Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCalifornia Energy Commission (CEC) Application Process for R i Z7 Wt1&0j1Dmyv q7,7 Council/Agency Meeting Held: 18—cc) Deferred/Continued to: Ag;;d S El D Conditionally Approved L3 Denied NS t4 be-city C,3)1 lerkrs Signature Council Council Meeting Date: December 18, 2000 Department ID Number: AS 00-048 S*t Jjrj% f*tl Ir Vj f-P 7, CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH REQUEST FOR ACTION SUBMITTED TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS SUBMITTED BY: RAY SILVER, City Administrator~ PREPARED BY: WILLIAM P. WORKMAN, Assistant City Administrator # SUBJECT: AUTHORIZE STAFF TO CONTINUE TO PURSUE PARTICIPATION DURING ALL PHASES OF THE CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION (CEC) APPLICATION PROCESS FOR THE RETOOLING AND RE-CERTIFICATION OF AES UNITS 3 AND 4 FOR OPERATION. Statement of Issue,Funding Source,Recommended Action,Alternative Action(s),Analysis,Environmental Status,Attachment(s) Statement of Issue: Should Council authorize City staff to aggressively pursue all avenues of participation during every phase of the review and certification process by the California Energy Commission (CEC) for the application submitted by AES Huntington Beach, LLC. for the Retooling and Re-Certification for operation of Units 3 and 4? Funding Source: Not Applicable. Recommended Action: 1. Authorize City staff, under the direction of the Assistant City Administrator, to aggressively pursue all avenues of participation during every phase of the review and certification process by the CEC for the application submitted from AES Huntington Beach, LLC. for the Retooling and Re-Certification of Units 3 and 4. Alternative Action(s): 1) Authorize City staff, under the direction of the Assistant City Administrator, to pursue only specific avenues of participation, of the review and certication process by the CEC for the application submitted from AES Huntington Beach, LLC. for the Retooling and Re- Certification of Units 3 and 4. 2) Direct staff to pursue no action in the review and certification process by the CEC for the application submitted from AES Huntington Beach, LLC. for the Retooling and Re- Certification of Units 3 and 4. 1 -7 • REQUEST FOR ACTION 0 MEETING DATE: December 18, 2000 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: AS 00-048 Analysis: The AES Huntington Beach Limited Liability Company (AES) filed an Application for Certification (AFC) on December 1, 2000 for the Retool of Units 3 and 4 at the Huntington Beach Generation Station (HBGS). The Retool Project will add approximately 450 megawatts (MVO to the already 500+ megawatts currently available for production at the plant. The California Energy Commission (CEC), with the passage of AB 970, may be required to review this application within a maximum of six (6) months from the time CEC staff determines the application is complete. Background The HBGS was constructed in the late 1950s and has five power generation units. Units 1 thru 4 are boiler/steam turbine units, and Unit 5 is a peaking unit comprised of eight combustion turbines. Units 3 and 4 had been operated very sparingly by Southern California Edision (SCE) after 1989 and were retired in 1995 by SCE. The proposed Retool Project, as indicated by AES, will be implemented wholly within the existing plant footprint and will rely on several of the existing plant's systems such as the water treatment system, the fire water supply, and a shared switchyard. The Retool Project, in overview, will include but not limited to the following activities: • New NOx Reduction Equipment or otherwise referred to as Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) Equipment to control the amount of emissions from Units 3 and 4. The ammonia system will be shared with a proposed SCR project for Units 1 and 2. • New Boiler Burners that will use natural gas only. • New Burner Control systems. • New Cooling Fan systems. • The replacement of entire electrical system for each unit. The project's main objective is to replace and/or upgrade all systems from the existing condition such that Units 3 and 4 will achieve an overall availability of 90% to produce power into the state-wide electrical grid system with an expection of 2,500 or more hours of operation per year. CEC Application Process As stated above, AES submitted their application for the Retooling of Units 3 and 4 on December 1, 2000 and the City of Huntington Beach received notice and application copies on December 11, 2000. The CEC process is broken down into 3 categories: RCA AES Retool -Units 3&4 -2- 12/14/00 4:32 PM 0 REQUEST FOR ACTION 10 MEETING DATE: December 18, 2000 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: AS 00-048 1. Data Adequacy The California Energy Commission (CEC) staff prior to commencing with the review of any application on its merits will go through a process=to determine- whether the applicant has submitted the information required to be included as specified in state code. The CEC is required to formally respond back to the applicant within 45 days from the date of their submittal as to whether the application is adequate against the stated criteria. As indicated by CEC staff, it has been typical that most applications are determined NOT to be data adequate in their first submittal. The CEC has requested City staff to submit back to CEC staff any comments as to the adequacy of data contained within the application by December 21, 2000. The CEC staff has agendized a formal determination for data adequacy for the January 10, 2001 business meeting of the Energy Commission. CEC staff has indicated that City staff may continue to submit additional issues or information until a few days prior to the January 10t" meeting. 2. Discovery and Public Workshops After the Application for Certification (AFC) is found to be data adequate by the CEC, the two (2) Energy Commissioners assigned to this application will schedule a Site Visit and an Information Hearing. This step is scheduled tentatively for February 2001. Thereafter, the CEC staff will go through a series of Data Request Workshops, which are publicly noticed, in the local area in which information is gathered from the applicant and all concerned parties. The CEC is exempt from conducting a CEQA review, but, by code, they have a certified functional equivalent process to where they examine the project from approximately 20 different categories such as Water Resources, Safety & Reliability, Land Use, Visual Resources, Public Health, etc. The CEC staff, after they have determined they have sufficiently analyzed all aspects of the proposed project, will make a Preliminary Staff Assessment (PSA). The PSA will typically be a very detailed analysis of the project and will include comments from all other responsible agencies such as the City, SCAQMD, the Regional Water Quality Control Board, the Coastal Commission staff, etc. The PSA is submitted for public comment for a period between 4 to 6 weeks. Depending on the number and type of comments, the CEC staff will either issue another revised Preliminary Staff Assessment or will issue the Final Staff Assessment (FSA). 3. Evidentiary Hearings and Commission Determination RCA AES Retool-Units 3&4 -3- 12/14/00 4:32 PM • REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: December 18, 2000 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: AS 00-048 Evidentiary hearings are scheduled in which formal testimony is presented to a hearing board consisting of the two (2) assigned Commissioners and a Hearing Board Officer. The City, during this time, can consider whether or not to file an Intervenor and become a:formal party to this process: The City, by intervening, will be able to submit formal testimony, but will also be obligated to answer or testify on any issues brought by other parties to the hearing. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Presiding Member of the Commission will issue a Preliminary Decision (PMPD). The public has 60 days to review once the preliminary decision has been filed. From this point, the application is scheduled for the next available CEC business meeting, usually 3 weeks from the expiration of the review period. The California Energy Commission will at this time make a deterimation to approve or reject the application on its merits. Legal Considerations In accordance with the California Public Resources Code, Section 25500 et seq., the CEC has exclusive power to certify the Application for Certification (AFC). The CEC operates under the authority of the California Public Resources Code §25550, which states in part: ...the commission shall have the exclusive power to certify all sites and related facilities in the state.... The issuance of a certificate by the commission shall be in lieu of any permit, certificate, or similar document required by any state, local, or regional agency, or federal agency to the extent permitted by federal law.... and shall supersede any applicable statue, ordinance, or regulation of any state, local, or regional agency, or federal agency to the extent permitted by federal law. Including in your Late Communication packet associated with this RCA, a more detailed legal analysis is included to detail in what areas in the City's jurisdicational authority is superceded and, by what methods, if any, the City can retain authority. City Issues with the AES Application The City staff has and will continue to work ardently to present as many issues and concerns prior to the first deadline of December 21, 2000. Staff has already identified some of the following key issues: • With the Retooling of Units 3 and 4, the heat outfall flow will presumably double into the ocean during operation. Based upon preliminary reports from a study conducted regarding the ocean bacteria problem, there is a possible connection between the Talbert Marsh & Orange County Sanitation District outflow and the heated water from the AES outflow interacting and producing an ideal bacterial environment. • Concerns over the air quality and the amount of pollution that will subseqently be produced with four (4) units as opposed to the existing two (2) units. RCA AES Retool -Units 3&4 -4- 12/14/00 4:32 PM • REQUEST FOR ACTION 0 MEETING DATE: December 18, 2000 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: AS 00-048 • Concerns involving the ammonia system proposed to be used with the NOx Reduction equipment and other fire department and building safety issues. • Concerns over the prominence of the existing visual blight associated with the plant. These are only a few of the initial, issues which have :been identified and, obviously, the proposed project of Retooling Units 3 and 4 will involve numerous impacts to our community. Conclusion The California Energy Commission is under tremendous political pressure to permit approximately another 2,000 megawatts within the next year or so. The energy crisis in California may try to over-run real impacts to our community relating to this project and the City's vigilance and active participation will be key to ensure that the CEC understands and requires appropriate mitigation, if feasible. A copy of the application will be available at the Planning Counter for review by the public. Environmental Status: None Attachment(s): City Clerk's Page Number No. Description 1 Notice from the CEC for Agency Participation in the Review of the Huntington Beach Generation Station Retool Project Application for Certification of Units 3 and 4, dated December 7 , 2000 RCA Author: Lamb, ext. 5445 [Move that: A) The City oppose the expansion of the AES plan unless AES in working with the city staff will: 1) mitigate the ugliness, 2) mitigate the potential beach contamination, 3) improve safety of ammonia use and 4) no increase in noxious effluent or purchase of credits; and B) The staff should work will all agencies including So. Calif. Air Quality Mgmt. District, Coastal Commission; and all cities and agencies in developing strategies to deal with the expansion problem.][Approved 6-1 (Green No)] RCA AES Retool-Units 3&4 -5- 12/14/00 4:32 PM 1 31113. .......... .STRTE OF CALIFORNIA —THE RESOURCES AGENCY GRAY DAVIS. Govemor CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMI N • - �. -� 1516 NINTH STREET -�' SACRAMENTO,CA 95814-5512 a_ rT �IVED CALIF ENERGY GOMMISSI . DEC 1 12000 December 7, 2000 DEC 0 8 2000 TO: AGEN T RECEIVED IN DOCKETS REQUEST FOR AGENCY PARTICIPATION IN THE REVIEW OF THE HUNTINGTON BEACH GENERATION STATION RETOOL PROJECT APPLICATION FOR CERTIFICATION (00-AFC-13) On December 1, 2000, the AES Huntington Beach Limited Liability Company, (AES), Limited Liability Company filed an Application for Certification (AFC)for the Huntington Beach Generation Station Retool Project (Retool Project). The Energy Commission staff has begun reviewing the AFC for data adequacy, and the review will be completed within 45 days from the date of filing. If the AFC is determined to be data adequate by the Commissioners at the January 10, 2000 Business Meeting, we will begin the data discovery and analysis phases. These phases will include a number of public workshops and hearings. We will be scheduling an Information Hearing and Site Visit to the project site in February, 2000, in Huntington Beach. The Commission's overall review process will be completed in a maximum of 12 months. The Retool Project will be a nominal 450 megawatt (MW), natural gas-fired boiler retooling at the existing Huntington Beach Generating Station (HBGS) located in the City of Huntington Beach, in Orange County. The 12-acre site is located at 21730 Newland Street, southeast of the intersection of Newland Street and the Pacific Coast Highway, and about 600 feet east of the Pacific Ocean. AES is proposing to retool and operate Units 3 and 4, which currently exist, but are out of service at the HBGS. Southern California Edison (SCE) took these units out of service in 1995 when it owned the HBGS. At that time SCE surrendered its permits to operate these units to the South Coast Air Quality Management District. In 1998 AES purchased the HBGS from SCE. The Retool Project would restore these units to service. In addition to the boiler retooling, AES will be adding Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) equipment for emissions control. The proposed Retool Project will be built entirely within the boundaries of the existing HBSG Beach power plant. No additional transmission lines or related transmission facilities will be required. It will use an existing 230 kilovolt (kV) switchyard owned by SCE. The proposed project will use natural gas supplied by the Southern California Gas Company via an existing 30-inch diameter pipeline. No changes to the pipeline or onsite connection to the pipeline will be required. The project will use once through circulating water from the Pacific Ocean for cooling, while process water for steam generation and potable water for domestic needs will be supplied by the City of Huntington Beach via existng city water mains. Circulating cooling water, plant low volume waste streams such as water softener regeneration brines, and stormwater are currently discharged from the plant to the Pacific Ocean PROOF OF SERVICE(REVISED ) FILES IT, ORIGINAL MAILED FROM SACRAMENTO ON 00 2 • under the provisions of an National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. The retooled Units 3 and 4 would discharge to the same existing system. During construction, a peak workforce of 530 people would be employed. .During operation, the Retool Project would employ approximately 43 full-time staff. ENERGY COMMISSION'S FACILITY CERTIFICATION PROCESS The Energy Commission is responsible for reviewing and ultimately approving or denying all thermal electric power plants, 50 MW and greater, proposed for construction in California. The Energy Commission's facility certification .process carefully examines public health and safety, potential environmental impacts and engineering aspects of proposed power plants and all related facilities such as electric transmission lines, natural gas pipelines and water pipelines. The Energy Commission's is the lead agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The first step in the review process is for Energy Commission staff to determine whether or not the AFC contains all the information required by our regulations. During this data adequacy phase, we request that you review the sections of interest to your agency and determine whether the major issues which would be of concern are identified. At this time, we are only concerned that such issues are disclosed, not necessarily that they be discussed in detail or resolved. When the AFC is deemed data adequate, we will begin data discovery and the issue analysis phases. These phases of the project usually occur during the first 120 days after the AFC is deemed adequate. During this time, a detailed examination of the issues will occur, and there will be opportunities for Energy Commission staff and your staff to require the applicant to provide any additional information deemed necessary for proper analysis and resolution of the issues. The Energy Commission will conduct a,number of public workshops and hearings on the proposal to determine whether the project should be approved for construction and operation and under what set of conditions. These workshops will provide the public as well as local, state and federal agencies the opportunity to ask questions about, and provide input on, the proposed project. The Energy Commission will issue notices for these workshops and hearings, normally 14 days, but in no case later than 10 days, prior to the meeting. The Commission will need your agency's final conclusions on the project no later than 180 days from the date that the AFC is accepted as data i adequate. AGENCY PARTICIPATION We request that you provide any written comments you may have regarding the disclosure of potential issues of concern by December 21, 2000. This request for comments is not reimbursable under Energy Commission guidelines. Please provide 3 your comments to Eileen Allen, the Energy Commission's Siting Project Manager for the Huntington Beach Generating Station Retool Project. Your agency may also present its comments and recommendations in person at the Energy Commission's January 10, 2000 Business Meeting. The limited purpose of the business meeting agenda item will be to determine whether the AFC is data adequate. If the AFC is accepted as data adequate, your participation in the proceeding is encouraged and will consist of identifying and trying to resolve issues of concern to your agency. There may be specific requests for agency review and comment during the proceeding. Local agencies may seek reimbursement for costs incurred in responding to these requests. If you have questions or would like additional information on reimbursement or on how to participate in the Energy Commission's review of the project, please contact Eileen Allen, Siting Project Manager, at (916) 654-4082, or by e-mail at eallen@energy.state.ca.us. The status of the project, copies of notices and other relevant documents are also available via the Energy Commission's Internet page at www.energy.ca.gov/sitingcases/huntington. Sincerely, ROBERT L. THERKELSEN, Deputy Director for Energy Facilities Siting & Environmental Protection Enclosure RLT:ea Anh REQUEST FOR LATE SUBMITTAL (To accompany RCA's submitted after Deadline Department: Admin Svcs. Subject AES Application to the California Energy Commision for the Retooling of Units 3 and 4 512/ 8/00 uncil Meeting Date: Date of This Request: 12/14/00 1 REASON (Why is this RCA being submitted late?): Late notice by the California Energy Commission (CEC) of AES Application and the due dates for response by the City of December 21, 2000. EXPLANATION (Why is this RCA necessary to this agenda?): A response by the City is due to the CEC by December 21, 2000 and City Council needs to be briefed on this issue. CONSEQUENCES (How shall delay of this RCA adversely impact the City?): Lack of response to the CEC by due date. i n e: C3-Approved O Denied Depart m t Head Ray Silver City Administrator RCA OUTING & EET INITIATING DEPARTMENT: Administrative Services SUBJECT: AUTHORIZE STAFF TO CONTINUE TO PURSUE PARTICIPATION IN ALL PHASES OF THE CEC APPLICATION PROCESS FOR THE RETOOL OF AES UNITS 3 AND 4 COUNCIL MEETING DATE: DECEMBER 14, 2000 RCA ATTACHMENTS STATUS Ordinance (w/exhibits & legislative draft if applicable) Not Applicable Resolution (w/exhibits & legislative draft if applicable) Not Applicable Tract Map, Location Map and/or other Exhibits Not Applicable Contract/Agreement (w/exhibits if applicable) (Signed in full by the City Attomey) Not Applicable Subleases, Third Party Agreements, etc. (Approved as to form by City Attorney) Not Applicable Certificates of Insurance (Approved by the CityAttomey) Not Applicable Financial Impact Statement (Unbudget, over $5,000) Not Applicable Bonds (If applicable) Not Applicable Staff Report (If applicable) Not Applicable Commission, Board or Committee Report (If applicable) Not Applicable Findings/Conditions for Approval and/or Denial Not Applicable EXPLANATION FOR MISSING ATTACHMENTS. ** Powerpoint Presentation will be submitted Monday, December 18th as a Late Communication to ensure the most accurate information is presented. REVIEWED RETURNED FORWARDED Administrative Staff ( ) ( ) Assistant City Administrator (Initial) ( ) ( ) City Administrator (Initial) City Clerk ( ) EXPLANATION FOR RETURN OF ITEM: Only)(Below Space For City Clerk's Use RCA Author: Lamb,ext. 5445 • P n i re s etat on F4 AE icationor ozm c:0 0 0 6m Zop Cpm RetoolingU�00 z K0 >� to the a 1 Or111 a Ener -<0 r� y -< nm O'M , MA Commission m Prepared by Administrative Services December 18, 2000 BACKGROUND • AES applied on December 1st to the California Energy � Commission (CEC) to Retool and Re-Certify Units 3 and 4 for an additional 450 megawatts of production capacity. • The City of Huntington Beach received formal notification on December 11 , 2000 • Southern California Edison (SCE) sparing operated Units 3 • & 4 after 1989 and they were retired in 1995. BACKGROUND • The Retooling will include: � - Installing New Boiler Burners - New NOX Reduction Equipment (SCR) - New Control Systems - Projected Cost: $80 to $ 100 Million • AES would like approval from the CEC within 4 months and to be ready to produce additional power by June 1 , 2001 . CEC Application , Process • DATA ADEQUACY - Initial Comments to CEC - December 21 , 2000. � - CEC Business Meeting - January 10, 2001 • DISCOVERY & WORKSHOPS - Site Visit and Information Hearing - Feb. 2001 - Preliminary Staff Assessment (PSA) - Final Staff Assessment (FSA) • EVIDENTIARY HEARINGS & CEC DETERMINATION Project Impacts • AIR POLLUTION • WATER QUALITY • AMMONIA STORAGE These are only a few of the initial project impacts that City Staff is currently working on to submit to the CEC. � LEGAL & JURISDICATIONAL CONSIDERATIONS � DAVID HUARD Special Counsel • LAND USE ISSUES � HOWARD ZELEFSKY Planning Director � AES PLANT "RETOOL" PROPOSAL 1. CEC APPLICATION AES Huntington Beach, LLC, ("AES") filed an Application for Certification (AFC) with the California Energy Commission ("CEC") to "retool" and operate Units 3 and 4 at 450 megawatts . These units were taken out of service in 1995 and permits were surrendered. AES has also, simultaneously, approached the City for permitting and has filed, and in some instances already received, related permits from other affected agencies. 2. JURISDICTION The application cites relevant legislation to reflect the jurisdiction of the City over matters such as engineering (building codes) , some OSHA, public health, and hazardous materials matters (fire and public works) , agricultural, soils, biological resources, historic and cultural resources, land use (zoning) , traffic and transportation, noise and visual resources (planning) . The CEC Staff also recognizes the City's jurisdiction over the Coastal Plan through the Coastal Commission. However, the Staff and the application note the CEC's exclusive jurisdiction to certify the application under the Public Resources Code (§25500, et sec . ) . This provision provides that "the issuance of a certificate by the [CEC] shall be in lieu of any permit, certificate, or similar document required by any state, local, or regional agency . . . . and shall supercede any statute, ordinance, or regulation of any state, local or regional agency . . " AES and the CEC Staff both claim a pre-emptive power in the CEC over any actions by the City in the exercise of its otherwise applicable jurisdiction. The Coastal Commission does not dispute this claim. The CEC is the designated "lead agency" under CEQA and its Staff' s LADOCS\2651806 1 �i Final Staff Assessment is considered an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for CEQA purposes. The final CEC order will limit the further orders of the City to actions that are not inconsistent with the order of the CEC. 3. PROCESS The CEC process is generally as follows: A. Initial Processing: The CEC Staff first reviews the application for minimum "data adequacy" within 30 days of filing. Affected agencies are notified and can file written comments on potential issues of concern. The notice in this matter requires comments by December 21 . When the application is considered data adequate, the application is brought to the full Commission to begin the formal processing. This is tentatively scheduled for January 10. The normal processing time for the application, once it has been determined to be data adequate, is one year. A revision to the applicable law effective September 6, 2000, would allow for processing in 6 months if the CEC determines that there is substantial evidence of no significant adverse impact on the environment and the application complies with all laws and provides complete information. Regulations to implement this fast-track processing have not been finally adopted. AES has asked for approval within 3 months but does not specifically reference the fast-track process. B. Formal Proceedings: The initial review process is followed by a more formal process . This process generally includes: (1) First, a Staff "Issue Identification Report", (2) Next is Staff and intervenor data requests (discovery) followed by "data request" workshops, (3) A "Preliminary Staff Assessment" "PSA" is then issued on 20 technical areas (usually 300-400 pages) followed by workshops on the PSA, (4) A Final Staff Assessment "FSA", is the last pre-hearing step, (5) A prehearing conference is convened and evidentiary hearings are scheduled and held, and, LADOCS\2651806 1 finally (6) a proposed decision is issued which is subject to comment for 60 days and then followed by a final decision. Most, if not all, public meetings (workshops and hearings) will be held in Huntington Beach. 4. STRATEGY The CEC process has traditionally been a slow process during which the CEC works closely with affected agencies and interested parties. However, due to the current unprecedented power crisis, the CEC is under pressure to do all it can to expeditiously approve projects if at all possible. Projects similar to AES ' s retooling application were filed for plants located in Moss Landing and Morro Bay. Moss Landing has been approved. Morro Bay is pending before the CEC in formal hearings. There is significant local and municipal opposition and the CEC has not adopted the mitigation measures urged by the Coast Commission. The City can participate in the CEC process in two ways : (1) a behind-the-scenes consultative process with the Staff, and (2) formal intervenor status with all rights and obligations to publicly participate in the full process . The key to effectively protecting the City' s interest is (1) to be active as early as possible, but also (2) cooperative and coordinate with the CEC Staff to the fullest extent. Therefore, the City should submit detailed issues and concerns on December 21 (which can be supplemented thereafter) and, judging on how the CEC Staff views the City' s concerns, file an intervention thereafter. However, enlisting the CEC Staff as an ally or supporter will significantly increase the likelihood of success and reduce the cost of participation. An intervention may be necessary, in any event, to publicly support the Final Staff Assessment or to publicly object to the FSA if it fails to adequately address the City' s issues. LADOCS\2651806 1 _APPLICABLE LAWS, STANDARDS, AND REGULATIONS AES HUNTINGTON BEACH, LLC APPLICATION UNITS 3 AND 4 A. Engineering Geology 1. City of Huntington Beach Building and Safety Department a. control excavation, grading, and construction b. meet design criteria 2. State Fire Marshall - boiler and pressure vessel code inspection 3. Trade association guidelines for insuring power plant reliability B. Public/Worker.Safety and Health Protection 1. Cal-OSHA a. meet requirements for safe and hazard-free working environment b. general industry safety orders, general construction orders, electrical safety orders 2. California Air Resources Board, South Coast Air Quality Management District a. meet requirements for Best Available Control Technology minimizing exposures to toxic air pollutants b. estimate emissions for listed air toxic pollutants and submit inventory to Air District for major sources of criteria pollutants 3. City of Huntington Beach - provide safety setbacks as required by County of Orange Fire Department 4. Industry standards - manufacturer directives for use of equipment C. Air Quality 1. USEPA/South Coast Air Quality Management District a. Permits (1) Permit to Construct (2) Permit to Operate (3) Title V Permit b. Major Requirements (1) new source performance standards (2) prevention of significant deterioration of air quality (3) meet ambient air quality standards (4) file Air Toxic "Hot spots" Information and Assessment report to SCAQMD D. Agricultural and Soils 1. Regional Water Quality Control Board a. meet discharge requirements relating to sediment caused by accelerated erosion b. obtain waste discharge requirements concerning potential surface water pollution from project area runoff 2. California Energy*Commission a. submission of information to CEC concerning potential environmental impacts b. evaluate erosion or siltation and conversion of agricultural lands c. Department of Land Conservation, Office of Land Conservation - project will affect policy of lands under Williamson Act contracts 3. City of Huntington Beach Planning Department - comply with general plan E. Water Resources 1. USEPA Region IX/Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board a. Permits (1) NPDES Permit issued in June, 2000 (a) thermal discharge requirements (b) best control technology for cooling intake structures and assessment of impacts to biology from entrainment and impingement (c) wastewater discharge requirements (2) Construction Activity Stormwater Permit b. use of reclaimed water where available and appropriate c. filing of a report of waste discharge and compliance with waste discharge requirements that enforce water quality protection objectives of the Water Quality Control Plan 2. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service - projects potentially affecting threatened or endangered species require agency review 3. U.S. Army Corp of Engineers-permit needed for maintenance dredging of the intake and outfall structures if necessary F. Biological Resources 1. United States Fish & Wildlife Service/United States Army Corps of Engineers a. protection and management of federally-listed threatened or endangered plants and animals and their designated critical habitats b. protection of migratory birds c. conservation of fish and wildlife d. protection of wetlands 2. California Department of Fish and Game a. consultation requirement b. rare and endangered plant protection c. protection and enhancement of birds, mammals, amphibians and reptiles of California d. review of proposal to affect streambed 3. City of Huntington Beach General Plan a. ensure that proposed development projects demonstrate a high degree of compatibility with any threatened or endangered species they may affect b. city protects and preserves significant habitats of plant and wildlife species for intrinsic values G. Cultural and Paleontological Resources 1. State Office of Historic Preservation-notification requirement during construction 2. United States Bureau of Land Management-protection of cultural resources on federal lands 3. California Energy Commission-formal findings by lead agency regarding projects affects on cultural resources 4. City of Huntington Beach - Prevent unauthorized removal of archeological resources or Paleontological remains on public lands H. Land Use 1. California Energy Commission - evaluate compatibility of the proposed project with relevant land use plans 2. City of Huntington Beach Zoning Ordinance - compliance with goals and policies and specific zoning requirements 3. City of Huntington Beach Planning Department - Comply with land use provisions L Socioeconomic 1. USEPA - environmental justice issues reviewed 2. California Energy Commission - inclusion of economic or social effects analysis in application for certification J. Traffic and Transportation 1. Caltrans a. meet standards for the transportation of hazardous materials b. permits for overloads required c. encroachment permits 2. City of Huntington Beach Planning Department - compliance with goals and policies for City transportation and traffic systems 3. Southern California Association of Governments - compliance with goals and policies for transportation and regional traffic systems K. Noise 1. USEPA - guideline levels for protection of outdoor/indoor activities for noise 2. California Energy.Commission - controls operation noise and limits noise to 5 dBA 3. OSHA - comply with worker noise exposure levels 4. Cal/OSHA - comply with worker noise exposure standards 5. City of Huntington Beach - comply with local noise ordinance L. Visual Resources - City of Huntington Beach Planning Department - Requires preparation of a landscape plan M. Management of Hazardous Waste 1. USEPA/CalEPA/DISC - meet requirements for the management of hazardous waste 2. County of Orange Health Department - meet requirements for management of hazardous waste; prepare a hazardous materials plan 3. City of Huntington Beach Fire Department a. fire protection and neutralization systems for emergency venting compressed gasses b. city safety setbacks