:staff report/prepared by California Energy Commission. California Energy Commission. California Coastal Commission. San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission. Sacramento:The Commission,1981. Electric power-plants California Location. Power-plants California Location. Electric power-plants California Planning. Power-plants California Planning. 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 9 3 gem KNU < WA uu Cow" SW NKSWAOM 4 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 9 iv 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). v 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. vi 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 ix 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.' 2 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 3 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 4 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. 7 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. 8 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 9 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. 10 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 11 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. 12 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 13 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. 14 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 15 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%. 16 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.. Three@hour.average 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. 23 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 24 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 25 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. 26 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. 29 EE-6 CPP ae cl 11 QUATERNARY FAULT RESTRICTION ZONES URCE: CAWORNIA GIVISION Of MINES ANO GEOLOGY 1977 r i> CALIFORNIA ENERCY COMMISSION MAP PRODUCED By DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES. U.C. DAVIS FIGURE 3 30 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. 32 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. 34 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 35 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. 36 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. 37 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. 38 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. 39 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 45 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 48 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). 49 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. 50 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 52 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), 54 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 55 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 56 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 57 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. 62 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. 65 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 69 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 71 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 73 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. 75 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. 79 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 CA W > 00 CA 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. 83 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. 84 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 87 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 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 88 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,&tudy@provides.a 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., 89 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. 97 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 0 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 0 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 Alternatives@.Draft 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/SCF@2.5 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/scf@2.5 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/hr@l.l 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. Once-throu@h.Saltwater 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- 8 _@4' T 4 2@ _@7 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 4 200 120 L A ___4 _4 @150 -4 CD 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- 4 7-7 --- - - - ---- 12 6 4 -4 4@ -L-:- -A-4- J__ L L F 4@, 17- 8 4 77 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! r 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 4- 7 7 250 150 n led u4t'lt4- --$,-,-x P1 n-..t e ftanj A_ I f 200 4 120 L 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 T 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) 6 5 100 i 44-4 -r4 7, + 4 80 97- -t-7 4-- 0 3 6 00- L L L-@- 4 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-,- t 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 F. 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 + 7 -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 7 77-7 -4 200 -441 rri -4- 160 cri u n La rq,F-I We G 41, 1'@; 7! CD LLL 4 @7' C) 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, C 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 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 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. 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 oo TL 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 0 L) 'ine Grove sch ol Trailer rat 4 it 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 A 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 "M ......... U n D 5 TRE .... .......... . . ..... . ........ K -WhaWr Island 0 groy 3 x Q) %* 0 ..... ...... 62 % 28 X. X Y. 36 % % 5 IV" X. 00 Musiel Rock .,52 Op .... ....... 31 6@0 212 55 0 0 SCALE 1:24,000 MAP ENT CITY 212 OA AM m o a':,*-."- W e, M,.'1 7 ;:.7, :jq. ul c X Al I P.- 00 Sewage D socisal 11, WY 29 7, A. iinhaven z- 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 N SAMOA SPIT (Ce-e '7@ . eponset Wng Lapis 4#1 Siding 56 4 *,ANDS OF MONI ER 61 :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 M! Mmm U814 4M 1 4 .,,,I sell 1:1181 a ,.so# is Gigling. Sidin Wrorkfkld sm !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.. 47 Ile, OV '- g()-Bjs A oe 6c MAP 48 217 SANTA MARIA RIVER SCALE 1:24,000 em ly !Ziv W 0 Y 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 00 oo r ooo i N4 VO C 'C Oki d INC IN 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 d g 51 10 1:24,000.1 San Quentit @jk 4@21' je 'fill . . ..... ... . ... Que-otin hi, I I s 0! 'Tfl SAN PEORD 220 -Ay A @M w@o -Ir, pvW lp Cj U d N: F-@ 4'" S2 40' lQw Y, lie (fq.@, 'aim NL AJlJJ S p AP7: Z. il I 7,v,@ I v 1w, ,fr Vk P1, i; 14 54 i low, iv tin X ."R 4, 4 'n, @0,@) oa INAC y te' ;q;r 13 U H IN m"-q- rA 3k it a 7 7.11 it tb-W. _,@t F !t@, A':! . ..... . A ,I 'k t w, tz M kl 1 to. or, "M n IN 000, ut Qw 'Al 'IV v rf) X'I I IPW WII: e Sti- Dy' A CITY Elm xf . . .......... .- vvt, 11 Af IEa@,l A@@,a@ j ""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