[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 114 (Tuesday, June 15, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32041-32042]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-15126]
[[Page 32041]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Western Area Power Administration
Record of Decision for the Interconnection of the Sutter Power
Project With the Western Area Power Administration's Keswick-Elverta/
Olinda-Elverta 230-Kilovolt Double-Circuit Transmission Line
AGENCY: Western Area Power Administration, DOE.
ACTION: Record of decision.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Western Area Power Administration (Western) prepared this
Record of Decision in response to a request submitted to Western for a
direct interconnection of Calpine Corporation's (Calpine) proposed
Sutter Power Project (SPP) with Western's electric transmission system.
In response to this request, Western completed an Interconnection
Feasibility Study that determined that Western would need to build
certain direct interconnection facilities, and make modifications of
associated facilities and operational adjustments to its transmission
system to accommodate the SPP generation. Western has decided to move
forward on an Interconnection Agreement with Calpine for the SPP
including agreements for making the necessary modifications to
Western's transmission system. Western has determined that no
significant environmental impacts will result from the construction,
operation, and maintenance of the SPP or its ancillary facilities.
These facilities include a natural gas pipeline, a new switching
station, and approximately 4 miles of new 230-kilovolt (kV)
transmission line. This transmission line will act as a generation tie
line. Western prepared this Record of Decision in accordance with the
Council Envrionmental Quality regulations for implementing the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), and
Department of Energy Procedures for Implementing NEPA (10 CFR part
1021).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Loreen McMahon, Environmental
Project Manager, Sierra Nevada Customer Service Region, Western Area
Power Administration, 114 Parkshore Drive, Folsom, CA 95630-4710,
telephone (916) 353-4460, email: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Western is the lead federal agency under
NEPA for the SPP. The California Energy Commission (CEC), a regulatory
agency of the State of California, has the statutory authority to
license thermal powerplants of 50 megawatts (MW) or more and is the
State lead agency for the SPP. CEC prepares environmental documentation
equivalent to the California Environmental Quality Act. Western and CEC
determined that joining the two processes would provide many benefits
to the public. The CEC and Western released a joint Draft Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS)/Final Staff Assessment (FSA) in October 1998,
and subsequently held joint hearings on that document in November and
December 1998. Following the release of Western's Draft EIS, Western
determined that the next document in the CEC process, the Presiding
Member's Proposed Decision (PMPD), would be an inappropriate vehicle
for Western to present responses to comments on the Draft EIS. Western
was concerned that this may appear that Western had predetermined the
outcome of the review process. Therefore, Western prepared its own
Final EIS, with input from the CEC.
Western released the Final EIS in April 1999 (DOE/EIS-0294).
Western identified Calpine's proposal as the preferred alternative.
Calpine proposes to construct the SPP in Sutter County, California, on
a portion of a 77-acre parcel of land owned by Calpine. The SPP project
would consist of a nominal 500 MW net electrical output natural gas-
fired, combined cycle generating facility. The powerplant and Western's
Keswick-Elverta and Olinda-Elverta double-circuit 230-kV transmission
lines would be interconnected by a generation tie line consisting of
approximately 4 miles of 230-kV transmission line and a 230-kV
switching station at some point south and west of the plant. This
generation tie line would be constructed as a double circuit
transmission line, but initially operated as a single circuit. A new
12-mile natural gas pipeline would be constructed to provide fuel for
the project. SPP would be a ``merchant plant'', selling power on a
short-term and midterm basis to customers, and on the spot market.
Calpine will assume all economic costs. Power produced by this plant
would be sold at the market price and made available to all market
participants.
Description of Alternatives
During the environmental analysis, the CEC siting process developed
11 siting alternatives to the proposed location. Seven locations were
dismissed as infeasible alternatives using selective factors included
zoning issues, economic factors (whether it appeared feasible that
Calpine could acquire the alternative site), and other environmental
factors. The four remaining alternate sites were compared to the
unmitigated impacts of the proposed SPP location. The potential impacts
to each sensitive issue (water, air, natural resources, cultural
resources, visual, noise, etc.) were analyzed and discussed in some
detail in the Draft EIS/FSA.
System alternatives were also proposed and developed as mitigative
measures to the original proposal. The greatest potential for
significant impacts in the original proposal was to water resources and
associated biological impacts to aquatic dependent species. The project
was originally planned to draw an average of 3,000 gallons of water per
hour, cycle it 2.5 times through the plant for cooling and steam
generation, then discharge the effluent into the surface drainage
system currently used for agricultural irrigation runoff which drains
into the Sutter Bypass. This discharge had the potential to have an
adverse biological effect to species that use the Sutter National
Wildlife Refuge. In response, Calpine agreed to design the plant with a
100 percent dry cooling system. This alternative would reduce water
usage by 95 percent and discharge no water to the surface drainage
system. This would alleviate the impacts of the plant on aquatic
resources and on sensitive species.
A second system alternative was proposed to mitigate air pollution
associated with the plant. Under the original alternative, the SPP
would have an increased impact on ozone precursors including nitrous
oxide (NOX) and airborne particulate matter
(PM10). Sutter County is currently in a non-attainment area
for PM10. Calpine proposed a series of mitigative measures
to satisfy the concerns of the CEC, the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), the California Air Resources Board, and the Feather River
Air Quality Management District. These included measures such as the
dry cooling design that reduces the production of PM10 by
plant operations to near zero. Calpine also has agreed to adhere to
stringent EPA control technology recommendations for ozone precursors
(including NOX), and has developed a strategy to utilize
emission offsets (Emission Reduction Credits) to fully mitigate the
remaining releases of pollutants.
The Draft EIS/FSA identified one issue as having a significant
adverse impact that could not be mitigated. Based upon the analysis of
the CEC staff, it was believed that the plant site and the transmission
lines would have an adverse impact on the visual
[[Page 32042]]
resources of the project area. The analysis concluded the impact to a
very few individuals at one particular location were great enough to
raise the level of the visual impacts to significant. However, the CEC
concluded in its PMPD that the Draft EIS/FSA analysis did not take into
account the larger viewshed of the area and determined that the visual
impacts were, therefore, not significant. Western agrees with this
conclusion.
A final issue concerned the impacts to existing wetlands at the
proposed site location. Region IX of the EPA expressed concerns over
the wetland impacts of the project proposal. These wetlands are within
the original 77-acre parcel owned by Calpine. This parcel had been a
seasonally flooded rice field when the existing Greenleaf I plant was
constructed in 1985, but the portion of the parcel not built upon had
been left fallow. The SPP will fill 5.83 acres of these former rice
fields. The EPA pointed out that there was an alternative presented in
the Draft EIS/FSA that would avoid impacts to all wetlands. However,
that alternative was considered infeasible because Sutter County would
not likely permit a conversion of currently cultivated agricultural
land to industrial use, the landowners stated their strong opposition
to selling to Calpine for any reason, and this location had the
likelihood of impacting the nearby Sutter National Wildlife Refuge.
Western has determined that the proposed action, with the system
alternatives discussed above, is the environmentally preferable
alternative. This alternative, with the mitigative measures outlined
below, will not have a significant effect on any portion of the human
environment.
Mitigation Measures
Western and the CEC have detailed 165 different Conditions of
Certification, or mitigative measures, to reduce the impacts of the
SPP. Not all of these conditions are included to reduce significant
environmental impacts, some are merely intended to apply to the SPP as
standard operating procedures. These conditions of certification are
part of the standard certification process of the CEC. However, the
following presents an overview of the mitigative measures that Calpine
will adopt to reduce the environmental impacts of the SPP.
In terms of impacts to air resources, 44 separate conditions will
apply to the construction and operation of the SPP. The plant itself
will use the air-cooling alternative. Calpine must take a number of
measures to reduce or avoid fugitive dust emissions during the
construction phase of the project, such as paving roads, wetting open
excavations, washing vehicles, and others. Calpine must obtain Emission
Reduction Credits greater than 100 percent of the plant's emissions for
all criteria pollutants. Other control technologies will reduce
emissions to the lowest levels according to the best available control
technology. Any potential for air emissions beyond the agreed upon
levels, such as shutting down control equipment, or breaking or
repairing this equipment, requires notification to the local air
quality control district. Calpine must mitigate land use issues by
construction and operation controls, such as using earth berms,
vegetation screening, and lighting controls to reduce the impacts on
the surrounding residents. Calpine must place the transmission lines to
reduce to the greatest degree impacts to local farming practices.
Calpine must also provide a new aircraft landing strip for use by the
local farmers.
Calpine has agreed to carry out certain measures to lessen the
impacts to the socioeconomic resources. These include payments to the
local fire protection district for new equipment and training for
firefighters.
The analysis in the Final EIS concluded that there was not a
significant visual impact imposed by the project provided that certain
measures were taken to lessen some of the impacts. Calpine must paint
the existing plant, the new plant, and any other structures such as
tanks, stacks, and fences with non-reflective colors so that they blend
into the surroundings better. They must hood or direct exterior
lighting onto surfaces to minimize light pollution, including fixes to
the existing plant. They must landscape property to screen most of the
plants from outside viewers. Finally, to the extent possible, they must
not place transmission line structures directly in front of residences
or in direct line-of-sight from a residence to the Sutter Buttes.
Though the impacts to biological resources are expected to be
minimal, Calpine must provide a biological monitor on site during all
construction phases, and provide environmental awareness training for
all employees. Certain restrictions must be observed, such as timing
and monitoring of activities to minimize impacts to the giant garter
snake, Swainson's hawk, and migratory birds. Finally, Calpine must
provide funding to Wildlands, Incorporated, to acquire and manage lands
to compensate for loss of habitat.
Using the dry-cooling alternative will minimize overall impacts to
water resources, and the plant must not discharge any wastewater into
streams or surface water. The plant will provide sufficient on site
stormwater retention to control a 10-year, 24-hour storm event so that
the plant does not contribute to drainage problems. Calpine must
mitigate impacted wetlands by purchasing land through Wildlands,
Incorporated, at a ratio of one acre of compensatory wetlands for every
acre disturbed.
Qualified professionals must monitor all construction-related
activities in all areas determined to be sensitive for cultural and
paleontological resources.
Specific mitigative measures have been proposed for the actions
needed to accommodate the interconnection with Western's transmission
system. The Mitigation Action Plan, prepared under 10 CFR 1021.331 and
adopted as part of this Record of Decision, details the specific
mitigation needed for the interconnection. These include the conditions
placed upon the siting of the transmission line, which are discussed
above. Also adopted as part of the environmentally preferred
alternative, is the transmission line route with the switching station
at the end of O'Banion Road.
All practicable means have been taken to avoid or minimize the
environmental harm of the environmentally preferred alternative. No
significant environmental impacts will result from the construction,
operation, and maintenance of the SPP or its ancillary facilities.
Dated: May 25, 1999.
Michael S. Hacskaylo,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 99-15126 Filed 6-14-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P