[Workshop Notice Letterhead]

Visual Resources Workshop
Gateway Power Plant Unit 8
(00-AFC-1)


Purpose: On December 21, 2000, Energy Commission staff issued data requests to Southern Energy Delta, LLC regarding the Application for Certification of the Gateway Power Plant Unit 8 (see attached). Several of these questions address concerns raised by members of the Sportsmen Yacht Club regarding the mitigation of visual impacts. The purpose of this workshop is to gather further information about visual impacts and how they may be mitigated. The data requests and the Preliminary Staff Assessment are available at the web site listed below.
Purpose: The workshop will begin with a presentation from the Applicant of any new alternatives for visual impact mitigation, after which we will conduct a site walk of the Sportsmen Yacht Club property to discuss how these measures will address the concerns of the members.
When: Thursday, January 18, 2001
Time: 3:00 p.m. - 5:00 p.m.
Location: Sportsmen Yacht Club
3301 Wilbur Avenue
Antioch, California
Project Summary: Southern Energy Delta, LLC proposes to develop the Gateway Power Plant Unit 8, a 530-megawatt, natural gas-fired, combined cycle power plant. The proposed site is at the existing Gateway Power Plant, formerly owned by Pacific Gas and Electric Co., which is located one mile northeast of the City of Antioch on Wilbur Avenue, near State Route (SR) 4, SR 160 and the Antioch Bridge.
Public Participation: For information on how to participate in the review of the proposed project, please contact Roberta Mendonca, the Energy Commission's Public Adviser, at (916) 654-4489, or toll free in California at (800) 822-6228, or by e-mail at PAO@energy.state.ca.us. If you require special accommodations, contact Robert Sifuentes, Equal Employment Officer, at (916) 654-5004, at least five days prior to the workshop.
Questions: General information on the proposed power plant is available on the Energy Commission's website at http://www.energy.ca.gov/sitingcases/contracosta. Inquiries about the project schedule or analysis should be directed to Cheri Davis, Energy Commission Project Manager, at (916) 657-4394, or by e-mail at cdavis@energy.state.ca.us. News media inquiries should be directed to Claudia Chandler, Assistant Director, at (916) 654-4989, or by e-mail at cchandle@energy.state.ca.us.




DATE ON LINE: January 17, 2001




WILLIAM J. KEESE
Chairman and Presiding Member



Mailed to lists: 755, 765, and 767




December 21, 2000

Mr. Mark Harrer
Southern Energy California
50 California Street
Suite 3220
San Francisco, California 94111

Dear Mr. Harrer:

RE: Gateway POWER PLANT UNIT 8 THIRD SET OF DATA REQUESTS

Pursuant to Title 20, California Code of Regulations, section 1716, the California Energy Commission requests the information specified in the enclosed data requests. The information requested is necessary to: 1) more fully understand the project, 2) assess whether the facility will be constructed and operated in compliance with applicable regulations, 3) assess whether the project will result in significant environmental impacts, 4) assess whether the facilities will be constructed and operated in a safe, efficient and reliable manner, and 5) assess potential mitigation measures.

This third set of data requests (#168-182) is being made in the areas of noise, visual resources, soil and water, and public health. Written responses to the enclosed data requests are due to the Energy Commission staff on or before January 20, 2001, or at such later date as may be mutually agreed.

If you are unable to provide the information requested, need additional time, or object to providing the requested information, please send a written notice to both Chairman William Keese, Presiding Member of the Committee for the Contra Costa Unit 8 proceeding, and to me, within 15 days of receipt of this notice. The notification must contain the reasons for not providing the information, the need for additional time and the grounds for any objections (see Title 20, California Code of Regulations section 1716 (e)).

If you have any questions regarding the enclosed data requests, please call me at (916) 657-4394.

Sincerely,

Cheri L. Davis Energy Facility Siting Project Manager

Enclosure

cc: Proof of Service




Gateway POWER PLANT UNIT 8 PROJECT
DATA REQUESTS
(00-AFC-1)

TECHNICAL AREA: Noise
AUTHOR: Tom Murphy

BACKGROUND

The Sportsmen Inc. Yacht Club is concerned that the pile driving operations will affect the structural integrity of the Sausalito Ferry, located east of the proposed Unit 8 site. In response, staff is conducting a vibration assessment associated with the construction, specifically the pile driving operations, of the proposed Gateway Power Plant Unit 8 Project.

DATA REQUEST

  1. Please provide information about the planned pile locations in relation to the Sausalito Ferry clubhouse. Please indicate the approximate pile locations on a map showing the site and neighboring property, and call out the distance between the closest pile location and the Sausalito Ferry.

  2. What is the proposed pile driving technique (e.g., vibratory, impact, other)?

  3. What are the potential effects of pile driving activities on the structural integrity of the Sausalito Ferry?

TECHNICAL AREA: Visual Resources
AUTHOR: William Kanemoto and Gary Walker

BACKGROUND

At the recent PSA workshop, staff became aware of the substantial number and high visual sensitivity of neighboring yacht club members. In order to mitigate potentially significant impacts on viewers at neighboring boating facilities to less than significant levels, Condition of Certification VIS-4 requires installation of landscape screening sufficient to substantially screen views of the proposed power plant. However, owners and users of these neighboring facilities have expressed opposition to off-site landscape screening measures. Prior to certification of the proposed project, it will be necessary to develop a landscape screening plan that meets the performance standards described in Condition of Certification VIS-4, and is acceptable to all parties. In order to achieve this objective, staff needs to obtain further information pertaining to the site and a specific proposal from the applicant for an on-site landscape screening plan.

DATA REQUEST

  1. Please provide a detailed and accurately scaled plan and written description of specific site opportunities and constraints that could affect an on-site landscape screening plan along the eastern boundary of the power plant site, extending to the San Joaquin River. Needed information includes, but is not limited to: property lines, existing utilities and underground pipelines, utility rights-of-way, easements, proposed grading concepts, existing vegetation and berms, all proposed site features including fencing and roads, and site soil conditions along the eastern and northern property lines.

  2. Please provide a conceptual on-site landscape plan meeting the visual screening performance standards called for in Condition of Certification VIS-4.

  3. Please provide a discussion of the feasibility of alternatives to raising the elevation of the proposed power plant site to the extent proposed, including the alternative of using berms or other structures to ensure flood protection.

  4. Please provide a discussion of the feasibility of constructing a berm along the east side of the property to provide partial visual screening.

  5. Please provide a summary of available information on water table depth and salinity at the project site as these might affect selection of plants for the landscape screening along the eastern and northern property lines.

  6. From a new KOP at the Sportsmen's Yacht Club Ferry/Clubhouse, to be selected with Energy Commission staff and Yacht Club representatives, please provide five sets of the following in 11" x 17" high-resolution color format at true-life scale:

  1. A photograph of the existing view toward the proposed project site;

  2. A visual simulation of the proposed project without mitigation;

  3. A visual simulation of the proposed project with proposed on-site landscape screening five years after installation; and

  4. A visual simulation of the proposed project with proposed on-site landscape screening at maturity.

BACKGROUND

Staff received written comments from the City of Antioch and comments from the public at the recent PSA workshop, regarding the desirability of siting the Unit 8 power plant on other portions of the CCPP site, and of removing off-line portions of the power plant, including Units 1 through 5, the tank farm, and other appurtenant equipment. Due to the possibility of significant impacts in Noise and Visual Resources, staff would like more information on the feasibility of this alternative.

DATA REQUEST

  1. Please discuss in detail the opportunities and constraints for placing the Unit 8 power plant on other portions of the CCPP site. Please include a discussion of the potential for removal of existing off-line facilities and the siting of the proposed plant in the location of those decommissioned facilities. In selecting other areas of the site to be evaluated, please focus on areas that would reduce visual and other impacts to nearby recreational users and residents in the marina and yacht club areas.

TECHNICAL AREA: Soils and Water Resources
AUTHOR: Joe Crea

BACKGROUND

As part of the Staff Assessment, detailed information is needed regarding revegetation limitations due to existing chemical/physical soil characteristics.

DATA REQUEST

  1. Please provide a detailed drawing that depicts the type of groundcover proposed throughout the Unit 8 site (asphalt/gravel vs. revegetation). Because of the excessive drainage related to the Delhi Sand and the salinity and acidity associated with the Joice Muck, specific vegetation types and soil amendments need to be provided within the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan.

TECHNICAL AREA: Public Health
AUTHOR: Mike Ringer

BACKGROUND

Members of the Sportmen Yacht Club have, in the Energy Commission's workshops, complained about a sooty substance that lands on their boats. The Yacht Club members assert that this substance is coming from the existing Contra Costa Power Plant, and fear that the problem will be exacerbated by the construction of Unit 8. According to the complaints, this substance can damage the surface of boats, and many are concerned about potential health impacts.

Although Southern did not offer any information about this substance, we found reference to it in PG&E's divestiture Environmental Impact Report (Pacific Gas and Electric Company's Application for Authorization to Sell Certain Generating Assets: Application No. 98-01-008). In this EIR, PG&E identifies this substance as "Fallout Type Particulate," or FTP large sized particles of dirt or soot formed during the combustion of sulfur-containing fuels. These particles quickly fall from the air by virtue of their large size and weight and are deposited on horizontal surfaces. PG&E states that these particles "are more of a nuisance than a health hazard."

Mitigation Measure 4.5-4 from the EIR stated that PG&E would provide the buyers of the Gateway Power Plant with a summary of the history of FTP emissions and claims involving the plant, and information regarding PG&E's procedures for inspecting and cleaning the boilers and stacks to minimize FTP. The mitigation measure further provided that the buyers of the Gateway Power Plant should "develop procedures for minimizing FTP emissions in future operations, and institute a program for processing FTP claims that includes, at a minimum, a point of contact for claimants and procedures for expeditiously verifying and processing claims."

DATA REQUEST

  1. Please provide a summary of information that Southern received from PG&E regarding FTP. Included in Southern's response should be any information regarding testing of the substance, health effects of FTP, and the amount of FTP emissions currently emitted from the Gateway Power Plant.

  2. Please provide a description of the measures undertaken by Southern to minimize FTP emissions and the program instituted by Southern for processing FTP claims, both of which were required by the PG&E EIR.

  3. How are FTP emissions from the Gateway Power Plant expected to change with the addition of Unit 8?

  4. If Unit 8 may result in increased FTP emissions, how does Southern propose to modify the existing FTP program?




| Back to Main Page | Homepage | Calendar | Directory/Index | Search |