacts on the estuarine ecosystem. Combined Cycle opportunities are.limited
to a small size facility (400 MW) di to the*r-mal discharge impacts on the
estuarine ecosystem. Cooling Water (bay) supplies are not available for once
through cooling due to. the necessity to meet thermal gradient discharge
requirements. Alternate water supplies (wastewater) are available.

EE-8 CPP ae 96

Discharge from facilitie.,; located in this UA should occur north of the
Dunbarton Bridge. Available Land exists to support small size facilities.
'Use of cooling towers should not constrain noted opportunities due to land
areas availkble. Setback opportunities exist; however, this UA is considered
a marginal opportunity.
NOTE:. The i@entification of combined-.cycle opportunities 'at UA 9 (North
San Jose) is...'not intended to,be indonsiatent with CEC findings that this site
was not preferred for such a facility. As noted in Chapter 2 of this report,
this study azssumes that problems identified in the PGandE.,Combined Cycle NOI
proceedings would have to be resolved prior to any construction. The findings
of relative acceptability made in the PGandE Combined Cycle NOI proceedings
with respect@ to all of the various sites in that study are not inconsistent
with this subject study.

EE-8 CPP ae

TABLE 15 MWDE OPPORIUN111H
----@@LANT T@YPI NUCLEAR COAL STEAM TIURBINE COMBIINED.CYCLE
L COAL GAS METHANOL OIL COAL GAS METHANOL
UA
W) IIAM@E@ COAL OIL
1 Cre scent City 2 0 0 0 M M 0 M M
2 Samoa Spit 0 0 M M M M M M
3 Salinas River 0 S M M M M M M
2 S S M M
4 Santa Maria River 0 M M 0
5 Tijuana River 2 0 0 S L L M M M

S
Oleum 0 S S S S S
6
7 Point San Pedrol 0 S S S 0 S S

8 Visitacioni 0 S S S S S S S
9 North San Josel 0 S S S S S S S

0 No Opportunities For Any Plant Size
S -Opportunities for Small Plant Size Only
M -Opportunities for Small and Medium Plant Size
L.- Opportunities for Small, Medium and Large Plant Size
I -No Once Through Cooling
2 -Requfres partial designation for power plant development

RESULTS: PLANT TYPE PROFILES

Nuclear
Coal Direct-Fired
Steam Turbine
Combined Cycle

Nuclear*

Based on the design characteristics of study, opportunities for the
location of new nuclear power plants are not available at any of the CCC or
BCDC undesignated areas.

Opportunities in the CCC jurisdiction are constrained by Quaternary faults,
lack of necessary ingredients to demonstrate geologic stability, and popula-
tion density criteria. The effect of these factors is influenced by the
difficult geologic conditions along the coast, the conservative nature of NRC
siting criteria, and the location of population centers. The constraints
range from severe to prohibitive.

Opportunities in the BCDC jurisdiction are collectively prohibited by the
effects of population density criteria. These results reflect the general
level of the study analyses. Results of more site-specific studies or of
studies of opportunities In CCC-and BCDC designated areas may differ. Ongoing
regulatory review by the NRC may also have a significant impact on such oppor-
tunities.

California law currently makes opportunities to construct new nuclear power
plants in state dependenton the resolution of nuclear waste disposal problems
(with the exception of Diablo Canyon and San Onofre 2 & 3). As noted, this
issue is now under consideration in the federal courts, and potential limita-
tions are undetermined at this time.

Coal Direct-Fired

Of the nine Ua reviewed in this study, opportunities to locate small (100 MW)
new direct-fired coal plants exist at five areas. Two of the areas are in
the CCC jurisdiction:

Salinas River 100 MW
Santa-Maria River 100 MW

Three of the areas are in the BCDC

Oleum 100 MW
Visitacion 100 MW
North San Jose 100 MW

*The conclusions, are equaly valid for both PWR and BWR reactors since the
population density controls and regulatory review are similar for both
technologies.

EE-8 CPP ae 99

All of these opportunities are limited to small size (100 MW) plants. This
size coal plant does not meet.current requirements for economics of-scale,,and
these opportunities, while existing, are not considered practical.

At Salinas River the opportunities are limited to small facility types,by
waste disposal and water quality standards conformance. At Santa Maria River
the limitations are due to lack of available air quality trade-offs. . At.
Oleum, Visitacion, and North San Jose the limitations to small facilities ate
due to waste disposal impacts.

At Crescent City, Samoa Spit and Tijuana River, the lack of opportunities is
due to wastedisposal-impacts. At Point San Pedro, the lack of opportunities
is due tolack of available space for fuel storage and waste disposal facil-.
ities.

This study did not identify any opportunities for medium or large size coal
direct-fired power plants at the nine UAs examined.

Steam Turbine

Opportunities to locate new steam turbine power plants exist at all of the
nine UAs examined in this study. Opportunities in the CCC jurisdiction are:

Crescent City 100 - 50 MW
Samoa Spit 150 - 500 MW
Salinas River 150 - 500 MW
Santa Maria River 150 - 500 MW
Tijuana River 150 - 800 14W

Opportunities in the BCDC jurisdiction are:

Oleum MW
Point San Pedro 150 MW
Visitacion @150 MW
North San Jose 150 MW

Once-throughcooling impacts account for all of the limitations at the CCC
areas with the exception of oil-fired opportunities at Crescent City, Santa
Maria River, and Tijuana River,. At these latter three UAs, the limitations on
oil-fired steam turbine power plants are due to air quality impacts. Opportu-
nities for large size steam turbine plants exist only at Tijuana River for
coal gas and methanol fuels.

Combined-Cycle

Opportunities to locate new combined-cycle power plants exist at all nine UAs
examined in this study. Opportunities in the CCC jurisdiction are:

Crescent City 400 - 500 MW
Samoa Spit 400 - 500 MW
Salinas River 400 500 MW
Santa Maria River 400 500 MW
Tijuana River 400 500 MW

EE-8 CPP ae 100

Opportunities in the BCDC jurisdiction are:

Oleum 400 MW
Point San Pedro 400 MW
Visitacion 400 MW
North San Jose 400 MW

Once-through cooling impacts account for all of the limitations in the CCC
areas with the exception of oil-fired opportunities at Crescent City and Santa
Maria River. At these latter two UAs, the opportunities are respectively pro-
hibited or limited to small size facilities due to ir quality impacts.

Thermal discharge impacts account for all limitations in the BCDC areas, with
the exception of Point San Pedro where air quality impacts prohibit oil-fired
opportunities.

101

EE18 CPP.ae

RESULTS: FACTOR PROFILES

Air Quality
Geology
Public Facilities
Biology
Wi te r
Institutional Constraints
Undesignated Opportunities

Air Quality

Of the approximately 200 UAs initially considered in this study, air qualit-
Y
impacts account for the elimination of the majority from further review (see
,Appendix I). These impacts are generally the result of potential AAQS viola-
tions due to plume impacts on the rugged terrain encompassing much of the
coast. The, nine UAs discussed in this report conform with air quality
criteria for the plant types and sizes, and-fuel types noted. The exceptions,
are oil-fired. steam turbine and combined-cycle facilities at Crescent City,
which are prohibited due to lack of Available trade-offs, and 'oil-fired,
combined-cycle facilities at Point San Pedro which are prohibited due to PSD
impacts.

Air quality impacts are not signif icant constraints to opportunities. at the
nine UAs discussed in this study. These UAs represent areas which generally
passed the air quality screening process. Those UAs located in urban regions
ar.e generally eliminated due to the lack of available trade-offs. Overall,
air quality impacts on opportunities for locating new coastal power.plants Are
due more to the pervasive ruggedness of the California coast than to
intensification of.existing air quality problems.

Geology.

The most significant effect of geology factors is on opportunities for
locations. for new nuclear power plants. This study, based on its.gene,ral
level of review, did not identify any nuclear power plant opportunities at any
of the approximately 200 UAs initially considered. The effects of Quaternary
faults.and the lack of necessary ingredients to demonstrate geologicstability
are det ermined by staff to be severe to prohibitive. The effect of.-these
factors generally reflects the conservative nature of NRC siting criteria.
These factors also constrain opportunities at the nine UAs discussed in this
study, although preclusion at the BCDC UAs. is based more specifically on
effects of population density criteria.

Analysis-of designated areas, or a more detailed analysis of opportunities for
nuclear facilities in undesignated areas, may possibly identify opportunities
not discovered in this study. The results of this current study @hould,not be

102

EE@8 CPP ae

interpreted as an indication that nuclear facility sites do not exist in
coastal areas. This study is limited by its focus on undesignated areas only
to a relatively limited segment of the total coastal area. The noted results
apply only to those undesignated areas.

Geology factors do not prohibit any fossil-fueled opportunities. Constraints
of this type are generally amenable to resolution/mitigation through design
considerations. Geology factors are neither prohibitive nor severly con- a
straining at any of the nine UAs discussed in this study.

Public Facilities

The impacts of public facility factors in this study function more as nominal
to severe constraints rather than as prohibitions and therefore do not impact
opportunities to a significant degree. The principal exception is the effect
of population density criteria in prohibiting nuclear facilities in urban
areas of sufficient site and density. Of the nine areas discussed in this
study, it functions as a prohibition on nuclear facilities primarily at the
four BCDC UAs.

Available land is a severe, but not A prohibitive constraint at the four UAs.
In the CCC jurisdiction, these UAs are.:

Crescent-City
Tijuana River

In the BCDC jurisdiction, these UAs,are:

Oleum
Point San Pedro

The generally rural/suburban location of the other five UAs indicates the
general availability of adequate land Area for the opportunities noted.
Overall, the availability of adquate land area is severely to prohibitively
constrained by the ruggedness of California's coastal terrain.

Private land ownership and local land plan designations may be expected to
severely constrain opportunitie's at all of the nine UAs in this study. Reso-
lution of this constraint is not addressed in this study but its impact on
specific siting opportunities maybe significant. Many of the opportunities
noted in this study will be precluded as development of currently vacant land
continues. Due to the competition for the benefits of coastal locations, this
development may be expected to be relatively rapid.

NOTE:

The noted opportunities are not intended in anyway to conflict with or other-
wise constrain the intentions of current land owners or loacal planning
efforts. There is no intent to preempt land use rights in a manner which
would support a claim of inverse condemnation. Any action to construct power
plants at any of the areas identified in this study will require conformance
with legal certification procedures as noted in Appendix A.

103

EE-8. CPP ae.

Biology

Of the nine UAs consideredin this study, biology resource factors are severe
constraints at the five CCC areas. These effects are due to wetland'and
ri.p.arian habitats, rare and endangered species, and commercial and recre-1
ational species. The majority of these constraints focus on the marine bio-
logical resource impacts which are also associated with once-through cooling
and/or thermal discharge impacts. While biological factors alone do not
prohibit any plant types or sizes, the severity of their constraints contrib-
ute to the prohibition associated with cooling water constraints.

,The severity of the impacts of the noted biological resource factors inversely
reflects the relative health and viability of these resources in the regions
of the five CCC areas. These a reas are, with the exception of Tijuana River,
in regions of low development, and the biological resources exist in more
natural and less degraded conditions. In the four BCDC UAs, biological
impacts are limited to nominal to moderate constraints. This is a reflection
of the intense urban development associated with these UA's coincidental bay
fill, and also of the limitation of all facilities to small sizes. The rel-
ative moderation of these impacts assumes that once-through cooling will not
be used and that discharge facilities be extended into the deeper waters of
the bay away from the more sensitive shallow water estuarine habitats. These
impacts are also associated more prominently with marine biological
resources.

Overall, trade-off or mitigation from nominal to severe is required at all
nine UAs to offset impacts to biological resources.

Water

The impacts of water-related constraints are the most significant of all
factors limiting opportunities for locating new fossil-fueled plant types at
the nine UAs. These constraints assume the use of once-through cooling water
systems at all five CCC UAs, and possibly at Oleum in the BCDC jurisdiction.
The study recommends that once-through cooling not be used at the three
remaining BCDC UAs and that such discharge systems that are used be located in
the deeper bay waters away from the more sensitive shallow water estuarine
habitats. This analysis specifically states that any discharge associated
with the North San Jose UA should be located north of the Dunbarton Bridge.,

Waste disposal impacts prohibit coal direct-fired opportunities at Crescent
City, Samoa Spit, and Tijuana River. Lack of available land to support fuel,
and waste disposal facilities prohibits opportunities at Point San Pedro. The
impacts of once-through cooling on marine biological resources limit coal
opportunities to small size facilities at Salinas River, Santa Maria River,
Oleum, Visitacion, and North San Jose. Waste disposal is a significant con-
straint only for coal direct-fired plant types. The treatment, discharge,
and/or disposal of liquid wastes generated from fuels other than coal are not
factors which would necessarily limit facility construction and operation.

Cooling water intake and discharge is a significant constraint for all plant
types except combustion turbines (not considered in this study) which do not
require-significant am unts of cooling water for operation. At CCC UAs, the

104

EE-8 CPP ae

impacts of onice-through cooling limit opportunities at Crescent City, Samoa
Spit, Salinas,,River, and Santa Maria River to medium size facilities for both
steam turbine and combined-cycle plant types. At Tijuana River, cooling water
opportunities, exist for large size facilities, both steam turbine and
combined-cycle plant types.

At the four BCDC UAs, thermal discharge effects limit all opportunities for
steam turbine and combined-cycle plant types to small size facilities. This
assumes the@@se of alternate cooling water supplies, since it is recommended
that with the possible exception of Oleum, once-through cooling operation
using bay-water not be used at these areas. The use of cooling towers as an
alternate cooli:ng method is not considered in this study, but may be expected
to be limited by lack of available land at all.BCDC UAs except Visitacion and
North San Jose. It is assumed that freshwater supplies are not available for
power plant cooling processes due to the supply problem that already exists
for this resource.in the bay area. Waste water supplies of sufficient volume
for small plant sizes are considered to be available at all four BCDC UAs,
although this resource remains to be developed for this use.

Institutional Constraints

PIFUA

The restrictions imposed by PIFUA (see Chapter 4) on use of oil and gas as
power plant fuels may be expected to further limit the opportunities noted
above. In this study, these restrictions would apply to the opportunities
noted for the use of oil and natural gas as fuels for- steam turbine and
combined-cycle plant types. The effect of these restrictions will be depen-
dent on the future of exemptions now under consideration by Congress and the
development of reliable synthetic fuel supplies. Pending these developments.,
PIFUA restrictions on these fuel supplies are considered to.severely constrain
steam turbine and combined-cycle opportunities..

This study in 'dicates that opportunities for new nuclear power plants are not
available at any of the approximately 200 UAs initially reviewed. The CEC
cannot license new nuclear plants until "there exists a demonstration tech-
nology or means for the disposal of high-level nuclear waste." In 1978, the
CEC found on an interim basis that no such technology or means existed, and no
such finding has since been issued'. This requirement does not apply to
existing nuclear facilities or those under construction. Pending federal
court action may affect this limitation.

19 81 Biennial Report

The CEC 1981 Biennial Report forecasts a peak demand of 43,365 MW for the year*
1992 and 49,588 MW for the year 2000. This is an expected average annual peak
demand growth rate of 1.63 percent for the year 19,79 - 19.92 and 1.65 percent
for the year "s 1979 20-00;. This report indilcates the need for capacity
additions of 13,647 MW for the years. 1979 - 1992, including oil and"gas
displacement. To meet projected demand, the CEC's preferred capacity supply
options,in order of priority, are:

105
EE-8,CPP ae

1. Conservation and Power Pooling,

2. Geothermal and Renewables,

3. Cogeneration and Interutility Transfers,

4. Repowering Natural Gas and Natural Gas Fuel Switching,

5. Synfuel and New Hydroelectric,

6. Direct-Fired Coal.

New nuclear facilities are not a preferred option.

These projections of supply potential provide information which may be com-
pared to meet projected demand, the CEC's preferred capacity supply options,
in order of priority,' are:

Nuclear--Utility resource plans do not include any additional nuclear
facilities,.beyond Diablo Canyon and San Onofre, for construction in
California during the 1980 - 1992 period. This does not conflict with
the results of this study, which indicate a lack of opportunities to
locate new nuclear facilities in undesignated coastal areas.

Coal--Utility resource plans show an increase in direct coal-fired
,capacity additions for the period 1980 - 1992 (BR). The CEC preferred
supply outlook, however, ranks coal as the least preferred power plant
technology when compared to the other supply options for the same
period. Coastal locations are not proposed for any direct coal-fired
capacity additions and opportunities noted in this study indicate that
the availability of undesignated areas to support such facility is
limited.

Steam Turbine--CEC policy calls for a 50 percent reduction in utility
reliance on oil and gas use by 1992. This indicates that existing oil-/
gas-fired steam turbine facilities will be refueled or retired in the
1979 - 1992-and 1979 - 2000 periods. It is unlikely that construction of
major new steam turbine facilities will occur in the future, and.oppor-
tunities for such facilities noted in this report are not expected to be
an issue in future coastal siting scenarios.

Combined fZcle--Utility resource plans call for moderate increases in
combined-cycle capacity in the 1980 - 2000 period. This capacity growth
@may be expected to be dependent on the availability of synthetic fuels
due to PIFUA restrictions. The opportunities, for combined-cycle syn-
fuel facilities noted in this study provide opportunities for sub-
stantial support of these capacity needs.

Capacity Distribution

All opportunities for new power plants identified in this study are for base
load capacity. Peaking facilities are not considered in this study due to the
relative balance between supply and demand indicated for this capacity through

106

EE-8 CPP ae

2000. As noted in Table 16, if the smallest plant size opportunities are
assumed to exist simultaneously at each of the UAs, a total of 1P100 MW of
capacity results. If the largest plant size opportunities are assumed to
exist simultaneously, a total of 4,400 MW of capacity results. If more
practical* circumstances are assumed to exist, simultaneously at each of the
nine UAs, a total of 3,700 MW of capacity results.

Of the 3,700 MW total in the practical case, 2,500 MW is located at CCC UAs
and 1,200 MW at BCDC UAs. All of these ' 3,700 MW of capacity are of the
combined-cycle type, reflecting the greater efficiency of this facility design
from the prespectives of capacity, acreage required, environmental and health,
impacts. Nuclear, coal, and steam turbine opportunities are not included in
the practical case total for similar reasons.

*Determined by selecting the most efficient technology (combined cycle) at
sites with a reasonable opportunity for development, without regard for
regional impacts.

EE-8 CPP ae 107

TABLE 16: CAPACITY DISTRIBUTION (MW)

CASE RANGE OF TECHNOLOGY SIZES

UA SMALLEST LARGEST. PRACTICAL

CRESCENT CITY 150 ST 500 CC 500 CC

SAMOA SPIT 150 ST 500 CC 500 CC

SALINAS RIVER 100 C 500 CC 500 CC

SANTA MARIA RIVER 100 C 500 CC 500 CC

TIJUANA RIVER 150 ST 800 ST 500 CC

OLEUM 100 C 400 CC 400 CC

PT. SAN PEDRO 150 ST 400 CC -0-

VISITACION 100 C 400 CC 400 CC

NORTH SAN JOSE 100 C 400 CC 400 CC

-TOTAL-, 1100 Mw 4400 MW 3700 MW

NUCLEAR -0- -0- -0-

COAL 500 C -0- -0-

STEAM TURBINE 600 ST 800 ST -0-

COMBINED CYCLE -0- 3600 CC 3700 CC

KEY

N Nuclear

C Coal

ST- Steam Turbine

CC- Combined Cycle

Most Practical Capacity Distribution: Based on Selection of Most Efficient Technology
at Areas With Reasonable Development Opportunity

108

UNDESIGNATED AREA OPPORTUNITIES

Of the approximately 200 UAs initially considered in this study, opportunities
to locate new power plants exist at nine UAs. The CCC jurisdiction contains
five of these UAs located along the entire length of the coast. The BCDC
jurisdiction contains four of these UAs which are well spaced in four differ-
ent sections of the bay shore.

Opportunities for nuclear power plants are not available at any of the 200 UAs
initially considered, or any of the nine UAs discussed in this study, due to a
combination of geological and population density constraints. Opportunities
for coal direct-fired facilities (100 MW) exist at two central coast UAs in
the CCC jurisdiction and at three BCDC UAs; constraints are due to -waste dis-
posal impacts and lack of available land for storage facilities. Opportu-
nities for medium size (500 MW) steam turbine and combined-cycle facilities
exist at all five CCC UAs, with limitations on larger sizes being due to once-
through cooling impacts. Use of cooling tower technologies could expand these
opportunities. Opportunities in the BCDC UAs for steam turbine and combined-
cycle power plants are limited to small size facilities due to thermal
gradient impacts on the estuarine ecosystem of the bay. Opportunities for
large steam turbine facilities exist at Tijuana River.

Of the approximately 200 initial UAs, air quality impacts (see -Appendix I)
associated with the rugged coastal terrain account for the elimination of the
majority. Of the nine UAs discussed in this report, water quality impacts are
the most significantly constraining. Once-through cooling opportunities are
considered to be available for the five CCC UAs but not for the four BCDC U.As)
with the'possible exception of Oleum. Use of cooling tower technologies could
expand these opportunities. Lack of available land is not a significant con-
straint at most of the nine UAs given the limitation to small to medium plant
sizes. At the BCDC UAs, however, the noted opportunities will be further
constrained by the necessity for more land-intensive alternative cooling
systems; waste water supplies are available but not developed for cooling pur-
poses (for example, cooling towers or spray ponds).

Overall, coastwide locational opportunities significantly reflect three major
physical developmental constraints: pervasive, rugged coastal terrain,
limited river mouth/floodplain terrain, and dense pockets of urban devel-
opment. Prime opportunities for power plant locations correspond to prime
opportunities for urban development, and the two needs clearly compete for
scarce coastal land resources.

Opportunities for some types of new coastal power plants are also constrained
to a significant degree by institutional factors. PIFUA restricts the con-
struction of new oil- or gas-fired power plants; nuclear laws (pending legal
review) restrict new nuclear power plants, except those under construction at
Diablo Canyon and San Onofre. CEC supply criteria has established a priority
order for development of various power plant types (1981 CEC BR)'. Coal power
plants are given low priority; thus, opportunities appear to exist for medium
size combined-cycle plants fired by clean fuels.

109

Overall, opportunities to locate new power plants in CCC and BCDC undesignated
areas total up to approximately 3,700 - 4,400 MW at nine locations. These
opportunities should be adequate to meet the needs identified for coastal
locations in the CEC-adopted 1981 Supply and Demand Forecast through the year
2000. Additionally, staff has previously identified* 7,000 - 10,000 MW of
capacity available for expansion at 20 existing coastal power plant sites.
These expansion opportunities were for both base load and peaking power plant
types@ Staff concluded that the CCC and BCDC designated areas did not pre-
clude opportunities for the reasonable expansion of existing coastal zone
power plants.

Based on the results of these two studies, CEC staff concludes that there are
reasonable opportunities for both base load and peaking capacity additions on
the coast through the year 2000 and that no changes to CCC and BCDC designated
areas are required at this time. While there is currently no necessity to
develop any of the nine opportunities identified in this report, a future
change in the CEC Demand Forecast (BR) may require development at one or more
of these UAs.

*Opportunities to Expand 'Existing Coastal Power Plants in California (see
Appendix G).

EE-8 CPP ae 110

CHAPTER 6: RECOMMENDATIONS

This study suggests that moderate opportunities for new power plants exist at
a limited number of coastal areas. These opportunities 'may serve to help
California meet its electrical-generating supply needs through the year 2000.
This chapter describes actions recommended by staff to assist in developing
opportunities in a practical manner.

1. The CEC, the CCC, and the BCDC should adopt and issue a joint policy
statement identifying the priorities for future development of coastally
located electrical generating capacity. This statement should be based
on opportunities and constraints identified in this study and in the
previous coastal power plant expansion study. Such'a statement should
provide for continuing safeguards of coastal resources as required by law
and provide for developmental capacity with the following priorities:

o Expansion of existing power plant sites;

o Development of new sites adjacent to.existing sites;

o Development of new sites in other undesignated areas; and

o Development of new sites in designated areas only as a last resort.

2. The CCd should allow development of cooling water conduits at Crescent
Crescent City (CCC Map 2), Santa Maria River (CCC Maps 109, 110, and
111), and Tijuana River (CCC Map 161) to accommodate opportunities-iden-
tified in this report. This would allow for necessary power plant ancil-
lary support facilities. Proposals for development at these areas should
consider the priorities identified in recommendation number one. Prior
to such designation, the applicant should submit a detailed site-specific
evaluation of the proposed area to the CCC to ensure that no substantial
adverse impact on the environment occurs as a result.of site development
and operation. This submittal should occur prior to or concurrently with
the CEC Notice of Intent regulatory proceedings. The CCC can allow this
development by either adopting a partial designation or by making a
finding under PRC Section 25526.

3. The CCC should adopt regulation's on procedures for approval of ancillary
power plant support facilities in designated areas pursuant to Section
25526 of the Public Resources Code. The regulations should provide a
procedure for CCC review of utility proposals to locate underground
cooling water intake and outfall pipelines through designated areas to
determine if the facilities can be sites consistent with the primary uses
of the land and If the substantial adverse environmental effects of the
proposal can be mitigated.

4. The CCC and the BCDC should ensure that study results are incorporated
into coastal planning studies at the local.level to assist in maintaining
options for any opportunities identified. The agencies should coopera-
tively participate in local planning efforts to promulgate the

necessary information and interpretation. The CCC and BCDC staffs should
participate in the development of local coastal plans to ensure that such
plans are not inconsistent with the results of this study and the
previous site expansion study.

112

EE-8 CPP ae

REFERENCES

Atwood, J.L., P.D.. Jorgensen, R.M. jerek and T.D. Manlis. California Least
Tern Census and Nesting Survey. CDFG Endangered Wildlife Program E-1-1,
Job V-2.11. 1977.

Ayensu, E.S., and R.A. DeFillips. Endangered And Threatened Plants Of The.
United States. Smithsonian Institution and World Wildlife Fund, Inc.,
Washington, DC. 1978.

Beard, T.J., Iachetta, F.A. and Lilleleht, L.U. Combustion Evaluation In Air
Pollution Control. Associated Environmental Consultants. North Carolina.
1978.

Benson, James R. and David A. Fredrickson. Archaeological Reconnaissance Of
The Humboldt Bay Area: An AIR On File At The Cultural Resources
TacilitX, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park. 1977.

Berger, B.D. and Anderson, K.E. Modern Petroleum: A Basic Primer Of The
Industry. Tulsa, Oklahoma. 1178.

Bonneville Power Administration: Draft Environmental Impact Statement. The
Role Of The BPA In The Pacific Northwest Power Supply System.* Bonneville
Power Administration. Portland, Oregon. July 1977.

Boyd, M.J., and J.D. DeMartini. The Intertidal and Subtidal Biota Of Redwood
National Park. National Park Service Contract No. CX8400-4-0665. 1977.

Browning, B.M., and J.W. Speth. The Natural Resources Of San Diego Bay.
California Department of Fish and Came Coastal Wetland Se@7ies No. 5.
Sacramento. 1973.

Bureau of Land-Management. Final EIS Proposed 1981. OSC Sale No. 53, Vol. 1.
1980-

California Coast al Zone Conservation Commission. California Coastal Plan.
San Francisco: California Coastal Zone Conservation Commission, 1975.

California Department of Fish and Game. At The Crossroads: A 'Report On
California's Endangered And Rare Fish And Wildlife. Sacramento. 1978.

California Department of Fish and Came. Natural Resources Of Lake Earl And
The Smith River Delta. Coastal Wetland Series No.,10. 1*975.

California Department of Parks and Recreation. California Coastiine Preser-
vatioh And Recreation Plan. Sacramento. 1971,

California Department of Parks and Recreation. California Inventory Of
Historical Resources. Sacramento. 1976.

Of
In

EE-8 CPP ae

California Department of Transportation,, District 5, San Luis Obispo, personal
interview with Robert Peterson. October 7, 1980.

California Department of Water Resources. Bulletin 204 Water For Power Plant
Cooling. July 1977.

California Division of Mines and Geology. Geology For Planning: Cayucos And
Cypress Mountain 7.5 Quadrangles. San Luis Obispo. 1980.

California Division of Mines and Geology. Geology For Planning: Guadalupe
And Point Sal 7.5 2uadrangles. San Luis Obispo. 1980.

California Division of Mine and Geology. Geology For Planning: Imperial
Beach 7.5 Quadrangles. San Diego. 1980.

California Division of Mines and Geology. Geology For Planning, Marina And
Salinas 7.5 Quadrangles. Monterey. 1980.

California Depa rtment of Mines and Geology (CDMG). Urban Geology Master Plan.
1973. p. 42.

California Energy Commission. Air Quality Statewide Coal Plant Area Screening
.@_tudy--A Staff Report. Sacramento. 1979.

California Energy Commission. Constraint Mapping Study: Environmental Factors
Influencing Power Plant And Transmission Line Siting. Sacramento.
1980.

California Energy Commission. Draft Report-Status Of Nuclear Fuel Repro-
cessing S_pent Fuel Storage And High-Level Waste DiE2osal. Sacramento.
January 1978.

California Energy Commission. Final Report On The Pacific Gas And Electric
Company's Notice@ Of Intention To Seek ertification For The Combined-
Cycle Project. Sacramento. 1978.

California Energy Commission. Opportunities To Expand Coastal Power Plants
In California.: A Staff Report. Sacramento. 1980.

California Energy Commission. Technical Assistance Manual, Electrical
Generation. Vol. 1. Sacramento. 1979.

California Energy Commission. Underground Siting Of Nuclear Power Reactors
Determination Of Site Characteristics And General Availability In Calif-
ornia, Nuclear Assessments Office. Sacramento. 1978.

CH2 M. Hill, Dodson and Young, Jordan/Avent and Assoc., Inc., and Jefferson
Assoc. San Francisco Bay Area Regional Waste Water Reuse Study--Phase I
--Preliminary Report. January 1979.

California Natural Areas Coordinating Council. Ca lifornia Natural Areas
Summary And Report. Sacramento, 1978.

114
EE-8 CPP ae

California Native Plant Society. Inventory Of Rare And Endangered Vascular
Plants Of California. Berkeley. 1980.

City of Berkeley. Berkeley Master Plan. Berkeley: City of Berkeley. 1977.

City of Coronado. Water And Marine Resources' Environmentally Sensitive
Habitat Areas. @orona@do. 1979.

City of Marina. Marina 2000--A General Plan. Marina. .1975.

City of Richmond. Richmond Coastline Plan. Richmond. 1973.

City of San Diego. Tiajuana River Valley Plan. San Diego. @1977.

City of San Diego, California. Flood Plain Maps--Tijuana River Sheets 3, 6,
And 7 Of 13. July 1979.

City of San Diego. Tijuana River Valley Plan: Local Coastal Program Addendum.
San Diego. 1979.

City of South San Francisco, South San Francisco-San Bruno Sewage Treatment
Plant. Personal communication. October 30V 1980.

Cooper-Clark Associates. Geotechnical Study Of The North San Jose And Alviso
Area, unpublished report for the City of San Jose*' 1971.

Considine, Douglas M. Energy Technology Handbook. McGraw-Hill Book Company,
New York. 1977.

Contra Costa Flood Control and Water Conservation District. Personal communi-
cation. October 24, 1980.

Del Norte County. Local Coastal Program: Land.Use Plan, Del Norte County,
Crescent City. 1979.

East Bay Municipal Utility District. Personal communication. October 29,
1980.

Ecological Analysts, Inc. and Jefferson Associates, Inc. Moss Landing Commu-
nity Plan Energy And Industrial.Expansion [email protected] Background
Report. Monterey County, Salinas. 1980.

Envicon Corporation. Energy Facility.Siting Management Plan For The Nipomo
Dunes System. Voi. I Mussel Rock Unit and Vol. 11 Guadalupe Unit. San
,Luis Obispo. 1980.

Environmental Research Consultants, Inc. Eureka-Arcata Regional Sewage
Facility ftoject EIR. Arcata. 1974.

Fowler, Lloyd. Flooding Potential At The (PGandE) North San Jose Site.
Testimony by the Chief Engineer, Santa Clara County Flood Control and
Water Conservation District introduced into PGandE Combined Cycles
Hearings before the California Energy Commission. Sacramento. -August
1977.

ER-8 CPP ae

Garcia, A.W., and J.R. Houston. jy2e 16 Flood Insurance Study: Tsunami
Predictions For Monterey 2nd Sa@_Francisco Bays And Puget Sound, U.S.
Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Technical Report H-75-17,
1975.

Gill, R. Status and Distribution Of The California Clapper Rail (Raillis
Longirastris Obsoletus). California Fish and Came 6505: 36-49. Sacra-
mento* 1979.

Graves, Harvey W. Nuclear Fuel Management. New York. 1979.

Heizer, Robert F. In Handbook Of North American Indians, California. Vol. 8,
Smithsonian Institution. Washington, D.C. 1978.

Hertiage Conservation and Recreation Service. Natural Landmark Brief: Nipomo
Dunes--Point Sal Coastal Area. Department of Interior. San Francisco.
1974.

Huston, J.R., and A.W. Garcia, Technical Report H-78-76 Type 16 Flood Insur-
an&e Study: Tsunami Predictions For The 'West Coast Of The Continental.
United States Hydraulic Laboratori-.1f.-S. @rmy Enginee@r-'Water Way Experi-
ment Station. Vicksburg, Mississippi. December 1978.

Humboldt County Flood Control District. Personal communication with Joel
Canzoneri. October 2. 1978.

International. Boundary and Water Commission, United States Section. Draft
Environmental Statement. Tijuana River Flood Control Project. USS
IBWC-EIS-74-1. San Diego . 197Z

Jefferson Assoc., Inc., Personal communications. October 29, 1980.

King, Thomas F., Michael J. Moratto and N. Nelson Leonard III. Recommended
Procedure For Archaeological Impact Evaluation. Society for California
Archaeology. 1973.

Kroeber, Alfred L. Handbook Of The Indians of California. Bureau of American
Ethnology Bulletin 78. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. 1925.

Lom, W.L. and@ Williams, A.F. Substitute Natural Gas: Manufacture and
Properties. Essex, England. 1976.

Loud, Llewellyn L. Ethnogeography And Archaeology Of The Wiyot Territory.
University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnol-
ogys 14-2217436, University of California Press, Berkeley. 1918.

Marin County Flood Control District. Personal communication. October 26,
1980.

Marin County Sanitation District. Personal communication. October 24, 1980.

Monroe, G.W. The Natural Resources Of Humboldt Bay. California Department of
Fish and dame@. Coastal Wetland Series Report No. 6. 1973.

EE-8 CPP ae 116 "k,

Monterey County Planning Department. North Coun ty Recreation And Visitor-
Serving Facilities: Background Report. nterey County. Salinas. 1980.

Monterey County Pollution Control Agency. Personal communication with Robert
Jaques. October 7, 1980.

National Fish and Wildlife Laboratory. Selected Vertebrate Endangered
Species Of The Seacoast Of The United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Biologi 1 Services program; FWS/OBSO/1. 1980.

National Register of Historic Places (Annual listings and supplements). 1979
Federal Register., V. 44, No. 26 and V. 45, No. 54. General Services
Administration, Washington, D.C. 1980.

Pacific Gas and Electric Company. Application For Certification For
Potrero 7. September 1978.

Pacific Gas and Electric Company. Belle Air Island Site Supplement: Notice
of Intention For.Combined-Cycle Project, 76-NOI-3. Sacramento. 1977.

Pacific Gas and Electric Company. Notice Of Intention For Combined Cycle
Project. Sacramento. 1976.

Radian Corporation. Assessment Of Advanced Coal Based Technologies For Use In
California. Final Report of the CEC. Sacramento. 1980.

Rubin, B., I.Y. Borg, and W.J. Ramsey. An Assessment Of The Potential for
Using Alaskan Coal In California. Lawrence Livermore Laboratory,
Livermore. 1978.

San Diego County Sanitation and Flood Control Agency. Personal interview with
Ronald LaRosa. October 8, 1980.

San Luis Obispo County. Environmental Plan: Conservation Element, Historic
Element, And Esthetic Element. San-Luis Obispo. 1974.

San Luis Obispo County. Open Space Plan. San Luis Obispo. 1972.

San Jose-Santa Clara Water Pollution Control Plant. Personal communication.
October 29, 1980.

Santa Barbara County. Santa Barbara County Coastal Plain: Hearing Draft.
Santa Barbara. 1979.

Shapiro and Associates, Inc. Humboldt Bay Wetlands Review And Baylands
Analysis-. Draft. 3 Volumes. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Contract
No. DACW 07-78-CO082. 1979.

Smith, K.A. The Natural Resources Of The Ni2omo Dunes And Wetlands. Calif-
ornia Department of Fish and Game Coastal Wetland Series No. 15. 1976.

South Bay Discharge Authority. Overall Program For Water Quality Management
In South San Francisco Bay EIR. 1973.

117

rv-p rpp np

Southern California Edison Company. Notice Of Intent: Combined-Cycle Gener-
ating Station. Rosemead. 1978.

South Richmond Shoreline Special Area Plan Citizen's Advisory Committee.
South Richmond Shoreline Special Area Plan. Richmond. 1977.

U.S. Army Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi. Personal
communication with James R. Houston. October 28, 1980.

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Flood Insurance Rate Map--
Santa Barbara County, California. Community Panel Niimber 060331 0075 B.
March 1979.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Compilation Of Air Pollutant Emission
Factors. North Carolina. 1973.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Acquisition Of Lands For The San Francisco
Bay National Wildlife Refuge. Draft E.S. 1976.

U.S. Geological Survey. Cayucos Quadrangle Flood Map. 1974.

U.S. Geological Survey. Crescent City Quadrangle Flood Map. 1973.

U.S. Geological Survey. Flood Hazard Map San Francisco South, California
7-1/2 minute Quadrangle Sheet. 1972.

U.S. Geological Survey. Marina Quadrangle Flood Map. 1970.

U.S. Geological Survey. Nuclear Ener@y Resources: A Geologic Perspective.
Washington, D.C. 1977.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. General Site Suitability Criteria For
Nuclear Power Stations. Regulatory Guide 4.7. Washington, D.C. 1975.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Modification Of The Policy And Regulatory
Practice Governing The Siting Of Nuclear Power Reactors. Washington,
D.C. 1980.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Reactor Site Criteria Title 10, Chapter
1, Code Of Federal Regulations-Energy, Part 100. Washington, D.C.
1975.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Report Of The Siting Policy Task Force
NUREG-0625. Washington, D.C. 1979.

Western Interstate Energy Board. Administrator's Guide For Siting And Opera-
ion Of Uranium Mining And Milling Facilities. Colorado. May 1978.

Western Gasification Company. Coal Gasification: A Technical Description.
New Mexico. 1917.

Westinghouse Electric Corporation. Gas Turbine Systems Primer. Westinghouse
Corporation. Gas Turbine Systems Division. Lester, Pennsylvania.
October 1976.

118

EE-8 CPP ae

Williams-Kuebelbeck and Associates, Inc. Crescent City Harbor Port Land Use
Plan: Technical Report. Del Norte County, Crescent City. 1980.

Williams, Ruebelbeck and Associates, Inc. Crescent City Port Land Use Plan.
January 1980.

Woodward-Clyde Consultants, Draft Environmental Impact Report/EA For The
Proposed Wickland Oil CoEpany Petroleum Products Facility At Selby,
Calif ornLa 1979.
2 Vol. tate Lands Commission, Sacramento.

Woolington, D.W. Miaration and Wintering Ecology Of The Aleutian Canada
Goose. Humboldt State University MS thesis. A r7rat@a-. T9-86.

EE-8 CPP ae 119

APPENDICES

Appendix A discusses the relationship of the enabling legislation of the three
agencies--the CEC, the CCC, and the BCDC--with jurisdiction in locating
coastal power plants. Section notations are included as appropriate in the
discussion for easy reference by the reader.

Appendix B briefly describes the major technological and operating character-
istics of the four types of power plants considered in this study--nuclear,
coal (direct-fired), steam turbine (oil and gas), and combined cycle. These
descriptions are based on standard generic assumptions for each specific plant
type, -and do not include descriptions of more unique or detailed systems or
components. For information and comparison purposes, a gas turbine system is
also described although this plant type is not considered in this study.

This appendix also describes various physical and chemical characteristics of
the six fuels considered in the study--uramium dioxide, coal, oil, natural
gas, coal gas, and methanol.,

Appendix.C briefly defines each of the 27 screening factors used in the
study's opportunity analyses. The definitions also contain standard land use
assumptions associated with various factors and describe the factor's appli-
cation to the study.

Appendix D consists of tables of power plant airemissions and heat rates.
This information supports the air quality analysis discussion in Chapter 3.

Appendix E contains various technical. information, formulas, and charts in
support of the setback,analysis in Chapter 3.

Appendix F contains various technica 1 information and maps in support of the
transmission corridor analysis in Chapter 3.

Appendix G is a discussion of the results of the previously published final
CEC staff report "Opportunities to Expand Coastal Power Plants in California."
@It is included for purposes of- reference and comparison with the* results of
this current study.

Appendix H describes both the comments received on the draft report and the
general staff response or action to them. Oral comments received in four
public workshops are noted and written comments (letters) are described by
author, date, and subject.

Appendix I consists ofarea maps for each of the nine UAs discussed in this
report as opportunity locations. Each map is a copy of the standard United
States Geographical Survey (USGS) 7.5 minute quadrangle map. These maps are
printed at a scale of 1:24,000 which means that one inch on these maps repre-
sents 2,000 feet (24,000 inches) on the ground at the actual site.

120

EE-8 CPP ae

APPENDIX A

CEC/CCC/BCDC SITING MANDATES

CCC JURISDICTION

To ensure appropriate protection of coastal resources, CEC coastal power plant
siting responsibilities must be coordinated with the CCC, which is responsible
for regulating the development and planning of coastal areas. The Coastal Act
of 1976 requires the CCC to "designate" areas-of the coastal zone where the
construction and operation of a thermal power plant or electric transmission
lines would prevent achieving the objectives of the Coastal Act [PRC S6ction
_30413(b)]. The Warren-Alquist Act [PRC Section 25526(a)] specifies that-the
CEC may not permit power plants or transmission lines in designated areas,-
unless (1) the CCC first finds that such use is consistent with the primary
uses of such land and finds that there will be no substantial adverse environ-
mental effects from such use, and (2) that the approval of any public agency
having ownership or control of the site has already been obtained. The
Coastal Act requires the designations to be revised and updated biennially by
the CCC [PRC Section 30413(c)].

For the remaining undesignated areas, the review of a siting proposal is still
quite extensive, again requiring the cooperation of the CEC, the CCC, other
agencies and the public. If a site and related facility found acceptable in
the NOI process is located in the coastal zone, no AFC may be filed for such
site unless the CEC determines that the coastal site has greater relative
merit than other available sites approved, in the NOI process and in the
applicant's service area (PRC Section 25516.1). The CCC shall also make
findings on any conflicts with existing or planned. coastal dependent land
uses, potential adverse effects on coastal.aesthetic,values and fish and wild-
life habitats, conformance with certified local coastal programs, and relative
mitigation required for potential adverse effects. In NOI proceedings, com-
ments and findings of the CCC must be included in the CEC's Final Report [PRC
Section 25514(b)]. In AFC proceedings, the conditions recommended by the CCC
to meet the objectives of the Coastal Act must be included in the AFC decision
unless the Energy Commission specifically finds that their adoption would
result in greater adverse environmental effects or would be infeasible [PRC
Section 25523(b)].

As of September 1980, the CCC has assigned designations to approximately 845
miles, 75 percent of the state's 1,100-mile coastline. Of these, full or
blanket* designations cover approximately 265 miles of the coast; specific**
and partial*** designations cover another 580 miles. The remaining 255 miles

*The entire area of the coastal zone is designated between th e Mean High
Tideline (MHT) and the inland coastal zone boundary.

**Pockets of the area of the coastal zone are designated between the MHT and
the inland coastal zone boundary.

***A designation which allows the underground placement of ancillary facil-
ities such as cooling water pipes and transmission lnes.

121
EE-8 CPP ae

of coastline consists of undesignated areas with 130 miles being federal
property exempt from the Coastal Act and the designation process. The remain-
ing 125 miles are various types of private property (including urban areas)
under the jurisdiction of the state. Approximately five miles of the un-
designated area are occupied by existing power plant sites. Although the
designated areas, to date, have been 'generally perceived by utility supply
planners as power plant exclusion zones, the law (as noted above) does, in
fact, provide for the possibility of energy facility siting in these areas
upon the required stringent findings by the CCC.

Current CCC designations identify 13 categories of natural resources for
protection.under the objectives of the Coastal Act. These categories do riot
include air quality, water quality, seismic safety, economic, or public health
and safety issues (all are to be included in NOI and AFC proceedings). In
view of the variable quality of the natural resource areas designated, the
wide range of power plant types and sizes, and the potential for mitigating
the impacts of these facilities on coastal resources, it should not be
considered conclusive that the impacts of electrical-generation facilities on
designated areas would always be significant enough to prevent achievement of
the objectives of the Coastal Act.

BCDC JURISDICTION

Statutory provisions for identifying designated areas in the San Francisco Bay
and Suisun Marsh areas are essentially identical to those applicable to the
CCC jurisdiction; the BCDC plays a role analogous to the CCC for the San Fran-
cisco Bay area and Suisun Marsh resources [see PRC Sections 66645(b) - (c)
25514(c), 25516.1,, 25523(c), 25526(b)]. Under this legislative scheme
[Government Code Section 66645(b)], the BCDC must "designate" those areas
within its jurisdiction that are not suitable for the construction and
operation of a thermal power plant., The purpose of these designations is to
prevent impacts on the resources of the bay and the marsh. The BCDC has
identified natural resources public access areas, and priority-use areas for
the entire San Francisco Bay and Suisun Marsh Area. Government Code Section
66645(c) requires "the BCDC to revise and update its designations every two
years. T hese biennial revisions enable the BCDC to assist in updatingenergy
forecasts and.site planning activities proposed by the CEC in its most recent
biennial report.

Although the Energy Commission is the sole authority for permitting thermal
power plants, it is prohibited from approving any power plant development
within the areas designated as unsuitable by BCDC unless the BCDC first. finds
that the proposed facility would not be inconsistent with the primary use.of
the land and that there would be no substantial adverse environmental effects,
and unless any public agency -having ownership or control over the area
approves.

For the remaining undesignated areas, the review of a siting proposal is
extensive, requiring the cooperation of the CEC, the BCDC, other interested
agencies, and the public.

122
EE-8 CPP ae

APPENDIX B

DESCRIPTION OF PLANT TECHNOLOGIES

NUCLEAR

The operation of a nuclear power plant is similar to that of a traditional
fossil-fueled steam plant. Water is heated to steam, then passes through a
steam turbine which drives an electric generator. The steam cycle is differ-
ent in that the source of heat is a controlled nuclear reaction. There are
three basic forms of nuclear reactors: boiling water reactors (BWR), pres-
surized water reactors (PWR), and high temperature gas reactors (HTGR). The
last will not be discussed here. The BWR produces steam directly in the'
reactor, which is then fed into the turbine; it. operates at a pressure of
about 1,000 pounds per square inch. The PWR has two loops, one in which the
coolant remains inside the containment vessel; it uses a heat exchanger to
transfer heat into a second loop which then produces steam for the turbine.

The BWR tends to release more radiation because the coolant. flows directly
past the fuel elements and leaves the containment vessel to pass through the
turbine. In the case of the PWR, the primary coolant loop is entirely within
the containment vessel and the opportunity for releasing radiation is reduced.
Both forms have 'a thermal efficiency of nearly 32 percent.

The major environmental advantage of nuclear power plants is that they do not
release large amounts of air, pollutants and do not require large quantities of
fuel. The problem of condenser water heat addition is the same in principle
for nuclear plants as for fossil-fueled plants.

Five environmental problems are related to the use of nuclear power plants:

0 Low-level release of radiation,

o High-level release of radiation,

0 Diversion of atomic.materials,

o Storage of waste materials, and

o Decommissioning.

Low-level release of radiation may be expected and permitted by existing
regulations, or it may be accidental. Radiation losses occur regularly in
nuclear power plants because of leakages from the core as a result of fuel or
waste handling. High-level release of radiation can occur as a result of an
accident in the plant or during various stages of processing or transport-
ation. The threat of earthquakes, which could destroy plant safety systems,
has limited the development of nuclear plants in parts of the United States,
particularly along the California coast. The third problem is the danger of
diversion or stealing of nuclear fuel, particularly while it is being trans-
ported. Finally, the problem of safe storage of undesired nuclear wastes has
to be solved.

123

EE-8 GPP ae

Nuclear plants generally serve as base load plants to meet a level of load
demand which is always present in the supply grid.

STEAM TURBINE (OIL-OR GAS-FIRED)

The steam electric power plant converts fuels into energy combustion. Heat
produce d -in the combustion process changes water into high pressure'steam.
This high pressure steam enters the turbine and drives the turbine's blades.
The steam is then exhausted into the condenser where it cools and condenses
into water, and is pumped back into the boiler to be made into steam again.
Modern steam power plants have actual efficiencies near 38 - 40 percent for
fossil fuels.

Fo@ssil-fuel power plants have a significant impact on the environment in two
ways. First, they release about 60 percent of the heat available from their
fuel to the environment aswaste heat in the form of exhaust gases. Second,
they release miscellaneous undesirable combustion by-products, varying in
quantity and kind, depending on the fuel burned and the heat of the reaction.

Large steam plants generally serve as base load facilities.

COAL (DIRECT-FIRED)

A direct-fired coal power plant is a steam power plant that is fueled by
pulverized raw coal rather than gas or oil. The process of electricity
generation is the same as that described for a steam turbine plant above.

The coal is crushed into a fine.powder, blown into a furnance firebox through
special nozzles, and is burned in mid-air. Combustion results in products of
gases and ash. Some of the ash (15 percent) falls to the bottom of the fire-
box as slag, and is routed to a water bath where it hardens as it cools. The
remaining ash is removed as fly ash in the flue gas. The combustion gases are
forced by fans around banks of steel boiler tubes, to create steam. These hot
,gases are discharged into the atmosphere through tall stacks after passing
through emission control equipment.

Environmental impacts@of coal-fired plants with emission controls tend to be
similar to the impacts from oil-fired facilities. The emission control equip-
required for coal plants includes; (1) fabric filters, or "baghouses,"
capable of removing as much as 99.9 percent of the particulates from the
stack, gas, and; (2) wet scrubbers, utilizing limestone slurry to reduce S02
emissions by as much as 95 percent. Coal direct-fired plants usually require
on-site fuel and waste storage which takes large amounts of space, and can be
unsightly and polluting if not properly managed.

Coal direct-fired steam plants serve as base load facilities.

COMBINED CYCLE

A combined-cycle power plant combines the best features of a gas turbine
system and a steam turbine system to produce electricity. The combined-cycle
powe r plant uses the hot exhaust gas fr m. a gas turbine to provide boiler heat
for a conventional steam turbine unit. The gas turbine exhaust gases pass

EE-8 CPP ae 124

through a heat recovery system connected to the steam turbine boiler. The gas
turbine system and the steam turbine system drive separate electric genera-
tors. Combining these two generation technologies creates a system which has
an efficiency of about 40 - 42 percent. This combined system has the flexi-
bility to adjust to changes in energy demand because:

o Gas turbines are fast in starting up and in responding to changes in
energy demand but are relatively inefficient'.

o Steam turbines are slower in starting up and in responding to changes in.
energy demand but are more efficient than gas turbines.

o Combined-cycle plants may be designed to handle peak, intermediate or
base load energy demand.

COMBUSTION TURBINE

A combustion turbine power plant operates much like a steam turbine power
plant.except that the medium.which flows past the turbine blades, causing them
to turn, is the gaseous product of a combustion process. The turbine drives
both the electricity generator and also a compressor which compresses input
air to a relatively high pressure before it is mixed with gas or liquid fuel
in the combustion chamber. The exhaust gases are released to the air after
passing through the turbine. The efficiency (20 to 30 percent) of combustion
turbine power plants is lower than that of steam turbine power plants, so
operating costs tend to be higher.

A combustion (gas) turbine system is distinguished by three major differences
.from that of a steam turbine:

o The combustion turbine it an internal combustion engine, unlike the steam
turbine in which fuel is burned in an external boiler.

o The combustion (gas) turbine uses a different working fluid--some type of
gaseous substance (usually atmospheric air and products of combustion).
A common misconception with gas turbines is that its name refers to the
fuel that the engine uses, for example, natural gas. Because of this
misconception, the name "combustion turbine" is sometimes preferred.

0 The combustion turbine operates at high temperatures and low pressures,
while the steam turbine generally operates at high pressures and moderate
temperatures*

Combustion turbines have some environmental advantages when compared with
other thermal power plants. Since they do not use a steam cycle, they do not
.add -heat to water. Exhaust heat is vented into the air from a short stack.
They are relatively small plants, so they tend not to disfigure their sites
and require little ground space.

Combustion turbine plants are generally used as peakload facilities to meet a
load demand level occurring only at certain times of higher than normal
electricity use or demand.

125

RR-R rPP

gas should be available as a transition fuel through the 1980s and beyond, but
at costs above the prices paid under natural gas regulations. Uncertainties,
such as PIFUA, which prohibits the use of natural gas in new power plants,
cloud the analysis of long-term availability of this fuel.

OIL

Oil is a petroleum product, like natural gas, occuring in nature and formed by
chemical decomposition of organic sediments. It consists of chains of hydro-
carbon molecules which are a product of the petroleum refining process which
also produces gasoline.

California power plants useltwo grades of oil as*fuels. Residual fuel oil
(No. 6) comprises 90 percent of the oil burned in California power plants;
distillate fuel oil (No. 2) essentially constitutes the other 10 percent.
Residual fuel oil while more polluting than natural gas would be significantly
less polluting than coal. Pollutants commonly associated with the burning of
oil as a power plant fuel include nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, particu-
lates, and hydrocarbons (see Appendix D). Air pollution control technology
reduces the amount of thesepollutants released into the atmosphere.

PIFUA also prohibits the use of oil as a fuel for new plants, and CEC supply
criteria call for a 50 percent reduction in the use of oil for power gener-
ation by 1991. In-state oil production accounts for 40 percent of Cali-
fornia's total oil needs. Alaskan oil contributes another 40 percent, and, in
1978, the remaining 20 percent was imported from foreign sources. The state's
most abundent petroleum resource is heavy crude oil.

METHANOL

Methanol is a liquid synthetic fuel which can be derived from a variety of
organic sources, including coal. It is also known as methyl alcohol or wood
alcohol. It is cleaner burning than natural gas and hence is a promising fuel
for use in California power plants. Commercial quantities of methanol are not
projected to be available in California until the mid-to-late 1980s, at which
time it may be expected to have to compete with coal direct-fired plants.
This competition would be highly dependent on the fuel source logistics, local
air quality standards for power plants and other power plant siting variables
such as water supply.

As,a power plant fuel, methanol supplies may most logically be tied to the
coal source. Coal-to-methanol processes such as the Otto-Saarberg/Lurgi and
Texaco/Chem already exist, but are not commercially available. The methanol
synthesis involves the reaction of the coal gasification product gas with a
catalyst suspended in oil. The methanol product is condensed from the gas of
this reaction.

Deployment of this technology will likely require on-site back-to-back
arrangement of the methanol producing facility and the coal mine due to the
economics and logistics involved. A methanol pipeline to a single power plant
would not be economical, rather a terminal/distribution facility would be
required.

128
EE-8 CPP ae

APPENDIX C

FACTOR DEFINITIONS

1. Parcel Size

Different types of power plants and cooling processes require different
amounts of land area for optimum plot design. An area of at least four
acres is required for the smallest of the plant types considered in this
study. The effect of the application of this factor is to initially
eliminate from further analysis all UAs of less than four acres.

2. Terrain Difficulty

A power plant (depending on shape, size, and type of technology) requires
a certain amount of level ground. This amount varies 'to some degree
because there is flexibility in plant configuration and the number of
ancillary facilities which may be required for the power plant will vary*
However, It Is generally desirable that the slope of a site be wi.thin
three to four percent. Where sites have natural grades which exceed this
amount, the ground is prepared at some additional costs by excavating and
filling. In addition, the use of the multi-level pad concept can be used
to reduce the level area required and also the excavation costs.
However, this type of layout may increase the operating cost of the
plant, a trade-off which also should be considered.

Terrain difficulty is commonly used as a power plant siting parameter
from a cost-effectiveness perspective in screening large regions and in
comparing specific power plant sites. Generally, areas which have rough
terrain (i.e., high access/site preparation costs) will rank lower than
those with desirable terrain conditions. However, acres with rough
terrain, on-hand supply, and close proximity to existing ancillary facil-
ities may be very desirable for power plant siting regardless of any
'rough terrain and relatively high site preparation costs. Therefore, in
most cases (especially in weighing the merits of specific areas), terrain
difficulty as a siting parameter should not be used alone to determine
the degree of siting constraint it may represent for a particular area
(e.g., 10 - 15 percent slope = moderate constraint, 15 - 35 percent
severe constraint, 35 percent plus = prohibitive); other parameters,which
are site-dependent, related to siting and construction costs, and in
terms of site advantages, could overshadow the disadvantage of difficult
terrain, must also be evaluated.

Terrain difficulty is used in this study as a screening factor to indi
cate the relative degree of siting constraint within large areas of the
coastal region. Terrain difficulty as used, incorporates general site
preparation cost considerations into the project planning process. Site
preparation costs related to terrain difficulty include those costs
related.to developing an accessible, stable site with the level ground
necessary for the power plant and ancillary facilities, and those costs
related to mitigating@all potential impacts which go along with siting in
rough terrain. The areas indicated in this study as having terrain con-
ditions imposing constraints to power plant siting represent the most
severe terrain conditions in the coastal regions of California.

129
FF-A CPP ae

Identification of these areas was based on the severity of the terrain
conditions (e.g., cliff faces rising abruptly to high elevations above
sea level), combined with the lack of any apparent advantages which could
offset the difficulty and costs of construction and operation of a power
plant.

3. Emission Limitations

Emission limitations regulate the maximum rates of particulate matter,
oxides of nitrogen, and sulfur dioxide that a fossil fuel plant may emit.
The emission rates for the power plant and fuel type combinations con-
sidered in this study were calculated based on currently available in-
formation on emissions, and emission control technology applicable to
facilities which would come on lineby 1990. These emission rates were
then compared with the applicable emission limitations of the air pol-
lution control districts or air quality management districts having
jurisdiction over the specific sites.

4. New Source Review

Under New Source Review (NSR) regulations, mandated by the California Air
Resources Board (and by many air pollution control and air quality
management districts), if a new source would violate ambient air quality
.standards or would aggravate an existing violation, it can only be built
if adequate trade-offs are obtained. These trade-offs would consist of
reductions in similar emissions and in similar quantities from other pol-
lutant sources in the area.

For purposes of this study, it was assumed that if the new plant would
cause an ambient standard violation where none existed before, the plant
could not comply with NSR regulations. This is because only a major
trade-off source located very close to the new plant could mitigate such
an Impact, and such a source would not generally exist. It was also
assumed, however, that if a new plant would exacerbate an existing
ambient standard vi*olation, the impact could be mitigated if sufficient
trade-offs could be obtained in the same county (or air basin, in the
case of the Bay Area). Us 'Ing these criteria, the quantity of potentially
available trade-offs in the county of concern was assessed to determine
whether NSR regulations could be met.

5@. PSD

Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) regulations are enforced by,
the federal government (EPA).. These regulations limit the amount of air
quality deterioration permitted in areas where existing air quality for
sulfur dioxide and/or particuiates is better than the ambient air quality
.st'andards. It was determined whether a new plant, at a*specific site,
would exceed the allowable PSD deterioration increments.

6. Slope Instability

a. Active Sand Dunes

130

EE-8 CPP ae

Active sand dunes are "those regions covered with unvegetated
(cohesionless) windblown sand." As defined, active sand dunes pose
a unique constraint to power plant siting for two basic reasons.
First, the transient nature of the active dune environment may
significantly change the site characteristics over the design life
of a facility. Secondly, the loose, generally well-sorted poorly
graded) sand, if continuous at depth and accompanied by a high
groundwater table, creates poor foundation conditions for structures
and a high potential for liquefaction in the event of seismic
shaking.

b. Quaternary Landslides

These are landslides that have demonstrated activity during
Quaternary time (the past two to three million years).

Quaternary landslides maybe hazardous to power generating facil-
ities, depending on the proximity of the facilities to the unstable
ground. It is assumed in this report that if an identified land-
slide has shown movement during Quaternary time, it has the
potential to move again at any time. If a facility is sited in
close proximity to a slide, the slide could destroy the facilities
by encroachment or loss of all foundation support.

c. Steep Riverbank Slopes and Recognized Sea Cliff Instability

These two phenomena have a similar constraining effect on power
plant siting, both areas are subject to slope failure primarily due
to undercutting by erosion with potential for failures caused by
seismic shaking (lurching, etc.).

Slope instability problems should be considered during the siting of.
power generation facilities by weighing the advantages of avoidance
against engineering and design mitigation. In many cases, adequate
setback from unstable slopes will be the most effective mitigation.

7. Faults and Related Seismic Hazards

a. Ground Surface Rupture Due to Faulting

The CDMG report identifies many "potentially active" and "active"
faults in the study areas. For this study, CDMG considers a fault
active if it can be shown to cut Holocene (the past 11,000+ years)
strata, and potentially active If it has not been shown to be over-
lain by (unfaulted) strata at least two to three million years old.

Fault movement can literally tear facilities apart if they are built
on fault traces that have a potential for ground surface rupture.
Therefore, recognition and avoidance of such fault traces is gener-
ally the best mitigation for this hazard.

b. Seismic Shaking

Seismic shaking is the shaking of the ground due to earthquake
activity.

131

RE-8 CPP ap

The coastal zone of California is generally considered a seismically
active area and seismic shaking can he expected. Severe damage to
power generation facilities can occur unless adequate precautions
are taken in the site selection process to adequately identify this
potential and develop appropriate facility design. During the site
selection process, early identification, delineation, and quantifi-
,cation of the potential for seismic shaking are essential to cost-
effective design and construction. Siting constraints can arise
from potentially strong seismic shaking when seismic design costs
begin to dominate facility design and construction.

C. Seismically Induced Liquefaction

Liquefaction refers to the almost complete loss of strength in
saturated, cohesionless, sandy deposits accompanying ground shaking
during an earthquake*

Many of the "undesignated" areas studies by CDMG are underlain by
potentially liquefiable materials.

In identifying the potentially liquefiable regions, CDMG used the
following methods and assumptions:

(1) The region is seismically active and earthquakes of sufficient
magnitude -and duration to cause liquefaction in appropriate
soil conditions will occur.

(2) These soil conditions occur in nonindurated, well sorted, sandy
and silty sand areas, as described on the geologic maps of
Woodring and Bramlette (1950).

(3) Liquefaction could only occur if these sediments were in a
saturated condition below the water table.

(4) Liquefaction would probably not occur at a depth greater than
18 meters due to high confining pressures below this depth.

Using these assumptions, CDMG has identified areas of sand
dunes, and alluvium with groundwater levels less than 18 meters
in depth, as potentially liquefiable. Mitigation of these con-
ditions can range from avoidance to excavation, dewatering, and
special foundation design.

7. Selected Mineral and Geologic Resources

a. Fossil Fuel Production

Fossil fuel production defines the withdrawal or mining of oil, gas,
or coal from below the surface of the ground. Large quantities of
oil have been and are still being produced in the well-explored and
highly productive oil fields which are located within the CDMG study
areas.

132
EE-8 CPP ae

Some of the potential power plant siting constraints associated with
oil field development and operation are related to hazardous condi-
tions created by oil field production. These include:

(1) Differential settlement and potential reactivation of faults
due to fluid withdrawal.

(2) Induced seismicity associated with secondary recovery methods
such as steam injection.

(3) The loss of petroleum resources if production is stopped to
mitigate the types of problems associated with oil field pro-
duction.

In addition, opportunities for power plant development may exist
within areas of oil field development and operation in the form of
cogeneration from enhanced oil recovery techniques (e.g., steam
injection). These are identified and discussed on an area-by-area
basis.

b. Other Mineral Deposits

Portions of the coastal zone contain extensive deposits of commer-
cial quality minerals, such as diatomite. Extensive power plant
development which conflicts with the development of a valuable or
potentially valuable mineral resource can effectively eliminate that
resource as a mineable commodity. These potential resources have
been identified by CDMG and the degree of constraint these resources
create to power plant siting is indicated on an area-by-area basis.

9. Urban Areas

a. Residential--Land use designation for areas with single or multi-
family dwelling units of a density not less than four units per
acre.

b. Industrial--Land use designation for areas predominantly@ used for
manufacture or treatment of goods from raw materials or transport-
ation of those goods.

c. Commertial--Land use designation for areas predominantly used.for
the retail sale of goods or services or for governmental and commer-
cial offices.

10. Cultivated Agricultural Lands (From the Williamson Act)

"1) All land which qualifies for rating as Class I or
Class II in the Soil Conservation Services' Land Use Capability
classification.

2) Land which qualifies for rating 80 through 100 in the
Storie Index Rating.

133
EE-8 CPP ae

3) Land which supports livestock used for the production
of food and fiber and which has an annual carrying capacity
equivalent to at least one animal unit per acre as defined. by.
the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

4) Land planted with fruit or nut-bearing trees, vines
bushes or crops which have a nonbearing period of less than
five years and which will normally return during the commercial
bearing period on an annual basis from the production of unpro-
cessed agricultural plant production not less than $200 per
acre*

5) Land which has returned from the productions of unpro-
cessed agricultural plant products an annual gross value of not
less than $200 per acre for three of the previous five years."

II.. Recreational Activity Areas

Areas designed or established for play, amusement, or relaxation such as
public parks and beaches, resorts, campgrounds, and open space.

12. Military Bases

Areas managed by the United States Defense Department for training, tar-
get practice, bombing range, and weapons center.

13. View Protection

Preservation of,areas with high scenic value including scenic highways,
wild-and scenic rivers, and areas identified in the Coastal Plan as
scenic areas.

14. Tran portation/Rail Lines

Areas with various modes of access to a site--land (road or rail) or sea
(harbor, pier, or landing).

15. Transmission Lines

A network of lines designed to transmit electricity from one point to
another. These lines also include the corridor or utility right-of-way.

16. Available Lands

A measure of vacant land actually present on a site. A specific parcel
must be of sufficient size to support an individual unit or ancillary
facility. Vacant land encumbered by easements or utilities was not con-
sidered available. Land areas with intensely developed nses immediately
adjacent to existing sites was also not considered available.

134
EE-8 CPP ae

17. Cultural Resources

Cultural resources are prehistoric and historic remains comprising a non-
renewable resource base that provides anthropologists and historians with
information for reconstruction of past cultural systems and behaviors.
In addition to traditional cultural (i.e., archaeolgical) resource con-
cerns, religious and other cultural elements of concerned ethnic
minorities are addressed in this document.

18. Legally Protected Species.

Legally protected species are those rare, endangered or fully protected
species of plants and animals officially recognized by the state or
federal government as being legally protected because of their unique-
ness, scarcity, or threatened extinction. Any activity that results in a
significant impact to these species by way of disturbance or loss of
habitat or part of the population should be avoided. On a statewide or
regional level, presence of these plants or animals indicates an area of
high avoidance in terms of power plant development. Determination of the
precise location of the species and,the actual impacts must be made' on a
site-specific level.

19. Commercial/Recreational Species

Commercial and recreational species are those plants and animals that are
valuable because of their commercial or consumptive and nonconsumptive
recreational values. The presence of the species, the value of the area
to the natural history of the species, and the existence of its commer-
cial or recreational use in the area must be considered in evaluating
this concern. Power plant siting is not excluded from areas supporting
commercial or recreational species. Depending on the value of the area
and the species, however, mitigation may be required.

20. Areas of Critical Concern

Areas of critical concern are unique or special habitats or biological
communities that may need protection from potential adverse effects
resulting from energy facility development. They includ6:

a. Wetlands--Includes salt marshes and associated tidal mudflats and
extend beyond the upper edge of tidal influence to where freshwater
marsh is the predominant habitat. Wetlands can be either seasonal
or permanent.

b. Estuaries--Tidal influenced area of high potential biological pro-
ductivity due to mixing of freshwater with seawater as a river
empties into the ocean.

c. Riparian Area--Ecologically distinct habitat created by growth of
vegetation dependent upon water from a river or stream for continued
existence.

EE-8 CPP ae 135

d. Refuges and Reserves--Areas recognized by the government as set
aside to. preserve the ecology, plant, and/or animal species
indigenous to an area. Can include ecological preserves, areas for
educational and scientific study, and wildlife refuges.

e. Natural Areas--Areas which are unique or are of particular scien-.
tific or educational interest. These include habitats of rare or
endangered plant and animal species, reflect or disjunct popula-
tions,. paleontological sites, note worthy geological features, and
areas of historical interest. Also includes those areas represent-
ative of the various biotic communities found in the state.

21. Species of Special Concern

Species of special concern are candidate rare or endangered species,
unique species, or ecologically valuable species that may need protection
from potential adverse effects resulting from project development. This
includes those rare and endangered plants recognized by the Smithsonian
Institution and California Native Plant Society. Various raptors and
carnivores may also be included in this group. Species in this category
may be identified by local, state, and federal agencies with resource
protection responsibilities or by educational institutions, museums,
biological societies, or special interest groups that have specific
knowledge of the biological resources in an area.

22. Cooling WaterAvailability

A finding t hat cooling water is available indicates that there appears to
be no overriding technical or environmental constraints which would pre-
clude the use of ocean water for once-through cooling.

23. Waste Water Availability

A finding of waste water availability for cooling indicates that waste
water is expected to be available from a specific source or sources in
sufficient quantity and time frame to.allow its possible future use.

24. Once-Through Cooling Impacts

Once-through cooling impacts include impingement and entrainment of
marine organisms as well as impacts from heated discharges. Potential
for unacceptable impacts relate primarily to the existence of unusually
high concentrations of susceptible organisms in the intake/discharge
vicinity and the inability, due to physical factors, of avoiding poten-
tial high impact areas in placement of intake and discharge structures.

25. Waste Disposal.Impacts

Waste disposal impacts can result in a constraint if it is not likely
that a satisfactory disposal site can be developed to contain expected
wastes generated at a site consistent with applicable standards and regu-
lations.

136
EE-8 CPP.ae

26. Water Quality Standards Conformance

All facilities constructed and in operation must conform to applicable
water quality standards. If it appears that a particular technology
located at a site will result in noncompliance, this is identified as a
constraint.

27. Flood Hazard

This factor is based on the effects from known/projected results of 100-
year floods and tsunami run-up.

137

EE-8 CPP-ae

APPENDIX D.
TABLE D-1 EMISSION LIMITATIONS

DISTRICT POLLUTANT RULE LIMITATIONS

Del Norte 3
County PM 420(b) .23g/m @12% CO (steam generating units)
420(a) .46g/m @12% CO (g eneral combustion sources)
2
NOx None

S02 440 1000 ppm

Humboldt Same and Del Norte
County

Bay Area PM 6-311 Up to 40 lb/hr @57,320'lb/hr process wt.
AQMD
6-310 0.15 gr/DSCF
S02 9-1-302 300 ppm (dry)
9-1-304 .5% by wt. 5 content

NOx 9-3-301 gas fuel 175 ppm
liquid or solid 300 ppm

Monterey Bay PM "403(b) Up to 40 lb/hr @60,000 lb/hr process wt.
Unified (solid fuel); all PM covered

403(a) .15 gr/scf

NOx 404(bl 140 lb/hr
404(c) 225 ppm @3% 0 for Mts with heat input
greater than U X 10 BTU/hr
so 2 404(a) 0.2% by vol.
412,413 S content 0.5% w/FGD exemption

San Luis PM 403(b) Up to 40 lb/hr @60,000 lb/hr process wt.
Obispo Co.. (solid fuell (dust and fumes only) 0.3 gr/scf
403c.1 @12% CO 10 lb/hr
2
403c.2
140 lb/hr
NOx 405A.2 225 ppm (gaseous fuel) and 250 ppm
405A.1 (liquid/solid fuel) @ 3% for sources
w/heat input 1.775 x 1 j2BTU/hr
so 404A
2
404D 0.2% by vol.
404E 200 lb/hr
S content 0.5% w/FGD exemption

Santa Barbara PM 306 Up to 40 lb/hr @60,000 lb/hr process wt.
Co. northern zone (dust and fumes)
305 Minimum of 0.01 gr/[email protected] X 106 scfm discharge,
rate (solid fuel only), southern zone

1'38

DISTRICT POLLUTANT RULE LIMITATIONS

Santa Barbara 304 0.3gr/scf (no C02% given), northern zone
Co.

6
307 Up to 30 lb/hr @ 10 lb/hr process wt.
(all partic.ulates), southern zone

PM 3ogA.2 0.3 gr/scf, northern zone
0.1 gr/scf, southern zone
30�E.3.c 10 lb/hr (fuel derived)

NOx 309E.3.b 140 lb/hr

309F 125 ppm (gaseous fuel) and 225 ppm,
liq./solid fuel) @3% 02, southern zone

S02 311A FGD exemption for Rule 311
3
.311B 15 gr/100 ft , as H S, gaseous fuel S
content, or 0.5% 2 su lfur liq./solid
fuel, southern zone
311C 50 gr/100 ft 3 ' as H2S, gaseous fuel S
content, or 0.5% sulfur fuel,
northern zone

Ventura County PM 53 Up to 30 lb/hr@1,0 6lb/hr'process wt.
(all solid particulates)
52 Minimum of 0.01 gr/[email protected] X 10 6
scfm exhaust flow rate (solid fuel
only)

57B 0.1 gr/scf@12% C02
60 10 lb/hr

NOx 59 125 ppm (gaseous fuel) and 225 ppm
(liq./solid), 250 X 106 BTU/hr

59.1 systemwide NOX emission limitations,
with scheduled emission reductions
and NOX dispatch

140 lb/hr

S02 60 200 lb/hr
54A 300 ppm

54B at or beyond property line,, ground level
concentration limited to 0.04 ppm (24
hr) and 0.5 ppm (I hr)

139

DISTRIU_ POLLUTA RULE LIMITATIONS

-Ventura County 64 15 gr/lOO ft3 S content as H S natural
(Continued) gas; 50 gr/lOO ft3 other ga&;'0.5% by
wt. S content, liq./solid fuels;
no FGD exemption
South Coast PM* 405 Up to 30 lb/[email protected] X 10 6 lb/hr process
AQMD wt. (all particulates)
409 0.23 g/m3 (.1 gr/scf) @ 12% CO 2
47S 11 lb/hr and .01 gr/scf @ 3% 0 (both
476 must be exceeded for violatign)-

NOx* 474 Los Angeles, Orange:

ppm NOx @ 3% 02

heat input
(106 BTU/hr) gas liquid/solid

555-1786 300 400

1786-2143 225 325

2143+ 125 .225

Riverside, San Bernardino:
for 50 X 106 BTU/hr heat input, 125
ppm NOx (gas); 225 ppm (liq./solid)
475 for 50 X 106 BTU/hr heat input, 80
ppm NO), (gas); 160 ppm (liquid);
225 (solid), all @ 3% 02 NOx emissions
must be less than 1.70 lb/net MW-hr
476 steam gen. equipment 50 X 106 BTU/hr
treat input: 125 ppm NOx (gas);
225 ppm (liquid/solid)

1135.1 systemwide NOx control strategy; 4 options
available for achieving systemwide
NOx reductions of 90% by 1990; NOx
dispatch also required.
S02* 431.1(a) Natural gas or substitute N.G. limited
to 80 ppm sulfur compounds (as H2S),
with FGD exemption

The SCAQMD portion of the SIP still has Rule 67: 10 lb/hr for PM, 140 lb/hr for NOX
and 200 lb/hr for S02.

140

DISTANCE POLLUTANT RULE LIMITATIONS

South Coast 431.2(b) for steam generators, 0.25% S liquid
AQMD fuel, with FGD exemptions
(Continued)
431.3 no fuel with sulfur content resulting
in .56 lb/106 BTU (with FGD ex-
emption)

San Diego
County APCD PM 54** up to 40 lb/hr @60,000 lb/hr process
wt. (dust and fumes)

53(b) 0.1 gr/dscf @12% C02
NOx 68 for heat inputs 50 X 106 BTU/hr @
20OC: 125 ppm (gas); 225 ppm
(liquid/solid)
S02 53(a) .05% by dry vol.

62 S content 0.5% by wt., with FGD exemption
(liquid/solid); S content 10 gr/100
scf, as H2S (gas), with FGD exemption

APCD staff have indicated that this rule does not apply to power plants; ARB staff
have held that similar rules in the Sacramento Valley Lo apply.

141

APPENDIX D

TABLE D2: PLANT TYPES & SPECIFICATIONS
Emissions (g/,sec) Stack Specifications
Tec@noloqy/Fue'l Size (MW) so2 NO x Par tic -HC ht(m) Temp(ok) flow(m 3/sec)

Direct-fired Coal .100 8.6 3.8 0.63 0.9 150 355 222
500 43 19.2 3.2 4.4 150 355 1110
1300 111 49.8 8.2 11.6 150 355 2880

Steam Turbine/Oil 150, 2.4 3.4 4.3 1.2 137 394 @00

500 7.8 11 14 4.01 137 394 665
800 12 18 23 6.4 137 394 1065

Steam Turbine/Natural Gas 150, .10 1.8 .05 .17 137 394 200
500 .34 6.2 .17 .56 137 394 665
800 .54 9.9 ..27 .91 137 394 1065

Steam Turbine/Methanol 156 0' 1.0 .17 .17 137 394 200-
500. 0 3.4 .56 .56 137 394 665
800 0 5.5 .91 .91 137 394 1065

Steam Turbine/Coal Gas (SNG) 150 .50 2.5 .17 .17 137 394 200
500 1.7 8.4 .56 .56 137 394 665
800 2.7 13 .91 .91 137 394 1065

Combined Cycle/Oil 400 24 7.1 .62 3.0 60 441 1247
500 30 8.8 .77 3.8 60 441 1558
1300 93 26.5 2.0 9.p 60 441 4051
Combined Cycle/Na'fural Gas 400 0.24 6.3 .12 .42 60 441 1247
500 0.30 7.9 .16 .52 60 441 B58
1300 0.78 21 .41 1.3 60 441 4051

Combined Cycle/Methanol. 400 0 5.8 .12 .42 60 441 1247
5.00 0 7.2 .16 .52 60 441 1558
1300 0 19 .41 1.3 60 441 4051

Combined Cycle/Coal Gas (SNG) 400 1.2 6.4 .12 .42 60 441 1247
500 1.6 7.9 .16 .52 60 441 1558
1300 4.1 21 .41 1.3 60 441 4051

TABLE D3: TRADEOFF REQUIREMENTS
Technology/Fuel Size T/D so2 #/hr T/D NOx #/hr T/D Partic #/hr T/D H'C #/hr
Direct-fired Coal .100 .82 68 0.4 30 .06 5.0 .09 7.1
50Q 4.09 340 1.8 152 .30 25 .42 35
1300 10.6 880 4.7 395 .78 65 1.10 92
Steam Turbine/Oil. 150 2. 31** 190** .32 27 .41 34 .11 9.5
500 7.4** 620** 1.05 87 1.3 100 .38 32
800 12.0** 1000** 1.71 140 2.2 180 .61 51
Steam Turbine/"atural Gas 150 .01 .79 .17 14 .01 0.4 .02 1.3
500 .03 2.7 .59 49 .02 1.3 .05 4.4
800 .05 4.3 .94 79 .03 2.1 .09 7.2
Steam Turbine/Methanol 150 0 0 .10 7.9 .01 0.4 .02 1.3
500 0 0 .32 27 .02 1.3 .05 4.4
800 0 0 .52 44 .03 2.1 .09 7.2
Steam Turbine/Coal Gas 150 o5 4.0 .24 20 .01 0.4 .02 1.3
500 .16 13 .80 67 .02 1.3 .05 4.4
800 .26 21 1.24 100 .03 2.1 .09 7.2
Combined Cycle/Oil 406 2.3 190 .68 56 .48 40 .29 24
500 2.9 240 .84 70 .60 50 .36 30
1300 7.4 620 2.52 210 1.52 130 .93 78
Combined Cycle/Natural Gas 400 .02 1.9 .60 50 .01 .95 @04 3.3
500 .03 2.4 .75 63 .02 1.2 05 4.1
1300 .07 6.2 2.00 170 .04 3.3 .08 10.1
Combined Cycle/Methanol 400 0 0 .55 46 .01 .95 .04 -3.3
500 0 0 .68 57 .02 1.2 .05 4.1
1300 0 0 1.81 150 .04 1.3 .09 10.1
Combined Cycle/Coal Gas 400 .11 9.5 .61 50 .01 .95 .04 3.3
500 I@ 13 .75 63 .02 1.2 .05 4.1
1300 .39 32 2.00 170 .04 3.3 .08 10.1

Does not include 1.2:1 factor
0.25% sulfur oil; for 0.1% sul fur oi factors multiplied by 0.4 (South Coast Basin).

APPENDIX D

INFORMATION SOURCES

Direct-fired Coal: Emissions--Proportionate to those indicated for
1985 - 1990 plant* designs in the CEC staff report "Air Quality Statewide
Coal Plant Area Screening Study", Anderson, et al., February 1979; for
NOXI however 80 percent control with selective catalytic reduction (SCR)
is assumed. Stack Specifications--SCE Cal Coal NOI.

2. Steam Turbine/Oil: Emissions--Same as those indicated in "Opportunities
to Expand Coastal Power Plants in California", CEC, June 1980, except S02
emissions are based on 0.25 percent sulfur oil (0.10 percent in the
South Coast Basin) and particiulate emissions are assumed to be 0.025 lb
per 106 Btu, based on the CEC staff document "Vol. 1: Technical Assess-
ment Manual, Electrical Generation", CEC, September 1979. Stack
Specifications--Based on PGandE Pittsburg 7 Unit, proportionately
scaled.

3. Steam Turbine/Natural Gas: Emissions--Based on. Compilation of Air
Pollutant Emission Factors (AP-42,,U.S. EPA, April 1973, for S02 and
hydrocarbons, the SCE Coal Gasification Project AFC for particulates, and
the SCE Alamitos 5 Unit, plus 90 percent SCR for NOX; heat rate equiv-
alent to Alamitor Steam Turbine/Methanol: Emissions--Based on "Assess-
ment of Advanced Coal-Based Technologies for use in California", Radian
.Corp., January 1980, plus 90 percent SCR for NOX hydrocarbon emissions
assumed the same as for (3) above. Stack Specifications--Same as (2)
above.

4. Steam Turbine/Coal Gas: Emissions--Same as (4) above.
Stack Specifications--Same as (2) above.

5. Combined Cycle/Oil: Emissions--Based on SCE Combined Cycle NOI,-using
0.1 percent sulfur oil, 90 percent SCR for NOX and a heat rate of 7809
Btu/kWh. Stack Specifications--Based on PGandE's Potrero 7 AFC.

6. Combined Cycle/Natural Gas: Emissions`--Same as (4) above for NOX same as
(3) above for particulates, S02 and hydrocarbons. Stack Specifications
--Based on PGandE Potrero 7 AFC.

7. Combined Cycle/Methanol: Emissions-'-Same as (4) above.
Stack Specifications--Same as (7) above.

8. Combined Cycle/Coal Gas: Same as (8) above.

EE-8 CPP ae 144

APPENDIX E

SETBACK CRITERIA

Background

A necessary part of the steam electric (Rankine) generating cycle is' the con-
densation of the spent steam after it is exhausted from the steam turbines.
This is typically accomplished by conducting the spent steam through a conden-
sing heat exchanger, where it contacts a series of condenser tubes through
which water is circulating. In the process the steam is cooled, condenses
back into water, and is pumped back to the boiler for reuse. Inside the con-
denser tubes, the water is heated and circulated back to the heat sink, which
can be a cooling tower (wet or dry) disposing of the heat to the atmosphere, a
water body (pond, lake, or ocean), or some optimized combination thereof.

Every steam electric generating plant requires a system for heat disposal, and
the cooling system is a major item in the plant construction and operating
costs*. Cooling system types also range widely in their costs and environ-
mental effects, with costs appearing to vary inversely with perceived miti-
gation of environmental effects.

When practical, in California the preferred cooling method has been "once-
through", in which water is removed from the ocean, run through the condensor,
and returned to the sea. This cooling method has been selected principally
on the basis of least cost (it allows design of mote efficient plants) and
proximi-ty to large load centers on the coast. In the face of increasing
environmental -regulations of thermal discharges and land use conflicts
along the coast, California utilities have turned their attention to inland
siting the the use of cooling systems (cooling towers) that reject heat to the.
atmosphere.

once-Through Cooling System Description

When power plantsare located very near large water bodies or major rivers,
the least cost and preferred cooling method involves conducting water with-
drawn from the nearby source directly through the condensing heat exchanger.
Within the heat exchanger, an increment of heat is added to the water, raising
its temperature by a predetermined designed amount called the condenser 'delta
V (4,T). The quantities of water needed for this, function by modern gener-
ating facilities are large and depend on. plant size, type, efficiency, and
design A T. Table E-1 illustrates the quantities of water needed for differ-
ent types and sizes of plants.

Once-through systems can entail a variety of environmental effects that vary
with plant size, type,. and method of generation. Adverse water quality
effects can result from the heat rejected to the water body receiving the
plant discharge. The significance of the heat addition varies as a function
of plant location, the size of the water body heat sink, circulation and
current patterns in the water body, and the ecological system present in the
water body., At inland siteg waste heat can, by increasing water body surface
temperatures, cause slightly increased evaporation rates and thereby affect
the overall heat budget an& potentially the dissolved solids level of the
water body.

EE-8 CPP ae 145-

TABLE El

COOLING WATER REQUIREMENTS

HEAT COOLING WATER REQUIREMENTS
SIZE RATE EFFICIENCY HEAT REJECTED_ 3 THEORETICAL (1) -3 ACTUAL
PLANT TYPE (MWe) (Btu/Kwh) M (Btu/Sec x 10 FT3/SEC GPM x 10 GPM x 10-3

(3)
A. PWR 500 10500 32.5 984 804 361 393
B. PWR 1200 10500 32.5 2362 1931 867 942 (3)
C. Coal (DF) 500 10425 32.7 975 797 358 167 (4)
(4)
Coal (DF) 1300 10425 32.7 2536 2072 930 435
(7)
E. STG 150 9400 36.3 250 204 92 75
F. STG 500 9400 36.3 832 .680 305 250 (5)
G. STG 800 9400 36.3 2997 1087 488 335 (6)
CC 400 8370 40.8 550 450 202 117(2)
2)
cc 500 8370 40.8 688. 562 252 146(
J. CCC 1300 8370 40.8 1788 1461 656 380 (2)

(1) All heat is removed by the cooling water system.
(2) Based on the Potrero 7 (414 fVe) AFC, subtracting out stack gas losses and rat.ioinq to the plant size in this table.
(3) Based on San Onofre 2 and 3 (1057 14We) FSAR and ratioing to the plant size in this table.
(4) Based on Cal Coal NOI and ratioing to the plant size in this table.
(5) Based on Potrero (501 tiWe) NPDES and ratioing to the plant size in this table.
(6) Based on Scattergood (823 tlWe)--NPDES and ratioing to the plant size in this table.
(7) Ratioed by plant size based on (5'.:), above.

Another group of effects are a result of the large volumes of water required
for once-through cooling systems'. Current at the intake and discharge struc-
tures can cause sediment movement a's well as effects on floating, suspended,
and swimming aquatic organisms. Fish and larger organisms can be trapped
against intake screens (impingement), while smaller organisms and plankton can..
o gh -(entrainment) The significance
be drawn into and'th ru the cooling system
of these effects'has been the subject of much study and appears to vary
widely.' Recent findings wil1be;discussed in a.later'sectiono.

o Beach and Riversid6@Sygtems'

Traditional systems have been designed on least-cost criteria which have
dictated the placement of intake and outfali structures-as well as con-
denser and plant location. In such systems,. costs have@been as low as
3 - 5 percent of total plant capital costs, and cooling system energy
requirements are minimal.

intake and outfall structures have,freque'nfly been,very short and have
used canals across the beach to conduct water to or from the plant.
Water temperatures off the California coast are sufficiently low that the
slight increases in turbine back-pressure from the minimal summer sea
surface temperature rises were mote than offset by the capital savings of
the very short intake and outfall conduits.

Condenser evaluation has ideally been restricted to approximately 30 feet
above the �urface of the cooling water body, allowing for siphon heat
recovery as the cooling water leaves the condenser. Pumps can thus be
sized only slightly larger than would be required to overcome condenser
and conduit friction losses, and minimum energy is required to cool the
plant.

At certain locations in the state, plants have deviated from-this general
pattern with.either slightly greater distances to the coast (Huntington
Beach) or higher lifts (Diablo Canyon), but In most cases plant sites
have been chosen at both low elevations and in close proximity to the
i, coastal proximity of the state's largest
ocean or estuairy shores. The
load centers has also tended to foster coastal siting from the standpoint
of transmission cost minimization. A further factor mitigating for
coastal sites, but historically of lesser importance is the Rankine cycle
efficiency gains &96ible from this lowest possible temperature heat
sink. Power plant's using onc6-through cooling have not as yet been sited
at ifiland location's in California. However, certain rivers in 'the
northern portion of the state cduld.posi3ibly be used for cooling moderate
sized plants,'especi'ally if,c6ndensing,systems were designed to operate
in conjuncti6n with reservoirs:havifig selective height intake structures.
Power generation 6fficidnty increases, power plant dispersion, and
environmental theim@al management-&als could potentially all be served by
consider@@tion bf@ddrtain such Sites-.

0 Setback 'ahd Other Ifin'dv'ative System's

With the arrival of-public sentiment fbr,coastal@protection in the late
sixties and later embodied in legislation forming'the California Coastal
Commission, plant configurations entailing greater distances from,the

147

marine cooling water source have been considered. Such semi-coastal or
set-back plants are thus able to avoid coastal land use conflicts while
still retaining the principal benefits of ocean once-through cooling.
The system selected for economic analysis in this study involves a tradi-
tional type of cooling system (with or without environmental mitigation
measures on the intake and outfall facilities) in which the plant is
moved inland and further above the cooling water source. Cooling water
would be transported to and from such plants in large diameter pipes by
pumping from the typical beachside intake screen well)
with water
returning to the source by gravitational flow thorough a hydroelectric
generating facility into an energy dispersing chamber and subsequently
into the ocean diffuser pipe.

Within the set-back siting concept there are several -alternate system
configurations that are also potentially useful in specific instances but
will not be dealt with in detail. As in this study, one such alternate
involves energy recapture turbines on the return water conduits. For
plants with relatively short, high lifts such turbines reduce pumping
energy requirements, and in today's economic climate are cost effective.
A drawback to such facilities is the probable lack of compatibility of
such systems with the pressurized diffuser outfalls that are currently
mandated by thermal discharge regulations. This shortcoming may be
overcome by proper design of the discharge structure which feeds the
.diffuser.

Another possible system allowing plants to be placed further. from the
coast could utilize smaller volumes of cooling water and greater conden-
ser temperature increases. To meet thermal criteria, this water could
then be mixed with an equal or greater volume of cool water at the beach-
side before being discharged to the marine environment. Problems with
this concept center on the higher incidence of thermal damage to entrain
organisms in the cooling system transported to the plant. However, this
factor may be partially balanced by a lower incidence of damage to
organisms in the mixing stream and the ability to design the mixing
stream to achieve any given outfall temperature, making across-the-beach
discharges possible within state thermal goals.

Yet another cooling system configuration involves utilization of the
thermal gradient present off the California Coast (to a greater degree
south of Pt. Conception) to achieve maximum plant efficiency with poten-
tially minimal (or positive) environmental impact. In such a system, the
intake conduit would reach sufficient depths so that cold profundal
waters of essentially constant year-round temperatures are available for
plant cooling. With such waters, the cooling system can be designed to
add an increment of heat that is limited to the natural rise found
between waters at the intake depth and warm summer surface temperatures
under stratified conditions. The effluent could then be discharged
across the beach into the wave zone or in a near-surface conduit and
remain stratified in an equal temperature environment in the summer. In
the winter months, outfall temperatures would remain at summertime levels
but would be within ranges regularly experienced by the local biota.

A final and most innovative system could, where .topographically and
geologically possible, involve the combination of a set-back base load

EE-8 CPP ae 148

plant with a pumped storage capability providing hydroelectric peaking.
Such a project would involve storage, at or above plant elevation, of the
warmed cooling water pumped during off-peak hours by the base load plant.
This water could then be released during peak demand hours, providing
short-term capacity at an instantaneous generation level of perhaps four
to six times that required to pump water for the plant cooling system.
As in the aforementioned energy recapture turbine configuration,'35 - 40
percent of the total pumping energy generated could be emptied'.once each
day; larger reservoirs would allow greater operational flexibility, i.e.,
energy storage on weekends. Environmental effects could include greater
duration of thermal stress for entrained organisms, vegetation removal in
the storage reservoir, and potential salt water contamination of ground
waters below the reservoir site. The latter problem in the storage
reservoir, and potential salt water contamination of ground waters below
the reservoir site. The latter problem is not expected to present major
difficulties, since reservoir sizes are relatively small and reservoir
sealing techniques are a well-known and proven technology.

Technical Aspects of Once-Through Cooling System Design
@The most significant aspects of once-through cooling systems for thermal
electric power plants are the potential savings in consumptive water use and
increases in plant efficiency with accompanying reductions in. fuel use.
Systems using marine waters completely avoid consumption of freshwater
resources in the cooling system. Plants located at selected inland locations
using large rivers or lakes for cooling can benefit from the complex heat
transfer relationships occurring in the microclimate above these water bodies
and achieve significant reductions in water consumption over wet cooling
towers. This is a result of the radiative heat transfer from these water
bodies to the atmosphere, which is not a significant heat transfer pathway in
cooling towers.

Plant efficiency is a second and more complex aspect of thermal electric power
generation that is significantly affected by the cooling system. The second
Law of Thermodynamics dictates the maximum efficiencies achievable in thermal
heat engines. Efficiency is a function of temperature difference between the
working fluid entering the machine and its final exit temperature before it
returns to the boiler (or other heat source) for reheating. With the steam
temperatures currently in use in large fossil fueled plants, the maximum theo-
retical thermal efficiency is slightly,above 60 percent. At present, the best
overall efficiency that can be achieved in such plants Is about 40 percent,
including all thermal,mechanical, and electrical losses. In order to attain
an efficiency of 40 percent, it is necessary to incorporate such features as
high turbine steam pressure, superheat and reheat of the steam, and preheating
of thefeedwater entering the boiler. Substantial increases in theoretidal
and practical efficiencies can only be attained by much higher steam temper-
atures,and pressures and would require materials that could withstand these
high temperatures and pressures..
The low temperature heat.,sinks of preference have been large water bodies or
rivers which, -on anabsolute basis, vary little in temperature during the
year, require minimum cost cooling systems,, and offer the lowest temperatures
commonly available' in thezenvironment for heat rejection. In 1974, after con-
sideration of a development.document prepared by Burns & Roe Engineering, EPA

EE"8 CFP ae
149

promulgated thermal discharge standards (since remanded) discouraging once-
through cooling. Since then, the industry has been shifting to wet cooling
towers as the preferred technology for heat rejection, with the temperature of
the heat sink tied to higher and more variable atmospheric wet bulb temper-
atures. This has resulted in small decreases in efficiency in new plants,
with the magnitude of the decrease (energy penalty) dependent on plant type
and the percentage of the plant's total waste heat that is handled by the
cooling system.

Plant heat rates (amount of energy required to produce I kWh of electricity)
in California vary from 10,000 - 11,000 Btu/kWh for old fossil or nuclear
capacity to 8,400 for new combined-cycle facilities. As Illustrated in Table
El, the amount of heat discharged to the cooling system is directly related.to
.the heat rate as well as the type of plant. In a fossil-fired plant, part of
the heat input is lost in the boiler, the stack, the turbines a 'nd generators,-
and for station use. The cooling system receives the remainder.

In a nuclear plant, there are no stack heat losses, and the in plant losses
are approximately one-third that of a fossil-fired plant. As a result, the
cooling System heat load is significantly greater than for a fossil plant with
the same heat rate. Adding to this problem are the inherently high heat rates
of nuclear plants due to steam temperature limitations. The limit on high
temperature brings nuclear plant efficiencies down to that of old fossil
plants or new fossil plants with extreme levels of emissions control which
require stack (flue) gas reheating.

Combined@cycle plants are interesting in that cooling system constraints
affect only one-third of the plant's capacity (the heat recovery boiler-steam
turbine portion). While efficiencies in that portion of the cycle are low due
to low steam temperatures, the overall system does achieve efficiencies equiv-
alent to or above those available from the newest direct-fired thermal-
electric plants and rejects substantially less heat to the cooling system.

Geothermal plants must be placed in a different category from more conven-
tional sources when looking at the effects of cooling system performance on
the power plant. Due to the low resource temperatures available from most
geothermal sources, the energy dissipated by the cooling system will exceed
that contained in the electrical power generated by perhaps an order of magni-
tude. As a result, cooling system constituents play a major role in dictating
what is economically and technically possible in plant design. Heat sink
temperature reductions of a few degrees become very important in plant effi-
ciency and economics.

Returning to design considerations important to the cooling system I tself, the
most critical parameters are the cooling water temperature rise and the
cooling water volume. Temperature rise and the plant size, type, and heat
rate determine the necessary cooling water volume for coastal, coastal set-
back, and inland plants using open cycle cooling. The cooling water volumes,
in turn, have effects on the environment, and in the case of setback plants
can significantly affect plant economics.

For such setback plants, both the distance to the plant (run) and the height
above the cooling water source (lift) must be evaluated in conjunction with
the necessary cooling water volume to 'determine costs for the transmission

EE-8 CPP ae
150

-7.

conduits, pumps, and power to move water to and from the plant. Also of
importance are the economic environmental trade-offs in equipping the return
water conduit(s) with energy recapture turbines, which appear to have sub-
stantial economic benefits. Such a generation facility could be used to
offset a portion of the capacity penalty (power charge) needed to move water
to.the plant. The power charge is likely to be a more determinant variable in
system design than water transport system capital costs due to its,escaiat'lon
with fuel cost throughout the life of the facility.

For setback systems using salt water cooling towers, design considerations are
quite similar to those at plants using conventional wet'cooling' towers with
the exception of the increase in tower size and the' costs for corrosion-
resistant materials. Salinity markedly affects the cooling tower size and
cost. Size increases are necessary due to the reduction in heat capacity and
vapor pressure with increasing salt concentrations. At the present time,
cooling water cycles of concentration are limited to about two, due to
increasing problems with drift, blowdown disposal, heat transfer, and cor
rosion at greater concentrations. Note, however, that this study does not
address salt water or dry cooling towers.

At certain inland locations significant savings in water consumption can be
realized using once-through cooling, though this concept is severely con-
strained by State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) regulations.
Principle constraints to cooling system design include the sizing of the plant
to stay within the environmental and biological water quality objective of the
waterway and requirements for dispersal of thermal discharge into the water
body.

Assumptions

Tables El - 4 define the parameters on which the study is based. For coastal
setback of the power plant, there is not a cost penalty for the intake/
discharge structures since these structures 'are required on once-through
cooling systems for environmental reasons. Therefore, these costs are
excluded from this study. The constructed capital cost of the pumping capa-
bility includes pumps, pump house, inlet and outlet cooling water piping
between pump house and power plant. The constructed capital cost of the
hydroelectric generation facility includes the standpipe, located near the
power plant on the inlet'cooling water piping, hydroturbine and generator,
generating house, and energy dissipation facilities.

The sizing of the basic system elements was done by conventional engineering
practices. The cost estimation is made complex by virtue of the nonsite
specific aspects of this study. The investigation of various systems expanded
in scope to eventually include 1,110 separate nonsite specific systems. Site
conditions were necessarily idealized and conceptual level cost estimates were
prepared on that basis. Cost curves developed for this study are based upon
information presented in Bulletin No. 200 entitled "California State Water
Project" and published by the California Department of Water Resources.

The following assumptions were made for hydraulic analysis and costing
purposes.

a. Prestresses circular concrete pipe was chosen for this study.

EE-8 CPP ae 151

b.. Computations for the friction factors were performed as outlined in
Engineering Monograph No. 7 entitled "Friction Factors for Large Conduits
Flowing Full" published by the Department of the Interior, Bureau of
Reclamation.

c. A limiting downhill velocity of 20 feet for turbine regulation and to
minimize scouring the pipe joints was selected.

d. Pipewall thickness and prestress wire gauges as reflected in cost esti-
mates are consistent with those required and used on actual projects
under similar heads and loadings.

e. A trapezoidal cross-section was usd for cut and fill sections where side-
slopes were maintained at 3/4 to 1, cover was 4 feet, pipe to pipe clear-
ances were 3 feet and the backfill was composed of locally acquired
materials. Excavation for the pipes was based on 50 percent cut and 50
percent fill.

f. As a DWR practice, embankments were considered coutoured as much as
practicable.

g. In line with the reconnaissance level of this study, a conservative
single value pump efficiency of 77 percent was chosed for this study.
Similarly, an efficiency of 90 percent was chosen.

h. The costs of pumping plants, pipelines and,hydroelectric plants includes
all of those costs necessary to construct each facility in a ready to
operate status and include the following:

1. Labor, equipment, materials and supplies,

2. Construction superintendence,

3. Construction engineering and inspection,

4. Design engineering,

5. Overhead and profit to contractors and suppliers, and

6. Allowance for construction contingencies.

i.. For the head range covered in this study, reaction type (Francis) tur-
bines were considered for cost purposes. (Reference Bulletin No. 200).

j. A 30-foot diameter, 40-foot high prestressed concrete tank situated
adjacent to the consenser was deemed adequate to regulate all of the
flows for this study. The 40-foot height is equivalent to the required
15 psi condenser pressure and just over 6 feet in freeboard. Altitude
sensors would maintain this water level and also keep the pumps and
turbine synchronous. In case of pump failure, the tank water volume
would backflow through the pipes until valve closure. This volume of
flow thus allows a few seconds for valve closure to prevent water column
separation.

EE-8 CPP ae 152

k. Outflow energy dissipation for these pipes and head ranges is accom-
plished by cone dispersion valves and dissipation chamber for the purpos-
es of this study.

153
FF-8 CPP AE

TABLE E2

SUMMARY OF DESIGN CRITERIA

Coolant Fluid: Saltwater (once-through).
Temperature of Inlet Saltwater: 55*F.
Velocity of Coolant in Inlet Piping: 7 ft/sec.
Velocity of Coolant in Outlet Piping: 20 ft/sec.
Height (ft): 50, 100, 200, 300, 400, 500, 600, 700, 800, 900, 1,000.
Setback Distrance From Shireline (ft): 100, 500, 1,000, 2,000, 4,000, 6,000,
8,000, 10,000, 12,000, and 27,000.
Flow Rate of Coolant to Power Platt (thousands of gallons per minute) (per
plant type) 75, 117, 146, 167, 250, 335, 380, 393, 435, 942.
Power Plant Condenser Pressure Drop: 15 psi
Condenser Outlet Temperature: 75*F.
Energy Recovery on Coolant Discharge: Hydroelectric Generation Facility.
Energy Dissipation in Discharge Structure: Howell-Bunger or equivalent cone
dispersion valve and spray chamber capable of accommodating full rated flow
and head pressure.
Design Life: 40 years.
Design Basis: State-of-the-Art 1980.
Coolant Inlet and Outlet Pipes: Prestressed concrete pipe buried in a common
trench with four feet of cover.
Excavation Criteria: 50 percent cut and 50 percent fill over the length of
the trench and no blasting required.
Pump Efficiency: 77 percent.
Htdro-Turbine/Generator Efficiency: 90 percent.
Hydro-Turbine/Generator Capacity Factor: 50 percent.
Standpipe Near Consenser Inlet:' 40' high and 30' in diameter.
Structures: One building for both pumps and hydroelectric generation.
Hrdro-Turbine/Generator and Pumping Plant Annual Maintenance Cost: .3 percent
of each facilities capital.cost.*
Demuss,eling of Coolant Inlet and Outlet Structures: Assume a common shoreline
structure for both intake and discharge with flow control gates to permit
reverse flow in the ocean bottom intake and discharge diffuser and elevating
the, temperature to eliminate the marine life which fouls the pipes and
structures.

*Value chosen by.CEC. DWR historical cost data indicated 2 percent but does
not represent 1980

EE-8 CPP ae 154

TABLE E3

DESIGN CRITERIA COOLING WATER SYSTEM & CAPACITY FACTORS

CAPACITY (7)
PLANT TYPE PLANT SIZE FACTORS COOLING WATER PUMPS*
PWR 500 M4 0.60 Four 25 percent capacity pumps (4)
IB. PWR 1200 M-1 0.60 Four 25 percent capacity pumps.(4)
C. Coal (OF 500 MI 0.65 Two 50 percent capacity pumps. (5)
D. Coal (DF) 1300 MW 0.65 Two 50 percent capacity pumps. (5)
STMI Turbine 150 hW 0.80 Two 50 percent capacity pumps. (6)
-F. STM Turbine 500 r1w 0.!80 Two 50 percent capacity pumps. (5)
G. STM Turbine 800 IIV 0.80 Two 50 percent capacity p umps. (5)

R. Combined Cycle 400 M-1 0.70 Two 50 percent capacity pumps at 64,000 GPM and
12.5' to 17.5' head.(1)
Ln
Combined Cyclb 500 !14 0.70 same as the 400 MW plant size. (2)
@J. Combined Cycle 1300 MH 0.70 Same as the 400 134 plant size, but two 50 percent
capacity pumps for each power module.(3)

(I). This plant would be used for mid7ranne grid operation. Loss of cooling capacity (one pump) reduces the output to approximately 340 1-114e.
Simultaneous loss of both pumps does@ not present a latent heat removal problem and the plant capacity reduces to 280 14W of peaking gas
turbine. See Potrero 7 AFC.

(2) Same as (1).

(3) Same as (1) except as follows. Refer to the'SCE Combined Cycle Power Generatino Station NOI (Ormond Beach Facility). The station is
composed of three 430 MW units. Therefore, assume two 50 percent pumps per unit.

(4)- Based on the San Ono*fre FSAR.

(S) For a larne utility Irid in terms of total MWe installed capacity (as are the California utilities), this size plant would be operated
somewhere between thehigh base-load range and low mid-ranae considerinq scrubber @tart7UP/shutdown operational difficulties. No
references available.

(6) Same philosophy as the 400 HW combined cycle plant.

(7) CEC Technical Assessment Manual Table 2 (See References)
Plant types 1 and 2 were assumed to require four inlet coolant pipe s from the pump house to the power plant.
All other plant types were assumed to require only-two pipes. All plant types were assumed to have one
outlet pipe from the condensor to the Hydro-Generator.

TABLE E-4

FUEL COSTS

TYPE

FUEL PLANT REFERENCE $/MMBtu and Mils/Kwh

Uranium 1 & 2 page 220 $0.68 MMBtu or 7.14.mils/Kwh

Coal 3 & 4 page 130. (1.21 + 1.16) = $1.19/MMBtu
Base (1977$) or $1.53/MMBtu'(.1980$)
with escalation 1978 - 80 =
(8'.9 + 8.6)/2 = 8.75% yr or
15.95 mils/kwh

Oil 5 -10 page 25, 1980, $3.78 MMBJu (1980$)*
Medium, 12% 6.05 x IT3 Btu/bbl
sulphur or 35.53 mils/kwh (plant types
5,6, and 7) and 31.64 mils/kwh
(.plant types 8,,9, and 10).

Natural 5. 10 page 83, $3.00/MMBtu (1980$)*
Gas PG&E, 1980, or 28.2 mils/kwh (plant types
P5 5,6, and 7) and 25.11 (.plant
types 8, 9, and 10),

Coal Gas 5 10 page 249., $5 - 8/MMBtu (1979$)
High-Btu Use $8/MMBtu (1980$) or 75.2
mils/kwh (plant types 5, 6,
and 7) and 66.96 mils/kwh
(plant types 8, 9, and'10)

Methanol 10 244 $6 .- 9/MMBtu (.1979$)
Use $9/MMBtu (1980$+)_ or 84.6
mils/kwh (plant types 5, 6, and
71 and 75.33 mils/kwh (plant
types 8, 9, and 10)

CEC Fuel Price and Supply Projection (See References)_

156

Study Limitations

This cost study has those limitations that are inherent in any work that of
necessity assumes an idealized set of conditions. Any specific use made of
this report must be with recognition of the following limitations:

a. Construction costs for projects such as those treated herein are sen-
sitive to topography, geology, environmental considerations, and many
other factors. Methods employed in developing these cost estimates are
consistent with reconnaissance level estimates developed for nonsite
specific planning studies conducted by the Department of Water Resources.
Cost curves are intended to serve as a cost guide in selecting an alter-
native system for more detailed study.

All costs are present (1980) costs and must be escalated for any future
use.

No provisions are made in this cost study for the cost of off-site access
roads, unusual or extensive drainage features, lands and right of way for
unusually complicated or extensive relocations of existing utilities.

b. There are 1,110 hypothetical plant sys,tems investigated in this report.
Although this number appears to cover most situations, it must be noted
that each system within itself is idealized. The hydraulic and cost.
assumptions must be reviewed before applying any site specific signifi-
cance to any one seemingly similar situation.

Detailed Study Results

Ten base load power plant sizes and types were evaluated in the once-through
saltwater coolant analysis and two base load power plants were selected for
evaluation in the cooling tower analysis. The data presented in the following
figures correspond to the upper and lower limits set for the study, namely,
50' plant elevation with 100' setback and 1,000' plant, elevation with a
27,000, setback.

1. [email protected] Cooling Study Results

The once-through saltwater cooling analysis study results are.shown
in Figures E-1 through 14.

Figures E-1 and-2 show the energy required to pump saltwater coolant to each
of the 10 power plants and the energy recovered by a hydroelectric turbine/
generator facility vs. plant size.
Figures E-3, 4,'and 5 show the installed capital cost ($/kW) and the total
annual operating and maintenance costs vs. plant size. Figure E-6 depicts the
total annual cost vs. plant size (Note - The total annual,cost includes the
annual.operating and maintenance cost and the annual capital charge for the
pipelines, pump station and hydroelectric turbine/generator).

Figures E-7 and 8 show the hydroelectric turbine/generator facility installed
capital cost and annual kWh generated vs. plant size, respectively.

EE-8 CPP ae 157

Figure E-9 depicts the breakeven price of power produced by the hydroelectric
turbine/generator facility subject to the study assumptions vs. plant size.

Figures E-10 and 11 show the net cost penalty of the once-through saltwater
cooling systems using replacement power costs of 60 mil/kWh.

2...Co6ling Tower SXstem Study Results

Figure E-1.2 shows the results of the breakdown cost analysis for a saltwater
cooling tower system vs. a once-through saltwater cooling system as A function
of elevation and-setback distance for a 1,200 MWe nuclear power plant and a
500 MWe combined-cycle power plant.

Figures E-13 and 14 show the total annual operating pumping cost penalties and
construction cost penalties respectively for a 1,200 MWe nuclear and a 500 MWe
combined-cycle power plant using saltwater cooling towers as a function of
plant elevation and setback distance.

The legends used in Figures E-1 through 14 are as follows:

CC = Combined Cycle
STG = Steam Turbine Generator
NG = Natural Gas
MeOH = Methanol
CG = Coal Gas

EE-8 CPP ae 158

TABLE E-5

DESIGN AND COST CRITERIA

Design and cost criteria for determining the breakeven cost for a 1,200 Mwe
nuclear and 500 MWe combined-cycle cooling towers and once-through saltwater
cooling system.

1. Cooling Tower Design Natural draft cooling tower
Criteria
Closed cycle cooling system

10% coolant make-up

3% coolant blowdown

Cooling tower head equivalent
to 75 foot

Saltwater coolant from Ocean

Blowdown to Ocean

T = 20OF

1% differential efficiency
between cooling towers and
once-through cooling at 100%
power

- Nonsite specific

- No hydroelectric recovery from
cooling tower blowdown

Cooling tower system construction
cost for 1,200 MWe nuclear and
500 MWe combined-cycle based on
$25/kWe

2. Basis of Coolant Power DWR data
Requirements & Coolant
Piping, Pumping,,.
Hydroelectric Costs

3. Replacement Power Costs 60 mi.l/kWh

4. Construction Cost Components Coolant pumping facilities, piping
for Once-Through.Coolant and hydroelectric facilities

5. Construetion Cost Component-s Make-up c'oolant pumping facilities,
for Cooling Tower Design piping, cooling water system
(exclusing condenser)

EE@8 CPP ae 159

6. Total Annual Cost Components (1) Cooling system power consumptions
at 60 mil/kWh, (2) Capital charge at
20% Fixed Charge Rate (FCR) for
pumping facilities, piping, hydro (if
required), cooling tower system (if
required), (3) operation and
maintenance at 3% of the cost of
pumping facilities, hydro & cooling
tower system and (4) A efficiency
(difference between once-through
cooling and cooling towers at 1% of
plant size and costed at 60 mil/kWh).

7. Environmental Aspects No environmental impact was assessed
in the analysis (i.e., Air Quality,
thermal discharge, noise, fog,
corrosion, salt deposition,
aesthetics, etc.).

8. Other Considerations The study assumed that saltwater
cooling towers are state-of-the-art
for sizes needed in this investigation
and rule-of-the-thumb sizing and cost
parameters reported in literature are
sufficient to give ROM engineering
estimates. 'No consideration was given
to the following: System reliability,
availability, permits, preferred
sites, schedule,, meteorological,data,
optimization procedures and others.

9. Cost Basis Cost data was based on engineering
estimates and in 1980 dollars.

10. Breakeven Cost Comparison Using total annual cost data,. the
of Once-Through Cooling following cases were studies: (1)
vs. Cooling Towers The breakeven height (at 100 foot
setback) which cooling tower costs and
once-through saltwater cooling costs
are equal, (2) the hortizontal
distance (at approximately 50 foot
height) at which cooling tower.costs
and once-through saltwater coolant
costs are equal.

EE-8 CPP ae 160

Figure 1-1
Megawatts (Pumping & Hydroelectric Generation) vs. Plant Size at 50' Height and 100" Setback

20 101"
e
_n@
n, T, 5 1

t-7
444-i-L
L7_@_- 7@_:F
'AL
16 8@

4--
_ZF -7

12 6:

t-7
L
4-

_@4' T

4 2@
_@7

0 0
0 300 600 900 1200 0 300 600 900 1200
_" @70

Plant Size, MWe Plant Size, MWe

@igure t-z
-Megawatts (Pumping & Hydroelectric Generation) vs. Plant S.ize.at 1000' Height and,27.000' Setback

250
L-A
T
150
m, 'e @t :jAd +
c
Zel.-7
-vs- ant
-vs, _1444446 --14WE

-4 4
200 120

A
___4 _4
@150
-4

p
100 60 ----- -t-p
T r
Ok -
-4 -
7L _TJ
-1-L ------L

:T,
I I Je
50 30
7 L
f -4-

4- -
7@ 1-

4-
I - T
0 fT 0
0 300 600 900 1200 0 300 600 900 1200

Plant Size,, MWe Plant Size, MWe

'Figure. i.E-3
Installed Capital -Cost (Pumping & Hydroelectric Generation) vs. Plant Size at 50' Height and 100' Setback

----------
*- -
12
Inst,6 -Cap-i-tal-4@s t- r@ a tf6h)
X- I -vs, ant
Size-@_M
_:il@ 7F

20
TO

s --plant I z
-4

16 8
_�L CL
44- 4-

7-7
--- - - - ----

12 6

4 -4
4@
-L-:- -A-4-
J__
L
L
F
4@,
17-
8
4

7-t-

A_
@-7 -4-
2
4 4-,-'1::]
. . . . . . L4

_4 i A
0
J ------

0 300 600 900 1200 0 300 600 900 1200
T_

if!

Plant Size-, MWe Plant Size, Me

I I tfut'e C-14
Installed Capital Cost (Pumping & Hydroelectric Generation) vs. Plant Size at,1000' Height and 27000' Setback

180
nstal led !C-api-tal- Co- oM
Orqel-ec4ric- Gen-eratl
@1-98O.. 0- vs. 'ri-an-t, S-1 ze 'Mwe
x

1 4-
7 7
250 150
n
led u4t'lt4-
--$,-,-x P1 n-..t e
ftanj

A_ I
f

200 4 120

150 90 - -----

A_ ..I-
co-

@-7 F
100 T

@7_
*+

T
30
DU
0#
----------

4- +

4-@
-t-1 -7
T-
o U I
0 '600' 900 1200 0 300 600 900 1200

Plant Size, MWe plant Size, Me

FIGURE E-5.
Annual Operating & Maintenance Cost (1980 $ x 106) vs. Plant Size
(Net Including Energy Recovery by Hydroelectric.Generation)
3. 07 .30

L-L
2. 5@ 25

ttt
-T1
-7T
.1 -T T-1
2. O@ LLI 20 1
I-T

4-i

1.5 15
Ln r
0

CD
IL--j
A
1.0 7yoo 10 Aft

:04

L -A wo@@"
0.51
5

-7 7'

-b
U Z@- 1-17-
50' -.-Rej 4htLTD4@----@e-tc
pa@ck- -

0 300 600. 900 1200 0 300 600 900 1200

Plant Size, We Plant Size, MWe

FIGURE L-6
6
Total Annual Cost (1980 $ x 10 vs. Plant Size
.(Net Including Energy Recovery* by Hydrpelectric Generation)

5 100 i
44-4

-r4

+
4 80

97-
-t-7
4--

0
3 6
00-
L L L-@-

2 40

-t -T T T ICY

4(@) 'I---

20
Ll -1-7,
T
I t

7---1-7
-7 T

4 -i'-+
-C c U
0
0
0 300 600 900 1200 0 300 600 900 1200

Plant Size, MWe PI ant Size, MWe
I'd

Fi aure E 4 7
Installed Capital Cost (Hydroe.lectric Generation), 1980 $/KW vs. Plant Size

500 .12M
44
S'

-4 - ------

1170
40M

T 7
7771 --L

-----------

300C 1140
4_1
cr%
j- 4-

-in @7-
NL
AVM
ILL
2000- 1110

7-+

_T-F
_-A 7 _17
I 00c 1080
-44

1050 f
0 300 600 900 1200 0 600 900 @l 200

Plant Size, MWe Plant Size, MWe

Figure E-8,
6
Annual KVJh x 10 (Hydroelectric Generation) vs. Plant Size

30 600
T

0
HeIjk -:Od @Setbia e
.100 -H J O-rt
WO( -and --2-7000! slt -b@
+

T-
T-L
T
50Q -7
25 Y-77

L
L
400 7r
20

T--t-
IL
bor
17VT
1-7
3
15 5@ 7 77-=777,77-7- 7

CO
-4

10
200
+

4A-@
-A I-,-

5 100

0
0
0 300 600 900 1200 0 300 600 900 1200
llalc@

flGURE -Er9
Brea keven Price of Power Produced and Sol d, mi I s/KWh (Hydroelectric Generation) vs. Plant Size

180 62.
t
9
t

-f- 1-7

1501, -4 60

I------- --- - -

--r- T- f

120 58

L
L I

56
90

4
-4@

MCT
4-1
T I
60@ 54

- ---------- --
+i
L

T
30: 52

OA 0
, TV-

0 300 600 �00 1200 0 300 600 900 1200'

Plant Size, MWe Plant Size, MWe

r I UUKt r_-.L%j
Once-Through Saltwater Cooling System Net Cost Pena"Ity
(Market Value of Net Power Consumed is 60 mlls@KVh)

-j- -7-7 7-: --7--:---r
iT-i_
40 t
N
E U
UC'L*-"A- -A

r4
4-.
30
T 4 +
+
-'I- T
T- Ir
t -4 .-1
CO .......
t
-4 -
;,4 -j-
F
20

L
I @T
L

4,
-, - ... - , F, 4--rr
4-- 7
7

7
10

1.4

0
ELFVATInN.'
0 200 400 600 800 1000
A = 500 MWe Nuclear, 100' Setback C = 1200 MWe Nuclear, 100' Setback
B = 5,00 MWe Nuclear, 27000' Setback D = 1200 MWe Nuclear, 27000' Setback

-7-T-- 1- -7 r' T__'_
40
74 A-1-i- r+
L
L -4
C041-4 H__
J

-4-
r 4
1-4 1
4

30
_4 -

4
t
CD
j
J-
t
CO

4-- AL 14 J_ t
20 .0- .7- _T_ I
44- --- P
T T
t
4-
-7- -7
A -_@_t 4 .
14-

4-
10

T-
T 3; L-1
4-
4

t
-E TI N. t
0
0 200 400 600 1000
A 500 MWe.Coal, 100' Setback C = 1300 MWe Coal, 100' Setback
B 500 MWe Coal, 27000' Setback D = 1300 MWe Coal, 27000' Setback
_170

FIGURE E-11
Once-Through Saltwater Cooling System-Net Cost Penalty
(Market Value of Net Power Consumed is.60 mils/KWh)

T A7 OR
+

-i 4..

f
15

t
_T
CC) T.
4
t-

-77- T- -- ----- -
10
0_
--- 11i_ _A_
-1 47--l-
4
4
000 _r_7
4 4__
_11-T.7
t
H
.41

5 4 r

0,
1-0. 4-
+

7
-7
A*
IN-
0 200 400 600 800 1000
A = 150,MWe STG, .100' Setback D = 500 MWe STG, 27000' Setback
B = 150 MWe STG, 27000" Setback E = 800 MWe STG, 100' Setback
C = 500 MWe STG, 100' Setback. F = 800 MWe STG, 27000' Setback

A
20
+ t 1-4.
_T 4, 4.1
4
t
H @p :_ ... . j. -

_4
_00 -
4
15
td,
1 4 4 _7
t - 4
I]IF _@l I
4 _4@
.4-
J_

C) - 4-
00
4 A---

10 0
1 00-1
@Jl

L-L

tr
5

0 ON.
0 200 400 800 1000
1-ji,

A = 40-0--.MWe--CL.--.-lDQ-'..,-,-$e@t4a-c-k C500.,MWe CC, 100' Setback. E 1300 Mwe CC 1OO',S6tb6ck
Ae CC,
B = 400 MWe CC, 27000' Setback---'-b- _506 WWeCt___@7_6_0V__se_tbac k' __F_ _1_@_ 0 0' 27'OU'"'Setbac

Figure E-12(Preliminary Results)
BREAKEVEN COST TOTAL ANNUAL COST IN 1980$) FOR ONCE-THROUGH COOLING VS. COOLING TOWER SYSTEMS AS A FUNCTION OF
PLANT ELEVATION AND SETBACK DISTANCE (BELOW CURVE, ONCE-THROUGH COOLING COSTS LESS THAN A COOLING TOWER SYSTEM)

240.
77777777:
N

77-7
-4
200

-441

rri

-4-
160
cri u n La rq,F-I
We G 41, 1'@;
7!
CD
LLL
4
@7'

m
120
m

T@ - - ------
c
m
r

A
4
m 80 .I i
m n r
_4@ L
L I
--------- iT
'o

tj(
ow _t f-E
_,e
40 T
@-4
-T-
1-4

--- ------------

0 1- -----
-7-
0 5000 10000 15000 20000
SETBACK DIST.ANCE (FEET)

FIOURE E-13

ANNUAL OPTRATIN5 POST--PE@NALTY --I-@N MILLIONS OF-DOLLARS
500 We COMBLNED CYCLE POWEk PLANT USING A COOLING
TOWER SYSTEM AS A FUNCTION OF ELEVATION AND SETBACK
DISTANCE.

*Pumping costs include make-up water pumping and
cooling tower poolant pumping.

A,A' Base line cost at 50 elevation and 100' setback
B B' 50' elevation and 27,000' setback
C,,C' 1000' elevation and 100' setback
D,D 1000' elevation and 27,00.0' setback

$8
4 d

C
4
I-T

T-
6 - - - - - -
.11r

1-4
..200
Ile
@4 - I1 -1 -@ -i- . 1-1,1_11- . I, ..
-1 _Tj T1-. 4-

1- 4-
T
@V4 4
-4 - -- -----
C)
00

P4
T !-J
e
i4l
Pi@ i..
L
r> 2

CD,

P4
t
0

200 400 600 800 1000

AA' 50' ELEVATI:QN OF PLANT IN FEET

173

Figure E-14CONSTRUCTION COST PENALTIES* OF A 1200 MWe NUCLEAR AND
A 500 MWe COMBINED C YCLE POWER PLANT USING A COOLING
TOWER SYSTEM AS A FUNCTION OF PLANT ELEVATION AND SETBACK
DISTANCE.

*Based on costs of pumping facility, piping and
cooling towers.

A,A' Base line cost at 50 elevation and 100' setback
B,B' 50' elevation.and 27,000' setback
C'C- 1000- elevation and 100' setback
D,D' 1000' elevation and 27,,000' setback

-7-
$50

i j
4, 1
+
-14
40
-7
77
I i-- T-
4
T t
CD 00
MWO" tid 1 iie-@
j 4- T- L 17-1 -
J-

V) re
CC 30
4-1 7'- 7
ct -j
-j C)
C1. CD
t t
L;
4
Of LL-
LLJ C)
4

C)
J
U-
20
T --T-
A
V) M:

U 2!

C) V)
500 MWe
C ed
ombin
10
=> 4 B
Cycle

Ln rO
17.
4
i L
1 :'A
C
Co

Ij
J.
0
mop

200' 4001 600, 800' 10001
50'

ELEVATION OF PLANT IN FEET

174.

APPENDIX F
TRANSMISSION CORRIDOR ANALYSIS
Introduction
The purpose of this analysis is to investigate and evalute the viability of siting transmission faciities for possible new power plants in selected undesignated areas of the California Coastal Commission (CCC) coastal zones which do not presently contain existing power plants. The five areas selected for this analysis have been extensively screened by the CEC staff from the standpoint of environmental criteria other than transmission outlet corridors. BCDC UAs are not included in this analysis due to the ready availability of known transmission corridors in the Bay Area.
This analysis does not necessarily give a definitive final transmission facility of corridor selection but does indicate the relative availability and mertis of transmission outlets with probable corridor alignments and interconnected system terminations. An assessment of appropriate transmission voltage levels, transmission line configurations, salient system modifications required, and general system cost estimates are included. In addition, any major impediments to transmission line routings are tentatively identified for further review.
Due to the "broad brush" scope of this study, a more extensivve and detailed analaysis of each specific plant site will be required. At that time, with the aid of system load flows, stability studies, and on-site inspections, more refined assumptions, facility identification, and corridor selections can be made.
Summary
Based on the following detailed Siting Study analysis, all UAs as proposed by the CEC staff provide suitable opportunity for transmission corridors required for exporting generation from power plants in all 3 size ranges under consideration: (a) small, 100 - 150 MW; (b) medium, 400 -500 Mw; and (c) large, 800 - 1,300 MW. From a transmission line requirement perspective, the type of technology used for the power plant is of no consequence, with the exception of nuclear, which maybe required to meet additional reliability criteria for plant safety. However, with the transmission line proposals given in this study, there should be no problems with outlet reliability.
In general, from an engineering and construction perspective, transmission lines may de designed and constructed for routing through any of the study areas, with cost being the primary impediment to be considered. Realistically, however, other cultural and social constraints dictate whether transmission line corridors are acceptable.
Basis for Analysis
For the purpose of transmission system planning (i.e., selection of voltage level, conductor size, and terminal substation), the size ranges of the various power plants (irregardless of technological type) were grouped as follows:
EE-8 CPP ae 175

* Small: 100 - 150 MW
* Medium: 400 - 500 MW
* Large: 800 - 19300 MW

In the large plant category, the 800 MW unit size may, in certain instances,
be treated'in a manner similar to the medium size plant. Transmission system
voltage levels are selected primarily based on the prevailing interconnected
system voltages.and on the total power transfer requirements (i.e., magnitude
of generation and distance from the interconnected system). Minimum conductor
sizes are subsequently chosen based on thermal and economic considerations,
single contingency outage conditions, and standard construction practices of
the power utility in the area. Detailed system load flows, which are beyond
the scope of this study, should be performed on a site specific basis to
determine if transmission losses and transmission design costs have been
optimized, using the proposed plant capacity factor and power values of the
electric utility system under consideration.

When required, the amount of series compensation for transmission lines has
been selected based on steady state stability conditions, with a power trans-
fer angle less than 70'. For some sites dynamic stability studies should be
performed; however, this is beyond the scope of this study. Series compen-
sation is used to reduce the total transmission line impedance from the source-
(power plant) to the load and is accomplished with power capacitors installed
in series with the transmission line at both the source and receiving (load)
terminations.

Interconnected system termination points (substation, switchyard, line loops,
,etc.) are selected based on proximity and available capability for the
required power transfer. Any obvious problems created at the terminating sub-
station or on the interconnected transmission system have been identified,
with possible solutions given. A detailed load.flow study of each outlet
would have to be conducted to ensure that no normal or contingency conditions
exist that would result in overload or overstressed equipment. If any
specific study area exhibits an obvious stability or reliability problem,
these will be identified and possible mitigating efforts detailed if appro-
priate. In general, however, with the transmission outlets proposed for each
site in this study, there are no steady state stability problems, and the
reliability of local and interconnected systems would be increased by addition
of the new generation sources.

Substation cost estimates (1983 $) are based on breaker-and-a-half configura-
tion for 500 kilovolt (kV) and 230 kV systems, with double-bus 115 kV design.
Transmission line cost estimates (1983 $) are based on self-supporting lattice
tower designs, with shield wires, meeting or exceeding the California Public
Utilities Commission GO-95 requirements as a minimum. In addition, estimated
costs are based on only one project.

Area Analysis

Crescent City--UA 1A and IB

UA 1A is.located due north of Crescent City, and 1B is located to the south-
east of Crescent City.

EE-8 CPP ae
176

1. Small Plant

Generation from this size plant would be used to serve local loads, with
any excess generation being exported on existing Pacific Power and Light
(PP&L) 115 kV transmission lines into Southern Oregon. For normal system
operation, the local generation source will eliminate the present trans-
mission line losses associated with imported power required for local
area loads, and increase local area realiability as well.

The proposed transmission line is a 115 kV double circuit tower line
(DCTL) with 1-1113 thousand of circular mils (Kcmil) all aluminum (AAL)
or aluminum. conductor steel reinforced-(ACSR) conductor, routed within
the CCC undesignated areas for approximately 2 - 4 miles from either
plant site, and terminated a,t the existing PP&L Belmont Substation (Site
1A) or Northcrest Substation (Site 1B). The lines may parallel existing
roadways, streets,or transmission lines for much of their length. No
major problems are foreseen for engineering or construction of the pro-
posed transmission.

Substation and transmission line estimated costs ate $2,000,000.

2. Medium Plant

Local loads cannot utilize a significant portion of the plant generation,
and the existing PP&L 115 kV transmission line is inadequate to accom-.
modate the excess generation; th refore, new transmission facilities are
required for both sites. The proposed 230 kV DCTL with 2-1113 Kcmil'ACSR
conductors (bundled) may be routed south and east through undesignated
areas to the CCC boundary, and thence along an approximate 145-mile route
to the PGandE Cottonwood Substation near Red Bluff. The route avoids two
primary constraint areas that are readily identifiable: the Hoopa Valley
Indian Reservation and the Salmon-Trinity Alps Primitive Area. At a
point near Big Baron the Trinity River the route begins to parallel the
existing Cottonwo,o,d-Humboldt 115 kV transmission lines. No major
engineering or construction problems, other than probable helicopter
erection due to inaccessible terrain., are anticipated. -Construction
costs have been estimated accordingly, @tsing 4 1.4 multiplier.

Total estimated substation and transmission line costs. are $93,000,000.
This cost includes 70 percent series compensation for steady state
stability of the 230 kV transmission line under the power transfers and
distances considered. Use of series transmission line compensation may
require that special-consideration be given to the generator design.and
possibly frequency filter installation in the plant switchyard to pre-
clude subsynchronpus resonance and damage to turbine units. The'
previously. proposed 115 kV transmission line -for small size plants is
also recommended as an option for this proposal to enable local loads to
be served more directly, with concomitant reduction in transmission line
lo'sses for imported power. Further system analysis would be required to
determine viability of this proposal.

This arrangement would require an additional winding on the generator
step-up transformer for the 115 kV service, asmell as a 115 kV switch7-
at the plant. These additional costs are not,included in the above cost

EE-8 CPP ae 177

estimate, but the 115 kV transmission line and PP&L Substation improve-
are included.

An alternate route for a 230 kV DCTL to Grants Pass, Oregon, is following
the existing 115 kV transmission line. However, for purposes of this
study, the costs as.given above should be representative of both routes.

3. Large Plants

Again,-as for medium size plants, local loads and existing 115 kV trans-
mission line capacity cannot utilize or export a significant portion of
the plant generation. Also, from both an economic and system planning
perspective, 230 kV voltage levels are not suitable for power transfers
of this magnitude over the distances required. The proposed transmission
therefore is at 500 kV, with two 145 mile single circuit tower lines
(SCTLs) using 2-1852 Kcmil ACSR or 2-2300 Kcmil AAL conductors, termin-
ating at Pacific Gas and Electric Co. (PGandE's) Round Mountain Sub-
station northeast of Redding.

The total estimated substation and transmission line costs are
$156)000,000. This cost includes $5,000,000 for 50 percent series com-
pensation of the 500 kV transmission line and $2,000,000 for the
previously proposed local 115 kV system additions at Crescent City.

The input of this -generation at Round Mountain Substation will require
additional "ancillary" system improvements to transport the power into
the PGandE interconnected system without overloading exssting
facilities.

These additional system improvements are as follows:

(1) Round Mountain-Table Mountain 500 kV SCTL,
2-1852 Kcmil ACSR bundled, 89 miles total
length, with 71 percent series compensation

(2) Table Mountain Tesla 500 kV SGTL, 22300
Kcmil AAL bundled, 135 miles total length,
-with 70 percent.series compensation, $50,540,000

1-500 kV Breaker bay position at Round Mountain $1,800,000

2-500 kV Breaker bay position at Table Mountain $3,000,000

2-50O.kV Breaker bay position at Tesla $3,000.,000

.(4) 1-5100/230 kV, 1,000 MVA transformer at Tesla $6,80,0,000

(5) 1-230 kV Breaker by position at Tesla $1,250,000

The total estimated aggregate substation and transmission line costs
for this size plant is $256,000,000, including all ancillary system
improvements.

EE-8 CPP ae 178

The proposed trans@aission facilities are considered feasible from an
engineering and construction perspective, and no major problems are anti-
cipated other than construction costs due to the rugged terrain traversed
between Crescent City, and Round Mountain Substation (1.4 x average
terrain costs used). The subsequent transmission line route to Table
Mountain, and Tesla Substations are not considered to be as difficult.
Series transmission -line compensation considerations must again be
addressed in generator and plant design.

Samoa Spit--UA 2'

UA 2 is northwest of Eureka, across Humboldt Bay on the Samoa Peninsula.

1 . Small Plant

As for UAs 1A and IB, generation from this plant size would be used to
serve local area loads, with any excess generation being exported on
PGandE's existing Cottonwood-Humboldt 115 kV transmission lines. The
same transmission line loss reduction and local area system reliability
increase would be expected, as previously described.

The proposed transmission line would be a 115 kV DCTL, with 1-1113 Kcmil
AAL conductor, 10 - 15 miler, in length, and terminating at PGandE's
Humboldt 'Substation East of Eureka (Section 33, T4N, RIE). However,
since UA 2 is surrounded by CCC designated areas, and allowable trans-
mission line construction technology in this area is not known at this
time, transmission costs will be based on overhead construction.
Engineering and construction of transmission outlets should not prove
impractical or difficult if allowed by other considerations.

Substation and transmission line estimated costs are $3,000,000 to
$4,000,000.

2. Medium Plant

The same analysis applies as for UAs 1A and 1B where local loads cannot
utilize a,significant portion of the plant generation, and the existing
115 kV transmission lines are inadequate to handle the excess
generation; therefore, new transmission facilities are required for both
plant sites. The proposed 210 kV DCTL with 2-1113 Kcmil AAL conductors
would parallel the Cottonwood-Humboldt 115 kV lines the entire 110 mile
route from a point near Humboldt Substation to the Cottonwood Substation
termination. Again, due to the designated area status of these sites, it
is not known if a corridor out of the Samoa Peninsula would be possible,
even though feasible from an engineering and construction standpoint.
Substation and transmission line estimated costs are $60,000,000 to
$61,000,000. This cost includes 50 percent series compensation for the
230 kV line,'a 1.2 multiplier for construction costs due to terrain, and
the Eureka local area 115 KV system improvements as described under small
plants above. As for-Us 1A and 1B. detailed system load flows would be
required to ascertain viability of paralleling the existing 115 kV system
with-the proposed 230 kV system.

179
EE-8 CPP ae,

3. Large. Plant

Againj the same analysis applies as for UAs IA and A where local loads
and existing 115 kV transmission line capacity cannot utilize or export a
significant portion of the plant generation, and from both. an economic
and system planning perspective, 230 kV voltage levels are not suitable
for power transfers of this magnitude over the distances required. The
proposed transmission is at 500 kV with either 2 SCTLs or 1 DCTL, 190
miles in length, using 2-1852 Kcmil ACSR or 2-2300 Kcmil AAL conductors,
terminating at PGandE's Table Mountain Substation. The "ancillary"
system improvements are required as for sites IA and 1B from Table
Mountain Substation to Tesla Substation, i.e., 135 mile 500 kV SCTL, 2-
2300 Kcmil AAL.bundled, with 70 percent series compensation, a total of
3-500 kV Breaker bay positions at Table Mountain and Tesla, 1-500/230 kV
100 mega-volt amps (MVA) transformer and 1-230 kV Breaker bay position at
Tesla Substation.

The total aggregate substation and transmission line estimated costs Are
$241,000,000. This cost includes 50 percent series compensation and 1.2
multiplier for construction costs on the Eureka-Table Mountain 500 kV
transmission line, and the Eureka local area 115 kV system, and all other,
ancillary system improvements as described previously.

Theproposed transmission facilities are considered reasonable and appro-
priate, and. no major.problems are anticipated if a suitable. route is
found through the CCC designated-areas. Special consideration must again
..be given to the generator and plant.design due.to the required series.
transmission line. compensation..

Salinas Rliver--UA 3A and@. 3B,

These sl@es Ate located near Fort'-OrdanO Appro4mately ;0 miles -south of
PGandV.s*Mos's:Landing pow er 1. plan,t.s @ite

1. Small Plant-

The proposed transmission is a230 kV DCTL with 1-11.3 Kcmil AAL,@. routed
approximately 10 miles over relatively'easy terrain, ; through CCC.un'des.ig-
nated areas and outside of CCC boundary lines, and terminated at the Moss
Landing 230 kV Switching Station.

Substation and transmission line estimated costs are $5,000,000.

2. Medium Plant

Same as small size plant except 2-113 Kcmil AAL conductors for the 230 kV
DCTL.

Substation and transmission line estimated costs are $6,000,000.,

Large Plant

.Due to the large power block to be transferred and limited 230/500 kV trans-
formation capacity at Moss Landing (including local loads) the proposed

EE-8 CPP ae 180

transmission loops the Moss Landing-Los banos 500 kV SCTL approximately 10 miles into the new plant site, with 2-2300 Kemil AAL conductors and terminating at Moss Landing 500 kV switchyard. Existing 500 kV transmission lines could possibly be looped into the proposed plant site, but overall costs would be essentially the same as new transmission to Moss Landing. There appears to be sufficient 500 kV transmission capacity beyond the Moss Landing termination to accomodate the additional generation into the system.
Substation and tranmission line estimated costs are $7,000,000.
No major engineering or construction problems are anticipated in accomplishing the proposed facilities installation, except service continuity during the line looping construction phase. Also, depending on location of the plant site, the Fort Ord installation may present routing problms for transmission outlets.
Santa Maria river--UA 4A and 4B
These sites are located near Oceano, approximately 15 - 20 mies south of San Louis Obispo, 15 - 20 miles southeast of PGandE's Diablo Canyon power plant, and 25 - 30 miles Southeast of PGandE's Morro Bay power plant.
1. Small Plant
The proposed transmission is to loop 1 circuit of the existing Morro Bay-Mesa Substation 230 kV transmission lineinto the new site, (one 230 kV DCTL) with 1-1113 Kemil AAL, a distance of approximately 6 miles. No major impediments are foreseen for transmission line routing, with both site corridors following the Santa Maria Valley inland to the existing transmission line.
Substation and transmission line estimated costs are @2,000,000.
2. Medium Plant
Same as small size, except loop both circuits of the Morro Bay-Mesa 230 kV transmission line into the plant site, giving two 230 kV DCTLs with 1-1113 Kemil AAL.
Substation and transmission line estimated costs are $4,000,000.
3. Large Plant
Due to the large block of generation for this plant size, it is proposed to loop 1 of the Diablo Canyon-Midway 500 kV transmission lines into the new plant, (two 500 KV SCTLs) with 2-2300 Kemil AAL for approximately 13 miles. Again, no major problems are foreseen for transmission line routings as previously proposed, from an engineering and construction perspective.
Substation and transmission line estimated costs are $10,000,000.

Due to SDG&E's radial 230 kV system, possible scheduling problems could
arise with this size plant. However, those are considerations which are
beyond the scope of this study and are pointed out for future reference
only.

Tijuana River--UA 5

UA 5 is located south of Chula Vista on the California/Mexico border, approx-
imately 5 miles south of San Diego Gas and Electric Company (SDG&E's) South
Bay Power Plant. Transmission lines will be routed south/east/and northwest
to avoid CCC designated area.

I Small Plant

Proposed transmission is 138 kV DCTL, 1-636 Kcmil ACSR, terminated at
SDG&E's South Bay Power Plant Switchyard.

Substation and transmission line estimated costs are $2,000,000 to
$4,000,000.

2.. Medium Plant

Proposed transmission is a 138 kV DCTL, 2-954 Kcmil ACSR, terminated at
SDG&E's South Bay Power Plant Switchyard.

Substation and transmission line estimated costs are $2,000,000 to
$4,000,000.

3. Large Plant

Proposed transmission is a 138 kV, two DCTLs 2-954 Kcmil ACSR, terminated
at SDG&E's SOLIth Bay Power Plant Switchyard. Possible system reinforce-
ment may be required between South Bay and Miguel, and South Bay and Main
St. Substation. These system improvements are most likely to be made by
SDG&E as a part of their system expansion plans when possible 500 kV
transmission from the east is terminated at Miguel Substation and if 230
KV transmission from Mexico is terminated at South Bay Power Plant
Switchyard. If these future 230 kV transmission lines from Mexico are
scheduled for service prior to, or coincident with, plant sitings, the
proposed transmission lines should be changed to 230 kV and integrated
into the overall system expansion plan.

Substation and transmission line estimated costs are $5,000,000 to
$10,000,000.

EE-8 CPP ae
182

APPENDIX G

OPPORTUNITIES TO EXPAND COASTAL POWER PLANTS IN CALIFORNIA

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CONCLUSION

Areas "designated" by the California Coastal Commission (CCC) and
the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC)
do not preclude opportunities for the reasonable expansion of
existing coastal zone power plants. The most serious constraints to
the expansion of these plants are the lack of sufficient available
land, air quality "trade-offs," and restrictions on the future use.
of the ocean for "once-through" cooling water supplies. The com-
bined effect of these factors poses the most significant constraints
to the expansion of oil- and gas-fired power plants. Based on these
results, the California Energy Commission (CEC) staff does not
recommend any changes to the CCC and BCDC designations to accommo-
date the expansion of the noted power plants.

Project Description

This study examines opportunities to expand existing coastal zone power plants
in California. It was conducted by the CEC in conjunction with the CCC and
the BCDC to determine the effects of CCC and BCDC designated areas on reason-
able expansion opportunities. It is a response to the mandates in Public
Resources Code (PRC) Section 30413 and Government Code (GC) Section 66654.
These legal mandates require the CCC and the BCDC to "designate" areas of
their respective coastal zone jurisdictions where the location of a power
plant of 50 MW or greater would prevent achievement of coastal resource pro-
tection objectives. These laws also require that existing power plants be
provided with "reasonable" expansion opportunities.

Designated areas limit the siting opportunities of new electrical generating
power plants in the state's coastal zone and, thereby, put a premium on the
expansion of the existing coastal power plants. Information from this study
is being used by the CCC and the BCDC in the biennial revisions of their
designated areas and by the CEC in its continuing planning for the state's
electrical-generating supply needs.

THIS STUDY IS A PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS OF EXISTING POWER PLANT EXPANSION
OPPORTUNITIES; IT DOES NOT IDENTIFY OR SELECT SITES FOR EXPANSION. ACTUAL
EXPANSION OF THE ELECTRICAL-GENERATING CAPACITY AT ANY OF THE EXISTING SITES
WOULD REQUIRED ADDITIONAL DETAILED STUDIES AND.REVIEW BY THE CEC FOR CERTIFI-
CATION TO CONSTRUCT AND OPERATE.

The study examines expansion opportunities at 25 coastal zo ne power plant
sites. Eighteen of the sites are in CCC jurisdiction, five in that of the
BCDC, and two lie just outside the legally-defined coastal zone lines. The
effects on expansion opportunities of 27 environmental and technical siting
factors and three institutional factors--the Federal Power Plant and Indus
trial Fuel Use Act (PIFUA), the CEC 1979 Biennial Report (BR) supply criteria,
and state nuclear waste disposal requirements (PRC Section 25524.2)--are ana--
lyzed to determine their impact on the study's results.

EE-8 CPP ae 183

Five types of plants--7nuclear, direct-fired coal, oil- or gas-fired steam tur-
bine, combined cycle, and combustion turbine--are examined in conjunction with
six fuel types--uranium, coal, oil, natural gas, methanol, and coal gas.

Three plants sizes are considered for each type of plant: small (70 - 400
MW), medium (500 - 800 MW), and large (1,200 - 1,300 MW). The study does not
include an economic analysis in its examination of expansion opportunities.

Results

Expansion opportunities for various combinations of plant types to exist at 20
of the 25 sites. In many cases, the existence of natural or manmade con-
straints will require trade-offs or mitigation to offset the effects of
adverse impacts. Expansion opportunities do not exist at five sites. These
results are summarized in Table i on the following page, and in Table 12 on
page 101.

Overall, the most consistently severe constraint to expansion opportunities is
the lack of available land. Twenty-one of the 25 sites are severely con-
strained by the impingement of adjacent residential and industrial develop-
ment, although expansion opportunities still exist at these sites. The
exceptions to this constraint are sites located in predominantly 'rural areas
.where large amounts of undeveloped land are contiguous to the site
boundaries.

The lack of air quality trade-offs is also a significant constraint. to expan-
sion opportunities. Ambient air quality standards are generally violated more
often in urban than in rural areas. Expansion opportunities are further
limited in urban areas since fewer trade-offs are available due to recent
efforts to reduce pollution from existing sources.

Availability of once-through cooling water supplies from the ocean is a
primary consideration in siting power plants on the coast. Fourteen of the 25
sites are located on enclosed bodies of water where expansion using once-
through cooling processes are constrained or precluded due to thermal effects
of discharge. Since only eleven of the sites arelocated to permit convenient
use of ocean water for once-through cooling, this constraint is a notable
limitation to coastal zone expansion opportunities. The potential to augment
cooling vater sources with municipal waste water supplies is limited by-the
volumes available, the level of treatment and the potential health impacts.
The lack of available land becomes even more important at many sites when land
intensive closed-loop cooling systems and air quality control technology sys-
.tems are added. More space would be required for control systems on sites
where space for normal expansion is already severely constrained.

Expansion opportunities for nuclear power plants are limited to the Diablo
Canyon site. Maximum credible rock acceleration of .75g at this site indi-
cates that, technically, nuclear expansion opportunities exist. However, the
actual determination of expansion at the site is dependent on further review
of off-shore fault hazards by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). This
study's conclusion of the existence of nuclear expansion opportunities at
Diablo Canyon neither advocates nor disfavors licensing or expansion. Such an
action will require more extensive engineering and economic analyses which are
not within the scope of this study. Nuclear expansion opportunities are

EE-8 CPP ae
184

foreclosed at all other sites, including Humboldt Bay and San Onofre, by a
combination of geological hazards and population influence zone density
criteria.

The limitations of PIFUA on oil and gas fuels used in power plants will
further limit expansion opportunities of steam turbine and combined.cycle
plants until interpretation, but is rather intended as a practical planning
tool. The definition is clearly subject to revision upon further clarifi-
cation of the statewide demand for electrical.-energy generating capacity, and
of regional equities.

METHODOLOGY

'Design

This study uses a process of geographic focusing or screening to introduce a
practical element into the review of expansion opportunities. The effects of
a-variety of technical expansion factors are examined at each site so that the
true effects of the CCC and the BCDC designations, if any, can be determined.
This geographic scoping process uses certain factors--air quality*and geolOgY7
-toreview opportunities for expansion based on possible effects on a regional
basis, and other factors--public facilities and natural resources--'to review'
effects on a site-specific basis. Initial review is accomplished with
regional analysis factors to identify effects of expansion which might be
prohibitive or constraining to an unacceptable degree. If this initial
regional review d 'oes not eliminate a site, the site-specific factors are
applied and analyzed for similar levels of expansion constraint. The appli-
cation of this screening process to this study differs from the usual site-
screening process in so far as the foci of the screening are predetermined,
that is, the existing power plant sites. The factor analyses, therefore, are
used to predict effects generating from specific known locations rather than
selecting sites, per se. The effectiveness of this process is adequate to
meet the requirements of the preliminary level of analysis involved.

The study uses a limited number of site-screening factors which are applied
only to a preliminary level of analyses sufficient to examine the effects of
the CCC and BCDC designations. The results and conclusions of the study are
therefore not conclusive, but are sufficiently detailed to meet.the intent of
the study.

Determinations of availability of expansion opportunities are thus, of
necessi-ty, based on the "null hypothesis" principle. If a clear prohibition
to expansion opportunity has not developed upon completion of the screening.
process, a positive availability of expansion opportunity is assumed to exist
within the limits of the study's level of analysis. This level of analysis,
as previously noted, is not intended to result in site selection.

Scope

This study examines opportunitiesfor expanding existing power plants located
in,Pr adjacent to, California's coastal zone areas. The study is limited in
geographic scope, due to the jurisdictions of the CCC and t@he BCDC, to the
state's coastal zone areas. The plants are located, In the case of the CCC

EE-8 CPP ae 185

jurisdiction,-along the 11100 mile Pacific Ocean coast, and in the case of the
BCDC jurisdiction, Along the 300 mile shoreline of the San Francisco and
Suisun Bays (see Figure 1).

The study is scope is limited to an oxamination of the adequacy of the CCC and
BCDC coastal resource protection designations in providing, or maintaining,
reasonable expansion opportunities at existing coastal zone power plants.

EE-8 CPP ae 186

APPENDIX H

Area Prohibition Criteria

Of approximately 141 California Coastal Commission (CCC) undesignated areas
(UAs), 136 were eliminated because they could not meet the evaluation criteria
listed in Table 2 and defined in Appendix C. Figure H-1 identifies the loca-
tion of all UAs examined. Table H-1 lists all the UAs and summarizes the
evaluation results for each UA. Table H-1 provides the following'
information:

o Column 1 contains the CCC UA number;

o Column 2 contains the map numbers of the CCC coastal zone boundary and
designation maps (161 7.5 minute quadrangle topographical maps).

o Column 3 contains the evaluation factor that eliminated the area from the
study results.

o Column 4 contains the five UAs identified in the study results (they are
renumbered for simplicity).

The evaluation factors defined in Appendix C are applied as described in
Chapter 2, Project Description. The following definitions are given to pro-
vide the factor which eliminated an area from further review. The definitions
are not to conflict with those used in the chapters of the text. They are
used, however, to provide the reader with the limiting factors that prohibited
an area from further study.

Air Quality'

o Could not meet Air Quality Criteria--Primary Screening.

o Lacked Sufficient Air Quality Trade-Off--Secondary Screening.

Terrain

o Terrain Difficulty--Sloping terrain that could not support power plant
development.

Land Use

o Incompatible Land Use--Existing or adjacent development that precludes
power plant development (i.e., residential development/federal wildlife
refuge).

o Lack of Available Land--Parcel size- too small for power plant
development.

.187
EE-10 CPP ae

APPENDIX I

Public Participation Workshops and Written Comments

Thedraft report on this study entitled "Opportunities for New Coastal Zone
Power Plants" was issued for public review in January 1981. Four public
workshops were conducted by dEC staff at:

Eureka Match 9, 1981 7:00 p.m. - 9:00 p.m.
San Francisco February 17, 1981 1:30 p.m. - 4:00 p.m.
San Luis Obispo February 11, 1981 1:30 p.m. - 4:00 p.m.
San Diego February 10, 1981 1:30 p.m. - 4:00'p.m.

Following.the public workshops and comment period, changes to the draft report
were made for the final report. The changes are as follows:

� Deletion of Villa Creek (draft report Map 4) due to the prohibition of
air quality on rugged coastal terrain;

� Deletion of San Rafael, Richmond, and Golden Cate (draft report Maps 9,
10, and 11) due to the lack of available land and prohibitions associated
with incompatible land uses;

� Deletion of Tijuana River north and south (draft report Map 6A) because
of prohibitions on endangered. species habitat and incompatible land uses;

� Inclusion of updated institutional factors to reflect the CEC 1981
Biennial Report (BR), and deletion of the discussion of the CEC 1979
Biennial Report and CEC 1981 Preliminary Report to the BR;

� Inclusion of. additional recommendations stating the CCC should adopt
regulations that allow power plant access to ocean waters for once-
through cooling, and that procedures be developed to accommodate the need
for development at such time when they are required.

o Completion of the discussion of setback criteria and analysis in the text
and the appendix;

o Correction of maps for clarification as required; and

o Inclusion of additional up-to-date information to various sections
throughout the report to reflect public comments and further technical
analyses.

Comments at these workshops numbered approximately 11 and generally reflected
the written comments. Fifteen letters were received with a total of 66 sep-
arate comments. Letters were received from:

1. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., dated February 3, 1981, signed
Ann Notth.off and Laura King.

.2. Target Technology Ltd., dated February 17, 1981, signed John Rodosevich.

EE-10 CPP ae
188

FIGURE H--l

__.____]UNDESIGNATED AREAS IDENTIFIED
BY THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL
COMMISSION AND THE BAY
CONSERVATION AND
DEVELOPMENT, COMMISSION.

-T-

*AREAS ANALYZED BY CEC STAFF

t.:3

CALWORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION

169

Column I Col umn 2 Col umn 3 Col unin 4

CCC UAs CCC Map ReaSon for Elimination Selected UAS

Could not meet Air Quality Criteria
2 Co uld not meet Air Quality Criteria
3 2 Could not meet Air Quality Criteria
4 2
Could not meet Air Quality Criteria
2-3 UA':.i.A
6 2 UA'lB
7 8-1.0 Could not meet Air Quality Criteria
8 12 Could not meet Air Quality Criteria
.9 13 Could not meet Ai@r Quality Criteria
10 14 Could not meet.Air Quality Criteria .
11 .13 'Could not meet Land Use Criteria
.12 14 Could not meet Land Use Criteria
13 14 UA 2
14 1.4 Could not meet Air Quality Criteria
15 14 Could not meet Air Quality Criteria
16 14 Could not meet Air Quality Criteria
17 17 and 16 Could not meet Air.Quality Criteria
18 .21-22 Could not meet Air Quality Criteria
19 22-23 Could not meet Air Quality Cri teri a
2.0 24 Could not meet Air Quality Criteria
21 24 Could not meet Air Qual-ity Criteria
22 24 Could not meet Air Quality Criteria
23 24-25 Could not meet Air Quality Criteria
24- 27-2.8 Could ndt meet Air Quality Criteria
25 28 Could not meet Air Quality CHteria
28 Could not meet Air Quality Criteria
26
27 31 Could not meet Air Quality Criteria
28 .36-37 Could not meet Air Quality Criteria
.29 37-40 Could not meet Air Quality Criteria
30
40-43 Could not meet Air Quality Criteria
31 .43 Could. not meet Air Quality Criteria
32 44 Could not meet Air Quality Crit 'eria
.33 .44 Could not Imeet.Air Quality Criteria
34 44 Could not meet Air Quality Criteria
34 45-46 Could not meet Air Quality Criteria
36 46-47 Could not meet Air Quality Criteria
@37 47 Could not meet Air Quality Criteri-a
38 47 Could not meet Air Quali-ty Criteria
39 47 and;49 Could not meet Air Quality Criteria
40. 50 Could not meet Air Quality Criteria
41 Could-not'meet Air Quality, Criteria
42 51 Could notbeet Air Quality Criteria
43 51,53-56 Could not meet Air Quality Criteria
44 53-54 Could not meet Air Quality Criteria
45 54 Could not meet Air Quality Criteria
46 .55-56 Could not meet Air Quality Criteria
.47 56-58 Could not meet Air Quality Criteria
48 58-60 Could not meet Air Quality Criteria
49' 60 Could not meet Air Quality Criteria
50 60 Could not meet Air Quality Cr.iteria

190

14.

Column 1 Co I unin 2 tol unin 3 Col umn 4

ccc uAs CCC Map Reason for Elimination Selected UAs

51 61 Could not meet Air Quality Criteria,
52 61 Could not mee t Air Quality Criteria
53 61@62 Could not meet Air Quality Criteria
54 72 Could not meet Air Quality Criteria
55. 72 Could not meet Air Quality Criteria
56 72 Could-not mee t Air Quality Criteria
73 Could not meet Air.Quality Criteria
58 73 Could not meet Air Quality Criteria
59 73 Could not meet Air Quality Criteria
1.73' : : I Could:not meet Air Quality Criteria
61 .73-74 Could not meet Air Quality Criteria
62- 74 Could not meet Air Quality Criteria
75-76 PgVer @lant Identifie .d..in Power Plan t
64 78' 10pasn'sHn por UA 3A
@65 78 UA 3B
66.- 79 Could not meet Air Quality Criteri-a
67 84 Could not meet Ai ' rQuality Criteria*
68 86,88,90,93 Could not meet Air Quality Criteria
@69 99,101,102,101 Could not meet Air Quality Criteria.
70 104 Could not meet Air Quality Criteria
71 106 Could not meet Air Quality@Criteria
72 107 Could not meet Air Quality Criteria
73 107 Could not meet Air Quality Criteria
'74 109 UA 4A
75 110-111 UA 4B
.76 112-115 Could not meet Air Quality Criteria
77 119 Could not meet Air Quality Criteria
78 121, Could not meet Air Quality-Criteria
-79 121 Could not meet Air Quality Criteria'
80 121-122 Could not meet Air Quality Criteria
121-122 qou.ld not meet Air Quality Critiera
82 122-123 Could not meet Air QUal'i ty Criteria
83, 123 Could not meet Air Quality Criteria
84 123-124 Lacked sufficient Air Quality Trade Off
85 124 Could not meet Air Quali.ty Criteria
86 124-125 Could not meet Air Quality Criteria
87 125 Could not meet Air Quality Criteria
88 125-126 Co-uld not meet Air.Quality Criteria
89 126 Could not meet Air Quality Criteria
90 126 Could not meet Air,Quality Crfteria
91 126-127 Could not meet Air Quality Criteria
92 127- Could not meet Air Quality Criteria
0 -127 Could not meet Air Quality Criteria
94 127-129 Could not meet Air Quality Criteria
95 129 Could not meet Air Quality Criteria
96 131 Lacked Sufficient Air Quality Trade Offs
97 131-132 Lacked Sufficient Air Quality Trade Offs
98 132-133 Could not meet Air-Quality Criteria W
99 133@ Terrain Difficulty and Incompatible Land Use
100 133 Terrain Difficulty and I ncompati bl.e Land Use

191

Column 1 Column 2 Column 3 Column 4
CCC UAs CCC Map.# Reason for Elimination Selected VA s

101 133-134 Terrain Difficulty and Incompatl bl e Land Use
102 134 Terrain Difficulty and Incompatible Land Use
103 134 Terrain Difficulty and Incompatible Land Use
104 134 Terrain Difficulty and Incompatible Land Use
105 134-135 Terrain Difficulty and Incompatible Land Use
106 135 Terrain Difficulty and Incompatible Land Use'
107 135-136 Terrain Difficulty and Incompa.t1ble Land Use
108 135 Terrain Difficulty and Incompatible Land Use
109 136 Terrain Difficulty and Incompat4ble Land Use
110 136-138 Terrain, Difficulty and Incorfipattble Land Use
138 Could not meet Air Quality Criteria
112 138 Lack of. Available Land (parc-el..size)
113 138-139 Could not meet Air Quality C.riteria
114 141-145 Lack of Available Land (parcel size)
115 145 Could not'meet Air Quality-Criteria
116 145 Could not meet Air Quality Criteria
117 147 Could not meet Air Quality Criteria
118 147-150 Could not meet Air Quality Criteria
119 150-153 Could not meet Air Quality Criteria
120 153-154 Could not meet Air Quality Criteria
121 154 Could not meet Air Quality Criteria
122 154 Incompatible Land Use
123 154 Could.not meet Air Quality Criteria
124 155 Could not meet Air Quality Criteri "a
125 155 Could not meet Air Qual-i ty 'Criteria
126 155 Could not meet Air Quality Cfiteria
127 155,157 Could*not meet Air Quality Criteria
128 Could not meet Air Quality Criteria
129 156 Could not meet Air Quality Criteria'
.130 158 Could not meet Air Quality Criteria
Could not meet Air Quality Criteria
131
132 158 Could not meet Air Quality CHteria
133 158-16 0 Could not meet Air Quality Ctiteria
134 159 I`ncompati bl e, Land Use, U.S..Nava'l:Air Station
135 159 Incompatible Land Use (Residential)
136 159 Incompatible Land Use (Residential)
137 160 Incompatible' Land Use (Residential
138 .160-161. Incompatible Land Use (Resi denti al
139 161 Incompatible Land Use
140 161 Incompatible Land Use UA 5
141 161 Could not meet.Air Quality Criteria

192

3. Alexander Marine Research Facility, dated February 18, 1981, signed,
John A. Alexander PhD.

4. County of San Luis Obispo, Air Pollution Control District, dated F ebruary
18, 1981, signed Robert W. Carr.

5. San Diego Voice of Energy, dated February 19, 1981, signed Christine
Worshom.

6. Environmental Center of San Luis Obispo, dated February 19, 1981, signed
Kristie Wells.

7. California Central Coast Regional Commission, dated February 20, 1981,
signed Steven Maki.

8. County of Del Norte, Planning Department, dated February 20, 1981, signed
Diane Mutchie.

9. Cynthia Kesinger, dated February'20, 1981,'signed Cynthia Kesinger.

10. Elaine S. Gorman, dated February 21, 1981, signed Elaine S. Gorman.

11. California Roadside Council, dated February 23, 1981, si-gnedYale Maxon!
PhD.

12. Pacific Gas and Electric Company, datedFebruary 24, 1981, signed Nolan
H. Daines.

13. County of San Luis Obispo, Planning Department, dated February 24, 1981,
signed Paul C. Crawford.

14. Monterey County, Planning Department, dated March 3, 1981, signed D.W.
DeMars.

15. Southern California Edison, dated April 3,1981, signed Ronald R.
Schroeder.

Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) - February 13, 1981

COMMENT: NRDC has done extensive research and has determined that California
will need very little expansion of the existing electric supply
system over the next fifteen years. The 1981 Biennial Report,
Electricity Tomorrow, reaches a similar conclusion. This draft,
report is, therefore, irreleve.nt and we ate opposed to the sacrifice
of sensitive'coastal resources to accommodate superfluous energy
facilities.

RESPONSE: As indicated, the s 'tudy is designed to evaluate the impact of-CCC
and BCDC designationson coastal zone power plant development. The
study is not a site selection study and should not be,interpreted as
such. The study, based upon a limited preliminary analysis, shows
that power plant development could be developed in areas that are
not considered environmentally sensitive (undesignated areas per
se). In addition, the areas identified are presented to show:

EE-10 CPP ae 193

li, There are places in the coastal zone suitable for power plant
development (if required).

2. There are environmental considerations that must be taken into
account (if power plant development is pursued).

3. There a re environmental constraints/prohibitions in the areas
identified as suitable for power plant development.

The study does not supplant the regulatory requirements of the
Public Resources Code 25000 et seq. To this extent, a further de-
tailed, technical engineering and economic evaluation must be per-
formed prior to the development of any coastal zone site. However,
this work is valuable in that it identifies feasible options for
development of conventional power plants as a contingency measure.

Target Technology Ltd. - February 17, 1981

COMMENT: An economic. analysis was used in the evaluation of setback sites,
however, the cost of building various plant types and operating var-
ious plant types was woefully neglected.

RESPONSE: Economic factors were used in t1pie study in defining the various
plant types, sizes and fuel types. It must be noted, however,
further studies by utilities would cover economic factors in precise
detail as part of the CEC's NOI/AFC process. The study makes this
clear in different sections of the report.

COMMENT: A question asked about the probability of using various alternative
technologies, filling the energy generation gap in the next twenty
'years.

RESPONSE: Chapter 4, Institutional Factors, discusses the California Energy
Commission 1981 Biennial Report (BR) entitled "Electricity Tomorrow:
Challenges and Opportunities for California." The report identifies
California's preferred alternative energy future which includes such
technologies as conservation, power pooling, renewable resources,
geothermal, repowering existing facilities for clear fuel use, addi-
tional hydroelectric supply and coal to reduce our dependence on
foreign imported oil and assist in stablizing our uncertain energy
future.

COMMENT: Is capital intensive combined-cycle plants of. limited size using
coal gas and other synfuels, our only acceptable alternative.

RESPONSE: Our report findings show that clean fueled, 500 MW size facilities
are-preferable to other conventional power plant technologies.

COMMENT: Technology development and feasibility is not an issue. Economics.
is the only real issue in the final analysis.

RESPONSE: The report notes that furtherutility investigation should address
economic impacts of any opportunity identified in this study.
.However, just as economics is a critical cost factor, various

EE-10 CPP ae
194

technologies are preferable to others based upon their ability to
conform with strict environmental protection standards.

John D. Alexander PhD. February 18, 1981

COMMENT: A power plant should.be placed at least 5 km from a 500 foot eleva-
.tion. No such condition remotely exists in the Villa Creek basin.

RESPONSE: The Villa Creek UA has been deleted from the final report.

COMMENT: San Luis Obispo County air pollution standards would not allow even
the smallest of the suggested plants.

RESPONSE: CEC air quality analysis has identified sufficient 'emission offsets
(trade-offs) to mitigate this constraint. The power plant technol-
ogies identified for this UA meet all applicable air quality stan-
dards. However., this UA has beendeleted from the final report.

COMMENT: The Villa Creek site is geologically unstable for power plants.

RESPON.SE: For nuclear power plants, this is a significant constraint,. For
this plant type further geotechnical analysis is required to find
sufficient mitigation measures to reduce geologic instability.

COMMENT: Development of this coastal area would upset some of.the world's
most advanced efforts to stabilize the faltering supply of abalone,
stee'lhead, clams and various other forms of sea life.

RESPONSE: These environmental concerns are addressed and identified in the
report.

COMMENT: Although makeup water is not a huge factor, it would further tax an
already strained water supply.

RESPONSE:'This depends upon what type of water and. cooling technology used.
This study assumes the use of once-through ocean water cooling which
will not significantly effect coastal fresh water supplies.

COMMENT: The Villa Creek site is already within sight and sound'of an elec-
trical energy generating facility.

RESPONSE: The Villa Creek UA has been deleted from the final report. However,
this report considers such expansion opportunities In its conclu-
sions and recommendations. (See Appendix G)

COMMENT: Construction of a power generating facility in such a pristine
location as Villa Creek would galvanize both factions into action
against .the common enemy bureaucracy and the utility 'company
involved. San Luis Obispo County residents already feel they are an.
energy dumping ground and certainly not in the 'mood to accept
further blight upon their choice landscape**

RESPONSE: Villa Creek has been deleted from this final report.based on a re-
analysis of air quality impacts.

EE-10 CPP ae
195

County of San Luis Obispo, Air Pollution Control District February 18, 1981

COMMENT: In Chapter 3, under Air Quality New Source Review section, there
appears considerable discussion about possible ambient air quality
standard violations because of power plant plume impingement on sur-
rounding elevated terrain. Based upon the CEC's criteria, UA 4
should be eliminated.

RESPONSE: This opportunity has been eliminated from the.final report.

COMMENT: In.discussing the Santa Maria River, sites UA 5A and 5B, a statement
is made regarding the fact that air quality regulations in Santa
Barbara County severly restrict all power plant types and sizes.
However, no similar statement is made for San Luis Obispo, even
though the air quality are almost identical to that of Santa
Barbara. Our district rules must be given equal consideration and
be evaluated similarly.

RESPONSE: Santa Barbara County regulations are nearly similar to those in San
Luis Obispo County. However, the Santa Barbara regulations prohibit
'power plants, where San Luis Obispo regulations do not due to the
availability of trade-offs. As explained on page 17, it was assumed
that a power plant could only obtain trade-offs in the same county.
The difference in evaluating the two counties is based on the avail-
ability of emission offsets within the county. In this case San
Luis Obispo
,has emission. offset availability while Santa Barbara
.does not..

COMMENT: In Appendix D, Table D-1, page 141, labeled Emission Limitations,
the emission limitations established by San Luis Obispo County APCD
rules and regulations do not appear.

RESPONSE: This oversight has been corrected.

COMMENT: Table 15, page 102. District rules 403, 404, and 405 would not
p-ermit the construction of a small 50 MW oil-fired steam turbine.
The "S" designation should be changed to an "0".

RESPONSE: True, the "S" designation should be changed to an "0" for the 50 MW
oil-fired steam turbine. Such a plant would violate district rule
403.C.2 with respect to.particulate emissions. However, the plant
would comply with district rules 404 and 405.

COMMENT: Because of increased expansion of energy related industries within
the county such as thermal recovery of heavy oil and offshore oil
drilling cumulative impacts of air quality should be addressed and
used as criteria for removing an undesignated area from further con-
sideration.

RESPONSE: This was not done for two reasons:

1. Estimating future cumulative impacts from incompletely defined
oil production activities would be extremely difficult, of
dubious accuracy and beyond the scope of the study.

196
EE-10 CPP ae

2. Many of the.emissions resulting from.increased oil production
would have to be offset to comply with air quality regulations,
thereby neutralizing much of the impact.

San Diego Voice of Ene@rgy,- February 19., 1981

COMMENT: Agriculture also.requir,es. electricity. There should.be an attempt
to balance the water needs.of both agriculture and power plants.

RESPONSE: This study is intended to provide information useful@ in balancing
such regional equities.

COMMENT: We need to pursue conservation efforts while recognizing that new
power plants will be.needed to provide electricity.

RESPONSE: This is a major Energy Commission:policy. as shown in Chapter 4,
Jnstitutional Factors, 1981 Biennial Report.

COMMENT: It is better to provide a m,ix,of all sources,of electricity coal,
nuclear, solar, geothermal and wind, to reduce dependence on unreli-
able imported oil.

RESPONSE: The CEC 1981 Biennial Report is pursuing alternative supply options
such as those characterized. See Chapter 4, Institutional-Factors.

Environmen,tal.Center of San Luis. Obispo - February 19, 1981

COMMENT: Valuable sensitive marine habitats and resources should not be
disturbed. The impact of thermal pollution upon these resource "s
(commercial and otherwide) was not..given sufficient attention in the
study.

RESPONSE: This study is of a. preliminary nature which does not include a
highly detailed engineering analysis.,, As stated, in the Summary
under recommendations,: "The utilities should conduct sit . e-specific
feasibility studies Further, the. pollution analysis is based.'.
on federal standards..

COMMENT: To preserve the unspoiled and scenic nature of our coastline was
expressed as a major concern.

RESPONSE: An underlying,factor.,of..this.study,was@to identify any environmental
constraints.,that, would prevent the achievement and preservation of
sensitive coastal resources (including visual quality).

COMMENT: A concern for the local ambient air quality, particularly in light
of the fact that San Luis-Obispo has,a very low inversion layer and
is quite close, to exceeding, fe.d.eral ozone.standards.@. Inasmuch as.
future development.of potential oil resources.offshore,our coast is
quite possible we are@lconcerned,about the-cumulative impacts, of oil
development and.additional local power plants upon our air quality.

EE-10 CPP ae 197,

RESPONSE: Although an evaluation of cumulative impacts is not within the scope
of the study, CEC staff have determined the availability of emission
offsets to maintain a balance in air pollution for existing and pro-
ponod new gotirceig.

COMMENT: We are concerned about the impact of the construction of a new plant
at the Villa Creek site upon our north coastal communities.

RESPONSE: Villa Creek has been deleted from the final report.

COMMENT: We are concerned that the rural quality of the environment of our
county will be sacrificed for the sake of supplying the electrical
demands of distant urban areas. San Luis Obispo County already
suppli es over seventy percent of the energy locally produced to
other urban centers. We feel that any consideration of this issue
has been sorely lacking in Energy Commission policies an d studies.

RESPONSE: This is 'an important issue to which the,CEC staff 'is sensitive.
This study was limited in its identification of opportunities by the
pre-existing location of CCC and BCDC Undesignated Areas.

Central Coast Regional Commission - February 20, 1981

COMMENT: The Nort@h Central Coast air basin is presently a nonattainment area
for petro-'chemical oxidant. Power plant pollutant emissions at UA 3
would exacerbate existing violation of the federal air quality
standard and possibly exceed other standards presently being com-
plied with.

RESPONSE: Chapter-3 describes necessary criteria for photochemical oxidants in
nonattainment areas. Such areas have been examined based on these
criteria and it has been determined that available trade-off exist J
to offset power plant emissions from those identified under area
profiles.

COMMENT: Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) geologic/seismic siting and
design criteria parameters should be utilized to ascertain opportu-
nities/constraints for non-nuclear power plant locations.

RESPONSE: The NRC criteria derive from the need for a safe shut down during
and after a major earthquake (for example). The basic concern is
reducing the potential for long term environmental contamination and
adverse effects to human health and safety (i.e., radiation
release).

Non-nuclear thermal power plants do not pose these potential prob-
lems to the surrounding environment. The need for performance
during and after an earthquake or other event is related basically
to plant reliability needs (power production), however, certain
plant components -might have a safety basis for design (e.g., no
structural collapse on occupants).

198
EE-10 CPP ae

COMMENT: The majority of UA 3B is within the Fort Ord military reservation
within the City of Marina, utilized for military training, and is in
the flight path of missile launching operations and is adjacent to
military shelling areas.

RESPONSE: These constraints are identified and considered in the. analysis of,
this UA.

COMMENT: The presence of the southern sea otter and its mandated protection
under the Endangerred Species Act (16 USC 1531, et seq.) was the
major factor in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineer's denial of POandEls
request to enlarge its existing Moss Landing marine oil terminal.
Therefore, the statement on page 52 appears erroneous In light of
precedence established by the Corps for protection of the sea otter
from offshore fuel oil transportation system impacts.

RESPONSE: The preliminary nature of the study wa,s to identify obvious environ-'
mental factors associated with developing potential site for power
plant development. The report, in its identification of the
southern sea otter, serves notice that it is a major environmental
concern. However, a more detailed examination of this site and
associated mitigation measures would be required prior to developing
the area for power plant construction.

Inclusion and analysis should result in classification.of UA 3A'and
UA 3B as designated areas where new thermal power plants or trans-,
mission lines would prevent achieving The objectives of the Coastal
Act (PRC Section 3041 3(b)).

The objective of this report is to determine the effects of CCC and
BCDC designations on opportunities to locate electric generation
facilities in undesignated areas. The results of this study do not
indicate that UA 3A and UA 3B should be reclassified as designated
areas. Arguments for such reclassification should be directed to
the CCC.

Del Norte County - Planning Department February 20, 1981

COMMENT: Reference is made to the designation requirements for thermal power
plants of 50 MW or greater. What requirements and/or restrictions
would apply to those@of lesser output?

RESPONSE:, Pursuant to Public Resources Codes, Section 25108, 25120, and 25500,
thermal power plants lesser than 50 MW are not under the purview of
the CEC regulatory responsibility.

COMMENT: An 8 - 10 MW combustion turbine power plant may be proposed at a
site within the coastal zone, but not. within the. UA 1 or UA 2.
What impact, if any,-would the report have on such a project?

RESPONSE: The report would have no effect on this project, however, it is
suggested that you review the report for 'guidance in developing..
methodologies for evaluating environmental impacts of power plan't
development.

199
EE-10 CPP Ae

COMMENT: The Coastal Zone boundary is not depicted correctly on Map 1A.

RESPONSE: This'oversight has been corrected.

COMMENT: Highway, 101 south of the Sitka Spruce Grove (Area 9, Map 1B) and
Bluff Road (also Map B) are designated as view corridors in the
Visual chapter of the Local Coastal Program.

RESPONSE: This reference has been noted in the final report.

COMMENT:. The boundaries for state and federal lands are not clearly defined
on either map.

RE SPONSE: State and federal boundaries were not considered as a part of this
study. The focus of the study is on the CCC and BCDC jurisdiction
and does not directly consider state and federal boundaries.

Elaine Gorman - February 21, 1981

COMMENT: This comment suggested that such nongeneration technologies as con-
servation be'used to reduce energy consumption. Renewable resources
such as solar, wind, agriculture waste and wood should be further
studied and used for energy production. It seems that government
and industries are looking more toward synfuel development, rather
than, looking at solar and wind to produce electricity. The latter
has been used for centuries and are proven to be reliable and safe.

RESPONSE: Chapter 4, Institutional Factors, identifies the policies of the
1981 CEC Biennial Report. These policies reflect your concerns.

Pacific Gas and Electric Company - February 24, 1981

COMMENT: PGandE is not encouraged by the conclusion on future coastal siting
arrived at by this report. One major concern is that all by
thirteen undesignated areas out of 200 have been eliminated based on
highly conservative criteria.

RESPONSE: Opportunities identified in this report are based on standard power
plant site characteristics. The criteria utilized were extensive
and reflect current regulatory limits.

COMMENT: It is stated that this is not a site selection report and that all
certification procedures must be followed. It should also not be a
site elimination report based on data that the report has chosen to
leave unpublished, without public hearing or reviews..

RESPONSE: All information associated with this study is available. for review,
and four public workshops have been conducted, after ample notifi-
cation. By definition, a study which does not select sites, does
not eliminate them either. This study was designed to Identify
.general opportunites and associated environmental impacts, con-
straints and prohibitions.

EE-10 CPP ae 200

COMMENT: A superior site may have been eliminated because of one major prob-
lem for which an engineering cost solution can be found. For
example, the Samoa Spit--UA2, at Eureka was found to be unsuitable
for a coal-fired plant because of the lack of land availability for
waste disposal. At added cost, the wastes could be carried off site
by rail to a suitable disposal area. Also, once through cooling
should not be prejudged as a serious constraint. Limitations
because of significant impacts of once-thorugh cooling may be solved
by carefully engineered off-shore intakes and discharges for the
ocean sites.

RESPONSE: As stated in the recommendations, Chapter 6, the utilities should
conduct site specific feasibility studies. The study, in addition
to, evaluatig designated area impacts on coastal power plant devel-
opment, identified environmental constraints and/or prohibitions.
For example, the rail line on the Samoa Spit washes out during
periods of heavy rain. If PGand E wishes to consider the investment
of captial to improve the rail lines, this environmental constraint
could be mitigated. It must be noted, however, the scope of the
study was no designed to include a detailed economic/engineering
analysis of such factors.

COMMENT: The report concludes that no nuclear facilities can be built on the
coast because of the lack of positive geologic stability, and popu-
lation density criteria. However, as the report states, the results
of the geologic studies are not conclusive. We believe that the
potential for furture nuclear plants continues to exist on the
coast.

RESPONSE: The report does not state "no nuclear facilities can be built on the
coast," rather it states that based on an overview assessment, no
opportunities could be identified for nuclear sites within one hun-
dred and forty one UA's studied. From a geotechnical perspective,
the potential for future nuclear continues to exist, however, the
study did not evaluate such potentials at all possible coastal
locations.

COMMENT: An air quality impact analysis was used to eliminate many of the 187
sites from further consideration. A criterion (Page 22), which
assumes the worst case of very stable air (Pasquill Stability Class
F) is highly conservative. A modeling study conducted for a high
potential site, using actual data collected for this purpose, may
show an entirely different conclusion.

RESPONSE: This may be true, however, if PGandE has site specific meteorolog-
ical data for areas that were eliminated, and has performed worse
case air quality impact analysis with different results than those
of the CEC analysis, the CEC staff would be willing to reevaluate
its results.

COMMENT: We consider the estimated range for the potential siting of 4,500 -
6,000 MW at the thirteen locations to be unrealistic. Although we
believe this range could be easily obrainable, we do not think it is
realistic based on the criteria used in this report. On page 93 it

201

EE-10 CPP ae

i,s'stated that "real" opportunities exist only for medimum sized
combined-cycle facilities fired by low air emission synthetic fuels.
The "practical" definition of 4,500 MW should not take credit for
opportunities which are not real. It is not practical to assume
more than a fifty percent success rate with any group of sites.

RESPONSE: The megawatts in Table 16 are only given to show the range of poten-
tial power plant types and capacities in undesignated areas.

COMMENT: This report should be used by the CCC and the BCDC in biennial
revisions of their designated areas, and hopefully for no other
purpose. On page 3, the report suggests a third objective to reduce
the duplication effort in future studies by the utilities. Unfor-
tunately, as discussed above, because your undisclosed criteria may
be too restrictive and because engineering solutions are available,
we cannot be limited in our inventory of coastal and Bay Area sites
to the thirteen areas reviewed in this report.

RESPONSE: The report serves its purpose in assisting the CCC and BCDC in re-
evaluating their designated areas. It is hopeful that utilities can
build upon the results of the report, increasing the success rate in
developing power plant sites and thus providing savings to utilities
and rate payers. CEC staff invite further coordination with the
utilities on this and similar studies.

Planning Department - San Luis Obispo - February 24, 1981

COMMENT: A question was raised onthe evaluation of the ability of the area
to house and provide public services and facilities for the large
workforce and its accompanying population influx that would result
from developing a site for a power plant.

RESPONSE: Although this area is not within the scope of this study, some.
housing data is captured herein for.additional information.

COMMENT: Cumulative impacts of pertinent issues should also be considered
(i.e., housing constraints, major planned projects and future oil
exploration) .

RESPONSE: The study factors are applied sequentially, and as stated in the
scope of the report, cumulative impacts are not evaluated.

COMMENT: Conclusion Disclaimers. The report provides a number of significant
findings and disclaimers that are not apparent in the report sum-
mary. It would further enhance the report if other conclusions were
included (i.e., PIFUA impacts, power plant -characteristics making
small MW power plants impractical and impacts on ambient air quality
standards).

RESPONSE: PIFUA is identified as an institutional factor and is given in
greater detail in Chapter 4. Impractical assumptions and ambient
air quality standards are not included in the summary due to the
length of there examination. However, these are identified in the
scope of the study and in the chapter analysis.

EE-10 CPP ae 202

COMMENT: The California Energy Commission and the California Coastal Commis-
sion should jointly address the equity issure including the use of
rural areas to meet the electricity demands of urban centers.

RESPONSE: The resolution of this major policy issure is not within the scope of
this study.

COMMENT: Change reference from Table 4 to Table 5 on Page 3.

RESPONSE: So noted.

COMMENT: Under UA 5, Page 35; housing development for constructure of the
Diablo Canyon power plant cannot be used. The reduction in work-
force and resultant vacancies have been absorbed by the population
growth of the region. Therefore, this statement should be
corrected.

RESPONSE: The statement has been clarified to reflect the limited availability
of such housing.

COMMENT: Reference to this site as the Santa Maria River is misleading. It
is suggested that this site be referenced as the Nipomo Mesa Indus-
trial area.

RESPONSE: Opportunities are identified by reference to major geographical fea-
tures where possible.

COMMENT: Villa Creek - the low probability of siting an additional marine
terminal to fuel this plant as the site is within the habitat of the
threatened California Sea Otter.

RESPONSE: Villa Creek has been deleted from the fianl report.

COMMENT: Analysis used for determining pumping cost penalties appears to be
inappropriate. Rather than using findings derived from the sitting
of a large 1,000 MW facility. This analysis should include findings
for the siting of a plant of a size anticipated along the coast, 100
- 400 MW.

RESPONSE: Setback pumping analysis included all types and sizes of power
plants noted in Table 1. Space permits duplication of only limited
portions of this information.

COMMENT: Finding in Table 13A identify site 5A as feasible for power plant
at 2 - 6,000 feet from shore, yet the potential is over 2.5 miles
away (13,000 feet plus). This descrepancy should be corrected in
the final report.

RESPONSE: The final report is changed to reflect the actual setback distance.

COMMENT: The following are issues/concerns that should be denoted:

Air quality impacts on power plant operations,
Limited housing and public services are available,

203
EE-10 CPP ae

o Setback opportunities may not be available,
o Potential costly foundation work at site 5B due to liquefaction.

RESPONSE: Although the text is somewhat decentralized due to coordination of
the variety of siting factors, the major points of this comment have
been addressed.

Cynthia Kesinger February 25, 1981 - San Luis Obispo

COMMENT: Villa Creek and the Santa Maria River deserves further studies.
Santa Maria River provides habitat for the endangered Least Tern and
Villa Creek is an invaluable riparian habitat. In addition, air
quality is a major concern due to the severe inversion factor and
the topography would contribute to worsen our air quality. All pre-
cautions should be made to ensure our air will not be degraded.

RESPONSE: The Villa Creek area has been deleted from the final report due to
air quality constraints. The endangered species are identified
under biological resources. San Luis Obispo has sufficient emission
trade-offs available to offset projected power plant emissions.

COMMENT: Planners seem to ignore the cumulative impacts of mounting energy
projects. Our county is rapidly becoming a haven for energy pro-
jects.

RESPONSE: This study was designed to evaluate opportunities in undesignated
areas. Cumulative impacts are somewhat considered in the air
quality analysis and will require further consideration in any site
specific studies.

Monterey County Planning Department March 3, 1981

COMMENT: UA 3A does not lie entirely west of Highway One as stated on page
51. Rather, it lies both west and east of Highway One and is bi-
sected by the highway. Map 3A shows only the old Highway One (now
Del Monte Avenue) and should be revised; the new highway is located
some distance westward of the old alignment. Secondly, UA 3A is not
Jocated entirely north of the City of Marina as stated on Page 51.
It lies partially within the city limits and partially within the
"Physical Characteristics" should
unincorporated area. The section
be revised.accordingly.

RESPONSE: So noted.

COMMENT: The Board of Supervisors is strongly opposed to the development of
new power plants along the Monterey Coast. This opposition has been
expressed in past resolutions and letters sent to the California.
Coastal Commission. The Energy Commission is strongly urged to
classify UA 3A and 3B as "Designated Areas" for the following
reasons: 1) in recognition of the high scenic, recreational, and
habitat values of this portion of the North Monterey coastline; 2)
in acknowledgement of the county's significant contribution to
statewide power needs through the existing power facilities at Moss

EE-10 CPP ae 204

Landing; and 3) in conformance with the recently adopted local
coastal land use plan for North County.

RESPONSE:
This study was limited in its scope by the pre-existing location of
UA's identified by the CCC. It is not within the scope of the CEC's
legal authority to reclassify Undesignated Areas. This power
resides only with the CCC.

COMMENT:
UA 3A and 3B constitute the scenic gateway to the Monterey Penin-
sula. Highway One parallels the shoreline between Marina and Sea-
side providing excellent views of the ocean and the outstanding sand
dune formations. Although much of the area is now closed to public
access because of Fort Ord, its continuos beaches offer exciting
recreational opportunities for the future. The visual effects of
future power plants would be highly detrimental to the outstanding
aesthetic qualities of Monterey County's coast. In turn, this will
affect public recreational enjoyment of the areas, as well as tour-
ism, a principal County industry.

RESPONSE:
This study does not advocate sites for construction of power plants.
It only identifies general opportunities to assist the CCC and BCDC
with their biennial revision process. Any proposal to develop such
sites must meet the power plant licensing and certification require-
ments of the CEC.

COMMENT:
The information under "Natural Areas", page 52, should also, be re-
vised to reflect the environmentally sensitive habitats adjacent to
UA 3A. The dunes which extend from the Salinas River mouth to the
City of Marina limits are not just "less degraded and of greater
habitat value" as suggested in the draft report. Rather, this dune
area encompasses the most viable natural coastal strand habitat
remianing along Monterey Bay. Its habitat value is indicated by
both the U.S. FIsh and Wilflife Service designation as a "Wildlife
Area" and by the North County Local Coastal Land Use Plan designa-
tion as a "Resource Conservation Area" in which all development is
restricted to protect the habitat values.

RESPONSE:
This information is incorporated in the final report.

COMMENT:
The California Energy Commission should also not that the recent
Corps of Engineers denial of the PGandE permit for expansion of its
power plant at Moss Landing based solely on potential impacts to
the threatened southern sea otter. Opportunities for siting facil-
ities involving offshore fuel transportation systems are thus (not
"may be" as stated in the report) severly limited along the Monterey
Coast.

RESPONSE:
This constriant has been taken into account.

COMMENT:
The draft report's recommendations pertaining to UA 3A (Page 96 and
103 - 104) are in direct conflict with the adopted North County
Local Coastal Land Use PLan and with the draft Moss Landing Com-
munity Plan recently approved by the Planning Commission. Together
these plans prohibit any industry which would contribute to air and

EE-10 CCP ae 205

water pollution and allow only limited onsite expansion of the
existing.PGandE power plant.

RESPONSE: This conflict should be resolved by the CCC in its biennial revision
process and in its LCP Certification process

California Roadside Council

COMMENT: This comment was in regard to further power plant development and
the associated negative effects they have on the beauty of the Cali-
fornia coastline.

RESPONSE: One of the many purposes of this report was to Identify negative
environmental impacts associated with power plant development on
California's sensitive coastal zone. The scope of the study was
limited by the pre-existing locations of UA's as identified by the
CCC and the BCDC.

Los Angeles Department of Water and Power - March 3, 1981

COMMENT: We have reviewed this report and find that the CEC staff was not
able to find any coastal siting opportunities in approximately 290
miles of coastline about the City of Los Angeles. This same stretch
of coastline, however, contains some fifteen generating stations
which use ocean water for cooling purposes. There appear to us two
possible reasons why no additional opportunities for siting power
plants were identified In this coastal area. Either the screening
factors were applied too restrictively or the limited number of un-
designated areas too severly restricted the scope of the study.

-RESPONSE: CEC staff have previously reported on "Opportunities to Expand
Existing Coastal Power Plants in California". This report identi-
fies numerous opportunities to expand existing power plants within
the area noted. However, expansion opportunities do not have thr
same characteristics as opportunities for new power plants. The
latter opportunities in the Los Angeles area have been constrained
by the intensive urban development which has occurred since many of
the fifteen power plants noted in your comment were constructed.

Further, the scope of this study was initially limited by the pre-
existing location and characteristics of UA's identified by the CCC.
Virtually all of these UA's incorporate difficult terrain and/or
complete urban development. CEC staff will be pleased to consider
any opportunities for new power plants identified by LADWP staff in.
any of the UA's.

COMMENT: We believe your staff's use of the five levels of opportunity
criteria and the availability determinations based upon the "Null
Hypothesis" principle should have allowed this study to develop a
larger number of possible opportunity areas for power plant siting
in the California coastal zone. It was stated at the.workshops that
only 25 percent to 30 percent of the California coastal zone was
examined by this study, as this was the amount of the coastline left
undesignated as a result of the California Coastal Commission (CCC)

EE-10 CPP ae
206

designation process. We believe that using the results of the
designation process may have too severly restricted the scope of the
investigation; hence, we believe the scope of "Opportunities for New
Coastal Power Plants in California" needs to be expanded to consider
the designated areas.

RESPONSE:
The scope of this study was dictated by the requirements of the CCC
and the BCDC.

COMMENTS:
Page 97 which addresses the Santa Maria River area. The first para-
graph of this section states that the undesignated area 5A is
"entirely" seperated from ocean access by a full designation." The
second paragraph states that the undeisgnated area 5B is "set back
one to two miles, with ocean access precluded by a desigated area."
The third paragraph states that "cooling water (oean) supplies are
available... Available land exists for all plant sizes and all
cooling processes." It appears to us that a contradiction exists.
A full designation precludes access for even ancillary facilities.
It appears that no ocean cooling siting areas by the above state-
ments, and hence, we believe that this area of this report should be
clarified.

RESPONSE:
This contradiction is clarified in the final report by noting the
necessity for partially-designated areas to provide access to ocean
water at such locations.

Souther California Edison (SCE) - April 3, 1981

COMMENT:
SCE disagrees with the report finding that the msot severe con-
straint to opportunities at the 13 undesignated areas is the impact
of plant cooling water systems on marine biological resources. Six
of SCE's power plants are located on the coast, and during the
past 11 years, SCE has spend in excess of $38 million to evaluate
the effects of these power plants on offshore marine biological
resources. Our results have shown that these effects are not
significant.

RESPONSE:
True, reports on thermal dischares at existing coatal power plants
have not shown significant impacts to marine biological resources.
However, our investigation of the undesignated areas identified in
this study found that there are many species that are potentially
sensitive to thermal discharges of various power plant types. Since
the scope of the study is a preliminary evaluation of potential
areas suitable for power plant development, the recommendations of
Chapter 6 state that utilities should do further site-specific
evaluations to determine appropriate mitigation measures necessary
to protect such sensitive marine biological resources.

COMMENT:
None of the 13 areas meeting the evaluation criteria are in SCE's
coastal siting teritory. We believe that there are areas within
our siting teritory which are suitable for power plant development
that have been labeled as designated areas by the CCC.

EE-10 CPP ae 207

coastal sites should be made available due to economics of construc-
tion and operation and the difficulties of acquiring inland fresh
waters.

RESPONSE: The staff agrees that there may be designated areas in you service
area that could possible support power plant development. It is
not, however, within the scope of the report to address designated
areas suitable for power plant development, nor is it within CEC
regulatory authority to determine which areas of the coast are to be
classified as designated, partially designated, or undesignated.
This report, in addition to the previously issued Expansion-Report,
shows that there is potential to develop existing power plant sites
and that there are undesignated areas on the coast suitable for
power plant development.

EE-10 CPP ae
208

APPENDIX J :POWER PLANT SITE MAPS

CC DESIGNATED AREA FACTORS

Staff-Recommended Designations of Areas
Unsuitable for Power Plant Construction Under
Section 30413(b) of the California Coastal Act of 1976

Adopted September 5, 1978

Designation Boundary

Coastal Zone Boundary

"Partial" Designation

1 - Publicly Owned Parks

2 - Other Recreation Areas

3 - Wetlands and Estuaries

4 - Marine Life Refuges and Reserves, Ecological Reserves, Areas of Special Biological Significance

5 - Marine Resources (kelp beds, rocky interidal and subtidal areas, mouths of anadromous fish streams)

6 - Marine Mammal and Seabrid Breeding and Resting Areas

7 - Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas

10 - Wildlife Habitat, Cultivated Agricultural Land

11 - View Protection

12 - Inadequate Public Services

13 - Riparian Vegetation

a - After any number indicates an areas proposed for acquisition by a State Agency

209

CEC Natural Resource Pattern Key

Species Habitat of Special Concern

Areas of Critical Concern
....................
..........

Commercial and Recreational Resources

::7-
Protected Species Habitat

CCC Designated Areas

210.

O@Z

L) 'ine Grove
sch

ol
Trailer
rat
4

0 37

L VD f -.mm
.I I Water
Tank

r
e 0
e' NV
kh h
Tra,ler
ParN
M4401
WILSON ALc
r
20!

'cou
\\cv- .4
Hos

IQ' --elf
L
LJ Liw@
V

7li
A
c

t E*
4f
43
&h 49

da
@WMAP 1A

7
4 111@tl 1 4 CRESCENT CITY
SC ALE 1:2 PW 4
0. m Mennoti
0. 410

.........
U
n D

5 TRE
.... .......... .

. ..... . ........

-WhaWr Island
0
groy 3

Q)
%*
0
..... ......
62

%
28
X. X

Y.
36 %

5
IV"

X.
00 Musiel Rock

.,52

.... .......
31

6@0

212
55

SCALE 1:24,000 MAP
ENT CITY
212

OA
AM

m o a':,*-."-

W e,

M,.'1 7 ;:.7,

:jq.

X Al I P.-
00
Sewage
D
socisal

11, WY
29
7,
A.
iinhaven

A'. lrl@ Q:
A'

SCAL :24,000@
4j'
X. W",
KA CITY

MIRPORT

Em
LUI
TE

MON't M ENT
j_-_j
Fjfh.Schoc
--JL
Flag
ji
ells
Al
-iew

-S T GU ARD
:D* A z AlIll

10
A TI 01
MIAP 2
I N
SAMOA SPIT

(Ce-e

'7@ .

eponset

Wng
Lapis
4#1 Siding
56
4

*,ANDS

OF MONI ER

:4 0 Av

'SALIN
A@

P
M
n
.a.i

214
60
R
MAP 3A
SCALE 1:24,000
SALINAS RIV.

60
p-

Indian H ........ L
q41d

i. S
AF

Siz

1@80184M. -..!I

Mmm
U814
4M

1 4
.,,,I sell
1:1181 a
,.so# is

Gigling.
Sidin

Wrorkfkld

!Ilk

Art Itery
MAP 3B
SCALE 1:24000 2 15
SALINAS RIVER

v -."404WAr
4

Ol
2-

5()

c >

/58

Ol/ 00,
001, 0

oor,

0.00

,00,

10'

oo,

0,0

00".

pp
IA42 16 V, A K11,
SCALE 1:24,000 SANTA MARIA RIV R..

Ile,

'- g()-Bjs
A

6c
MAP 48
217 SANTA MARIA RIVER
SCALE 1:24,000
em

ly
!Ziv W

w4v
Q. o It

fellow
ao
j-

oor

* lk
0" *1
ZL -IN 44
Wei

4
310 , 44
4F
49 -

5
SCALE 1:24P 00 TIJUANA RIVER
_JR6

r ooo

i N4

VO C 'C

Oki

INC

41;

@j
Ic
vj

ILFUl
2 1 9@
MAP 6;

Af I

li"A
% flaj

Pt San Pr

14r
4

V;1

'IN

.. ..... . ::J
V11 . .....

t marin Isiond

1:24,000.1
San
Quentit
@jk
4@21' je
'fill
. . ..... ... . ...

Que-otin
hi, I
I s 0!
'Tfl SAN PEORD
220

-Ay
A

w@o -Ir, pvW

lp
Cj

U d N:
F-@ 4'"
S2
40'
lQw Y,
lie
(fq.@,

'aim

AJlJJ

AP7:

il I 7,v,@ I v

1w,
,fr

Vk P1,
i; 14 54 i

low,

iv
tin

."R
4,
4 'n,
@0,@) oa

INAC
y
te' ;q;r
13

U H

IN
m"-q-
rA
3k

7 7.11

it
tb-W. _,@t F !t@,

A':! . ..... .
A ,I 'k
t w,

kl 1 to.
or,
I
"M
n
IN
000,
ut
Qw
'Al

'IV v
rf)

X'I I

IPW
WII:
e

Sti-
Dy'

A CITY
Elm xf
I
. . .......... .-

vvt, 11

Af
IEa@,l A@@,a@

""jZ'
it
, Nv

"z. "5,

IV
V@
NX
222
SCALE 1:24,000,
41
MAP 9"! NORTH SAN, Ost
0)
12

3 6668 00000 6603