Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 04152003 - D7 nrtc ID cuu.o 1u; 0ghtniq Mr L-I-IZ3MKJt- I JeUU P. i VI=O4 J.VAN bou*G(16:31-i not Pwmr-ta&DAVIs 4n1WNff VWW%*EW' VA"'-IOURG9 WEINBERG, ROGER& T SENFELD EMILY F RICIa 4AWZ40AL 6.ROGER UNDA&ALOWN x1-4S DAVID A.POSEWELD A PROFESSIONAL CORPOPLAMN USA PAL, VALL"A SOKOL roWA6 E MAJMAk W04W A.K&ARrWCON. MAN a CROW"14 W DAt*U 900t* SNIALEY LEE MALL 0"TON 180 GRAND AVENUE,SUITE 14M EMCEL.3 CAR069 NLYTHE&W-KRS014 LOAI ik A0U1W. GANty g.mi##QE OAKLAND,CALIFORNIA M12 JOY E BLANWM J^MEA ItIlrKOWSOU I YEN AJNI4E SAMMA W BENSON TELEPHONE(510)839-6600 NICOLE U P"SUDS 6 VMQA FAX (510)691-04M FELIX DE LA TORRE CHWartm L*A4NEP JA443 J.VvEsup THEO00111 FRANKLIN ANT0040 RUIZ WAICLA M aATE%of COM16. ELLYN UOSCOMTZ CATHLEEN A,WL.LAMS.Of Caumo. MArfWW J.GUMP SLIZANkli MVIO.Of Cowwo A&MLEYK.IKFZA.m #AM 410MORAW a ArWVW GEORGE ALLEN(t224-s*mp A41fted Wo 040W= STANF0*0 L MUM&N I tIV-1tr.. April IS., 2003 Via Facsimile and First Class Mailp 0i Post4r Fax Note 7671 Daft Ms. Catherine Kutsuris,Deputy Director FromC PCjo.J/DVt Community Development Dept. Contra Costa County Phone# I Phone* 651 Pine St. FMS lFax# Martinez, CA 94553 Re: Calpine Appeal Dear Ms. Kutsuris'.' On behalf of all appellants, we hereby withdraw our appeal and our opposition to staff actions. Yours truly, PaulPupton PS/sp c: Clerk Board of Supervisors Contra Costa County LOS ANGELES OFFICE SACRAMENTO OFFICE HONOLULU OFFICE 1605 VWst Otympic SoLftv&-A Suits I023 1006 4th SW".Suits 1050 1099 Ajakoa StriW.Suitt 1602 Lois Ai�pWs,CA 90016 Sao-AM*Mo.CA 9W14 Hor*Uu,H1%613 TEL(2 13)487-4232 FAX(213)4874ffW TEL(916.1 443-WW FAX(91S)442-0244 TEL(W81 52114M FAX(808)528-8881 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Contra FROM: DENNIS M. BARRY, AICP :::ry Costa COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR Vis._ +.,...,..` County rq cou DATE: April 15, 2003 SUBJECT: HEARING ON THE APPEAL FILED BY VAN BOURG, WEINBERG, ROGER & ROSENFELD ON BEHALF OF TOM BUTTERFIELD, ET AL OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S DETERMINATION OF NON COVERAGE OF A PROPOSED 45 MEGAWATT RIVERVIEW PEAKER ENERGY PLANT FROM LAND USE PERMIT PROVISIONS UNDER THE INDUSTRIAL SAFETY ORDINANCE (ISO), CHAPTER 84-63.THE SITE IS LOCATED AT#795 MINAKER COURT, IN THE ANTIOCH AREA., COUNTY FILE #Z1029471 (APPLICANT-CALPINE) (SUP.DIST. V) SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS Adopt a motion to: 1. Sustain the Zoning Administrator's determination of Non Coverage fora proposed 45-megawatt Riverview Peaker Energy Plant. 2. Deny the appeal of Van Bourg, Weinberg, Roger & Rosenfeld. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE ' RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COM M ITTE APPROVE OTHER . 9 SIGNATURE(S): ACTION OF BOARD ON April 15, 2003 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED _OTHER ACCEPTED the withdrawal on April 15,2003,by Van Bourg,Weinberg,Roger&Rosenfeld,of the appeal on behalf of Tom Butterfield et. al. of an administrative decision by the Community Development Department determining noncoverage of the Calpine Riverview Energy Center from the Land Use Permit provisions of the Industrial Safety Ordinance(Chapter 84-63),to property located at #795 Minaker Court,in the Antioch area. (Supervisor Uilkema recused herself and did not participate on this item) I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND VOTE OF SUPERVISORS CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AND UNANIMOUS (ABSENT ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF ) AYES'°r NOES: SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN ABSENT: ABSTAIN: DIST111CT III SEAT VACANT �Irc Contact: John Oborne 925-335-1207 ATTESTED ADril 15. 2MI cc: Community Development Department(Orig.) JOHN SWEETEN, CLERK OF THE BOARD OF Van Bourg,Weinberg, Roger&Rosenfeld SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR Stoel Rives,Anne Mudge Health Services Dept., Hazardous Mat. Prog. County Counsel BY ,DEPUTY Building Inspection Dept. April 15, 2003 Board of Supervisors File#Z1029471/Calpine Appeal Page 2 PROJECT OVERVIEW A year ago, Calpine filed with the County a request for determination of whether a development permit would be required for a proposed 45 Megawatt Peaker Plant in the Antioch area. The project would be connected to the existing GP Gypsum Corporation's adjoining wallboard manufacturing plant and provide cogenerated power. After consulting with the Health Services Department, the Community Development Department determined that the plant was exempt from the land use permit provisions of the Industrial Safety Ordinance (ISO). Building permits for the project were issued and development commenced. Shortly after the building permit was issued, staff discovered that the applicant had not disclosed all of the hazardous materials that would be used with the project. That led staff to make a new hazard assessment for the project that no longer exempted the project from the ISO land use permit provisions, and caused staff to conclude that the project required approval of a land use permit. Further, it led staff to (temporarily) suspend the building permit and a cessation to construction activity. The applicant responded by submitting a reconfigured project that included changes in the operation of the adjoining wallboard plant [including a reduction in the use and storage of foamer (hazard category B)]. After reviewing the proposal, staff determined that the project reduced the hazard score for the project, and allowed for a credit against the land use permit provisions due to a reduction in the use of hazardous materials with the wallboard plant operation. As a result, staff concluded that the project was not covered by the land use permit provisions of the ISO, and caused the suspension of the building permit to be released, so that construction activity could resume. APPEAL On March 20, 2002, the County received an appeal, from the law firm of Van Bourg, Weinberg, Roger& Rosenfeld, of staff's administrative decision that the project is not covered by the land use permit provisions of the ISO. The two appeal points are 1. That the information Calpine submitted to the County regarding their reconfigured peaker plant omitted Hazard Category A, B or C materials that would have otherwise caused the hazard score to exceed 80 and therefore be subject to approval of a Land Use Permit; and, 2. That the reduced project is not in the same "facility" as required by 84-63.1004 (d) (1). DISCUSSION The following summarizes the two major appeal points and staff's response. 1. Summary of Appeal Point— The project has still not disclosed all of the hazardous April 15, 2003 Board of Supervisors File#Z1029471/Calpine Appeal Page 3 materials associated with this project, and the project score under the ISO formula exceeds the threshold for triggering a requirement for approval of a land use permit application. Staff Response — Staff has reviewed the claimed omission of hazardous materials and determined that there is no basis to challenge the validity of the hazard scoring for this project. Refer to the memorandum from the Health Services Department dated April 8, 2003. Staff continues to find that the project will not result in a hazard score that exceeds the threshold for requiring a land use permit (80 points) under the ISO. The appellant claims that Calpine did not disclose the use of a Category A material, identified as a selective catalytic reduction (SCR), in their reconfigured peaker plant. According to the Health Services Department, this material is not regulated by the Department of Transportation and therefore does not need to be considered in calculating the hazard score for the project. Regarding Category B and C materials, the appeal has not provided any substantial evidence that the Calpine Peaker plant would use anything other than what Calpine reported in their revised submittal. 2. Summary of Appeal Point - The Reduced Project is Not in the Same Facility Staff Response —The appellant has challenged the staff determination that the project meets the criteria for credit against the land use permit requirement that would otherwise apply to a project involving a new process unit. Staff grappled with this issue but ultimately concluded the project qualifies as one facility under the Ordinance definition. Two factors were considered. First, one of the intents of the Hazardous Materials Ordinance (ISO) is to reduce the overall usage of hazardous materials used in the County. This project fulfills that intent because these two businesses, that would otherwise use a greater amount of hazardous materials if they were to operate separately, are in fact using less hazardous materials because they are considered the same "facility" and share a water treatment and fire suppression system. Second, staff reviewed the ISO definition of ordinance and determined that the reconfigured project (with the modified wallboard plant) meets the definition. One of the criterion that applies for a project to receive credit is: "The project to be closed or reduced is in the same facility in which the development project is proposed." [Ord. Code Section 84-63.1004(d)(1)] The ISO defines facility as follows: "A group of buildings, structures, or units with the same purpose on contiguous April 15, 2003 Board of Supervisors File#Z1029471/Calpine Appeal Page 4 parcels (including parcels separated by a right-of-way, as defined in Section 1002- 2.002 of this Code) under common ownership or control." [Ord. Code Section 84- 63.416] Since the Ordinance does not define the word "unit", the Webster's Collegiate Dictionary was consulted. The Dictionary defines "unit" as " a piece or complex of apparatus serving to perform one particular function". Since the water treatment and fire protection equipment shared between the plants is for the same purpose, the two plants qualify as a single facility. Also, the word "or" represents an alternative to what precedes it. Notice, the definition does not say " buildings, structures and units" as if each of these would have to be present before it would be considered a facility. The definition says "buildings, structures, or units" (emphasis added). Making it clear that if it were simply a unit with a common purpose it could be considered one facility. Staff determined that the reconfigured energy center project, in combination with the GP Gypsum plant operation, will share "units" with the same purpose insofar as the two plants will provide for: • Sharing of treated water produced by Riverview Energy Center with Gypsum G- P; • Provision for an integrated fire protection unit to jointly serve both G-P and REC parcels. The components of the system are to include a 1,500 gallon/minute pumping unit on G-P's current dock extending in the river; a jockey booster pump, a 100,000 gallon water tower on the G-P tower for back-up fire protection and a shared pipeline that spans both parcels to serve hydrants and sprinkler systems for both parcels. Common Ownership - The appellant goes on to say that because the GP Gypsum plant and the proposed Peaker plant are not under common ownership they are not considered a facility, indicating that the code defines a facility as "a group of buildings, structures or units with a common ownership or control". In fact, the code reads a facility is defined as it a group of buildings, structures or units with the same purpose on contiguous parcels...under common ownership or control (emphasis added). The project consists of two contiguous parcels, one on which is the GP Gypsum plant the other the proposed Peaker plant, that are under the common ownership of GP Gypsum. Applicability of Federal RMP Guidelines - Another appeal point is that because, under federal guidance for the Risk Management Program (RMP), the two plants would have to file separate RMPs and therefore should not be considered a single facility for determining the application of the Industrial Safety Ordinance. Again, this concern was considered by staff prior to making the February Determination of Noncoverage. However, staff concluded that the federal guidelines for RMPs specifically address the Clean Air Act and the prevention and detection of accidental releases, whereas the definition of"facility" as it relates to the Industrial Safety Ordinance is aimed at land use issues, not necessarily specific emergency plans. Further, the Ordinance does not cite April 15, 2003 Board of Supervisors File#Z1029471/Calpine Appeal Page 5 Federal RMP Guidelines as a criterion for qualifying for a credit against a land use permit requirement. Therefore, staff concluded, and continues to find, that it would not be appropriate to apply the Federal RMP Guidelines to this task. CONCLUSION Based on these considerations, staff is not persuaded that the application of credit for this project under the terms of the ISO was misapplied, as claimed by the appellant. Staff continues to find that the project meets the ordinance criteria for qualifying for credit for a reduction in use of hazardous material. Staff has not found any substantial evidence in the appeal that would cause staff to question the February, 2003 Determination of Noncoverage. Alternative Action The filing of the appeal has not affected the validity of the building permit for this project. Work on the project continues. However, should the Board determine that the appeal has merit and that a land use permit is required for this project, then the Board should direct the Building Inspection Director to revoke all of the building and grading permits for this project, and direct the applicant to discontinue construction activity until such time as a land use permit under the ISO is applied for and obtained, and a new building permit is issued. GACurrent Planninglcurr-plan\Board\Board Orderslcalpine board order-b.doc CHRONOLOGY PROCESSING OF CALPINE RIVERVIEW ENERGY CENTER ANTIOCH AREA To April 2003 • On May 22, 2002 Calpine applied to the Community Development Department for a Request for Determination of whether the proposed 45- megawatt Riverview Energy Center is exempt from the Industrial Safety Ordinance (ISO). • On September 27, 2002 County staff(Community Development Department, based on comments from the Health Services Department) determined that the proposed project was exempt because the quantities of hazardous materials that Calpine proposed for the project were below the thresholds established under Ordinance Section 84-63.604 ( C ) of the ISO. Staff also determined that the site of the proposed plant is zoned Heavy Industrial, and that the project is a permitted use in that district and complies with the regulations in that district. Staff also approved a lot line adjustment of two existing parcels owned by GP Gypsum so that one would be configured to meet the needs of the proposed peaker plant. The approval of the lot line adjustment was based on a finding of compliance with the zoning restrictions and consistency with the general plan. • On October 31, 2002 the Building Inspection Department issued a grading permit for the project. A building permit was issued two months later. • On November 5, 2002, County staff posted a Notice of Exemption (from CEQA) with the Clerk of the Board with the determination by the Community Development Department that the proposed development was a ministerial project. • On January 23, 2003 the City of Antioch appealed the issuance of grading and building permits for the project. C-2 • On January 27, 2003, the Building Inspection Director suspended building and grading permits for the project and directed the applicant to cease construction activity. The action was based on a discovery by Community Development Department staff that the applicant had not fully disclosed all of the hazardous materials that would be used in the operation, and that the project would require approval of a land use permit. • In February 2003, the City of Antioch withdrew their appeal citing that discussions between the City and Calpine addressed the City's concerns. • After receiving additional information from the applicant reconfiguring the proposed Peaker plant, on February 24, 2003, the Community Development Department determined that the reconfigured plant was not covered by the land use permit provisions of the Industrial Safety Ordinance. The determination was based in part on a conclusion by staff that the project qualified for credit under the ISO because (1) The reconfigured project provides for a reduction of the use and storage of hazardous materials at the adjoining G-P Gypsum Plant; and (2) The components that would be shared by the proposed pecker plant and existing wallboard plant would allow for the two plants to constitute the same facility as allowed in the ISO [Ref. 84- 63.1004(d)]. Staff also determined that the reconfigured plant would yield an ISO hazard score of only 64 points (a score of 80 or more points requires approval of a land use permit.) Under these provisions the Determination of Noncoverage was summarized on the agenda for the Zoning Administrator meeting March 10, 2003 before which the notice was mailed to the organizations and individuals who had previously requested it in writing and a four-inch by six-inch advertisement was run in the Contra Costa Times on March 7, 2003. The last day of the appeal period was 5:00 P.M., March 20, 2003. • On February 24, 2003 the Building Department, on advisement from the Community Development Department, released the suspension of the building permits for the proposed Peaker plant. • On March 20, 2003 an appeal was received from Tom Butterfield who was represented by the law firm of Van Bourg, Weinberg, Roger& Rosenfeld. The two main appeal points were: 1. Category A Hazardous Materials were omitted from the reconfigured plant and if they had been included would have raised Calpine's hazard score to above 80 which would disqualify it for reduction in credit and therefore the project would require a C-3 Land Use Permit. 2. The reduced project is not in the same facility. They state that to qualify for a credit for reduction, Section 84-63.1004(d)(1) requires that "the project to be closed or reduced is in the same facility in which the development project is proposed". The appellant asserts that the project is not in the same facility. • The Building Inspection Department indicated that construction of the Peaker plant may be completed as early as May of 2003. H:lcalpine.chr - - -_-=!]ennis-N!. Barry,-AlCP Comunityrn - -- --. n � tra Community Development Director ., Development . Department - . Co.un County Administration Building 651 Pine Street 4th Floor,North Wing ' Martinez, a' ornia 94553-0095 ' '' • .` Phone. °sTA�-COTJ (925) »5-1210 February 24,2003 Nick Gaglia Calpine Construction Management Company,Inc. 4160 Dublin Boulevard Dublin,-CA 94568-3139 Re: Determination of Noncoverage of0econfigured Pecker Energy Plant From Land Use Permit Provisions Under the Industrial Safety ordinance-(ISO) (Chapter 84-63 Riverview.Energy.Center ` #795 Minaker' Court,Amtioch area ('DD File#ZI02947I This is in response to your submittal.of January 27,2003, and subsequent submittals to- this.Department.and the Health Services Department reconfiguring the above captioned peaker en.erg-y-plant. Afterreviewing the documentation.,=this-,is--tc =advise you that sta T has determmed that the reconfigured peaker energy plant is not-covered by the provisions for land use p ermit under the-Industrial S afety Ordinance (IS 0). Back -round Late last year,the Building Inspection Department cleared building and grading permits for a 45 megawatt peaker energy plant. The issuance of the.permits was.based on dDcumentation provided by Calpine oonce=g the extent of hazardous materials that - - -- -would-be used-at the-site, and had permitted the County to determine that the project would be exempt from the land use permit requirements of the ISO. Subsequently,the County concluded that the hazardous material information provided by Calpine was not based on an correct interpretation of the Industrial-Safety Ordinance, and that a land use permit would be required for the project: As'a result in a letter dated January 27, 2003,the County Building Official suspended the permits for the peaker plant project. More recently, Calpine has provided the County with additional documentation that reconfigures the project. The modified project involves a reduction in the use of • r 2 k hazardous materials on the...ad' G-P Qypsum.wallboard plant, and other char es to P g both the proposed pecker:plant and existing wallboard plant. While no longer claiming that the reconfigured pro j ect is exempt from the ISO,the Calpine documentation contends that.proj ect is hot covered by the land use permit provisions of the ISO due to ordinance provisions for credit associated with the reduction in the use of hazardous materials.for an existing facility. Applicability of the IS Q The ISO requires approval of a land use permit for projects involving the use or transport . P of hazardous-materials unless they are either exempt or not covered by that ordinance procedure. :'The Health Services Department and this department have reviewed our documentation relative to.determining whether any of these four provisions apply to your project. The review of theHealth Services..Department is contwined.in a memorandum dated February 4,.-2003.(attached). The ISO identifies four types of projects that require a ro�Tal of a land use permit pp application�(Qrd. Code Section:'84-53.-1002)..Those four ordinance provisions are reviewed below, together with the staff comments.on its applicability: .1. Ordinance Provision for Land Use Permit The development project ect obtains a _ p p hazard score of eighty or more-(points)pursuant to the Ordinance formula. Sta e Review-The County has determined that the recon Qured ro'ect would .f ib p J leave a heard score.of 64 points, which'is less that the 80 poiits that would :- .. r quirepproval of a kind use permit,.: - :2. Ordinance Provision for Land Use Permit—For hazard category A materials the development project stores twice the quantity.specified as the threshold planning quantity.on.the extremely_hazardous materials.list..0. ,Stn Review—The project is not proposing use of any hazard ofy A cate g nnateria.ls, therefore this provision of the ordinance does not vpply.. - - - - .3.-- - --Ordinance-Provision for-Laud-Use Pernait For hazard category A or B —mater' - 5the-development-proi-ect-wrllzesultii anew pro-cess'uiut(s)-unless the process unit complies with:Section 84-63.1004(d)(1)throw (d)(6). Credit for-reductions or projects to be closed. Sta f Review—Calpine has provided staff with documentation to show that the peaker plant is the same facility-as the existing.G P Gypsum plant whose use of hazardous materials is proposed to be reduced o(share units and.f structures). 1 Under the provisions of Ord.Code Section 84-63.1004(d),Credit for Reductions or Projects to be Closed the reconfigured project would be subj ect to a further subtraction of the hazard score to 57 points due to credit for the proposed reduction in the use of hazardous materials for the G-P Gypsum operation. F The County has determined that the proposed project.is:eligible r credit or .f. .f proposed reduction in operation- based on the review----'---'-f ordinance criteria in •the.Health services_Department memorandum. The proposed r..oject will result in a reduction.in the use of use and storage o0% oamer(c. u ently used in the treatment of water) and natural gas, hazard category.B materials, in the G P-Gypsum plant. Moreover, based on.documentation provided by the applicant indicating that the_two plants would share water treatment.and re protection units, staff is satisfied.that:the two plants constitute the same facility. : Therefore, the proposed project qualifiesfor credit for reduction,in operations, and would not require approval of a land use permit under this provision of the ordinance. 4. Ordinance Provision for Land Use Permit—For hazard.category B materials, any development proj ect•that has a fill to the maximum capacity of forty :. . -thous and tons... Sta Review—The proposed peaker plant is_not proposing to store any,hazard category B materials. ?Therefore; this provision.o.f'the ordinance do.es.not apply. : Based-on the preceding review, staff has determined-that the proposed proj ect is not covered by the land use permit provisions of the ISO. Therefore, a.land use permit is not required for this project. Re��iew-of Documents for Im lementation of Chan es to Peaker-Plant and G-P Gypsum. Plaut to To qualify for the determination of noncoverage, Calpine has proposed(1) the.reduction of the use and storage of hazardous materials at the G-P Gypsum plant, and(2) to allow the Riverview Energy Center(REC) and G-P Gypsum.plant to be considered the same facility. Among the proposed changes to the proposed and existing planter p ns are the following: • -----Reduction in the use.and-stora efamer(hazard categoryB)at the-G-P Gypsum plant, including reduction in the size of holding vessel(s); Reduction in the storage of natural gas.(hazard category B); • Provision for sharing of treated water produced by REC with G sum G-P; yp • Provision for an integrated fire protection unit to jointly serve both GP and REC parcels. -The components of the system are to include a 1,500 gallon/minute pumping unit on G-P's current dock extending in the.river; a'ocke (booster)J Y pump, a 100,000 gallon water tower on the G-P tower for back-up fire protection C A and a shared pipeline that spans both parcels to serve.h drants and s rinkler -systems for both parcels. _ Prior to requesting a final inspection of the Riverview Energy Center C -buildin permit, Calpine has agreed to provide the County with a written commitment, and for the County to review and approve.said written commitment to implement the. ro Died p. p measures. This written commitment-shall include a workable schedule of n6c' essary activities to allow for County review; obtaining any re, aired permits or amendments to q existing permits; completion of improvements; and required site verification b Y responsible Countyagencies of the proposed measures consistent with the requirement of Ordinance Code Section 84-631.1004(e). Our Department will try to arrange for a j Dint inspection of these improvements by the Building Inspection and Health Services Departments. Notice Requirement The County Ordinance Code expressly requires,that determinations of noncoverage.under Section 84-63.1004 must be reported to the Zoning Administrator undersection.84 63.8 0 8.and shall be subject to the public notification re uirements-of section 84-63.810. q .[Co.. Ord. Code, •§ 84-63.1004(d)] Because the reconfigured project involves credit for reductions in the use of hazardous materials, Ordinance Code Section-84-63.1004(4)requires-that the determinationof-.noncoverage be reported on.the zoning administrator agenda pursuant to Ordinance_bode Section 84-63.808. Staff intends to satisfy this requirement by g includin this information on=the March 10, 2003 Zoning Administrator.agenda,-and to provide for publication of a public notice m a newspaper of general circulation by that date. Opportunity for Appeal of Determination of Noncoverage Please note that the County staff determination of Y noncoverage may be app ealed to the Board of Supervisors if.such appeal is filed�Tithin ten X10) calendar days from the date of _ Y _ publication of the public notice or ten (10) calendar days of the date the determination is listed on the zoning-administrator's agenda, whichever provides for the.longerperiodof .-.appeal.- By .appea .By copy of this letter, we are.advising the Director of Building Inspection Ins ectithat our . Department has no obj ection to the release of the suspension of the and actin . 'building. grading permits to permit Calpine to proceed with construction through a final determination of -any appeal. At the same time, Calpine shall assume all liability for any work undertaken on this proj ect-during the period when an appeal may be filed on this determination of noncoverage, and if an appeal is timely filed, extending to a decision on said appeal b pP Y the Board of Supervisors. 2 Calpine has indicated that the provision of these shared fire protection facilities will allow Calpine to avoid having to install a diesel-driven pump on its site,which would require additional use of hazardous materials. .. 5 Should you have any questions,please.contact Bob Drake of my staff at 335-1214. Sincerely, a CATHERINE KUTSURIS Deputy Community Development Director Att. 2/4/2003.-HSD Memorandum on reconfigured project Cc: Members,Board of Supervisors Clerk of the Board County Administrator County Counsel l Community Development Department Dennis Bary Bob Drake .Health Services Department . Randall S av►Tyer = Habib Amin Building Inspection D ep a_rtment, Carlos B alto dano File ACCEPTED BY: CALPINE CORPORATION RIVERVIEW ENER ENTER, LLC ATS-BERTA SRTACCHI Amu am VICE PREM DENT- REG N -0P ;�:'_:! VICE PRESIDZNT� ESTER. REGION OPERATION G-P GYP N B • %Ono Date: o Y o� Us-cd\users$\bdrake\Perso al\zi029471-d.1tr.doc RD\ c All CONTRA -COSTA .H E A LT H S E RN 1-C E S H,4VARDOUS MATERIALS PROGRAMS TO:. ROBERT DRAB FROM: H ABIB SUBJECT: CALPMOS PROPOSED PEAKER PL AXr AT G-P GYPSUM CORPORATiONI AN'TIOCH WALLBOARD FACILI'T'Y,CONTRA COSTA COUNTY DATE: 2/4/03 CC: RANDY SAWYER,JOHN.OBORNE Pery our.request,.We have..zee-e a ned the.exemption request froM the.Hazardous Materials Hand.Use Penmt for. the Installation .of Calp n►eI.s proposed -Pecker.Plant at `G-P Gypsum Corporation s Antioch Wallboard Facility. My=rreviev Is_based:on the most'recent infotion that:has been submitted by Calpine regarding the hazard score calculations and the=reduced use o Foamer dor foaming agent)by GP Gypsum as a result of the treated water that is produced by'the Calpine proposed Weaker.Plant. The most recent infoz 'tion provided.to'.us by Calpine regarding this project includes the following: ! Calpiae :letter dated ,January 27, 2003,- from. B.N.. Gaglia to Bob Drake of Community Development Depa ent. (You have a copy) • Calpine.-email contamiug revised calculations for the facility and credit evaluation for G-Y Gypsum reduced use of Foamer(a-copy is attached for your files as Attachment A) Based upazl our review -.0 f_the information provided by Calpine oz� this project, and if Community Development Department determines that the two plants.are indeed a.part.of the same mcinty, CCHS then believes that the proposed project will be exempt from a Land Use Permit although'rhe.project results �n a new process uiut handling.Haiardous Category.B mlaterials because the process -unit complies with.the criteria for the.credit for reductions or projects to'be closed.(Section 84-63.1002(c)and 84-63.1004(d)(1-6)). Per Industrial Safety ordinance, Paragraph 84-63.1004(d), reduction credit shall be given if the Cor unity Development Director detertnimes that the applicant will concurrently close another project or reduce its aperatians and finds-that all-:of file followmg_ciiteria are met:----- - (1) The project to be.closed or reduced is in the same facility in which the development project is proposed. ,(2) The proj ect to be closed or reduced is currently-in operati m and has been' operation for at least three years.prior to the date of application, during whicla period the production schedule has been reflective of a normal_production schedule; (3) The project to be closed or reduced is the direct result of the proposed development project; (4) The project to be closed or reduced has a higher hazard score than the proposed development project; 1 ' C F (5) The hazard category of:the.material or waste m the development project will be no greater than the.hazard:category of the material or waste in theproject to be•closed or.reduced;and (6) The developiment project will be.-more Ehan 300.feet from the property line of the nearest residential property or sensitive receptor. Per our conversations with.Martha Watson of Calpine, the.Cal' Peaker Plant.will be equipped with a demineralization unit which will be able to produce a much cleaner water for.their use and.also for G-P :Gypsum, thereby reducing the usage of chenu'cals such as•Foamer (A' dehatured alcohol solution, a Class B material) and vesehex B (a Class-C material), thus benefiting G-P Gypsum plant. Also G,P Gypsum owner is the land Leaseholder for the Calpine planta The_twp plaits could be.considered to be a part.of the same facility although we believe that this could be argued other wise. See.out-discussion of facility description below. The _G-P Gypsum plant:has been in operation .for:at.east three -years. The.:proposed -reduction in chemical use and storage by G-l' psum is a direct result o the .Calpine peaker plant installation and operation, : :The.hazard category of the material or waste in the,Calpine deveZopz�ote�t project will be Category..B and C material and will not be greater than theI"Z" d category of the inaterisl or waste in the project to be closed or reduced for G-P_gyps ixm; and the development:prof Oct will:be more than 300 feet from the property lie of the nearest residentialpr-opezt ox sensitive receptor. We have conducted our own'independent-calculations of the hazard scores and a copy is_ rovided_im ' Attachment 13. Based on information provided by Calpiue,-the results confirm a maximum.hazard score of 63 :for the new Calpine peaker plant and a hazard scare of 71 forth' G P Gypsum with their associated reduced use of-chemicals.for.Class B materials. This is consistent W'ith,haiard score calculations performed by Calpine presented in Attachment A. One key concern is whethei any credit can be considered for the Calpine ne Peaker Plant as a result of a reduction in the quantity of Class B and C materials for the landowner, G-P:.Gyp-sunL For suhiriittal of.the Risk Management•Plan (F►q')documents, the facilities with different owners:are considered to be separate and are required to sub�aovtt tdependent 111�lPs if._each has more than the threshold aluanttty.of:regulated materials. -Attachment C provides_reference to the,Federal RMP.pro for consideration of facilities for the RMP documentation. Attachment C alsoprovides:a quotation from the Federal Regulations,Marc 68 on Chemical Accident Pt6ventioxx Provisions, Subpart A, Section .68.3;' Definitions, whi6h'desezibes similar -de fmiti oh s to the Federal G1ii dant a on RMP. Tor-Land-u_se-Permit considerations, the-Industrial Safety`•Ordinance-defines the f,acility as `'a group of bulldxngs, structures, or units with thesa=purpose on contiguous arcels (ihcludla, arcels separated by a right-of-way, as defined in Section 1002-2.002 of this.code)-under cozhmon ownership or control. A final determination of whether the Calpine peaker plant can be considered to be apart of the G P Gypsum for land P .YP use pent evaluation is entirely_dependent-on the Community Development Depaztnaemt if the twoa lr�ts p are determined not to be a_pait of-the same facility,acredit towatd the new project cannot be taken and then the new project will be subject to a Land Use Permit. Please call me @ 646-2030 for any questions. 2 r �\�\�. r .y�S•.L�,\Y tiy•. a S NOMyySaySj%{�•y S�r Shy �ca,Y;,���3✓�": '+�e+f, �rj�L'l��f�,�e�rt•<+^f�\rta }JV►�i��'1�t••'� ♦ t�Y �<c a �a �-�r�1�•J�}'���-Yl.�y„' •-�'�r���r� a S J;,r J�- \r�•}�- ---------— -- —y�y d a �y S+,r�,: as �\rC7rti��:\•a r t`�=!;+ • -- — v ?►r A1r`l tiyi a. .����{!;;r' i Yi}<r a}aaJ1 �"1�~Y y• •L{r fLrf.��'Sitt��,yw� {. >qaa \ 1 X ti•�ti, - ti{tirt k yy4_ •.. }SY• 4jr1�h�V►<�4 <�jM./J+�yLJ.\ �.r�i�•t ;fit r�'ta{• `•• J� a;;. Car =F}Z� .Ja!• �v!w. r\rte: ?••J��•r�r+ +r r�r.:ww r« Date: Tuesday, April 08, 2003 To: Contra Costa C o- unCommunityDevelop. tY Department John Oborne Phone: 925-335-1207 Fax: 925-335-1222 From: Contra Costa Health Services Habib Amin Phone: 925-646-2930 Fax: 925-646-2940 Pages: 7 Subject: Staff Response to the A ppeal for Land Use Permit Determination for Calpine Peaker Plant For your review, attached please find a copy of our response to the appeal for Land Use Permit Determination for the Calpine Peaker Plant. Please -call for any-questions. -- - Regards Habib Amin cc: Randy Sawyer, Bob Drake Attachment A Staff Response to the Appeal from Determination of Noncoverage of Pecker Energy Plant from Land Use Permit Provisions Under.the.Industrial Safety Ordinance Chapter 84-63 Appealed by Van Bourg,Weinberg,Roger&Rosenfeld On Behalf of Tom Butterfield et al. on March 20,2003 For Riverview Energy Center 795 Minaker Court Antioch,CA INTRODUCTIONS Based on the information supplied by Calpine Corporation's application, the Community Development Department at Contra Costa County(the County) determined that a Hazardous Materials Land Use Permit was not-required-under the Industrial Safety Ordinance (ISO)for the installation of Calpine's proposed Pecker Plant(Riverview Energy Center) at G-P Gypsum Corporation's Antioch Wallboard Facility. CCHS assisted Community Development Department in evaluating Calpine's application. The initial determination had to be reevaluated because of Calpine's omission of data on one Category B material,natural gas,from the evaluation. The land use permit determinations for development projects involving hazardous waste or hazardous materials are based on the County Industrial Safety Ordinance, Chapter 84-63. Per Industrial Safety Ordinance, Paragraph 84-63.1002,unless otherwise exempt from the requirements of the chapter, a land use permit shallbe required for a development project proposed for the management of hazardous material and/or hazardous waste if any of the following apply: (a)the development project obtains a hazard score of 80 or more pursuant to the formula set forth in Section 8463.1004; or(c)for hazard category A or B materials,the development project will result in a new process unit(s)unless the process unit complies with section 84-63.1004 (d) 1 through 6—Credit for reductions or projects to be closed. Reduction credit shall be given if the Community Development Director determines that the applicant will concurrently close another project or reduce its operations and finds that all of the following criteria are met: (1) The project to be closed or reduced is in the same facility in which the development project is proposed. (2) The--project to be closed or reduced is -currently in operation and has been in operation for at least three years prior to the date of application, during which period the production schedule has been reflective of a normal production schedule; (3) The project to be closed or reduced is the direct result of the proposed development project; (4) The project to be closed or reduced has a higher hazard score than the proposed development project; (5) The hazard category of the material or waste in the development project will be no greater than the hazard category of the material or waste in the project to be closed or reduced; and (6)The development project will be more than 300 feet from the property line of the nearest residential property or sensitive receptor. 1 4/8/04 CCHS staff conducted its own independent calculations of the hazard scores calculated by Calpine(Memo from Habib Amin to Robert Drake dated 2/4/03). Based on a re-evaluation of the application and information provided by Calpine, the results indicated a maximum hazard score of 63 for the new Calpine Peaker Plant and a hazard score of 71 for the G-P Gypsum Facility with their associated reduced use of chemicals for Class B materials. This was identified to be consistent with hazard score calculations performed by Calpine. Based on the County Industrial Safety Ordinance requirements, the development project was identified to have a score much less than 80 and thus was recommended to be exempt from the Land Use Permit requirements. THE APPEAL The determination that a Hazardous Materials Land Use Permit is not required by the ISO for the installation of Calpine's proposed Peaker Plant has been appealed by Van Bourg, Weinberg, Roger &Rosenfeld, on behalf of Tom Butterfield et al. on March 20, 2003. The appeal is for the County's determination that no land use permit is required under Section 84-63.1002 [Hazard Score Determination] due to 1) the project's score exceeds 80, and 2)the project does not meet all the criteria under Section 84-63.1004(d)(1) [Credits for Reductions or Projects to Be Closed]. The appeal addresses three specific issues as follows: 1. Calpine application did not include the periodic replacement and transportation of spent catalyst(for treatment of nitrogen oxides) containing vanadium pentoxide as a Category A Material in their Analysis. The County hazard score determination has not incorporated vanadium pentoxide into the analysis. 2. Calpine application and the subsequent County hazard score determination has omitted two category B Materials and additional Category C Materials from the analysis. 3. Calpine's reduced project is incorrectly determined to be in the same facility as the G-P Gypsum Corporation's. The staff evaluation provided in this report addresses the above Items 1 and 2 of the appeal concerns and Item 3 is addressed in a separate section of the report. IS SELECTIVE CATALYTIC REDUCTION (SCR) CATALYST A CLASS A MATERIAL? For the Calpine Peaker Plant,nitrogen oxide compounds (NOx) are formed during the combustion of natural gas in their gas turbine, which is the heart of the power generation process. Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) of NOx is accomplished by passing the gases over a honeycombed catalyst bed and injection of ammonia to react with nitrogen oxides to convert them to inert nitrogen and water. Figure 1 presents a simplified block flow diagram for the Calpine Peaker Plant. Figure 2 presents a typical SCR system and the reaction of nitrogen oxide with ammonia to generate water and nitrogen. Figure 3 illustrates a typical configuration of how catalyst modules are arranges in an SCR system. The SCR catalyst is composed primarily of titanium dioxide (<85%), tungsten trioxide, ceramic fiber, silicon dioxide, and vanadium pentoxide (<5%). The vanadium pentoxide is bound to the surface of the ceramic's complex porous structure by calcinations. 2 4/8/03 Per discussions with the SCR vendor, Cormetech, Inc. located in North Carolina, the fresh made honeycomb catalyst is a stable ceramic material as the vanadium pentoxide is encapsulated into the catalyst bed material. The manufacturer issued MSDS sheet identifies it as not being regulated as a hazardous.material by the United States Department of Transportation (DOT) regulations, as the material does not possess the characteristics of a hazardous material (CFR 49 sections 171.8 and 173.132). Once the catalyst can no longer be used for its intended purpose,i.e. the catalyst is no longer capable of catalyzing the reaction of nitrogen oxides with ammonia,it is considered spent and must be managed according to state and federal waste regulations. Due to the catalyst value,it is likely that the spent catalyst could be recycled and would then not be considered a hazardous waste. Due to the concentration of vanadium(-5%), the spent catalyst if it is not recycled, could be classified as a California hazardous waste but it is likely that it would not be a RCRA hazardous waste due to STLC and/or TTLC waste characterization analysis. A representative sample of the spent catalyst would be analyzed at a certified analytical laboratory to make this determination. Assuming spent catalyst is a California hazardous waste, the material must be shipped on a Uniform hazardous waste Manifest. However, it is likely that the specific DOT requirements for transportation of the waste as a hazardous waste do not apply. Appellant estimates that the Calpine Peaker Plant would use about 15,000 pounds of SCR catalyst to reduce 90% of the NOx from the 50 MW plant, depending upon the specific catalyst that is selected. The vanadium pentoxide content of SCR catalyst would then range up to 750 lbs. The appellant compares this amount with two thresholds, the Ordinance threshold of 500 pounds and the California threshold of 100 pounds. The issues are addressed below: 1. The 100 lb California threshold value for vanadium pentoxide is for the powdered form (Table 3 of California Code of regulations, Title 19,Division 2, Chapter 4.5) [California Accidental Release Prevention (CalARP)Program]. However,the vanadium pentoxide is not in powdered form,but is encapsulated in the structure of the honeycomb catalyst. The appropriate threshold is then 10,000 lbs, well above the appellant estimated quantity of the vanadium pentoxide in the spent catalyst (750 lbs). 2. The appellant estimated the quantity of vanadium pantoxide to be 750 lbs. Vanadium pentoxide is listed on Appendix A of 40 Code of Federal regulations Chapter I, Subchapter J Part 355,with a reportable quantity of 1,000 lbs. This reportable quantity is well above the appellant estimated quantity. Also the spent catalyst is likely to have a project life of more than ten years and does not have to be replaced before then. In fact,based on communications with the catalyst vendor, the catalyst placed in service in early-1990's-in a major CCC-refinery-has not been replaced in the past ten years. The Calpine Peaker Plant would likely require even a lesser replacement frequency for the spent catalyst than a refinery application as it uses natural gas as a fuel rather than a refinery gas, which could include residual heavy metals or organic compounds. Per vendor communications, the metal frame holding the spent catalyst is expected to have significant additional weight and shipments of spent catalyst typically have required multiple shipments. As a typical truck holds about 40,000 lbs,the shipment could administratively be controlled to maintain the amount of vanadium pentoxide shipped below 1000 lbs in a given shipment, as shipment of such a spent catalyst is expected to be so infrequent. The DOT requirements for shipment as a hazardous waste would then not apply and the spent Catalyst cannot be identified as a Category A Material. 3 4/8/03 3. Although the spent catalyst, if not recycled, would likely be a California hazardous waste, the management options for this waste material may include recycling,metal reclamation, regeneration, or landfill. Calpine plans to recycle the spent catalyst to a qualified recycling facility. Per communications with the SCR vendor, there are at.least two spent SCR catalyst recyclers, one in Texas and one in Pennsylvania. Recycling exclusions are available in the California Health and Safety Code, section 25143.2. It is possible that the spent catalyst from the natural gas burning Calpine Peaker Plant can be identified to be a candidate for exclusion under 25143.2 and then certain handling requirements apply and the material may be shipped on a Bill-of-lading. The DOT requirements for shipment as a hazardous waste would then not apply. HAVE OTHER HAZARD CATEGORY B OR CATEGORY C MATERIALS BEEN OMITTED? The appellant claims that Calpine did not submit data on the use of Category B materials sulfuric acid and sodium hydroxide. The reverse osmosis unit, demineralizer, and the cooling tower typically require ph adjustment. Calpine has indicated that the regeneration of the demineralizer resin will occur offsite,thus no sulfuric acid or sodium hydroxide will be used. Calpine has also indicated that sulfuric acid is not required for the operation of the cooling tower because the make-up water is provided by a reverse osmosis system. Calpine plans to use phosphate to control scaling in both the reverse osmosis system and the cooling tower. Calpine indicates that the reverse osmosis membranes will be cleaned offsite or replaced as determined by the equipment supplier. The staff has not been provided with any evidence that would indicate that the"Calpine Peaker plant would use anything other than that reported in their Hazard Category B or Category C Material table indicated in Calpine's revised submittal (Attachment to Memo from Habib Amin to Robert Drake dated 2/4/03). Inclusion of any other Hazard Category B or Category C Material can be verified through the review of the submissions of Hazardous Materials Business Plan (annually) and periodic inspections and/or audits conducted by the Contra Costa Health services Hazardous Materials Programs staff. IS THE REDUCED PROJECT IN THE SAME FACILITY? The Appellant has claimed that the Calpine Peaker Plant does not meet the criteria in section 84- 63.1004(d)(1). This appeal has been addressed under a separate cover. CONCLUSIONS Based on information available from Calpine's application and communications with the SCR catalyst vendor and a major local refinery,*the staff concludes that the S CR catalyst is not a Category A Material under the Ordinance as it is not expected to be governed by the specific Department of Transportation (DOT)regulations as a hazardous waste and does not need to be considered for land use permit determination. The staff has not been provided with any evidence that any additional Category B or Category C Materials have been omitted from the County Hazard Score Determination. 4 4/8/03 1 Exhaus Aqueous Ammonia Storage Natural Stack Gas Combustion SCR Turbine .Catalyst Air Figure 1 A Simplified Block Flow Diagram for the Calpin' e Riverview Peaker Plant catalyst 4NO + 4NH3 �M 4N-2 + 46H20 200-d50'C Cita k __j Flue Gas i-t x we. Q*NHa HSC} Duct - � SCR -��-Dud Figure 2 Reaction Chemistry In A Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) System 5 4 �(a i SOOT � SLOWED mom IAIRFAN _ r ANALYZES ATA,,'�M PAD 40 ., ,dr .o i4r y' fi '► ' OWLS T L=rMO- STEEL CSE Figure 3 _ Typical Conflauration of a Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) System 6 r" a£ 000, STOELG Ill Sutter Street.Suitt:70() RIVES San Francisco.Calilornia 94104 hone 413.617.5900 L L P 03 APR —8 PH i 5_2 fa.\415.676.3000 «ww stoel.com A combination with - , Washburn, Briscoe & McCarthy ANNE E. MUDGE Direct(41�)617-8908 April 7, 2003 aemudge@stoel.com VIA FACSIMILE AND FIRST CLASS MAIL Contra Costa Board of Supervisors County Administration Building 651-Pine-Street 4th Floor,North Wing Martinez, CA 94553 Re: Calpine's Response to Butterfield Appeal of Determination of Noncoverage: Riverview Energy Center,CDD File#21029471 Dear Mr.'Chair and Members of the Board of Supervisors: This firm represents Calpine Corporation and Riverview Energy Center, LLC in its application for a determination for noncoverage under the County's Industrial Safety Ordinance ("ISO") (Chapter 84-63) for a peaker energy plant at 795 Minaker Court. On February 24, 2003, the Deputy Development Director determined that no land use permit is necessary because the conditions calling for a permit in section 84-63-1.002 are not present. On February 25, 20035 Operating Engineers Union Local 3, through its attorneys, inquired about the determination of noncoverage. On March 20, 2003, the union's attorneys challenged staff's determination on behalf of Tom Butterfield,.an individual_, and on behalf of"other residents and workers in Antioch." The appeal should be denied. County staff properly determined that the project does not require a land use permit under,the ISO. No land use permit is required under Section 84-63.1002 sbecaue (1) t _ ' ct's roehaz he p _ � __ __ard_score_does not_exceed_80 and (2) the project meets the criteria under Section 84-63.1004(d)(1) through(6) for a reduction credit. A. The Project's Hazard Score Is Less Than 80, A land use permit is required under the ISO if a:.project's hazard score exceeds 80 points. Here, Calpine s calculations (included with its application) showed a hazard score of 64 for theJro'ect. p Staff's independent assessment yielded a hazard score of 63. Appellant argues that Calpine and County"did not include the several Class (sic)A and B materials that raise the hazard score above 80." Appellant asserts specifically that a portion of 0reg«n Washington C a I i I o r n i a Utah SanFran-139963.I 0092084-00108 I d a h o W a s h i n g t o n D C r Contra,Costa Board of Supervisors April 7;2003 Page 2 the peaker's air pollution control technology(the SCR catalyst) is a Hazard Category A material. Appellant is incorrect. 1. The Catalyst In The SCR System Is Not A Regulated Material. The proposed selective catalytic reduction(SCR) system to be used in the eaker plant was not p improperly excluded from the hazard score calculation. The ceramic catalyst is not a regulated material under the ISO and therefore is not included in a project's hazard score. The SCR system is incorporated into the peaker's exhaust system and is part of its airp ollution control technology. It contains a series of porous ceramic blocks that contain a metal that catalyzes the conversion of nitrogen oxides (NOx), air pollutants, to nitrogen gas and water. The metal.that.is used in the SCR system for the Riverview peaker project is vanadiump entoxide. During the manufacturing process of the SCR system's ceramic catalyst, the vanadium is mixed with other slurried components of the ceramic material. The mixture is then baked at high temperatures to bind the vanadium within the ceramic's complex porous structure by calcination. The resulting "honeycomb" catalyst is a non-reactive, stable ceramic material and has a vanadium content.less then S%, as specified in its Material Data Safety Sheet.' The ceramic catalyst was not included in the hazard score calculation because it is excluded altogether,from regulation under the ISO. The ISO states that "materials not Y regulated b D.O.T. � or which have no hazard class or division are not regulated by this chapter." (Section 84- 63.1016(b).) This exclusion applies "regardless of the hazard category obtained using the methods set forth in subdivision (a) of this section." (Id.) In this case, the catalyst is not regulated by DOT and has no hazard class or division. The product's (MSDS provides that"this product [i.e., the ceramic catalyst] is not regulated as a hazardous material by the United States (DOT) or Canadian(TDG)transportation regulations." Since the catalyst is not regulated by the DOT, it is not regulated under the ISO regardless of the hazard category of its components. However, as--explained below, it-is not a Hazard Category A material in all-events. ' A Material Safety Data Sheet(MSDS)provides workers and emergency personnel with the proper procedures for handling or working with a particular substance. An MSDS includes information such as physical data(melting point,boiling point, flash point,etc.),toxicity,health effects,first aid,reactivity, storage, disposal,protective equipment, spill/leak procedures, and transportation information. SanFran-139963.1 0092084-00108 v t Contra Costa Board of Supervisors April 7, 2003 Page 3 2. The Catalyst In The SCR System Is Not A Hazard Category A Material Due To Its Vanadium Content. Appellant contends that "the SCR catalyst is a class (sic) A material"based on the fact that it is contains vanadium pentoxide,which in certain forms is a poison. (Appeal, lained p. 6.) As explained above, the catalyst is not regulated under the ISO since it is not regulated by the DOT. But in all events, the catalyst is not a poison, and therefore not Hazard Category A material, based on its vanadium content. Although generic vanadium compounds and vanadium pentoxide are both listed_in 49 CFR 172.101 as division 6.1 "poisons" in their pure forms, the vanadium in the form in which it is contained in the catalyst does not make the catalyst a division 6.1 poison. According to 84- 63.1016 (c)(VI)(a) of the ISO, the material must meet of the definition of a division 6.1 poison as defined in 49 CFR 173.132 to be a Hazard Category A material. In order to be a division 6.1 poison,the catalyst has to be"so toxic to humans as to afford a hazard to health during transportation" (49 CFR 173.132.) This formed solid ceramic product poses no immediate health hazard, is not a hazard to human health during transportation, and is therefore is not a poison. The vanadium in the catalyst does not make the catalyst a poison because vanadium in this form does not present a contact, inhalation or ingestion hazard. The catalyst is similar to steel, which can also contain vanadium but is itself not a.Hazard Category A material simply because-it contains vanadium. The ceramic catalyst in its natural state is never subjected to welding, g burning,melting, sawing,brazing, grinding, or other similar processes that could potentially release airborne particulates or fumes. By design,the ceramic catalyst is used in high heat conditions and does not cause the release of the.vanadium pentoxide. a. Contact,Ingestion,And Inhalation Hazards Two common standards used to compare toxicities of different materials are LD50 and LC50. LD stands for "Lethal Dose" and is used as a measure of toxicity depending upon the route of exposure, either dermal "contact" (applied to the skin), or oral "ingestion" (given by mouth). LD50 is the amount of a material, given all at once, that causes the death of 50% (one half) of a group of test animals (rats or rabbits) within fourteen days. An LD50 is usually expressed as the amount of chemical administered (e.g., milligrams) per 100 grams (or kilogram) of the body weight of the test animal. SanFran-139963.1 0092084-00108 Contra Costa Board of Supervisors April 7, 2003 Page 4 LC stands for "Lethal Concentration" and is used as a measure of toxicity by inhalation. The LC50 means that concentration of vapor,mist, or dust, which, when inhaled for one hour, causes the death of 50% of a group of test animals within fourteen days. An LC50 is usually expressed as the concentration of material administered (e.g.,milligrams) per liter-(or cubic meter) of air over a 4-hour exposure. For each material, a different LD50 or LC50 is determined for each route of entry. As an example, for vanadium pentoxide, the LD50 for dermal toxicity is 50 mg of material per kg of weight of the test animal (or 50 mg/kg). By contrast, the LD50 for oral toxicity of vanadium pentoxide is 10 mg/kg. The LC50 for inhalation toxicity of vanadium pentoxide is 0.126 mg/L for a 6-hour exposure. The DOT uses the LD50 and LC50 for a one-hour exposure to define whether a material is a regulated poison, due to its short-term poisoning potential (acute toxicity). A material that exceeds the LD50 for dermal toxicity is considered to be a ".contact hazard"during transportation and therefore a poison; one that exceeds the LD50 for oral toxicity is.considered to be an "ingestion hazard"poison. Similarly, a material that exceeds the LCD50 for inhalation toxicity is considered to be a"inhalation hazard"poison. b. The Catalyst Is Not A Contact Hazard. Touching the catalyst does not present a contact hazard that would cause it to be defined as a poison under 49 CFR 173.132(a), even though it contains vanadium. To present dermal toxicity to the degree that it would be considered a division 6.1 poison, the material has to have an LD50 for acute dermal toxicity of 1,000 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) or less. (See 49 173.132 a . The LD50 of the ceramic catalyst is greater than 1,000 mg/kg. The LD50 of pure vanadium pentoxide is-50 mg/kg, so a concentration of 5% or greater would be necessary in order to exceed dermal toxicity levels. The vanadium pentoxide concentration used in the ceramic catalyst is - -less-than-5%, as-specified in its MSDS. Thus,the catalyst is not toxic--enough via dermal - exposure to have it defined as a division 6.1 poison due to its vanadium content. C. The Catalyst Is Not An Ingestion Hazard. The catalyst does not present an ingestion hazard that would cause it to be defined as a division 6.1 poison by 49 CFR 173.132 due to its vanadium content. To present oral toxicity to the degree that it would be considered a division 6.1 poison, a solid has to have a LD50 for acute oral toxicity of 200 mg/kg or less. (49 CFR 173.132.) The LD50 of the ceramic catalyst, which contains less than 5% vanadium pentoxide, would be greater than the 200-mg/kg threshold. The SanFran-13 9963.1 0092084-00108 Contra Costa Board of Supervisors April 7., 2003 Page 5 LD50 of pure vanadium pentoxide is 10 mg/kg. Therefore,in order to exceed the LD50 for acute oral toxicity, the vanadium pentoxide would have to be present in concentrations in excess of 5%. As the vanadium pentoxide is present in concentrations that are less than 5%, the.ceramic catalyst is not orally toxic enough to have it defined as a division 6.1 poison due to its vanadium content. d. The Catalyst Is Not An Inhalation Hazard. The ceramic catalyst is integrated into the SCR system and will not be ground up, become airborne, and be inhaled. In any event,the catalyst would not present an inhalation hazard that would cause it to be defined as a division 6.1 poison by 49 CFR 173.132. To-present inhalation toxicity to the degree that it would be considered a division 6.1 material, a dust or mist has to have an LC50 for acute toxicity on inhalation of 10 milligrams per liter(mor/L) or less. (49 CFR 173.132.) The LC50 of the catalyst, at less than 5%vanadium pentoxide, would be greater than 15 mg/L(i.e., greater than the threshold)based on the LC50 of pure vanadium pentoxide,which is estimated to be 0.756 mg/L.`' The vanadium pentoxide would have to beP resent in concentrations exceeding 7.6% in order to be considered a division 6.1 material. Thus, even in the unlikely event that the catalyst is ground up and dispersed into the air, it would not be considered toxic enough to have it defined as a division 6.1 poison. In sum, the catalyst is not a poison according to the DOT due to its vanadium content and therefore is not a Hazard Category A material under Section 84-63.1016. As explained above, however, the catalyst is not regulated under the ISO because it is not regulated by the DOT. It therefore was properly excluded from the hazard score calculation for the peaker project. e. A Spent Catalyst Is Not A Hazard Category A Material. Since the catalyst is not regulated at all under the ISO, the lifetime of the catalyst also is not pertinent. Nonetheless., addressing the--app eal_comments regarding_replacement.of the.-catalyst ("change out"), vendors typically guarantee the SCR catalyst for 3 years,but that does not reflect the lifetime of the product. The standard life of the catalyst before being spent is typically in the range of 7-10 years for a power plant operating 8000 hours per year. Based on the projected average annual operation of 2000 hours, it is projected that the catalyst will not be spent and changed out during the 20-year.design life of the Riverview Energy Center. 2 Based on an LC50 of 0.126 mg/L for a 6-hour exposure. According to 173.132 b 3 i when data on the LC50 for acute toxicity on inhalation of dusts for a one-hour exposure is not available"the LC50 for acute toxicity on inhalation based on a four-hour exposure may be multiplied by four and the product substituted for the one-hour LC50." By extension,the 6-hour LC50 of 0.126 mg/L was multiplied-by 6 to arrive at the value shown. SanFran-139963.1 0092084-00108 Contra Costa Board of Supervisors April 7, 2003 Page 6 In the event that it is necessary to change-out the catalyst, the catalyst that is removed from the facility will be either recycled or disposed of appropriately. The catalyst is typically sent to a recycler who under direction of the catalyst manufacturer converts the catalyst to other uses. The recycled catalyst is typically used in refinery applications. If the disposal option is chosen, in California, the catalyst would need to be tested, and if required,be sent to a Class 1 (hazardous waste) landfill for purposes of disposal because of the amount of vanadium in the catalyst. However, the spent catalyst would not be a division 6.1 poison and would not be a Hazardous Category A material,but only a Hazard Category C material under the ISO. This would not effect the hazard score of the project. 3. Calpine Has Disclosed All Hazard Category B Materials. Natural gas is the only Hazardous Category B material that will be used by the Riverview Energy Center. Regeneration of the demineralizer resin will occur off site, thus no sulfuric acid or sodium hydroxide will be used as contended by Appellant. Sulfuric acid is not required for the operation of the cooling tower because the make-up water is provided by a reverse osmosis system. Phosphonate will be used to control scaling in both the reverse osmosis system and the cooling tower. The reverse osmosis membranes will be cleaned off site or replaced as determined by the equipment supplier, which leases the equipment to the Riverview Energy Center and maintains it. 4. Hazard Category C Materials. Riverview Energy Center will not use anything other than Hazard Category C Materials in its operations (othefthaft natural gas). This is set forth in Calpine's application materials and will be verified through the submissions of Hazardous Materials Business Plans (annually) and inspections by the County's Hazardous Materials Division. The scale inhibitors/dispersants and antifoaming agents that will be used at the site will be Hazard Category C materials and the representative trade names provided by-Calpine reflect-the typical formulations of these-types of products. B. The Peaker And G-P Plants Are In "Same Facility." Appellant argues that the Riverview project does not meet the requirement in Section 84- 63.1004(d)(1) that "the project to be reduced"be in the"same facility"as the project to be proposed. Appellant is not correct. The County properly determined that, for purposes of the ISO ordinance, the peaker plant and the G-P gypsum plant are part of the same "facility." SanFran-139963.1 0092084-00108 Contra Costa Board of Supervisors April 7, 2003 Page 7 1. "Structures or Units With Same Purpose." The ordinance defines "facility" as a`.`a group of buildings, structures or units with the same purpose on contiguous parcels . . . under common ownership or control." Appellant misconstrues this definition to require that the gypsum plant and the eaker plant have the same p overall purpose (e.g., the same end product)to fall within the definition. However,to meet the definition, it is only necessary that buildings, structures OR units have "the samep �u ose." Here, the structures or units with the same purpose are the shared water treatment and fire protection systems. The shared purpose of these units is to treat water and fight fire. The g County thus properly determined that there will be a"group of structures or units with the same purpose." 2. "Contiguous Parcels . . . Under Common Ownership."' P Appellant mischaracterizes the ordinance as.requiring that the.buildings, structures or units be under common ownership or control. In fact,the ordinance requires that the contiguous parcels not the buildings or structures be under common ownershi or control. In this case the contiguous parcels on which the projects are located are both owned by G-P. The "contiguous parcels . . . under common ownership or control" criterion is therefore met.. The County's determination of noncoverage is based on standard rules of construction and interpretation and is supported by the both thelain language of the ordinance and b the PY purpose of the ordinance (to reduce the use of hazardous materials). C. "Unanswered Ouestions Bv County Health Services." During its review of Calpine's reconfigured plant application, staff reviewed provisions of other laws for possible guidance on the proper interpretation of the definition of facility. A memorandum by staff memb.ers__in_the.Health--Services-division-raises the-question whether the . q federal definition of"stationary source"and guidance on Risk Management Plans ("'RMPs") should apply to this determination. The memorandum from the Health Services division acknowledges a"final determination of whether the Calpine peaker plan can be considered to be part of the G-P Gypsum for land use permit evaluation is entirely dependent on the Community Development Department." The Community Development Department correctly concluded that RMP filing requirements are not relevant to a determination of whether a reduction credit can be taken for a new project under the ISO. Neither the terms nor the purpose of these two disparate regulations are the same. SanFran-139963.1 0092084-00108 Contra Costa Board of Supervisors April 7, 2003 Page 8 1. The RMP Guidelines Do Not Define"Facility." Contrary to the Appellant's claim, the RMP guidance does not define"facility." (See General Guidance for Risk Management Programs (40 CFR Part 68), Section 1.6, p. 1-14 to 1-15.) It is therefore a misstatement to claim that the definitions in the two regulations are "the same." Rather,the RMP guidelines define"stationary source." "Stationary source"is not defined by.the guidelines identically to the way"facility"is defined by the ISO. Although there are some similarities,there are significant-differences that preclude imposing the same interpretation of the RMP regulatory scheme.on the ISO regulatory scheme. The purpose of the RMP provisions is also different from the purpose of the ISO ordinance and therefore is not he to.a determination of a project's noncoverage under the ISO. The purpose of the RMP provisions is to"prevent accidental releases of substances that can cause serious harm to the public and the environment from short-term exposures and to mitigate the severity of releases that do occur." (Guidelines, Introduction, at i.) The purpose of the ISO ordinance is to "promote the health, safety and general welfare of residents and persons in the county by encouraging businesses and other entities, in planning and developing projects involving hazardous material or hazardous waste,to consider factors which involve potential health and safety risks to the surrounding community." (Section 84-63.202.) As determined by County staff, the interpretation supporting the determination of noncoverage best promotes the .purpose of the ISO, because the determination of noncoverage promotes the reduction in overall use of hazardous materials within the shared facility. CONCLUSION Calpine and the County staff properly calculated the project's hazard score. The peaker's hazard score does not exceed 80. Staff also properly interpreted the reduction credit provisions of Section 84-63.1006(d)(1). This interpretation is supported by the language and intent of the ordinance. Finally, the definition of"stationary source"under RMP guidelines is not relevant to the interpretation of"facility"under the ISO. SanFran-13 9963.1 0092084-00108 E b Contra Costa.Board of Supervisors April 7, 2003 Page 9 Calpine respectfully requests the Board of Supervisors to deny the Butterfield appeal. Very truly yours, Anne E. Mudge AEM:raa c c: Community Development Department Dennis Barry Bob Drake SanFran-13 9963.1 0092084-00108 CHRONOLOGY PROCESSING OF CALPINE RIVERVIEW ENERGY CENTER ANTIOCH AREA To April 2003 ' • On May 22, 2002 Calpine applied to the Community Development Department for a Request for Determination of whether the proposed 45- megawatt Riverview Energy Center is exempt from the,Industrial Safety Ordinance (ISO). • On September 27, 2002 County staff(Community Development Department, based on comments from the Health-Services Department) determined that the proposed project was exempt because the quantities of hazardous materials that Calpine proposed for the project were below the thresholds established under Ordinance Section 84-63.604 ( C ) of the ISO. Staff also determined that the site of the proposed plant is zoned Heavy Industrial, and that the project is a permitted use in that district and complies with the regulations in that district. Staff also approved a lot line adjustment of two existing parcels owned by GP Gypsum so that one would be configured to meet the.needs of the proposed pecker plant. The approval of the lot line adjustment was based on a finding of compliance with the zoning restrictions and consistency with the general -plan. • On October 31, 2002 the Building Inspection Department issued a grading permit for the project. A building permit was issued two months later. • On November 5, 2002, County staff posted a Notice of Exemption (from CEQA) with the Clerk of the Board with the determination by the. Community Development Department that the proposed development was a ministerial project. • On January 23, 2003 the City of Antioch appealed the issuance of grading and building permits for the project. • On January 27, 2003, the Building Inspection Director suspended building and grading permits for the project and directed the applicant to cease construction activity. The action was based on a discovery by Community Development Department staff that the applicant had not fully disclosed all of the hazardous materials that would be used in the operation, and that the project would require approval of a land use permit. • In .February 2003, the City of Antioch withdrew their appeal citing that discussions between the City and Calpine addressed the City's concerns. • After receiving additional information from the applicant reconfiguring the proposed Peaker plant, on February 24, 2003, the Community Development Department determined that the reconfigured plant was not covered by the land use permit provisions of the Industrial Safety Ordinance. The determination was based in part on a conclusion by staff that the project qualified for credit under the ISO because. (1) The reconfigured project provides for a reduction of the use and storage of hazardous materials at the adjoining G-P Gypsum Plant; and (2) The components that would be shared by the proposed peaker plant and existing wallboard plant would allow for the two plants to constitute the same facility as allowed in the ISO [Ref. 84- 63.1004(d)]. Staff also determined that the reconfigured plant would yield an ISO hazard score of only 64 points (a score of 80 or more points requires approval of a land use permit.) Under these provisions the Determination of Noncoverage was summarized on the agenda for the Zoning Administrator-meeting March 10, 2003 before which the notice was mailed to the organizations and individuals who had previously requested it in writing and a four-inch by six-inch advertisement was run in the Contra Costa Times on March 7, 2003. The last day of the appeal period was 5:00 P.M., March 20, 2003. • On February 24, 2003 the Building -Department, on advisement from the Community Development Department, released the suspension of the building permits for the proposed Peaker plant. • On March 20, 2003 an appeal was received from Tom Butterfield who was represented by the law firm of Van Bourg, Weinberg, Roger & Rosenfeld. The two main appeal points were: 1. Category A Hazardous Materials were omitted from the reconfigured plant and if they had been included would have raised Calpine's hazard score to above 80 which would disqualify it for reduction in credit and therefore the project would require a C-3 Land Use Permit. 2. The reduced project is not in the same facility. They Y state that to qualify for a credit for reduction, Section 84-63.1004(d)(1) requires that "the project to be closed or reduced is in the same facilit in Y which the development project Is proposed". The appellant asserts that the project is not in the same facility. • The Building Inspection Department indicated that construction of the Peaker plant may be completed as early as May of 2003. HAcalpine.chr 4 VICTOR J.VAN BOURG(1931-1999) VAN B(JITRG wEINBERG ROGER & RQ��;NFELD EMILY W. RICH STEWART WEINBERG LISA W.PAU MICHAEL B.ROGER , � ALAN G.CROWLEY DAVID A.M A. SOKOELD A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION EZ KIEY LEE WILLIAM A SOKOL EZEKIEL D.CARDER VINCENT A.HARRINGTON,JR. `' LORI K.ANNE 1.AQUINO•. YEN PAUL D.SUPTON W.DANIEL BOONS 180 GRAND AVENUE,E N U E, S U ITE 1400 NICOLE M.PHILLIPS BLYTHE MICKELSON J.FELIX DE LA TORRE BARRY E.TKOWSKi• JAMES RUTKQWOAKLAND, CALIFORNIA 94012 KRISTINAL.HILLMAN we* ANDREA LAIACONA SANDRA RAE BENSON TELEPHONE(51 Q)839-6600 MONICA T.GUIZAR JAMES VARGA S.TATIANA DAZA CHRISTIAN L.RAISNER FAX (510)891-0400 BROOKE D.PIERMAN JAMES J.WESSER SUZANNE MURPHY THEODORE FRANKLIN ANTONIO RUIZ ••Admitted in Hawaii ELLYN MOSCOWITZ •••Also admitted in Nevada MATTHEW J.GAUGER ASHLEY K.IKEDA we LINDA BALDWIN JONES PATRICIA M.GATES,Of Counsel CATHLEEN A WILLIAMS,Of Counsel PATRICIA A.DAMS JOHN PLOTZ,Of Counsel •Also admitted in Arizona ALBERTO TORRICO,Of Counsel ••Admitted in Hawaii jj��jj�� GEORGE ALLEN(1924-19134) -March 20, 2003 STANFORD L..GELSMAN(1932-1992) Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors County Administration Building 651 Pine Street 2nd Floor,North wing Martinez, CA 94553-0095 -m C Re: Appeal from Determination of Noncoverage of Peaker Energy Plant t�. . From Land Use Permit Provisions under the Industrial Safety Ordinance Chapter 84-63 - 4 Riverview Energy Center :T 795 Minaker Court, Antioch area CDD File##Z1029471 Dear Board of Supervisors: l With this letter, we appeal the County's Determination of Noncoverage of the Riverview Peaker Plant on behalf of Tom Butterfield, a resident of the City of Antioch, and on behalf of other residents and workers in Antioch. This appeal is made pursuant to Industrial Safety Ordinance Code Section 26-2.2404(c)(3) on grounds that the County's Deterxn.ination of Noncoverage exempting the Riverview Peaker Plant ("Riverview Project" or"the Project") from the requirement of a land use permit is not supported , by the evidence in the County's record. The Determination of Noncoverage, dated February24 2003, was placed on the March 10, 2003 Zoning Administrator agenda and is therefore ripe for appeal. In preparing this appeal, we consulted with Dr. Phyllis Fox, a well-respected environmental scientist, who reviewed the County's entire file on this project. A copy of Dr, Fox's resume is attached to this letter as Exhibit A . The Riverview Project Re wires a Land Use Permit In its rush to build the new power facility in Antioch, Calpine seriously misled the County with documentation it submitted in May 2002 to show that it was exempt from the land use pen-nit p requirements of Industrial Safety Ordinance ("ISO"). Based on Calpine's documentation, the Building Inspection Department cleared building and grading permits. LOS ANGELES OFFICE SACRAMENTO OFFICE HONOLULU OFFICE 1605 West Olympic Boulevard,Suite 1023 1006 4th Street,Suite 1050 1099 Alakea Street,Suite 1602 Los Angeles,CA 90015 Sacramento,CA 95814 Honolulu,HI 96813 TEL (213)487-8232 FAX (213)487-8786 TEL(916)443-6600 FAX(916)442-0244 TEL(808)528-8880 FAX(808)528-8881 March 20, 2003 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Page 2 In January 2003, after the County had discovered serious errors in Calpine's initial submissions regarding the extent of hazardous materials that would be used on the site, the County Building Official suspended Calpine's building and grading permits for the new plant. Calpine has since then provided the County with additional documentation that"reconfigures"the project. While admitting that the reconfigured project is covered by the ISO, Calpine contends the project is still exempt from the land use permit provisions of the ISO due to ordinance provisions for credit associated with the reduction in the use of hazardous materials for an existing facility. As we will show in detail below, this contention is false, and the County's Determination of Noncoverage does not represent faithful application of the County's own governing ordinance. The Determination of Noncoverage should not have been granted. First,the Riverview Project will use Class A and B hazardous materials not disclosed by Calpine, resulting in a hazard score of greater than 80. With a hazard score greater than 80, Calpine is required under the County's Industrial Safety Ordinance to apply for a land use permit. Second, Calpine improperly declared a"reduction credit"to reduce its hazard score below 80. The project to be reduced(G-P Gypsum) is not in the same facility as the Riverside Project, and, therefore, does not qualify for a reduction credit. The result is that Calpine must apply for the land use permit. Calpine pressed the County to issue a quick Determination of Noncoverage and lift the suspension of its building and grading permits, which it did on February 24. Calpine has important financial goals it can more easily achieve by escaping the land use permitting process and attendant environmental review. As a lawyer for Calpine summed up Calpine's concerns, "Calpine stands to lose tens of millions of dollars if this peaker plant is not timely completed and available for use."1 Mr. Butterfield understands Calpine's economic imperatives,recognizes the State of California's need.for expanded energy production, and values the potential benefits of a new peaker power plant in Antioch. However, the long-tern safety and health of the conununity should not be sacrificed to the short-term economic needs of Calpine. Mr. Butterfield urges the Board to apply with great care the health and safety laws that protect him and his neighbors, the citizens and working people of Contra Costa County. If the Board of Supervisors grants the appeal, Calpine will be required to comply with routine procedures to assess the safety and environmental risks of the Riverview Project. This result is mandated by the County's Industrial Safety Ordinance and will ensure that the best interests of the County and its citizens are fulfilled. Background In May 2002, Calpine proposed to build a power plant in Antioch, consisting of one 49.4-MW GE LM6000 PC Sprint simple-cycle combustion turbine/generator and associated equipment that would operate for up to 4,000 hours per year as a peaker plant. Calpine evaluated the Project ' February 10,2003 letter from Mark L.Armstrong to Silvano Marchesi,County Counsel for Contra Costa County, P. 3, attached to this letter as Exhibit B. March 20, 2003 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Page 3 under the Contra Costa County ("County") Ordinance Code, Chapter 84-63, Land Use Permits for Development Projects Involving Hazardous Waste or Hazardous Material, to determine if a land use permit was required.2 The County's Contra Costa Health Services concluded, based on Calpine's Application, that the Pro j ect was exempt from land use permit requirements because the quantities of hazardous materials that would be handled were well below minimum quantities in Section 84-63.604(c).3 The County issued building and grading permits based on the exemption, and construction commenced. The County subsequently discovered that Calpine had"failed to disclose all relevant information to the County" and thus had "misled"the County. Calpine failed to disclose that the Project would use 3,273 tons per month of natural gas, a Class B material. This exceeds the minimum quantities in Section 84-63.604(c)(2),thus requiring a land use permit, unless otherwise exempted. As a result,the County suspended all building and grading permits.4 Calpine modified the Project and proposed (1) the reduction of the use and storage of hazardous materials at the G-P Gypsum plant, and (2)to allow the Riverview Project and G-P Gypsum plant to be considered the same facility. With these changes, Calpine reapplied to the County for a determination that a land use permit is no longer required under Section 84-63.1002. The Determination of Noncoverage of a Land Use Permit under Section 84-62.1002 Section 84-63.1002 requires approval of a land use permit for projects involving the use or transport of hazardous materials unless they are either exempt or not covered by that ordinance procedure.5 There are four types of projects that require approval of a land use permit application, Section 84-63.1002(a)-(d): 1. Any development project that obtains a hazard score of eighty or more points under a formula set out in the Ordinance. 2. Any development project that stores twice the threshold quantity of any materials on the Class A extremely hazardous materials list. 3. For hazard Class A or B materials, any development project that will result in a new process unit unless it complies with six criteria set forth in Section 84-63.1004(d)(1)through (d)(6),the most significant of which, Relevant excerpts from Calpine Corporation,Project Information for the 520001 Energy Center,Antioch,CA, May 2002,are attached to this letter as Exhibit C. Memorandum from Habib Amin to John Osborne, Contra Costa Health Services,Re: Calpine's Proposed Peaker Plant at G-P Gypsum Corporation's Antioch Wallboard Facility,Contra Costa County,June 4,2002, attached to this letter as Exhibit D. 4 Letter from Carlos Baltodano,Building Inspection Director and County Building Official,to Nick Gaglia,Calpine • Construction Management Company,Inc.,Re:Notice of Violation of Chapter 84-63, Suspension of Building and Grading Permits,January 27,2003,attached to this letter as Exhibit E. 5 Relevant excerpts of the Industrial Safety Ordinance Code Chapter 84-63,including Sections 84-63.2 to 84- 63.1016 are attached to this letter as Exhibit F. March 20, 2003 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Page 4 from the perspective of the present appeal, is the requirement that any claim for a reduction credit must be based on reductions in the use of hazardous materials at the same facility. 4. For hazard Class B materials, any development that has a fill to the maximum capacity of forty thousand tons. In its application, Calpine contends that the two modifications reconfigured the Project so that it does not meet any of the four criteria listed in Section 84-63.1002, and that no permit application is required.6 Calpine continues to mislead the County by failing to disclose all relevant information. As we will show below, the reconfigured Project does meets subparts (a) and (c) of the criteria listed in Section 84-63.1002, and thus requires approval of a land use permit application. The Project will use Class A and B materials not disclosed by Calpine, resulting in a hazard score of greater than 80, and requiring a land use permit under Section 84-63.1002(a). The project to be reduced (G-P Gypsum) is not in the same facility as the Riverside Project, disqualifying it for reduction credit and triggering a land use permit under Sections 84-63.1002(c) and 84-63.1004(d). I. THE PROJECT'S HAZARD SCORE EXCEEDS 80 Section 84-63.1002(a) requires a land use permit for a development project if it obtains a hazard score of 80 or more, pursuant to a formula set out in Section 84-63.1004. Calpine estimated that the reconfigured Project had a hazard score of 64, and that land use permit approval under Section 84-63.1002(a)would not be required. The County conducted an independent evaluation and concluded that the reconfigured Project would have a maximum hazard score of 63. 8 However, both Calpine's and the County's calculations are based only on the hazardous materials disclosed by Calpine, which are listed in Attachment A to the Revised Application. Calpine's Revised Application did not include the several Class A and Class B materials that raise the hazard score above 80. A. Hazardous Materials Omitted The Revised Application identifies the classes of hazardous materials that would be used in the reconfigured Project on the Plant Water Use diagram and in Attachment A to the Revised Application. These sources indicate that no Class A materials would be used. The sources also claimed that the only Class B material is natural gas that would arrive by pipeline, thus substantially reducing the hazard score compared to the original Application. We believe the G Letter from B.N.Gaglia,Director of Projects,Calpine,to Bob Draft, Deputy Director, Community Development Project,Re: Riverview Energy Center: Compliance with Chapter 84-63, January 27,2003,is attached to this letter as Exhibit G. See,Exhibit G. 'Memorandum fi-om Habib Alvin to Robert Draft,Contra Costa Health Services,Re: Calpine's Proposed Peaker Plant at G-P Gypsum Corporation's Antioch Wallboard Facility, Contra Costa County,February 4,2003, attached to this letter as Exhibit H. March 20, 2003 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Page 5 Project will use one Class A material and other Class B materials that will arrive by truck, either of which would increase the hazard score above 80. r 1. Class A Materials Calpine's Revised Application states that no Class A materials would be used, and based its hazardous score below 80 on this ground. This is false. Calpine did not disclose that the Project will use a selective catalytic reduction ("SCR") system to control Nitrogen Oxide, or NOx, emissions. 9 An SCR system uses a metal-based catalyst10 to convert NOx to nitrogen gas and water. During use, the active metals are deactivated, and the spent catalyst is changed out and replaced with a fresh catalyst. Vendors typically guarantee SCR catalysts for 3 years. Both the fresh and spent catalysts arrive at the site by truck. A metal-based catalyst is a Class A hazardous material, which increases the hazard score for the Project from 63 to 134. The SCR catalyst is not exempt under Section 84-63.604(c)(3)because the quantity of material present exceeds the minimum thresholds required for exemption. Section 84-63.1016 sets out the procedure for determining the hazard class of a material or waste. The hazard class is determined by: (1)looking up a substance in 49 CFR 172.101 to determine its division and packing group; (2)using this information to determine the name of its class or division in 49 CFR 173.2; and (3) using the name to determine its class based on the classification system in Ordinance Section 84-63.1016(c). An SCR catalyst is not specifically 1 isted by name in 49 CFR 172.101. However, its active ingredient is a hazardous material, and the spent catalyst is also a hazardous waste. a. Vanadium Pentoxide Is A Class A Material An SCR catalyst will use the active ingredient vanadium pentoxide, or V205,to control NOx from an LM6000 turbine. An SCR catalyst usually consists of a ceramic monolith catalyst support, coated with a carrier, a high-surface-area inorganic material containing a complex pore structure. An active metal,typically V205, is dispersed into the pores of the substrate, where it coats the surface. E 9 Letter from Ellen Garvey,Air Pollution Control Officer,Bay Area Air Quality Management District,Authority to Construct,Combustion Gas Turbine with Water Injection or Dry Low NOx Combusters General Electric LM6000 PC Sprint,Natural Gas Fired,49-6 MW Net Simple-Cycle, 500 MMBtu/hr Maximum Heat Input Rating;Abated by A-21 Oxidation Catalyst,and A-2 Selective Catalytic Reduction System,October 15,2002, attached to this letter as Exhibit I. 10 A zeolite catalyst could also be used to control NOx from this Project's LM6000 turbine. However,zeolite catalysts are rarely used to control NOx from LM6000 turbines,which have exhaust gas temperatures at the lower end of the zeolite temperature range. Instead,NOx from LM6000 turbines is generally controlled using an air dilution system to reduce the exhaust gas temperature and a metal-based catalyst to control NOx. The air dilution system is almost one-half the cost of using a zeolite catalyst. See, Ronald M.Heck and Robert J.Farrauto,Catalytic Air Pollution Control. Commercial Technology, Wiley- Interscience,,2nd Ed.,2002. March 20, 2003 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Page 6 Generic vanadium compounds and vanadium pentoxide are both specifically listed in 49 CFR 172.101 as division 6.1 materials, which are poisonous materials under 49,CFR 173.2. Ordinance Section 84-63.1016(c) classifies all division 6.1 materials, as defined in 49 CFR 173.132, as hazard class A materials. Thus, the SCR catalyst is a class A material. Ordinance Section 84-63.604(c)(3) exempts hazard category A material if the threshold planning quantity is less than the smaller of the extremely hazardous materials list in Appendix A to 40 CFR Chapter I, Subpart J. Part 355 or 500 pounds. Up to about 15,000 pounds of SCR catalyst would be required to reduce 90% of the NOx from a 49.4-MW LM6000, depending upon the specific catalyst that is selected. Information from three vendors indicates that the V205 content of SCR catalysts ranges up to about 5%by weight. The amount of V205 present in the catalyst will range up to 750 lb. Thus, the amount of V205 would exceed both the 500 lb threshold as well as the 100 lb threshold planning quantity for V205. and would not qualify for an exemption. b. Revised Hazard Score,Assuming A Class A Material The hazard score calculated by Calpine and the County assumed that the Project would not use any Class A materials. However, as discussed above,the Project would use an SCR Catalyst, which is Class A material. The hazard score must be revised to recognize the Class A material. The following is a revision of the County's calculation, changing only for the presence of Class A material (C) and the transportation mode (T): [(T+ C +P)*H] +D +A T= Transportation Risk C = Community Risk, type of receptor P =Facility Risk H =Hazard Category D = Community Risk, distance from receptor A =Facility Risk, size of project and total amount For the residential receptor, which is the worst-case, the County determined that C= 7, P = 6, D=26, and A=0. The fresh catalyst would arrive and the spent catalyst would depart by truck, which would pass through residential areas. Thus, T= 10. The hazard category is A. Thus,H= 5. [(10 + 5 + 6)*5] + 26 + 0 131. The revised hazard score is 131. Because the hazard score exceeds 80, the Project requires a land use permit under Section 84-63.1002(a). Moreover, in order to qualify for an exemption, Section 84-63.1004(d)(4) requires that the project to be reduced (the G-P Gypsum plant) has a higher hazard score than the proposed March 20, 2003 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Page 7 development project (the Riverview Project). The hazard score of the Riverview Project is larger than the hazard score of the G-P Gypsum plant (71), disqualifying the reconfigured Project for reduction credits under. Under Section 84-63.1002(c), a project that uses hazard category A or B material and includes a new process unit, as this one does, does not qualify for reduction or shutdown credits. In sum, the Project does not meet the conditions for an exemption, and must apply for a land use permit. 2. Class B Materials The Revised Application indicates that the only Class B material that would be used is natural gas, which would arrive at the Project site by pipeline. However, pH adjustment is typically required for the reverse osmosis unit, a demineralizer, and the cooling tower. Sulfuric acid and sodium hydroxide (NALCO 73 83) are commonly used for circulating water pH control in the cooling tower and other pH adjustment steps. Sodium hydroxide is also used for demineralizer resin neutralization. 12 Sodium hydroxide and sulfuric acid are both Class B materials that would be transported to the site by truck. (Application 5/02.) The revised hazard score, assuming that T= 10 (truck transportation) for hazard category B material at the residential receptor would be: [(10 + 5 + 6)*3] + 26 + 0 = 89. Because the hazard score exceeds 80,the Project requires a land use permit under Section 84- 63.1002(a). As explained above, in order to qualify for an exemption, Section 84-63.1004(d)(4) requires that the project to be reduced (the G-P Gypsum plant) has a higher hazard score than the proposed development project (the Riverview Project). The hazard score of the Riverview Project is larger than the hazard score of the G-P Gypsum plant(71), disqualifying the reconfigured Project for reduction credits under. Under Section 84-63.1002(c), a project that uses hazard category A or B material and includes a new process unit, as this one does, does not qualify for reduction or shutdown credits. In sum,the Project does not meet the conditions for an exemption, and must apply for a land use permit. 3. Other Materials The Project will use a number of trade name products. The hazard score calculations assume specific trade name products, such as Nalco 7385 as a representative phosphonate scale inhibitor/dispersant, Chemlogis Aqua Mate 2261 as a representative polyacrylate dispersant/scale inhibitor, and Nalco 71 D5 Plus as a representative antifoaming agent. 13 However, there are numerous competing products that could be used that may have a higher hazard category. The Proj ect should be conditioned to use only hazard category C materials, and the County should verify the use of category C materials in annual reports and periodic site visits. 12 See, e.g.,Application for Certification for Central Valley Energy Center,October 2001 and Application for Warnerville Substation Reliability Generation Project,October 2000,both attached to this letter as Exhibit J. '' Exhibit G,Attachment A,p. 3. March 20, 2003 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Page 8 II. THE REDUCED PROJECT IS NOT IN THE SAME FACILITY In order to qualify for an exception to the requirement of land use permit approval, Calpine proposed a reduction in the use and storage of hazardous materials at a neighboring G-P Gypsum plant. Such a reduction credit is permitted only if the Riverview Energy Center and the G-P Gypsum Plant are the "same facility." The Riverside Project and the Gypsum plant are different facilities. Section 84-63.1002(c) waives the requirement of a land use permit approval for a project with a hazard score greater than 80 if the project qualifies for a"credit for reduction." Section 84- 63.1004(d)provides a list of 6 criteria that all must be met to qualify for a reduction credit. One of the criteria, Section 84-63.1004(d)(1), provides that the project to be reduced must be in the "same facility" in which the development project is proposed. To meet this criterion, Calpine entered into an agreement with the adjacent G-P Gypsum wallboard plant. Under this agreement, the Riverside Project would supply the following services and goods to G-P Gypsum:14 • An unspecified amount of high quality treated water, which would reduce the hardness and metals in G-P Gypsum's water by 50%and GP-Gypsum's use of a chelating agent by 30%. • Shared fire protection system. • G-P shall purchase up to 700,000 pounds per hour of process gas from.Riverside to supply process heat to manufacture wallboard. • G-P shall purchase electricity"as available and excess" generation above 45 net MW from Riverside. To qualify, Section 84-63.1004(d)(1)requires that "[t]he project to be closed or reduced is in the same facility in which the development project is proposed." (Emphasis added.) A "facility"is defined under Section 84-63.416 as "a group of buildings, structures, or units with the same purpose on contiguous parcels...under common ownership or control." The G-P Gypsum facility and the Riverside Project do not share the same purpose, and are not under common control or ownership. a. The G-P Gypsum and the Riverview Energy Center do not share the same purpose. G-P Gypsum operates a gypsum wallboard plant, and the Riverview Energy Center would operate an energy peaker plant. The operations of a wallboard plant and an energy plant plainly do not share any of the same functions or purposes. They generate completely different product for completely different markets. G-P Gypsum's plant makes wallboard for use by the construction industry. The Riverview Energy Center will generate power for sale to consumers 14 Memorandum of Understanding Regarding Related Transactions,G-P Gypsum-Riverview Energy Center LLC Peaking Project,Antioch, CA,Executed February 14,2003,attached to this letter as Exhibit K. March 20, 2003 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Page 9 of electricity. The Determination of Noncompliance did not mention the Ordinance's "same _ purpose"requirement. It is therefore unknown whether the County concluded that the facilities shared the "same purpose," and if so,the criteria they used. Calpine also had difficulty explaining how a wallboard plant had the same purpose as an energy plant. 1 s After several pages explaining how statutes should be interpreted, Calpine concluded that it "believe[d] there need only be a similar function among the structures or units." Calpine's interpretation is incorrect. The Ordinance does not require "a similar function," it requires "the same purpose." Under Calpine's broad analysis, any two businesses could be considered the same facility, as long as they have one broadly-defined purpose in common. This violates common sense. The mere existence of an ordinary commercial contract for Calpine to provide certain services to its neighbor does not bestow identical purposes on their separate buildings, structures, and units. b. G-P Gypsum's plant and the Riverview Energy Center are not under common ownership or control. G-P Gypsum and the Riverview Project are not owned by or controlled by the same person or entity. Calpine has identified no such person or entity. It appears that G-P Gypsum owns the land on which it operates the gypsum plant, and the land on which Calpine will operate the peaker plant. 1 6 G-P Gypsum apparently leased that land to Calpine by written agreement in December 2002. Even though G-P Gypsum may own both parcels of land, Calpine clearly owns the Riverview Project facility and all the structures and units on the land. A "facility" is defined in the statute as a"group of buildings, structures, or units"with commons ownership or control. The Ordinance does not mention common ownership of the land as a criteria. G-P Gypsum's lease to Calpine of the parcel of land upon which it operates is not enoughh under Sections 84- 63.416 and 84-63.1004(d)(1) to make it the same facility. c. County Health Services raised the same questions which remain unanswered. The Health Services Hazardous Materials Program doubted that these two projects were part of the same facility. Habib Amin, who reviewed Calpine's Revised Application, commented, "The two plants could be considered to be part of the same facility although we believe that this could be argued other wise." He identified this as a"key concern." Amin also noted that, for submittal of a federal Risk Management Plan ("RMP"), facilities with different owners are considered to be separate and are required to submit independent RMPs if each has more than the threshold quantity of regulated materials. (Amin 2/4/03.) The County's files also contain notes by Randy Sawyer that suggest the two projects are not in the same facility, based on the fact that federal guidance for the Risk Management Program contains the 15 Facility Analysis Transmittal from Martin Lysons to Bob Drake, March 13,2003,p.4, attached to this letter as Exhibit L. 16 Exhibit L,p. 5. March 20, 2003 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Page 10 same definition for facility and would require separate RMPs because two separate companies occupy the same site, even if the land is jointly owned. 17 It is appropriate to look to the federal guidance became the County's ISO is closely related in purpose to the federal regulations. The RPM was promulgated by the Environmental Protection Agency("EPA") to regulate hazardous materials handled on an industrial facility. The RMP has been codified into the Code of Federal Regulations, see, 40 CFR part 68. In facilities where two or more separate companies occupy the same site, each company must file its own RMP and include information on its own operations at the site. Accordingly, one company may not combine with any other's mitigation or remedial efforts by preparing a common RMP. Under the federal rules, even if one company owns the land and operates there while leasing part of the site to a second company, as is the case with G-P Gypsum and Calpine, each company is considered a separate facility and must file a separate RPM. This is required even if the two companies have a contractual relationship, such as supplying products to each other or sharing emergency response functions. (See the EPA's guidelines in 40 CFR part 68, section 1.6,pages 1-16 to 1-17.) Finally,the regulations make it clear that ownership of the land is not relevant. The facility consists of the covered operation located on the property and controlled by a single owner. Such regulations apply to any owner or operator of a covered operation if it has more than a threshold quantity of regulated materials. In this case,by Calpine's admission, the Riverside project handles more than the County Ordinance's threshold quantity of hazardous materials without the modification with the GP Gypsum plant. The Determination of Noncoverage does not discuss the Health Service's doubts that G-P Gypsum and the Riverview Project are the same facility. The Determination of Noncoverage also omitted any discussion of the RMP's interpretation of a facility. 1 17 Exhibit H. March 20, 2003 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Page 11 Conclusion Based on the foregoing considerations, including the technical arguments regarding the hazard score developed by Dr. Fox and the legal arguments concerning the County's erroneous conclusion that G-P Gypsum and Riverview Energy Center's plants are a"common facility,"the Board of Supervisors should grant this appeal and require Calpine to obtain a land use permit for its new peaker plant in Antioch, California. Enclosed with this appeal is a check for the $125 filing fee. Sincerel Theodore Franklin Nicole M. Phillips NMP/nmp Enclosure cc: Tom Butterfield Community Development Department Dennis Barry Bob Drake 101839/298591 J. Phyllis Fox, Ph.D, PE, DEE Environmental Management 2530 Etna Street Berkeley, CA 94704 510-843-1126 510-845-0983 (fax) Fox@AeroAquaTerra.Corn Dr. Fox has over 30 years of experience in the field of environmental engineering, including air f; quality management, water quality and water supply investigations, hazardous waste investigations, environmental permitting, nuisance investigations, environmental impact reports, CEQA/NEPA documentation, risk assessments, and litigation support. EDUCATION Ph.D. Environmental/Civil Engineering, University of California, Berkeley, 1980. M.S. Environmental/Civil Engineering, University of California, Berkeley, 1975. B.S. Physics (with high honors), University of Florida, Gainesville, 1971. Post-Graduate: S-Plus Data Analysis, MathSoft, 6/94. Air Pollutant Emission Calculations, UC Berkeley Extension, 6-7/94 Assessment, Control and Rernediation of LNAPL Contaminated Sites,API and USEPA, 9/94 Pesticides in the TIE Process, SETAC, 6/96 Sulfate Minerals: Geochemistry, Crystallography,and Environmental Significance, Mineralogical Society of America/Geochemical Society, 11/00. Design of Gas Turbine Combined Cycle and Cogeneration Systems, Thennoflow, 12/00 Air-Cooled Stearn Condensers and Dry- and Hybrid-Cooling Towers, Power-Gen, 12/01 Combustion Turbine Power Augmentation with Inlet Cooling and Wet Compression, Power-Gen, 12/01 CEQA Update, UC Berkeley Extension, 3/02 The Health Effects of Chemicals, Drugs, and Pollutants, UC Berkeley Extension,4-5/02 ' Noise Exposure Assessment: Sampling Strategy and Data Acquisition,AIHA PDC 205, 6/02 Noise Exposure Measurement Instruments and Techniques, PDC 302, 6/02 Noise Control Engineering, AIHA PDC 432, 6/02 Optimizing Generation and Air Emissions, Power-Gen, 12/02 Utility Industry Issues, Power-Gen, 12/02 REGISTRATION Class I Registered Environmental Assessor, California (REA-00704) Class II Registered Environmental Assessor, California (REA-20040) Qualified Envirorunental Professional, Institute of Professional Environmental Practice (QEP#02-010007) Registered Professional Engineer: Arizona, California, Florida, Georgia, Washington Exhibit A J. PHYLLIS FOX, PH.Q., PAGE 2 Diplomate Environmental Engineer,American Academy of Environmental Engineers, Certified in Air Pollution Control (DEE #01-20014) PROFESSIONAL HISTORY Environmental Management, Principal, 1981-present Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Principal Investigator, 1977-1981 University of California, Berkeley, Program Manager, 1976-1977 Bechtel, Inc., Engineer, 1971-1976, 1964-1966 PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry Association for the Environmental Health of Soils American Society of Civil Engineers American Industrial Hygiene Association Air and Waste Management Association American Chemical Society Phi Beta Kappa Sigma Pi Sigma Who's Who Environmental Registi)), PH Publishing, Fort Collins, CO, 1992. Who's Who in the World, Marquis Who's Who, Inc., Chicago, IL, 11 th Ed., p. 371, 1993-present. Who's Who ofAmerican YTl'omen, Marquis Who's Who, Inc., Chicago, IL, 13th Ed., p. 264, 1984- present. W17o's Who in Science and Engineering, Marquis Who's Who, Inc.,New Providence,NJ, 5`h Ed., p. 414, 1999-present. Guide to Specialists on Toxic Substances, World Environment Center,New York,NY,p. 80, 1980. National Research Council Committee on Irrigation-Induced Water Quality Problems (Selenium), SubcoiTunittee on Quality Control/Quality Assurance (1985-1990). National Research Council Conu-nittee on Surface Mining and Reclamation, Subcommittee on Oil Shale (1978-80) REPRESENTATIVE EXPERIENCE Performed enviromnental investigations, as outlined below, for a wide range of industrial and conunercial facilities including refineries, reformulated fuels projects,petroleum distribution terminals, conventional and thermally enhanced oil production,underground storage tanks, J. PHYLLIS FOX, PH.D., PAGE 3 pipelines, gasoline stations, landfills, railyards, hazardous waste treatment facilities,power plants, airports, hydrogen plants,petroleum coke calcining plants, asphalt plants, cement plants, incinerators, flares, manufacturing facilities(semiconductors, electronic assembly, aerospace components, printed circuit boards, amusement park rides), lanthanide processing plants, ammonia plants, urea plants, food processing plants, grain processing facilities,paint formulation plants, wastewater treatment plants,marine terminals, gas processing plants, steel mills, battery manufacturing plants,pesticide manufacturing and repackaging facilities,pulp and paper mills, redevelopment projects (e.g., Mission Bay, Southern Pacific Railyards, Moscone Center expansion, San Diego Padres Ballpark),residential developments, commercial office parks, campuses, and shopping centers, server fauns, and a wide range of mines including sand and gravel, hard rock, limestone, nacholite, coal,molybdenum, gold, zinc, and oil shale. EXPERT WITNESS/LITIGATION SUPPORT • Assisted California Central Coast City obtain controls on a proposed new city that straddles the Ventura-Los Angeles County boundary. Reviewed several environmental impact reports, prepared an air quality analyses, a diesel exhaust health risk assessment, and detailed review comments. • Assisted Central California city to obtain controls on large alluvial sand quarry and asphalt plant proposing a modernization. Prepared comments on Negative Declaration on air quality,public health, noise, and traffic. Evaluated process flow diagrams and engineering reports to determine whether proposed changes increased plant capacity or substantially modified plant operations. Prepared conuuents on application for categorical exemption from CEQA. Presented testimony to County Board of Supervisors. Developed controls to mitigate impacts. Assisted counsel draft Petition for writ. Case settled June 2002. Substantial improvements in plant operations were obtained including cap on throughput, dust control measures, asphalt plant loadout enclosure, and restrictions on truck routes. • Assisted oil companies on the California Central Coast in defending class action citizens lawsuit alleging health effects due to emissions from gas processing plant and leaking underground storage tanks. Reviewed regulatory and other files and advised counsel on merits of case. Case settled November 2001. • Assist oil company on the California Central Coast in defending property damage claims arising out of a historic oil spill. Reviewed site investigation reports, pump tests, leachability studies, and health risk assessments, participated in design of additional site characterization studies to assess health impacts, and advised counsel on merits of case. Prepare health risk assessment. J. PHYLLIS FOX, PH.D., PAGE 4 w • Assisted unions in appeal of Initial Study/Negative Declaration ("IS/ND") for an MTBE phaseout project at a Bay Area refinery. Reviewed IS/ND and supporting agency permitting files and prepared technical conunents on air quality, groundwater, and public health impacts. Reviewed responses to conunents and final IS/ND and ATC pennits.and assisted counsel to draft petitions and briefs appealing decision to Air District Hearing Board. Presented sworn direct and rebuttal testimony with cross examination on groundwater impacts of ethanol spills on hydrocarbon contamination at refinery. Hearing Board ruled 5 to 0 in favor of appellants, remanding ATC to district to prepare an EIR. • Assist Florida cities in challenging the use of diesel and proposed BACT detenninations in prevention of significant deterioration (PSD)pennits issued to two 510-MW simple cycle peaking electric generating facilities and one 1,080-MW simple cycle/combined cycle facility. Reviewed permit applications, draft pennits, and FDEP engineering evaluations, assisted counsel in drafting petitions and responding to discovery. Participated in settlement discussions. • Assisted large California city in federal lawsuit alleging peaker power plant is violating its federal permit. Reviewed pennit file and applicant's engineering and cost feasibility study to reduce emissions through retrofit controls. Advised counsel on feasible and cost-effective NOx, Sox, and PMI 0 controls for several 1960s diesel-fired Pratt and Whitney peaker turbines. • Assist coalition of Georgia environmental groups in evaluating BACT detenninations and permit conditions in PSD pennits issued to several large natural gas-fired simple cycle and combined-cycle power plants. Prepare technical continents on draft PSD pennits on BACT, enforceability of limits, and toxic emissions. Review responses to comments, advise counsel on merits of cases,participate in settlement discussions, present oral and written testimony in adjudicatory hearings, and provide technical assistance as required. Cases settled. • Assist citizen's group in Massachusetts review, comment on, and participate in permitting of pollution control retrofits of coal-fired power plant. • Assist construction unions in review of air quality permitting actions before the Indiana Department of Environmental Management ("IDEM") for several natural gas-fired simple cycle peakers and combined cycle power plants. • Assist building trades in review of air quality permitting actions for coal-fired power plants before the Kentucky Department for Environmental Protection. Cases in progress. • Assist coalition of towns and environmental groups in challenging air permits issued to 523 MW dual fuel (natural gas and distillate) combined-cycle power plant in Connecticut. Prepared technical conu-nents on draft pennits and 60 pages of written testimony addressing emission estimates, startup/shutdown issues, BACT/LAER analyses, and toxic air emissions. J. PHYLLIS FOX, PH.D., PAGE 5 Presented testimony in adjudicatory administrative hearings before the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection in June 2001 and December 2001. • Assist various coalitions of unions, citizens groups, cities,public agencies, and developers in licensing and pennitting of over 20 large combined cycle, simple cycle, and peaker power plants in California, Arizona, Oklahoma, Oregon, and elsewhere. Prepare analyses of and comments on applications for certification, preliminary and final staff assessments, and pen-nits issued by local agencies. Present written and oral testimony before California Energy Commission and Arizona Power Plant and Transmission Line Siting Committee on hazards of ammonia use and transportation, health effects of air emissions, contaminated property issues, BACT/LAER issues related to SCR and SCONOx, criteria and toxic pollutant emission estimates, MACT analyses, air quality modeling, water supply and water quality issues, and methods to reduce water use, including dry cooling,parallel dry-wet cooling, hybrid cooling, and zero liquid discharge systems. • Assist unions, cities, and neighborhood associations in challenging an EIR issued for the proposed expansion of the Oakland Airport. Reviewed two draft EIRs and prepared a health risk assessment and extensive technical comments on air quality and public health impacts. The Califoliaia Court of Appeals, First Appellate District, ruled in favor of appellants and plaintiffs, concluding that the EIR "2) erred in using outdated information in assessing the emission of toxic air contaminants (TACs) from jet aircraft; 3) failed to support its decision not to evaluate the health risks associated with the emission of TACs with meaningful analysis,"thus accepting my technical arguments and requiring the Port to prepare a new EIR. See Berkeley Keep Jets Over the Bay Conwiittee, Cite of San Leandro, and City o !' .f Alameda et al. v. Board of Port Connnissioners (August 30, 2001) 111 Cal.Rptr.2d 598. • Assisted lessor of former gas station with leaking underground storage tanks and TCE �! contamination from adjacent property. Lessor held option to purchase, which was forfeited based on misrepresentation by remediation contractor as to nature and extent of contamination. Remediation contractor purchased property. Reviewed regulatory agency files and advised counsel on merits of case. Case not filed. • Advised counsel on merits of several pending actions, including a Proposition 65 case involving groundwater contamination at an explosives manufacturing firm and two former gas stations with leaking underground storage tanks. • Assisted defendant foundry in Oakland in a lawsuit brought by neighbors alleging property contamination, nuisance, trespass, smoke, and health effects from foundry operation. Inspected and sampled plaintiffs property. Advised counsel on merits of case. Case settled. • Assisted business owner facing eminent domain eviction. Prepared technical continents on a negative declaration for soil contamination and public health risks from air emissions from a proposed redevelopment project in San Francisco in support of a CEQA lawsuit. Case • settled. J. PHYLLIS FOX, PH.D., PAGE 6 w • Assisted neighborhood association representing residents living downwind of a Berkeley asphalt plant in separate nuisance and CEQA lawsuits. Prepared technical comments on air quality, odor, and noise impacts,presented testimony at commission and council meetings, participated in community workshops, and participated in settlement discussions. Cases settled. Asphalt plant was upgraded to include air emission and noise controls, including vapor collection system at truck loading station, enclosures for noisy equipment, and improved housekeeping. • Assisted a Fortune 500 residential home builder in claims alleging health effects from faulty installation of gas appliances. Conducted indoor air quality study, advised counsel on merits of case, and participated in discussions with plaintiffs. Case settled. • Assisted property owners in Silicon Valley in lawsuit to recover remediation costs from insurer for large TCE plume originating from a manufacturing facility. Conducted investigations to demonstrate sudden and accidental release of TCE, including groundwater modeling, development of method to date spill,preparation of chemical inventory, investigation of historical waste disposal practices and standards, and on-site sewer and storm drainage inspections and sampling. Prepared declaration in opposition to motion for smiunary judgment. Case settled. • Assisted residents in east Oakland downwind of a former battery plant in class action lawsuit alleging property contamination from lead emissions. Conducted historical research and dry deposition modeling that substantiated claim. Participated in mediation at JAMS. Case settled. • Assisted property owners in West Oakland who purchased a former gas station that had leaking underground storage tanks and groundwater contamination. Reviewed agency files and advised counsel on merits of case. Prepared declaration in opposition to summary judgment. Prepared cost estimate to rernediate site. Participated in settlement discussions. Case settled. • Consultant to counsel representing plaintiffs in two Clean Water Act lawsuits involving selenium discharges into San Francisco Bay from refineries. Reviewed files and advised counsel on merits of case. Prepared interrogatory and discovery questions, assisted in deposing opposing experts, and reviewed and interpreted treatability and other technical studies. Judge ruled in favor of plaintiffs. • Assisted an oil company in a complaint filed by a resident of a small beach coirununity alleging that discharges of tank farm rinse water into the sanitary sewer system caused hydrogen sulfide gas to infiltrate residence, sending occupants to hospital. Inspected accident site, interviewed parties to the event, and reviewed extensive agency files related to incident. Used chemical analysis, field simulations,mass balance calculations, sewer hydraulic simulations with SWMM44, atmospheric dispersion modeling with SCREENS, odor analyses, and risk assessment calculations to demonstrate that the incident was caused J. PHYLLIS FOX, PH.D., PAGE 7 by a faulty drain trap and inadequate slope of sewer lateral on resident's property. Prepared a detailed technical report sununarizing these studies. Case settled. • Assisted large West Coast city in suit alleging that leaking underground storage tanks on city property had damaged the waterproofing on downgradient building, causing leaks in an underground parking structure. Reviewed subsurface hydrogeologic investigations and evaluated studies conducted by others documenting leakage from underground diesel and gasoline tanks. Inspected, tested, and evaluated waterproofing on subsurface parking structure. Waterproofing was substandard. Case settled. • Assisted residents downwind of gravel mine and asphalt plant in Siskiyou County, California, in suit to obtain CEQA review of air pennitting action. Prepared two declarations analyzing air quality and public health impacts. Judge ruled in favor of plaintiffs, closing mine and asphalt plant. • Assisted defendant oil company on the California Central Coast in class action lawsuit alleging property damage and health effects from subsurface petroleum contamination. Reviewed documents, prepared risk calculations, and advised counsel on merits of case. Participated in settlement discussions. Case settled. • Assisted defendant oil company in class action lawsuit alleging health impacts from remediation of petroleum contaminated site on California Central Coast. Reviewed documents, designed and conducted monitoring program, and participated in settlement discussions. Case settled. I� • Consultant to attorneys evaluating a potential challenge of USFWS actions under CVPIA section 3406(b)(2). Reviewed agency files and collected and analyzed hydrology, water quality, and fishery data. Advised counsel on merits of case. Case not filed. �± • Assisted residents downwind of a Carson refinery in class action lawsuit involving soil and groundwater contamination, nuisance,property damage, and health effects from air emissions. Reviewed files and provided advise on contaminated soil and groundwater,toxic emissions, and health risks. Prepared declaration on refinery fugitive emissions. Prepared deposition questions and reviewed deposition transcripts on air quality, soil contamination, odors, and health impacts. Case settled. • Assisted residents downwind of a Contra Costa refinery who were affected by an accidental release of naphtha. Characterized spilled naphtha, estimated emissions, and modeled ambient concentrations of hydrocarbons and sulfur compounds. Deposed. Presented testimony in binding arbitration at JAMS. Judge found in favor of plaintiffs. • Assisted residents downwind of Contra Costa County refinery in class action lawsuit alleging property damage, nuisance, and health effects from several large accidents as well as routine operations. Reviewed files and prepared analyses of enviromnental impacts. Prepared J. PHYLLIS FOX, PH.D., PAGE 8 declarations, deposed, and presented testimony before jury in one trial and judge in second. Case pending. • Assisted business owner clairning damages from dust, noise, and vibration during a sewer construction project in San Francisco. Reviewed agency files and PMl0 monitoring data and advised counsel on merits of case. Case settled. • Assisted residents downwind of Contra Costa County refinery in class action lawsuit alleging property damage, nuisance, and health effects. Prepared declaration in opposition to summary judgment, deposed, and presented expert testimony on accidental releases, odor, and nuisance before jury. Case thrown out by judge, but reversed on appeal and to be retried. • Presented testimony in small claims court on behalf of residents claiming health effects from hydrogen sulfide from flaring emissions triggered by a power outage at a Contra Costa County refinery. Analyzed meteorological and air quality data and evaluated potential health risks of exposure to low concentrations of hydrogen sulfide. Judge awarded damages to plaintiffs. • Assisted construction unions in challenging PSD pennit for an Indiana steel mill. Prepared technical comments on draft PSD pennit, drafted 70-page appeal of agency pennit action to the Environmental Appeals Board challenging pennit based on faulty BACT analysis for electric arc furnace and reheat furnace and faulty pennit conditions, among others, and drafted briefs responding to four parties. EPA Region V and the EPA General Counsel intervened as amici, supporting petitioners. EAB ruled in favor of petitioners,remanding pennit to IDEM on three key issues, including BACT for the reheat furnace and lead emissions from the EAF. Drafted motion to reconsider three issues. Prepared 69 pages of technical comments on revised draft PSD pennit. Drafted second EAB appeal addressing lead emissions from the EAF and BACT for reheat furnace based on European experience with SCR/SNCR. Case settled. Pennit was substantially unproved. See In re: Steel Dynanfics, Inc., PSD Appeal Nos. 99-4 & 99-5 (EAB June 22, 2000). • Assisted defendant urea manufacturer in Alaska in negotiations with USEPA to seek relief from penalties for alleged violations of the Clean Air Act. Reviewed and evaluated regulatory files and monitoring data, prepared technical analysis demonstrating that pennit limits were not violated, and participated in negotiations with EPA to dismiss action. Fines were substantially reduced and case closed. • Assisted construction unions in challenging PSD permitting action for an Indiana grain mill. Prepared technical comments on draft PSD pennit and assisted counsel draft appeal of agency pennit action to the Environmental Appeals Board challenging pennit based on faulty BACT analyses for heaters and boilers and faulty pennit conditions, among others. Case settled. J. PHYLLIS FOX, PH.D., PAGE 9 • As part of a consent decree settling a CEQA lawsuit, assisted neighbors of a large west coast port in negotiations with port authority to secure mitigation for air quality impacts. Prepared technical comments on mobile source air quality impacts and mitigation and negotiated a $9 million CEQA mitigation package. Currently representing neighbors on technical advisory committee established by port to implement the air quality mitigation program. • Assisted construction unions in challenging pennitting action for a California hazardous waste incinerator. Prepared technical comments on draft pennit, assisted counsel prepare appeal of EPA e pp pen-nit to the Envirolunental Appeals Board. Participated in settlement discussions on technical issues with applicant and EPA Region 9. Case settled. • Assisted environmental group in challenging DTSC Negative Declaration on a hazardous waste treatment facility. Prepared technical connrnents on risk of upset, water, and health risks. Writ of mandamus issued. • Assisted several neighborhood associations and cities impacted by quarries, asphalt plants, and cement plants in Alameda, Shasta, Sonoma, and Mendocino counties in obtaining mitigations for dust, air quality,public health,traffic, and noise impacts from facility operations and proposed expansions. • For over 100 industrial facilities, commercial/campus, and redevelopment projects, developed the record in preparation for CEQA and NEPA lawsuits. Prepared technical continents on hazardous materials, solid wastes, public utilities, noise, worker safety, air quality,public health, water resources, water quality,traffic, and risk of upset sections of EIRs, EISs, initial studies, and negative declarations. Assisted counsel in drafting petitions and briefs and prepared declarations. • For several large colulnercial development projects and airports, assisted applicant and counsel prepare defensible CEQA documents,respond to corrunents, and identify and evaluate "all feasible" mitigation to avoid CEQA challenges. This work included developing mitigation programs to reduce traffic-related air quality impacts based on energy conservation programs, solar, low-emission vehicles, alternative fuels, exhaust treatments, and transportation management associations. SITE INVESTI GA TION/REMEDIA TION/CLOSURE • Technical manager and principal engineer for characterization, remediation, and closure of waste management units at fon-ner Colorado oil shale plant. Constituents of concern included BTEX, As, 1,1,1-TCA, and TPH. Completed groundwater monitoring programs, site assessments, work plans, and closure plans for seven process water holding ponds, a refinery sewer system, and processed shale disposal area. Managed design and construction of groundwater treatment system and removal actions and obtained clean closure. J. PHYLLIS FOX, PH.D., PAGE 10 x • Principal engineer for characterization, rernediation, and closure of process water ponds at a fon-ner lanthanide processing plant in Colorado. Designed and implernented groundwater monitoring prograrn and site assessments and prepared closure plan. • Advised the city of Sacramento on redevelopment of two fon-ner railyards. Reviewed work plans, site investigations, risk assessment, RAPS, RI/FSs, and CEQA documents. Participated in the development of mitigation strategies to protect construction and utility workers and the public during remediation, redevelopment, and use of the site, including buffer zones, subslab venting, rail berm containment structure, and an environmental oversight plan. • Provided technical support for the investigation of a former sanitary landfill that was redeveloped as single family homes. Reviewed and/or prepared portions of numerous documents, including health risk assessments,preliminary endangerment assessments, site investigation reports, work plans, and RI/FSs. Historical research to identify historic waste disposal practices to prepare a preliminary endangenment assessment. Acquired, reviewed, and analyzed the files of 18 federal, state, and local agencies, three sets of construction field notes, analyzed 21 aerial photographs and interviewed 14 individuals associated with operation of fon-ner landfill. Assisted counsel in defending lawsuit brought by residents alleging health impacts and diminution of property value due to residual contamination. Prepared summary reports. • Technical oversight of characterization and remediation of a nitrate plume at an explosives manufacturing facility in Lincoln, CA. Provided interface between owners and consultants. Reviewed site assessments, work plans, closure plans, and RI/FSs. • Consultant to owner of large western molybdenum mine proposed for NPL listing. Participated in negotiations to scope out consent order and develop scope of work. Participated in studies to determine preinining groundwater background to evaluate applicability of water quality standards. Served on technical committees to develop alternatives to mitigate impacts and close the facility, including resloping and grading, various thickness and types of covers, and reclamation. This work included developing and evaluating methods to control surface runoff and erosion,mitigate impacts of acid rock drainage on surface and ground waters, and stabilize nine waste rock piles containing 328 million tons of pyrite-rich,mixed volcanic waste rock (andes'tes, rhyolite, tuff). Evaluated stability of waste rock piles. Represented client in hearings and meetings with state and federal oversight agencies. REG ULA TOR Y PERMI T TI NG/NEG 0 TIA TIONS • Prepared Authority to Construct Pen-nit for remediation of a large petroleum-contaminated site on the Central Coast. Negotiated conditions with agencies and secured pen-nits. J. PHYLLIS FOX, PH.D., PAGE 11 • Prepared Authority to Construct Permit for remediation of a former oil field on the Central Coast. Participated in negotiations with agencies and secured permits. • Prepared and/or reviewed hundreds of environmental permits, including NPDES, UIC, Stonnwater, Authority to Construct,Prevention of Significant Deterioration,New Source Review, and RCRA, among others. • Participated in the development of the CARE document, Guidance for Polver Plant Siting and Best Available Control Technology, including attending public workshops and filing li r technical comments. • Perfonned data analyses in support of adoption of emergency power restoration standards by the Public Utilities Commission for "major" power outages, where major is an outage that simultaneously affects 10% of the customer base. • Drafted portions of the Good Neighbor Ordinance to grant Contra Costa County greater authority over safety of local industry, particularly chemical plants and refineries. • Participated in drafting BAAQMD Regulation 8, Rule 28, Pressure Relief Devices, including participation in public workshops, review of staff reports, draft rules and other technical materials,preparation of technical comments on staff proposals, research on availability and costs of methods to control PRV releases, and negotiations with staff. • Participated in amending BAAQMD Regulation 8, Rule 18, Valves and Connectors, including participation in public workshops,review of staff reports,proposed rules and other supporting technical material, preparation of technical comments on staff proposals,research on availability and cost of low-leak technology, and negotiations with staff. • Participated in amending BAAQMD Regulation 8, Rule 25, Pumps and Compressors, including participation in public workshops, review of staff reports,proposed rules, and other supporting technical material, preparation of technical cormnents on staff proposals,research on availability and costs of low-leak and seal-less technology, and negotiations with staff. • Participated in amending BAAQMD Regulation 8, Rule 5, Storage of Organic Liquids, including participation in public workshops,review of staff reports,proposed rules, and other supporting technical material, preparation of technical continents on staff proposals,research on availability and costs of controlling tank emissions, and presentation of testimony before the Board. • Participated in amending BAAQMD Regulation 8, Rule 18, Valves and Connectors at Petroleum Refinery Complexes, including participation in public workshops, review of staff reports, proposed rules and other supporting technical material,preparation of technical comments on staff proposals, research on availability and costs of low-leak technology, and presentation of testimony before the Board. J. PHYLLIS FOX, PH.D., PAGE 12 Participated in amending BAAQMD Regulation 8, Rule 22, Valves and Flanges at Chemical Plants,etc, including participation in public workshops, review of staff reports, proposed rules, and other supporting technical material,preparation of technical comments on staff proposals,research on availability and costs of low-leak technology, and presentation of testimony before the Board. • Participated in amending BAAQMD Regulation 8, Rule 25, Pump and Compressor Seals, including participation in public workshops, review of staff reports, proposed rules, and other supporting technical material, preparation of technical colnrnents on staff proposals,research on availability of low-leak technology, and presentation of testimony before the Board. • Participated in the development of the BAAQMD Regulation 2, Rule 5, Toxics, including participation in public workshops, review of staff proposals, and preparation of technical comments. • Participated in the development of SCAQMD Rule 1402, Control of Toxic Air Contaminants from Existing Sources, and proposed amendments to Rule 1401,New Source Review of Toxic Air Contaminants, in 1993, including review of staff proposals and preparation of technical comrnents on same. • Participated in the development of the Sunnyvale Ordinance to Regulate the Storage, Use and Handling of Toxic Gas, which was designed to provide engineering controls for gases that are not otherwise regulated by the Uniform Fire Code. • Participated in the drafting of the Statewide Water Quality Control Plans for Inland Surface Waters and Enclosed Bays and Estuaries, including participation in workshops, review of draft plans,preparation of technical comments on draft plans, and presentation of testimony before the SWRCB. • Participated in developing Se permit effluent limitations for the five Bay Area refineries, including review of staff proposals, statistical analyses of Se effluent data, review of literature on aquatic toxicity of Se, preparation of technical comments on several staff proposals, and presentation of testimony before the Bay Area RWQCB. • Represented the California Department of Water Resources in the 1991 Bay-Delta Hearings before the State Water Resources Control Board,presenting sworn expert testimony with cross examination and rebuttal on a striped bass model developed by the California Department of Fish and Game. • Represented the State Water Contractors in the 1987 Bay-Delta Hearings before the State Water Resources Control Board, presenting sworn expert testimony with cross examination and rebuttal on natural flows, historical salinity trends in San Francisco Bay, Delta outflow, and hydrodynamics of the South Bay. - • Represented interveners in the licensing of over 20 natural-gas-fired power plants and one coal gasification plant at the California Energy Commission and elsewhere. Reviewed and J. PHYLLIS FOX, PH.D., PAGE 13 prepared technical comments on applications for certification,preliminary staff assessments, final staff assessments,preliminary determinations of compliance, final determinations of compliance, and prevention of significant deterioration pennits in the areas of air quality, water supply, water quality,biology,public health, worker safety, transportation, site contamination, cooling systems, and hazardous materials. Presented written and oral testimony in evidentiary hearings with cross examination and rebuttal. Participated in technical workshops. Represented several parties in the proposed merger of San Diego Gas &Electric and • p p p P Southern California Edison. Prepared independent technical analyses on health.risks, air quality, and water quality. Presented written and oral testimony before the Public Utilities Commission administrative law judge with cross examination and rebuttal. • Represented a PRP in negotiations with local health and other agencies to establish impact of subsurface contamination on overlying residential properties. Reviewed health studies prepared by agency consultants and worked with agencies and their consultants to evaluate health risks. WATER QUALITY/RESOURCES • Directed and participated in research on environmental impacts of energy development in the Colorado River Basin, including contamination of surface and subsurface waters and modeling of flow and chemical transport through fractured aquifers. • Played a major role in Northern California water resource planning studies since the early 1970s. Prepared portions of the Basin Plans for the Sacramento, San Joaquin, and Delta basins including sections on water supply,water quality, beneficial uses, waste load allocation, and agricultural drainage. Developed water quality models for the Sacramento �! and San Joaquin Rivers. • Conducted hundreds of studies over the past 30 years on Delta water supplies and the impacts of exports from the Delta on water quality and biological resources of the Central Valley, Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, and San Francisco Bay. Typical examples include: 1. Evaluate historical trends in salinity, temperature, and flow in San Francisco Bay and upstream rivers to determine impacts of water exports on the estuary; 2. Evaluate the role of exports and natural factors on the food web by exploring the relationship between salinity and primary productivity in San Francisco Bay, upstream rivers, and ocean; 3. Evaluate the effects of exports, other in-Delta, and upstream factors on the abundance of salmon and striped bass; 4. Review and critique agency fishery models that link water exports with the abundance of striped bass and salmon; J. PHYLLIS FOX, PH.D., PAGE 14 5. Develop a model based on GLMs to estimate the relative impact of exports, water facility operating variables,tidal phase, salinity, temperature, and other variables on the survival of salmon smolts as they migrate through the Delta; 6. Reconstruct the natural hydrology of the Central Valley using water balances, vegetation mapping, reservoir operation models to simulate flood basins, precipitation records,tree ring research, and historical research; 7. Evaluate the relationship between biological indicators of estuary health and down-estuary position of a salinity surrogate (X2); 8. Use real-time fisheries monitoring data to quantify impact of exports on fish migration; 9. Refine/develop statistical theory of autocorrelation and use to assess strength of relationships between biological and flow variables; 10. Collect, compile, and analyze water quality and toxicity data for surface waters in the Central Valley to assess the role of water quality in fishery declines; 11. Assess mitigation measures, including habitat restoration and changes in water project operation, to minimize fishery impacts; 12. Evaluate the impact of unscreened agricultural water diversions on abundance of larval fish; 13. Prepare and present testimony on the impacts of water resources development on Bay hydrodynamics, salinity, and temperature in water rights hearings; 14. Evaluate the impact of boat wakes on shallow water habitat, including interpretation of historical aerial photographs; 15. Evaluate the hydrodynamic and water quality impacts of converting Delta islands into reservoirs; 16. Use a hydrodynamic model to simulate the distribution of larval fish in a tidally influenced estuary; 17. Identify and evaluate non-export factors that may have contributed to fishery declines, including predation, shifts in oceanic conditions, aquatic toxicity from pesticides and mining wastes, salinity intrusion from channel dredging, loss of riparian and marsh habitat, sedimentation from upstream land alternations, and changes in dissolved oxygen, flow, and temperature below dales. • Developed, directed, and participated in a broad-based research program on enviroru-nental issues and control technology for energy industries including petroleum, oil shale, coal J. PHYLLIS FOX, PH.D., PAGE 15 mining, and coal slurry transport. Research included evaluation of air and water pollution, development of novel, low-cost technology to treat and dispose of wastes, and development and application of geohydrologic models to evaluate subsurface contamination from in-situ retorting. The program consisted of govenunent and industry contracts and employed 45 technical and administrative personnel. • Coordinated an industry task force established to investigate the occurrence, causes, and solutions for corrosion/erosion and mechanical/engineering failures in the waterside systems �. (e.g., condensers, steam generation equipment) of power plants. Corrosion/erosion failures caused by water and steam contamination that were investigated included waterside corrosion caused by poor microbiological treatment of cooling water, steam-side corrosion caused by anvnonia-oxygen attack of copper alloys, stress-corrosion cracking of copper alloys in the air cooling sections of condensers, tube sheet leaks, oxygen in-leakage through condensers, volatilization of silica in boilers and carry over and deposition on turbine blades, and iron corrosion on boiler tube walls. Mechanical/engineering failures investigated included: steam impingement attack on the stearn side of condenser tubes, tube-to-tube-sheet joint leakage, flow-induced vibration, structural design problems, and mechanical failures due to stresses induced by shutdown, startup and cycling duty, among others. Worked with electric utility plant owners/operators, condenser and boiler vendors, and architect/engineers to collect data to document the occun-ence of and causes for these problems, prepared reports summarizing the investigations, and presented the results and participated on a committee of industry experts tasked with identifying solutions to prevent condenser failures. ti Evaluated the cost effectiveness and technical feasibility of using dry cooling and parallel dry-wet cooling to reduce water dernands of several large natural-gas fired power plants in California and Arizona. Designed and prepared cost estimates for several dry cooling systems (e.g., fin fan heat exchangers) used in chemical plants and refineries. Designed, evaluated, and costed several zero liquid discharge systems for power plants. Evaluated the impact of agricultural and mining practices on surface water quality of Central Valley steams. Represented municipal water agencies on several federal and state advisory committees tasked with gathering and assessing relevant technical information, developing work plans, and providing oversight of technical work to investigate toxicity issues in the watershed. AIR QUALITY/PUBLIC HEALTH Prepared or reviewed the air quality and public health sections of hundreds of EIRs and EISs on a wide range of industrial, colnlnercial and residential projects. Prepared or reviewed hundreds of NSR and PSD pen-nits for a wide range of industrial facilities. J. PHYLLIS FOX, PH.D., PAGE 16 • Designed, implemented, and directed a 2-year-long community air quality monitoring program to assure that residents downwind of a petroleum-contaminated site were not impacted during remediation of petroleum-contaminated soils. The program included real- time monitoring of particulates, diesel exhaust, and BTEX and time integrated monitoring for over 100 chemicals. • Designed, implemented, and directed a 5-year long source, industrial hygiene, and ambient monitoring program to characterize air emissions, employee exposure, and downwind environmental impacts of a first-generation shale oil.plant. The program included stack monitoring of heaters,boilers, incinerators, sulfur recovery units, rock crushers,API separator vents, and wastewater pond fugitives for arsenic, cadmium, chlorine, chromium, mercury, 15 organic indicators (e.g., quinoline, pyrrole,benzo(a)pyrene,thiophene, benzene), sulfur gases, hydrogen cyanide, and ammonia. In many cases, new methods had to be developed or existing methods modified to accommodate the complex matrices of shale plant gases. • Conducted investigations on the impact of diesel exhaust from truck traffic from a wide range of facilities including mines, large retail centers, light industrial uses, and sports facilities. Conducted traffic surveys, continuously monitored diesel exhaust using an aethalolneter, and prepared health risk assessments using resulting data. • Conducted indoor air quality investigations to assess exposure to natural gas leaks, pesticides, molds and fungi, soil gas from subsurface contamination, and outgasing of carpets, drapes, furniture and construction materials. Prepared health risk assessments using collected data. • Prepared health risk assessments, emission inventories, air quality analyses, and assisted in the permitting of over 70 1 to 2 MW emergency diesel generators. • Prepare over 100 health risk assessments, endangerment assessments, and other health-based studies for a wide range of industrial facilities. • Developed methods to monitor trace elements in gas streams, including a continuous real- time monitor based on the Zeeman atomic absorption spectrometer,to continuously measure mercury and other elements. • Performed nuisance investigations (odor, noise, dust, smoke, indoor air quality, soil contamination) for businesses, industrial facilities, and residences located proximate to and downwind of pollution sources. J. PHYLLIS FOX, PH.D., PAGE 17 PUBLICATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS (Partial List - Representative Publications) J.P. Fox, T.P. Rose, and T.L. Sawyer, Isotope Hydrology of a Spring-fed Waterfall in Fractured Volcanic Rock, Submitted to Journal of Hydrology, 2002. C.E. Lambert, E.D. Winegar, and Phyllis Fox, Ambient and Hurnan Sources of Hydrogen Sulfide: An Explosive Topic, Air& Waste Management Association, June 2000, Salt Lake City, UT. San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District and San Luis Obispo County Public Health Department, CO17717Zu11lt>>Mol?ltoring Program, February 8, 1999. The Bay Institute,From the Sierra to the Sea. The Ecological History of the San Francisco Bay- Delta Watershed, 1998. J. Phyllis Fox, Well Interference Effects of HDPP's Proposed Wellfield in the Victor Valley Water District, Prepared for the California Unions for Reliable Energy (CURE), October 12, 1998. J. Phyllis Fox,Air Quality)Impacts of Using CP VC Pipe in Indoor Residential Potable Water Svstems, Report Prepared for California Pipe Trades Council, California Firefighters Association, and other trade associations, August 29, 1998. J. Phyllis Fox and others,Authority to Construct Avila Beach Remediation Project, Prepared for Unocal Corporation and submitted to San Luis Obispo Air Pollution Control District June 1998. J. Phyllis Fox and others,Authority to Construct Former Guadalupe Oil Field Remediation Project, Prepared for Unocal Corporation and submitted to San Luis Obispo Air Pollution Control District, May 1998. J. Phyllis Fox and Robert Sears,Health Risk Assessment for the Metropolitan Oakland International Airport.Proposed Airport Development Program, Prepared for Plumbers & Stearnfitters U.A. Local 342, December 15, 1997. Levine-Fricke-Recon (Phyllis-Fox and others), Preliminary Endangerment Assessment Work Plan for the Study Area Operable Unit, Former Solano County Sanitarj;Landfill, Benicia, California, Prepared for Granite Management Co. for submittal to DTSC, September 26 1997. Phyllis Fox and Jeff Miller, "Fathead Minnow Mortality in the Sacramento River,"IEP Newsletter, v. 9, n. 3, 1996. Jud Monroe, Phyllis Fox, Karen Levy, Robert Nuzum, Randy Bailey, Rod Fujita, and Charles Hanson,Habitat Restoration in Aquatic Ecosystems. A Review of the Scientific Literature Related to the Principles Of Habitat Restoration,Part Two, Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD) Report, 1996. J. PHYLLIS FOX, PH.D., PAGE 18 Phyllis Fox and Elaine Archibald,Aquatic Toxicio� and Pesticides in SuI face Waters of the Central Vallev, California Urban Water Agencies(CUWA) Report, September 1997. Phyllis Fox and Alison Britton,Evaluation of the Relationship Between Biological Indicators and the Position of X2, CUWA Report, 1994. Phyllis Fox and Alison Britton,Predictive Ability of the Striped Bass Model, WRINT DWR-206, 1992. J. Phyllis Fox,An Historical Ovei-view of Environn7ental. Conditions at the North Canyon Area of the For177er Solano County Sanitary Landfill, Report Prepared for Solano County Department of Environmental Management, 1991. J. Phyllis Fox,An Historical Overview of Environn7ental. Conditions at the East Canyon Area of the Forn7er Solano County Sanitao,Landfill, Report Prepared for Solano County Department of Environmental Management, 1991. Phyllis Fox, Trip 2 Report, Environmental Monitoring Plan, Parachute Creek Shale Oil Program, Unocal Report, 1991. J. P. Fox and others, "Long-Tenii Annual and Seasonal Trends in Surface Salinity of San Francisco Bay,"Journal of Hydrology,v. 122, p. 93-117, 1991. J. P. Fox and others, "Reply to Discussion by D.R. Helsel and E.D. Andrews on Trends in Freshwater Inflow to San Francisco Bay from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta," Water Resources Bulletin, v. 27, no. 2, 1991. J. P. Fox and others, "Reply to Discussion by Philip B. Williams on Trends in Freshwater Inflow to San Francisco Bay from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta," Water Resources Bulletin, v. 27, no. 2, 1991. J. P. Fox and others, "Trends in Freshwater Inflow to San Francisco Bay from the Sacramento- San Joaquin Delta," Water Resources Bulletin,v. 26, no. 1, 1990. J. P. Fox, "Water Development Increases Freshwater Flow to San Francisco Bay," SCWC Update, v. 4, no. 2, 1988. J. P. Fox,Freshwater Inflow to San Francisco Bay Under Natural Conditions, State Water Contracts, Exhibit 262, 58 pp., 1987. J. P. Fox, "The Distribution of Mercury During Simulated In-Situ Oil Shale Retorting," Environn7ental Science and Technol.og), v. 19, no. 4, pp. 316-322,. 1985. J. P. Fox, "El Mercurio en el Medio Ambiente: Aspectos Referentes al Peru," (Mercury in the Enviroru-nent: Factors Relevant to Peru) Proceedings of Simposio Los Pesticidas y el Medio Ambiente," ONERN-CONCYTEC, Lima, Peru, April 25-27, 1984. (Also presented at Instituto Tecnologico Pesquero and Instituto del Mar del Peru.) J. PHYLLIS FOX, PH.D., PAGE 19 J. P. Fox, "Mercury, Fish, and the Peruvian Diet,"Boletin de Investigacion, Instituto Tecnologico Pesguero,Lima, Peru, v. 2, no. 1,pp. 97-116, 1984. J. P. Fox, P. Persoff, A.Newton, and R.N. Heistand, "The Mobility of Organic Compounds in a Codisposal System,"Proceedings of the Seventeenth Oil Shale Symposium, Colorado School of Mines Press, Golden, CO, 1984. P. Persoff and J. P. Fox, "Evaluation of Control Technology for Modified In-Situ Oil Shale Retorts,"Proceedings of the Sixteenth Oil Shale Symposium, Colorado School of Mines Press, Golden, CO, 1983. J. P. Fox,Leaching of Oil Shale Solid Wastes: A Critical Revieiv, University of Colorado Report, 245 pp., July 1983. J. P. Fox,Source Monitoring for Unregulated Pollutants from the White River Oil Shale Project, VTN Consolidated Report, June 1983. A. S.Newton, J. P. Fox, H. Villarreal, R. Raval, and W. Walker II, Organic Compounds in Coal Slurry Pipeline Waters, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Report LBL-15121,46 pp., Sept. 1982. M. Goldstein et al.,High Level Nuclear Waste Standards Anall)sis, Regulatory Framework Comparison, Battelle Memorial Institute Report No. BPMD/82/E515-06600/3, Sept. 1982. J. P. Fox et al.,Literature and Data Search of Water Resource Information of the Colorado, Utah, and Wvoming Oil Shale Basins,Vols. 1-12, Bureau of Land Management, 1982. A. T. Hodgson, M. J. Pollard G. J. Harris D. C. Girvin J. P. Fox and N. J. Brown,Mercury Mass Distribution During Laboraton;and Simulated In-Situ Retorting, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Report LBL-12908, 39 pp., Feb. 1982. E. J. Peterson, A. V. Henicksman, J. P. Fox, J. A. ORourke, and P. Wagner,Assessment and Control of Water Contamination Associated with Shale Oil Extraction and Processing, Los Alamos National Laboratory Report LA-9084-PR, 54 pp., April 1982. P. Persoff and J. P. Fox, Control Technolocql for In-Situ Oil Shale Retorts, Lawrence Berkeley ; Laboratory Report LBL-14468, 118 pp., Dec. 1982. J. P. Fox, Codisposal Evaluation: Environmental Significance of Organic Compounds, Development Engineering Report, 104 pp., April 1982. J. P. Fox,A Proposed Strateg for Developing an Environmental Water Monitoring Plan for the Paraho-Ute Project, VTN Consolidated Report, Sept. 1982. J. P. Fox, D. C. Girvin, and A. T. Hodgson, "Trace Elements in Oil Shale Materials,"Energy and Environmental Chemistt)� Fossil Fuels, v.1,pp. 69-101, 1982. J. PHYLLIS FOX, PH.D., PAGE 20 M. Mehran, T. N.Narasimhan, and J. P. Fox, "Hydrogeologic Consequences of Modified In-situ Retorting Process, Piceance Creek Basin, Colorado,"Proceedings of the Fourteenth Oil Shale S)inposium, Colorado School of Mines Press, Golden, CO, 1981 (LBL-12063). U. S. DOE (J. P. Fox and others), Western Oil Shale Development: A Technolog�l Assessment, v. 1-9, Pacific Northwest Laboratory Report PNL-3830, 1981. J. P. Fox (ed), "Oil Shale Research," Chapter from the Energy and Environn?ent Division Annual Report 1980, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Report LBLA 19895 82 pp., 1981 (author or co- author of four articles in report). J. P. Fox, TI7e Pay"t1t101111?g of Major; Minos; and Trace Elen?ents during In-Situ Oil Shale Retorting, Ph.D. Dissertation, U. of Ca., Berkeley, also Report LBL-9062, 441 pp., 1980 (Diss. Abst. Internat., v. 41, no. 7, 1981). J.P. Fox, "Elemental Composition of Simulated Ii? Situ Oil Shale Retort Water,"Analysis of Waters Associated-o;ith Alternative Fuel Production, ASTM STP 720, L.P. Jackson and C.C. Wright, Eds., American Society for Testing and Materials,pp. 101-128, 1981. J. P. Fox, P. Persoff, P. Wagner, and E. J. Peterson, "Retort Abandonment --Issues and Research Needs," in Oil Shale: the Environmental Challenges, K. K. Petersen (ed.), p. 133, 1980 (Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Report LBL-11197). J. P. Fox and T. E. Phillips, "Wastewater Treatment in the Oil.Shale Industry," in Oil Shale: the Environn?ei?tal Challenges, K. K. Petersen (ed.),p. 253, 1980 (Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Report LBL-11214). R. D. Giauque, J. P. Fox, J. W. Smith, and W. A. Robb, "Geochemical Studies of Two Cores from the Green River Oil Shale Formation," Transactions, American Geophysical Union, v. 61, no. 17, 1980. J. P. Fox, "The Elemental Composition of Shale Oils," Abstracts of Papers, 179th National Meeting, ISBN 0-8412-0542-6, Abstract No. FUEL 17, 1980. J. P. Fox and P. Persoff, "Spent Shale Grouting of Abandoned In-Situ Oil Shale Retorts," Proceedings of Second U.S. DOE Environmental Control Syn7posiun7, CONF-800334/1, 1980 (Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Report LBL-10744). P. K. Mehta, P. Persoff, and J. P. Fox, "Hydraulic Cement Preparation from Lurgi Spent Shale," Proceedings of the Thirteenth Oil Shale Symposium, Colorado School of Mines Press, Golden, CO, 1980 (Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Report LBL-11071). F. E. Brinckman, K. L. Jewett, R. H. Fish, and J. P. Fox, "Speciation of Inorganic and Organoarsenic Compounds in Oil Shale Process Waters by HPLC Coupled with Graphite Furnace Atomic Absorption (GFAA) Detectors," Abstracts of Papers, Div. of Geochemistry, J. PHYLLIS FOX, PH.D., PAGE 21 Paper No. 20, Second Chemical Congress of the North American Continent, August 25-28, 1980, Las Vegas (1980). J. P. Fox, D. E. Jackson, and R. H. Sakaj i, "Potential Uses of Spent Shale in the Treatment of Oil Shale Retort Waters," Proceedings of the Thirteenth Oil Shale Symposium, Colorado School of Mines Press, Golden, CO, 1980 (Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Report LBL-11072). J. P. Fox, The Elemental Composition of Shale Oils, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Report LBL-10745, 1980. R. H. Fish, J. P. Fox, F. E. Brinckrnan, and K. L. Jewett,Fingeiprintina Inorganic and Or banoarsenic Compounds in Oil Shale Process Waters Using a Liquid Chromatograph Coupled with an Atomic Absorption Detector, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Report LBL- 1147651980. National Academy of Sciences (J. P. Fox and others), Surface Mining of Non-Coal Minerals, Appendix IP Mining and Processing of Oil Shale and Tar Sands, 222 pp., 1980. J. P. Fox, "Elemental Composition of Simulated In-Situ Oil Shale Retort Water," in Analvsis of Waters Associated with Alternative Fuel Production,ASTM STP 720, L. P. Jackson and C. C. Wright (eds.), American Society for Testing and Materials,pp. 101-128, 1980. R. D. Giauque, J. P. Fox, and J. W. Smith, Characterization of Two Core Holes from the Naval Oil Shale Reserve Number 1, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Report LBL-10809, 176 pp., December 1980. B. M. Jones, R. H. Sakaji, J. P. Fox, and C. G. Daughton, "Removal of Contaminative Constituents from Retort Water: Difficulties with Biotreatment and Potential Applicability of Raw and Processed Shales,"EPA/DOE Oil Shale Wastewater Treatability Workshop, December !► 1980 (Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Report LBL-12124). J. P. Fox, Water-Related Impacts of In-Situ Oil Shale Processing, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Report LBL-6300, 327 p., December 1980. M. Mehran, T.N.Narasimhan, and J. P. Fox,An Investigation of Dewatering for the Modified In-Situ Retorting Process, Piceance Creek Basin, Colorado, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Report LBLA 18195 105 p., October 1980. J. P. Fox (ed.) "Oil Shale Research," Chapter from the Energ> and Environment Division Annual Report 1979, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Report LBL-10486, 1980 (author or coauthor of eight articles). E. Ossio and J. P. Fox,Anaerobic Biological Treatment of In-Situ Oil Shale Retort Water, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Report LBL-10481, March 1980. J. PHYLLIS FOX, PH.D., PAGE 22 J. P. Fox, F. H. Pearson, M. J. Kland, and P. Persoff,Hydrologic and Water Qualio)Effects and Controls,for Sur face and Underground Coal Mining--State o 'Knowledge, Issues, and Research Needs, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Report LBL-1 1775, 1980. D. C. Girvin,T. Hadeishi, and J. P. Fox, "Use of Zeeman Atomic Absorption Spectroscopy for the Measurement of Mercury in Oil Shale Offgas,"Proceedings of the Oil Shale Syn7posiun7,: Sainpling, Analysis and Qualio .Assurance, U.S. EPA Report EPA-600/9-80-022 March 1979 (Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Report LBL-8888). D. S. Farrier, J. P. Fox, and R. E. Poulson, "Interlaboratory, Multimethod Study of an In-Situ Produced Oil Shale Process Water,"Proceedings of the Oil Shale Symposiunt San7pling, Analysis and Quality Assurance, U.S. EPA Report EPA-600/9-80-022, March 1979 (Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Report LBL-9002). J. P. Fox, J. C. Evans, J. S. Fruchter, and T. R. Wildeman, "Inter]aboratory Study of Elemental Abundances in Raw and Spent Oil Shales,"Proceedings of the Oil Shale Syn7posium: San7pling, Analysis and Quality Assurance, U.S. EPA Report EPA-600/9-80-022, March 1979 (Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Report LBL-8901). J. P. Fox, "Retort Water Particulates,"Proceedings of the Oil Shale Syinposiuni: Sampling, Analysis and Quality Assurance, U.S. EPA Report EPA-600/9-80-022, March 1979 (Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Report LBL-8829). P. Persoff and J. P. Fox, "Control Strategies for In-Situ Oil Shale Retorts,"Proceedings of the Twelfth Oil Shale Swnposiuni,, Colorado School of Mines Press, Golden, CO, 1979 (Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Report LBL-9040). J. P. Fox and D. L. Jackson, "Potential Uses of Spent Shale in the Treatment of Oil Shale Retort Waters,"Proceedings of the DOE Wastewater Workshop, Washington,D. C.,June 14-15, 1979 (Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Report LBL-9716). J. P. Fox, K. K. Mason, and J. J. Duvall, "Partitioning of Major, Minor, and Trace Elements during Simulated In-Situ Oil Shale Retorting,"Pr-oceedings of the Twelfth Oil Shale Syn7posiuni., Colorado School of Mines Press, Golden, CO, 1979 (Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Report LBL-9030). P. Persoff and J. P. Fox, Control Strategies for Abandoned In-Situ Oil Shale Retorts, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Report LBL-8780, 106 pp.,October 1979. D. C. Girvin and J. P. Fox, On-Line Zeeman A tonfic Absorption Spectroscopy for Mercury Analysis in Oil Shale Gases, Environmental Protection Agency Report EPA-600/7-80-130, 95 p., August 1979 (Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Report LBL-9702). J. P. Fox, Water Quality Effects ofLeachatesfron7an In-Situ Oil Shale Industry, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Report LBL-8997, 37 pp., April 1979. J. PHYLLIS FOX, PH.D., PAGE 23 J. P. Fox (ed.), "Oil Shale Research," Chapter from the Energy and Environment Division Annual Report 1978, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Report LBL-9857 August 1979 (author or coauthor of seven articles). J. P. Fox, P. Persoff, M. M. Moody, and C. J. Siseimore, "A Strategy for the Abandonment of Modified In-Situ Oil Shale Retorts,"Proceedings of the First U.S. DOE Environmental Control Symposium, CONF-781109, 1978 (Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Report LBL-6855). E. Ossio, J. P. Fox, J. F. Thomas, and R. E. Poulson, "Anaerobic Fermentation of Simulated In- I Situ Oil Shale Retort Water,"Division of Fuel Chemistry Preprints, v. 23, no. 2,p. 202-213, 1978 (Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Report LBL-6855). J. P. Fox, J. J. Duvall, R. D. McLaughlin, and R. E. Poulson, "Mercury Emissions from a Simulated In-Situ Oil Shale Retort," Proceedings of the Eleventh Oil Shale Symposium, Colorado School of Mines Press, Golden, CO, 1978 (Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Report LBL-7823). J. P. Fox, R. D. McLaughlin, J. F. Thomas, and R. E. Poulson, "The Partitioning of As, Cd, Cu, Hg, Pb, and Zn during Simulated In-Situ Oil Shale Retorting,"Proceedings of the Tenth Oil Shale Svmposium, Colorado School of Mines Press, Golden, CO, 1977. Bechtel, Inc., Treatment and Disposal of Toxic Wastes, Report Prepared for Santa Ana Watershed Planning Agency, 1975. Bay Valley Consultants, Water Qualin; Control Plan for Sacramento, Sacramento-San Joaquin 11, and San Joaquin Basins, Parts I and II and Appendices A-E, 750 pp., 1974. li F e IMAR. 3.20031310:33AM MOMML *Y DEVELOPMENT r S 2 F 8 3 El-NO.727 P.4 p. 2 GAGEN31 XCCOTI XCXAHON MSTRONG W116LI^M E. GAGE-N.,JR, Al F0140IMSSIONAL CORPORATION WANVILLC OFFIQC apecopy L. mccor 270 FfqQfVT ST14CET P^TIRICK J. MCMj%kJ0N P. 0. 930X Ala MALSK 6 ^bPm**rRQrjrw MANV1661C. CALIFORNIA 9*520-O218 LINN X, cacmus 1rr6WZPH0NC; (9251 037-0065 serepscrd W. TIOQM^S F^xs* 182511 02111-IMMI6 C"ARInICS A. KOSS mteMACL,J. mo%1*140WITM NAFN^V^6LEY QFfrICP; IRICH^R10 Ce RAIN IGG VICTOR J. CONTI 1020 MAIN STFMCTi ;SWITIt ?,IP- RAR19ARA DUVAL Jr-Wr-Ll, ST, Helasa, Poor-ATM. F^r4wcal Tr-Lr-F1'?J0?41t'. (7071 AL.1.0*14 C, MQORC rAX4, 17071 0913-5527 6Tr-PHC?w T. SUCHL February 10,2003 000N.M� Pc-r-^rr- QIZPLY TQ;AL.CXANOCR 6. SCHmM M^1QTIN 1-yGot4s altw^ M. AIM By faahnile now (925) 64&.7078 0 nogin al to follow by Us,So Afall Silvan Marchesi County Counsel 65 1 Pine StrOet, 9 Floor Martinez., CA 945:53 Re; Suspension of)?uitaing and Grading Permits on Calpine GaswFired Pecker Plant Rherview,Energy Center 801 Minq*er DHvA Antioch Coun&Pik#Z109471 Dear Silvano: Thank you for me efin.gwifhNancyMurruy,Managing Counsel atCalpine,Anne Mudge and me to di.srups suspension of building and grading permits and the related stop-work order, currently in:effect with respect to completion of construction of the Calpm* e gas-firedpeaker n*' plant at the G-p Gypsum Corporation Antioch Wall Board Facility. I understand that Bill Galston,the CityAttomey for Antioch,basinformed you that the inteads to withdraw iu Clity appeal regarding the issuance of buitdiug and grading penrlits for that deveIopment pro'ect,, i With That expected withdrawal of the appeal,die suspension of those permits by the Cotte ty is the only rem admiti stradve matter presently pending at the County with respect to the Cepe'ne"6&%Wprojer,t& Understand that the Community Development Dcpartment (O'CIM") is currently investpting whether this pecker plant is the type of devclopment project that wo-uld requhr.. a laud use permit under the Industrial Safety Ordinance C baP ter 84-63 of the Contra Costa Exhibit B F e OAR. 3_20031,q;10:33AM QC9MMU�—_rY DEVELOPMENT (SRS*x— 8313-NO.727 P.5 . Silvano Marche$i February 10,2003 Page 2 County 4nii,nance Code("ISO"). In myjudgment,based on all the circumstances concerning this matter(and assuming the CDD concludes that a land use permit would not be necessary for this development project),the most appropriate resolution would be for the suspension to be lifted so that the peaker power plant construction may be timely completed imder those previously issued building and grading permits, and without the need for fuAher appeals or processing of the partially constmeted developruent project under the ISO. There are many factors,when considered M' combination,that make such a resolution of this matter by the County reasonable, editable and appmpnam.. In early summer,mer2Calpine representatives met with staff from the CDD and the County 1=ardous materials program to discuss whether a land use permit would be required,among other things. It is my understanding that Calpine representatives discussed%Adth staff its need for a streamlined siting process to meet its contractual tune constraints. Calpine then submitted a request to the County to determine whether its proposed gas-fired pecker plant was an exempt developracut project under the ISO. Yn making this application, Calpine and its consultants believed that the distributioxt of natural gas from a common pipeline to the plat, in order to provide fuel for the production of electricity on its delivery(Le. without storage of natural gas an the site), was not a factor to be considered in determining whether this developm=t project was exempt from the ISO. From my review of the project documents and discussions with Calpine representatives,itis plain to me that there was no effirt by anyone at Calpine to mislead the County this process. The pecker plant has been consistently desen'bed in Calpine and County documents as being fired by natural gas. It just appears that those persoris at Calpine and the County involved in the exemption process never specifically discussed between them the significance of natural gas being delivered and used in that way M' the development project. Xf Calpine representatives involved in the project realised in the sumzneT that the development project might not have been exempt from the ISO because of thePTOJ'ect's use of natural gas, Calpine would have undertaken modifications to its project (which are currently under consideration during this period of suspension) and instead requested a determinatiaa of naueovemge, like tie County is now considering. Had that alternative application been submitted(and the Community Development Department in reviewing that request had agreed that a land use permit was not required), then the building and grading permits would have been issued and the construction of the facility would have been substantially completed,just like now, F R MAR. 3.2003 910�33AM QCOM' 'CITY DEVELOPMENT ($� '.) g 3�X10_727 P.6 P e f Silvano Marchesi February 10,2003 Page 3 It is fair to say that Calpine has relied in good Faith as the exemption determination; any om,issioa in filling out the application was an innocent one. 7n this instance,mit good faith reliance bas exceptionally significant consequences for Calpine. This pecker plant is park of a comprehensive and very expensive power plank system that 0.1..,...is completing in order to provide a sccvze, long term electrical energy source for the State of California. Completion of this plant in the next month is an integral part of Calpine's contractual obligations to the Stato of California and to Calpine's finoncial lenders and investors. As a result, Calpine stands to lose tens of lions of dollars if this pecker plant is not timely completed and available for use. This is not just about money. DuetotheeompJexnatureof this power plant system project, also at issue is whetherCalpin�'s electrical energy prod4etioa systems will be available for use by the State when the peak season begins this mer. A.delay of even a few weeks is critical. Calpine believes that the Community Development Department will be able to reasonably conclude duda land use permit is not required for its pecker plant cad that had the natural gas issue been identified earlier, a determination of noncoverage would have been issued in the summer for Calpine's development project Calpine has supplied the County with the basis 1 for that determination under separate cover and we understand that siaff'has the matter under consideration. �►.ftez permits have been issued and construction has been substantially commenced in good faith, it is my experience that County officials typically review snd address zoning compliance matters in an equitable manner. It is fair to say that resolution of this matter in the next few weeks is one of the most significant fissues facing Calpiae, Thereforc,CalpIne respectfully requests that the CoDevelopment Department reach a conclusion al the earliest possible opportunity whether a land use permit would be required dor their pecker plant(Willi the modifications proposed by Calpine). Assuming the Community Development Department concludes a lead use permit would not be required for such a pecker plant,then Calpine requests that the Building Inspection Deparl�meut promptly lift the suspension of the building and grading permi#s,without requiring a formal application for and determination of _ noncoverage and the &ttendaut posting and appeal process. F,.�AR. 3.2003 910.:33AM CCqMMU�TY DEVELOPMENT -NO.727 P.7 I 92S,1-,838 P 5 S11Va110 MBTC , FebiuRry 10v 2003 Page 4 This approach is equitable and therefore in my view legally defensible and appropriate under - the circumstaAccsq When the County suspended the p 1.L-on January 23,2003,any perriods to appeal the County's determista�tian under the ISO had long since r=. If the,County agrees that a doter�niaation of noncoverage is (and therefore would have been) an acceptable altemative approack it is reasonable to put Calpiae rn the same position it would be iu if the Canmty dad reached this conclusion lost sun=ex. Tf such an approach to resolve this nmtter is acceptable.to County staff, then Calpine will C in writing,effective on the date the susp=sionis lifted,that it will incoTpora�in its devel =t the changes necessary to support the ConDevelopmentprojectIV Depart�aeut's conclusion that a land use permit would not be required. Of coupe,consistent in with the usualpreference ofthe County in these situations,Calp"Mr.will also agree wn'ting to inde�mnifya3n and hold the County harmless t any third party cla=' s for lifting the suspension and to release the County from any liability whatsoever relating to the Calpina's costs and financial losses resulting from the earHer suspension, ag effective on the date that is suspension lifted Calpine recognizes that if a third party objects to the adnunistrative decision of County staff to lift the suspenpion,that party can file an administrative appeal. If such an appeal is filed,it is Calpine's understaszding that it may complete its pecker plant pending a decision an that Cale Of course,lost time is always a conce rxz in completing a development project. In this matter, 01 it is of tmiquely concem for Calpine. Therefore, I suggest that a meeting be arranged early this week with Calpiao and County staff to address and hopefully resolve the subnantive question ofwheTher a land use permit would be required for their peaker plaut as modified,and to address the most appropriate procedural resolution undor the circumstanew here, The stakes for Catpitie are enormous, If you could attend that meeting, it would be very much appreciated.. Silvfmo.,thank you for your consideration. .&.W. Very truly yours, Mark L.Armstrong PROJECT INFORMATION for the 520001 ENERGY CENTER ANTIOCH, CALIFORNIA Prepared by: Calpine Corporation � 4160 Dublin Boulevard Dublin, California 94568 � and FOSTER WHEELER ENVIRONMENTAL CORPORATION 3947 Lennane Drive, Suite 200 Sacramento, California 95834 May 2002 Exhibit C M CONTENTS CONTENTS.....................................................................................................................................it FIGURES...:...................................................................................................................................iii INTRODUCTION..........................................................................................................................iv 1.0 HAZARD SCORE...................................................................................................................I 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION....................................................................................................2 3.0 FACILITY PLOT PLAN...................................... 12 4.0 DISTANCE TO NEAREST RECEPTORS....................................................... 18 5.0 CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE.......................................................................................... 19 6.0 NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES...............................................................................................20 7.0 PARKING AND ACCESS....................................................................................................21. 8.0 WASTE WATER MANAGEMENT.....................................................................................22 9.0 CHANGES IN FLARING .....................................................................................................24 10.0 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS..............................................................................................25 11.0 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS USE....................................................................................27 12.0 ACCIDENTAL RELEASE PREVENTION PROGRAM.................../...,,....................,,..28 13.0 PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 300 FEET ..................................................................29 14.0 ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS...............................................................................30 APPENDIX A-- HAZARD SCORE CALCULATIONS APPENDIX B - SURROUNDING PARCELS GP Enterprise Energy Center 11 Land Use Permit Exemption Application ..t'" ' , •it 'a, + ■ L t •4k 11 a _ CL t :.� ., t tS''• 1 , b* -i.. :s r/-s�n•l !• i • F•. i�1 "a• or ri f, i r t ,,,.. s •f. ,tryt ' • i �•S�,,r • • �. 1IS! ✓i 1 Li'+ • rr S ri !. t `�. • i /!�!�:. �! � r' 'I:e II • i J 1 .. •� �i /1 .�5:5 '. 4,'Y •a i{ • iy +�'��r'`,�.' •i'' y�•■■•.• 0. »a+ w�a• ry�• _ G_'ur. ��......�.,. •tom •� x•I,�+' �:- .a ` .i��'�y_�•�x-.���•'ai._ (.�- •�•.j�` •'', ■► �ter. a+ �•••'•- '- i" •("�` ::a �' • - 3,, l ;' i i "�.,� ;7• 1 3►, •':'t j j •tlr• •ow Va LL ,� �•Jy •'• 'to ••�. -S •.�.l,Y lig -�' "� � •>� a�� '� •` ♦•'4 {•' » '�r.,.•�,•a,�`' • :l ki( 4-- , •'t , �'.t i� 4 ..1 , •. _';t 7! •• • �1 S•"-"'-.,=•�•.'�.., •r'1 ,• r� � t r••.- , Its. l l ;�_ is !j t [ ,♦e .x'35,,'r.�"' .ly♦-ym.•`•• (••_t_ • •i i,' t.'r ai SAL. - �' •�'» , -j '!1 i_ •• "4 �, T-■'�� !w• >.+�,rt , (yp•"1<7 r �_"-A i•'� ,./I Ji!��'*' !" � 1� ; »� �. I i p Q .,•$# _ -;�1, .• 'ii /�`•a •. t c( ' ,,Sr.Jr ~i!'w• •,-.sl l t i '- •�, 1''1t. An +,.' ..�tii- tib} - +; ♦��''�. a ... F♦/ COOP, '• .,,,,, .U,.,.;• i r 1... �-•,nL,r,.r!wr+rwJ„ t I•l ii,r`�` .'j. rl` i 't' ;� t •a. f ~••~ •X•j,,�`� .��i+rye"• t. i'(rr.. ._J (,'�I l� ••`�■ -'■ i j� 1n y'• .t-1 7, .. tt �� �r`,- 'r,_:�h.Y w r •w_'`.• r i • •r� ��`��G� "iR �1�.'i, Lr 't�` i■! y '�'•,� _w w (((V� �2 )1 �,i►+/r�a_ ,��,r�.._i.ia•}..}-}._ ��.�' L »��. �n `i.a,F.,jl'wt..p.r.'-�.1-. ��.�'! .N'11 I."..-_ 1. �,� �i� ?� !:J-,�•�''�' '' T 1• `•- t (`�- � - •!' '1 �■y! - .� ` 111j� !�!{. � Ir"�-�1 -ia ~'ti �.'! t•r�•' '�•• •�t• _ "+��.�+t«�'1 {'.�• - ���_r� „a �•'J��t ! i iw �r �� �r� 4;{� ��, �) 1'�`�-•--ti/'`'i�' i .r 1., � I •'•r' .. '" ''�, 'ii - �.T '�' Y( .._ •• ' r 1( ' i •,yf,, '•r• ,��'�i'ir.�•r '�, �r...i'•{ •-•'•a.. •r ;�, ■� ], 1 i S 'r i. ', � �••. ��'r!w �•� •,:' " ,�>`:s,,. �6/�� j:�.'.'.;:J- >,'-�,,�.r � tri•-�,_`''��- `1- � t' . 'i:•���,• ��i r ��t, :it t ;� !').r �f j,i' '•','�._M*.,,,A I��.�ar f -e � r ''=' .i'r 1�2' •'.r i -'� C • ..# �t•� -t 'IS 'i i••'!: {_.. a 4,�rl :i" `i ,�1� r,i".I„ + .I,:�Ti-r'' �,e• �,•ill'_ � # r. w�•''' ,'��,.s�• tl r •i r .'�A '�"y:•... e �t '!!'�:-' !Y A •�•�,•;.tr•'_'-• ,{J*,� � ■t! •T11t � • y "„•r„-,- _ •�', }•a .{,-.i - y•';• /'• •r _ I t r a�lr r l o...-T: 'r�'Y•tfi r, :'�••Zt"yQ•�� _, i .....<«� �•-,. �.1 f'��.r� '{.1'•♦�'�1� .*,•u-,�},i�I-'�,•i .i rr v` r`{•.�", ,` �rYti-. r .� t t L Vis'+' :�� ���h'..- %tet'-J�.:�� � 3 - .,/ 1 .,1'1' 1 4 1 t - _ ..i. .:rw� .�'1.i r•� 1• y•', ■moi � t'� ar :4:'-C%. i cc-%'_r.• i �• i ,�•.'1.'t.1RI 1 l! :'` �: r ♦� -�_�Y,'..t�:;. - } t' 'i? ■I��■!u Y ,�i��'; �stit,'ti.: Y 1'Cs` i .3A t ii • !.I-} 5 t i 'I,•. 1�'��._.--� „ r' -• r'Y -++• a:;b.._ t. 1� - s,,-�, i` ( � •i f' �-r i .,7 ii J�I_� ', :':' �1,•'�iaF-��-,,'! '� �' ^►' �� iri .'t.�, �Y��:?�.` y �tf : - tr■1� �. '. �./ y'~•1 t 'f*• �• t 11� ,.� .�!'1• • ' ' T ` �i'•l'"y•I `"'•� � :r' -� r t't't t7Yrq„' - .. l ',y/ra� '•. � -•. • i ' • , 1_ t ':1 :.•`+ /'-,.S t•irrl-! rt (... 1� r"4+.�++. -` a-^. r� �{ •'•�� i .s r..-.. 1 ' ._dr"' . .,s- .�'• ,w.+t f,f' TT�TTT _ lLL. �a • •s testi a :t'i (� _ i 1 .,• :1 .f, i i`•.• , � ■ r � .� _ lry,� �•�"�y�!�-'.rr••.r.�.� ....ti '!,t is .T.'..- r _ y.t,+�ty ,l t J , .) i.'rr 1 e ss ^ "': .-r"- -s •''.., > ri•'Lu'•at.,,, r' 4 ■ '.•: _, .Z (.t 11 i� .� r ;�! ��`", i{: yy ;ii,.•-it `t s• •ir► ,�� `�t�-'J'j :;�rr•r'i+;'"•� y ;'''.""�'_':, ,r'• •r •� :r •� .�� I I t`• i I /; �",` ;.,. �',1'..f,. r t{ {:,e_: f a .p 1,.�1 s ,.� ' :i ty�""i :, r r t . t' r:r,.1 �■■ t y�, *,. �"c ,y / ."y = :i A .` _ t,`, J i tl'/'•, I �_ i♦1 '.r+*'''' ri .♦1!' �j �1'•,-its":� � .�`... ,y"���.r•,; a ! �� yt �`.". -. t,as i,�. . ,ty tt!, �' 'i ! , •�..,it',/i -Jr ., _- � '.'�.:���� 7"•'"r„�,.- T•v^`•�i'•.y' 't ti ,r�:�•.`��^'`ti ,+E,f,� ,a,�;: _•._s` ►.I I-• }j . 't t '7i`t 1 .�. '.s •, •,�s'�.. _ f m•,' *' `L•._.as,;.r .•ow r-c fit , . rn__.• /'�.!i !f T:s."..'•' •7•_ •!'t'"•�°"` "t�'' ,,. y;i i k -I - �5!•' 't f/ , r 1,fr r''z vL . �,�'�� ':�; �� rl .E�•.��Y t•�rI / :,r41• Ir �+' wr_J�'=v+.. �_.� ; A�� ` 3 iil ��� ♦•t + l.�.a�'S- ,�-. .tY�i • 1 ..�/ •Y ' a, �- � '�� r •/ 1{•. j ♦1 ri '� __. ,.:ia ♦r _ n:. ,�' w• 1• ��, � � a �, ., �i 1' ; , 11 ,;� i _ r f Il.� 7 � .Iar' 11��j�j((�J •.`Zp�'�~__ ,_,,,!_ , .:tiy,• 1�"'?�fi ,_,._.�•• 1. a„� �-�;� ii'- •`� r so 0 • 2 I, �tJj :i.. ♦r -J #� !�;�'i' i ' ; �. ,.,«.I!".','._:�. ��r= s..w �., .r• i' ■ - _ 111 "a• !t J• lJi t!om�■ ,ryi M s, ,,,; �Yta,.3.'■ t� k j : 57 �: ii t.4 t:` '�, (r� � .}.r`•. `Q1� �i, aa.�„�,., - ,�t•- ' ...I!_i�.. 'i��'','�'"/d' �'+t-�*1.�'3+s'�'••�} tl t't� (.r 1 _ t,:�•L ••,�-•- 1{ ' ' 'r =t tl, '`r. '' r '�' fr C ;. :. zr> s.•• * t; 1 a r :`' " c 1- �' '•X. i .� ►��.t .,■� t�'' !'�"""�,�; � i}�:� _ '` � ' ,(/7�7 y-a•.x*sr�':Ti,' _:lt ' of ♦/1 rr r !fit`_, t_• '• �zti,. _ _ M�•:r .. `-`- ~� *,afi-�,'riy'_'. _{ !, .� 1 J{ i 11. �411' '�•,` _'7" i ..5`if! '"� ' 'f' .;it '7 > �...� :� .1 .♦,'-.r •~ _ �-, ,�•., �r � 1 r � L !' _ •��' � ,iYC.rwa•...n::+''�,• �` +, ` � ', i ( S'/�j.; / j 4-I•-t r:•-• �.N�'YA'P- � t .:rj a ,„�-�; ':•,'.r%'��, .rr-"� '`"d_-1 t 3 �:t .f ♦ 1 1 �J�: / Vii: 11 rs' �, r+ i7�alr �.� Y•,:r 1 +'� ' t '�..:'/., r_. _.r ��`, ��� Jy � -•' � _ ,i--a.-. �J _.Vii, -� "Y �^,tj� _ _.,,,,,_ 15 yt i'"" ' .%;6''� �, 'r � ''• _ 1� 4` _ � r •� -r 1 '■ :1t t. � t I �(r.+ It r f�, t/•'{ �'~ M lh, - '" ~� - ,q �s J• YAW to -I.'i �! i 1.t� 1 r '.Ls ,t.!'c ir+���.,_�+a r-•:J � +�•' T ''' i..F '+7.^. c.". ���= � r ..v I..a _ 1 t , t ' 1 r � I.�y r .� S '.r"'' Y! y •+���� � a• r 1� •moi .�='�,", l"',�"': r 1 i -'+ .,: , • -r' •t�• r"!',�N•+, 'i, +rr V .' rl ice- r .aid �':-- � {r7,'% i » �, r � 4' :� �'.f - .I� �� ��' "': •.'r`•� � � ' .. .t r $ O r - i r.� wl' •;}»'.�• ,r,,'-".�•..' ,,.-'*Lt fir•' _ '.''/'`�i�i,�j,(.,�� �. �',t. r . ,i� t 'r I��-�l ,.�•••v?k•�'1� ...a �� Ft•+r t r w m.: ^•'K.:'.{ •� ''td k,' ,,i .jsa �,'s".'- .r-�-.=,7' -•yr••i••i.r 41 i �i•' , �.. -tY••,,I,.{�1•'�'���•q• �.s .'ti:' � Fi`�` _S'`••••'�� ��■• "�'y ,3 -i r�_-=1I.1•'`�x.a.. :•n'i !''�••`'':"'{i,�'� ii.'�s�e±•. - j';i, '''•ri•!f t w :s�t��s �! � �:' i•'•a r'�P ,��,,r. � :^'.�`• '�, V"I. rui-� w .� �.1� c.s„'"�r � = - e�?.� _ NMI •( ' . ' ' ;,J'dad-f v -%+i. l -L T ti'- f•JY• s,n Biu _I ..-�tQ ,fe yiw4't r ,-....y J i' :I :.• j- ` "j .%•tr • � •la.'e'-`.s:.=-Tt n _ - - - � -- - i LE""zs .,"a'., , J;�•y� i +t. .,1. "!�'.,r��'tt :II\,_ i I''w• ;'_♦ ;r.. }•,._•'r �` '�,.,�"°�'�,c - :,x A gri'` f• s„�, T f f! +III v';�,+.�� t ;d � t ,�:l�,.•1!i r '�, .� ice+^Sir, ��� - z ari�lil, r t`_ .,� � r' _.,x' t •o`+F } r'"{• 1. ' 1 _. .r• ._t � -•� •� f '• .sti?! ��'i .' J e.r, �„` i■ » y ,. .,a•. t - .�. q�'fF 1� �y ' 1 ,/ -i ', ••I 1,. .,. ``... .f ii F e. :w+ita�• ,,,,,,- +rT i•ilwr i•• fi' •ti♦,. '•� /,.,�,.•,�' •'.�: , �:1l:sR t�• ;rr^ -'S+•"_ s :wC `'`� 1 : ;� ' 'a �a' j'� •�I r �` !r �,. � F` 'r 7. ��•�� � �' �'-•::r :� � I,',,r, +,ez -_C«�'k�„r �n. 1• -1 �.' ,, r `f• f .n. .'J �.[.` �,_�M•,SSSt .N�3}�t:�w .A��.,b•- .STr ."., �f` W rn.;` ?s"•;a•!XyS1 SSf.... j!rt�,�! .,' ~`. �' ,I:ji�a:�' �"!e•� .'_di � ">.•' 'A.m'.b _ �YS� 4 ♦'�l+ .t . _ . r� %T 4 !., ••,,, -_ ', ff"�"'�'! .c7 ..'.z� r ".r' r� !r!'•r •1, ' . 1-,ti• j • • ..j-J t _f. rr-- tar{3 �'r j� � _i''' .:_ `:• � t 4.1 t'�.' •�'� •'j ,i, r - � -�• ;5,;., r...a yg,. r;s, �`�+•. `'�.�� * i~ �'"'i,' K1 y'�"+•„�,rr 1 '�+r' J1 i ;i� (�1• �ri J ,r t ..n. ,'•� §a• �{'->. , a =�` _ •�•�a' ."r� _. /�1' Y �` 4.�Jw,. , J i••." ;'`' •i •r.. I r�•- • ,�, t t- .. :.: ,•.•d.E".3 _i.,�.q•' Ya E a ,- 'la t' J 1;'i j , '�` tt� 1. .,j( �� �' 11i `'`''3•: 7` ,,M s:' j y'L ''� �" r" i~"wn r �.r y' ' ! r •`',*•, ,I �'G'.. �1 A�•�`••"! _r a.•. � 7�•. ,+,�,�'` y}JI'a `. :.� sr •'�,.+fib•' "� �+- I *� 'r '. �'♦i f „ �1 - -. '' - = i. .3e U 11 i♦I� .fir`:+r'. * yrt •; 'L.. ,__. 4 if i ;• { •• ! 1 i ...c1 tr Yi •� `� +�" {rte•-:4)-- CO _•..�. J.,�• ,'i I.n`a' 'YwJ - � � � ,,,- �'! � i� �:r: '!! r. " �1' s.. * .�.}'�t, !1 1' 'ti'}„'',•r r. i J r.++r"t.�'�� �"• ^ w-r�,..� � f :� - i�t t'i _ •+ya" 'l'%' r J!�*-,/'♦rti'E'er. ��,.,..� ' •f ,..,':,. •',�. , �'�, � �!i{� ,_�a:.�j,' •t a 7:��' � Mp � • 41,r�..-t r�.r:. t �-„t• .� -.� ��1'.__..�,�„�� it C�•r;,! t��r �' a; '�i�" -'ir'; ,` i;�l: 3e r' ,. - r `� r. !r • �a, '�+� �t=` �� ri. �... � _ M+ 1; "''r Vic= '.' r t: '+: ,n •,,r• .�,t r �, t'•.� W.'*"'�-c. •"`"' - � •..�:�� - �•"i'i•'y�� .yrs-•<' �; O -s tits •��''\.r.-r' _S�CJf1{3at` IIL .�`'"wj•.;l'`' -�'�''�: .I r I w�1 l „t�,�f •i'- - � �'t•.3' .r s* ;i i�, _.. � j77,y ,r. - I !l „- � .�,,:• � a,� /�r� J r . Vii••- �J,/p'� •• L 91` w :'s�. `� r, 'i �_.IT,r,'• - Y � Jt_s., -t Lt :�1+ L •,,..,J,rt -_ i.t-• • �T�r 1 � '� �j �: '�t, =.r♦i!�,`s��„_. 'ra r %p I � •'lig .'S+a')F"„�a t'.`--''�- �.�:�a- ^t,+,• ♦ :f� -1 � ,�•1•• ! 1� T ,� 3_ ��"••: - �`//�'(� i r� y=r`�' '"*..+�:1 �'" ,�;z.1 t�ia`,i•1 � �- ,�,�.J:Y'_+ r '• 'ti,w ,�1�.'.J. ^�'` �� t �t - 1 I� '� i. + •y„! '?: y) +-,•, ix* ,.r -..-r»• r :.a a:Ca,+.../• ( !! 1.:":r.t t--�c'�`'- x"`"='a---- ��. tiJ°_ a =r- -•,: ^t=•�'i two �•s .♦ •,i.•T' a !'_'1-� �t',j{! "lS- 2k.s'r a*• " -A '�i'�•.ttiM - r ar +••• .3r ,r {,:'• • y,e"1 } .!' ri'l',�,:�t' '�Ij �(_ ,~' :�fi.-� �' i +'N�.Jt.tilw■•t..-' �'�-•"- i Lr *-.� •,• r.r a.r� e r i y /r'`•i ,i 4a �/ � �111'11 _ �+d'�� -`•• :;ir F Y■ `t��f j:•r t' .Z...�") �:"�''� +•""o' .��. r 1�, t r_�'--'-:t�ia"�yr+ - 'r 'l!r,r�`•• � .r.4 MI V •ii•Ed; d�•�y!•gyp y. 3 �i`t _«���"��t (l� r` Y,''�'fN i jj i ! ! t wl� J ♦r,/�s.LiJ Y wi ,,r • .. r ��'.al r •�i. 1":�'�•rrt r•^_r,f I - •�.. a�1� L�Y� ..r '� a 4`•.:''. r�• i r-:�•! a `I�� '�x:�.t� ••.,, _ t :;. -) Jj1 . + W :,.'ryt t-'•,fi.:•,�; -IN,t� l' L. -;�r,v. : .h,_ .!•i"''�' ��N -.. - �• 1 t N R t � !� ��•,Yj' �r7...-i'�:ti;•~`+�. '\' :, r:`' I/'�'` «•}t;'"�•''• '�'�•_?�� ,r» V ••. „r/'� /! r�qr.. '•t�+'•' �i.�+','t r./�� .� it r/ �'f, �'• v,`• i F''• ,-n'�,K.. �•a3 y O� s fr, .L fir. i I -�"; +i `-'�'' � ���. '=��!�,+�...,-�. ,• �S'' �,,.,.� /''� t'� � � 3 z �.;;\',ti r'' . . i j r,!^r� 1 ._ - �w »:X1 .1 t •.-c. �.'.'+x5 .a- ,!♦„ '' -rli �ti "r`,•^ �yrj w CD + �'•� .•,ti: ' fi`I�...1 -- T_ ''� .i ��-•� ,'_T al''�_ � r''�•��IIS �%' '=., (� � W '• t1 5, �1��f r•e"1 ,! ,tom`'f 'S'� "�x.'�1�»�1'r",��1� '� ''-;� x::�``•��-'•�' Z � }.�. ti�/�1:3 f ' '- il�t t! may; tt~tsr; 1 i.; rlr� i W LU '' 1 :�t'=•'•••.r. taiyi .rr '� '"�,..► �� }`Y'• i •'ri.: fJ• .r•,''i 4;.J'� ;i .�. :r ell-�':: J}i i `' S •�;; �faj•�J"�.r � _ .: ��- r.'«'=` -�J. -`�"� ��' � �`y 1,•r �i'~ \ -�rt�'r,,-/�^a �tL _ s� t+�•,�'y i�t' W `.• ^„�j;r •iJ j� ,- �r•I!. ^,.-.mea'_ -- _ '�' �. i,;r; i+. '1 `r.Yt= •'r '� _ \�j S ' Yaa.i�,•-• {r ,• 'Y��� .ti' i�q�' /l•�t y. r- r ,M ''� I'1�( �'�.� '• �-i`�'^�'•.'::;t:'�.5:� �' i� ��•' ••', �+�y`,,�,3 .� ♦ •.},rr-�-�-j jr "'l'• _• I ltt...lJ7 • t. •L,'�i,l;iri',r"•,•�^•• •.�L .3, ^� "i 1r_-.,_ - 'i:J t stl/1 / `iL' -.-�•"'f'.Y 1 I ,.1,4..e•' �1 :-'.�'•''r .•.1. _:I'-�w..i - q +w'�4 r y _•tiy'�• -'- LL - !4�+�\„''j:^ 1.1''''t':1MI I'r"r1 1••I:r r•.Sm'- •+• ,•-• "i7' �'.y��� •,1�1 � ',- .\ �/, ry/'}�� INTRODUCTION The 520001 Energy Center is a nominal 45-megawatt (MW) electrical generating facility designed to provide peaking power to California's electrical grid. The project is planned to be located at the G-P Gypsum Corporation's Antioch wallboard manufacturing facility, 801 Minaker Drive, Antioch, California. This facility is located in an unincorporated area of Contra Costa County,., adjacent to the City of Antioch. Figure 1 shows the location of the Energy Center. This document has been prepared using Application Submittal Requirements, Land Use Permits for Development Projects Involving Hazardous Materials as specified in Chapter 84-63 of the County of Contra Costa County Ordinance Code. Article 84-63.604(c) of the County Code, "Applicability", indicates that certain development projects are exempt from the land use pen-nit requirements. These include projects storing or transporting monthly quantities of hazardous materials less than: • Hazard Category C -4,000 tons • Hazard Category B - 5 tons • Hazard Category A- 500 pounds or the Threshold Planning Quantity on the Extremely Hazardous Materials List(Appendix A to 40 Code of Federal Regulations, Chapter 1, Subchapter J,Part 355), which ever is less The 52001 Energy Center project does not exceed these criteria for these hazard categories(see Appendix A of this document). This document is being subrm*tted for review and a determination whether the project is exempt from a land use permit requirement. This document includes the information necessary to complete and verify the hazard score of the project, such as chemical identification, distances to nearest receptors, transportation routes., and a summary of baseline data. The following project description addresses items 1 through 14. of the Application Submittal Requirements in the corresponding order. GP Enterprise Energy Center iv Land Use Permit Exemption Application 1.0 HAZARD SCORE r The hazard score for the 520001 Energy Center project is 101, as calculated in accordance with Section 84-63.1004 of the County of Contra Costa County Ordinance Code,Land Use Permits for Development Projects Involving Hazardous Waste or Hazardous Material. The maximum value for each risk factor was used to calculate the hazard score. For example, the transport of hazardous materials to the project site requires travel through an industrial area and adjacent commercial/residential area due to the distance and location of the nearest highway. The transportation risk value is greater for residential/commercial areas than the risk for industrial areas. Therefore, the transportation risk for residential areas was used in the calculation of the hazard score for the Energy Center. For complete calculations and comments,refer to Appendix A. I GP Enterprise Energy Center 1 land Use Permit Exemption Application Joaquin Delta under contract to the federal Central Valley Project (CVP). A third less likely alternative is obtaining water from an existing on-site well. On-site trailer-mounted or skid- mounted water treatment (reverse-osmosis [R.O] and de-mineralization) units will provide de- mineralized water on demand for turbine injection and cooling. Wastewater from the RO and cooling tower blowdown likely will be discharged to the Delta Diablo Sanitary District's wastewater treatment facility, either via the City of Antioch's sanitary sewer system or by trucking to the nearby treatment plant. If necessary, this wastewater may be discharged to the San Joaquin River under a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System(NPDES)pen-nit. Site sanitary waste will be discharged to the existing sanitary system on site. 2.2 Power Plant Facilities Generation Equipment The 520001 Energy Center project will consist of one 49.4 MW General Electric (GE)LM6000 PC Sprint simple-cycle combustion turbine/generator(CTG) and associated equipment. Principal equipment will include the CTG, exhaust ducting and stack, and cooling towers. The top elevation of the turbine complex and cooling towers are approximately 35 to 45 feet above grade. The exhaust stack height will be approximately 80 feet above grade. On-site trailer or skid-mounted water treatment units will provide de-mineralized water on demand for turbine injection and cooling. Inlet combustion air will be cooled via a chilled-water system and the combustion turbine will have evaporative inter-cooling. The chiller cooling tower will condense coolant from the gas turbine chiller. Raw.and de-mineralized water storage tanks will be installed on-site. Additional project components will include a control room building, an electrical building, a fuel gas compressor metering island, a continuous emission monitoring system(CEMS), and a fire suppression system. Emission controls will incorporate Best Available Control Technology(SACT). Water injection suppression will control emissions of nitrogen oxides (NO,,)to 25 parts per million by volume on a dry basis (ppmvd), corrected to 15 percent oxygen. NOx emissions will be further controlled to 2.5 ppmvd, corrected to 15 percent oxygen, with a selective catalytic reduction(SCR.) system. Aqueous ammonia of a concentration of less than 20 percent by weight will be used as the SCR reagent. A 12,000-gallon aqueous ammonia storage tank will be required for the SCR system. Carbon monoxide(CO) emissions will be controlled by the addition of an oxidation catalyst; volatile organic compound(VOC) emissions will be controlled by good combustion practices. Particulate emissions will be controlled by combustion air filtration and the use of natural gas, which is low in particulate matter. The sulfur content of the pipeline gas is estimated to be 0.2 grains per 100 standard cubic feet of gas. Transmission Interconnection Facilities The CTG will generate power at 13.8 kV and will be connected by non-segregated or open cable bus to an oil-filled generator step-up transformer, GP Enterprise Energy Center 3 Land Use Permit Exemption Application r� Y Recharging of a discharged battery will occur whenever power becomes available from the 480-volt AC power supply system. The rate of charge will depend on the characteristics of the battery,battery charger, and connected DC load during charging. The anticipated maximum - recharge time will be 24 hours. . The appropriate 125-volt DC system will also be used to provide control power to the 4,160-volt switchgear, to the 480-volt Load Center, to critical control circuits, and to the emergency DC motors. Essential Service AC Uninterruptible Power Supply(s) The CTG will also have an essential service 120-volt AC, single-phase, 60-Hertz (Hz)power source. This source will supply AC power to essential instrumentation, critical equipment loads, and unit protection and safety systems that require uninterruptible AC power. The essential service AC system and DC power supply system will be designed to ensure that critical safety and unit protection control circuits have power and can take the correct action on a unit trip or loss of plant AC power. The essential service AC system will consist of one full-capacity inverter, a solid-state transfer switch, a manual bypass switch, an alternate source transformer and voltage regulator, and an AC panel board. The normal source of power to the system will be the DC power supply system through the inverter to the panel board. A solid-state static transfer switch will continuously monitor the inverter output and the alternate AC source. The transfer switch will automatically transfer essential AC loads without interruption from the inverter output to the alternate source upon loss of the inverter output. t A manual bypass switch will also be included to enable isolation of the inverter-static transfer switch for testing and maintenance without interruption to the essential service AC loads. A similar essential service AC uninterruptible power supply will serve the balance of plant equipment as required to safely shut down the facility. Fire Protection The project will be designed to maximize safe operation. Personnel will be trained in the safe operation and maintenance of the Energy Center, including emergency response procedures to minimize the risk of personal injury and damage to the facilities. The fire protection system for the turbine, generator, and accessory equipment compartments is a packaged system designed by the original equipment manufacturer. This system will have fire detection sensors in all compartments. Actuating one sensor will provide a high temperature alarm on the CTG control panel. A second sensor will trip the combustion turbine, turn off forced air, close ventilation openings, and automatically release carbon dioxide (CO2) at a design concentration adequate to extinguish a fire. The electrical switchgear building and motor control GP Enterprise Energy Center 5 Land Use Permit Exemption Application California Electricity Market. The facility will be operated in one or all of the following daily modes: 9 Load Following—The output of the unit would be adjusted periodically to meet load. * Partial Operation At certain times of any given day,load requirements could drop to a level which dictates the operator to cease operation of the project. This mode of operation could be expected during late evening and early morning hours. * Shutdown Plant shutdown would occur if forced by equipment malfunction, fuel supply interruption,or transmission line disconnect. 2.5 Expected On-Line Date Calpine expects to commence operation of the 520001 Energy Center before December 31,2002. At a minimum, the proposed project will operate for 20 years. 2.6 Location Figure 1 shows the facility in relation to the surrounding community. Figure 2 shows the zoning of the surrounding land. 2.6.1 Location with Respect to Major Freeways State Route 4 is the major freeway nearest the project site. The project is 1.2 miles north of State Route 4 and 1.9 miles west of it(where the highway turns to the south to cross the Antioch bridge over the San Joaquin River). 2.6.2 Immediate Neighbors The southern boundary runs approximately parallel to Wilbur Avenue and consists of the G-P Gypsum wallboard facility,while the San Joaquin River forms the northern border. The Antioch Dunes National Wildlife Refuge is located on both the eastern and western G-P property boundaries. A low ridge runs along the eastern border. This parcel is owned by Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E),but is managed by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) as the Antioch Dunes National Wildlife Refuge. The land uses neighboring the project site include industrial and commercial to the east,west, and immediate south; and residential uses further to the south and west. To the east are Crown Cork and Seal Company(container manufacturer), Kernwater(chemical storage), Gaylord Container Company(cardboard recycling),the Mirant Delta Contra Costa Power Plant, two yacht clubs, and a number of small *industrial facilities. To the west of the site are Tri Delta Transit (bus maintenance and yard),Verko (unknown business type),Delnetics (transformer manufacturer),Delta Diablo Sanitation District (water treatment), Fulton Shipyard (ship repair GP Enterprise Energy Center 7 Land Use Permit Exemption Application K1`a,'t3'I;A t?:7 F ttt•.afSiisC�ra'te i'S»"!�:CX Tt7S i�.2:SA f:1tC: _. .. M tt6? •.. af> CstaCC:'.u: XC £ :et ,SAC' II W (L tEftylJCl;CY. E:f�:Y:$AtF.fCSifCsit+^fliL'i'iA:aiib.XF%. ^ylfs a aiKt3:aSL'1':`l. s:JADCdita$fAO:Cta`3$T.:Xl'0.tttl PCffiftL' ,;: V- =A14H R1t:7R4.:Sf[]C11225Rt^7rS7fIC,liSiBF:L�RAlR 11 p>a21:'/R R4: 7C � O 3S1!!iC?yi.k LTeBtafKK�22tLft'6S'.xruxA ttaattms.. tr. yf ai3 OXCL c fiilCaaO .asir�CZROV.fsr txi111eCF2N.kisimb!K�7dtsz;Ms�;+PCt it �D 19txf:tif*t;ic:x;r.e<P..`19CHaitC�1.'t:Cf�.Ci+tal-:1RKL X r ra:FRatslseCR' 4tatlfRk`'!I!tic7:KAidltq,xr.T.P[ID'lRRLS1kII fi zrtti6tVNI ken cltaxu^Xctsistx asfl;cacec'x ,' :t .2s;*t": k?ItiCbpF isrs¢At"••'•'K-iStst.7t'�7;ifKbtE' c ;iZ 'Mre^r cts�..ac:c�rxc. �%^i:.XE4 tciF: t ,.aF'..tcltt�Cr;S;;c$ �taa:csScYSEtva rr.+rsa••xt masakmctiru•xCtiecat�aslvAori+.axC Q!.�:YsidCl:.I y:H'I{.".Pdf:.4'fl:,P:ntt.fF:S:biRT74QC?! i.L 'Ait:C.t;eyiiti S.ltffi:Quit:lttZi($4t71SbltXC�'37LtK tafsfi:taxc.ic' 1�Dtltp(2SCtllsak'CMIC3.?CGe?.t9":1•J�cp•T�ii113 CI.,2` 21CtWmtk:Nxyrxjtm c=;r.Ov ASPsr" .� + } R?Xa',.:.� = tia31+'7.ii eA,t 1jL•Ct1k47�tCZX2 L^iZIliCMULI M 1MI239.'C O .Z`tCrt8tt7ttL' :x.A inab'S~i.25CPC:C.^.SCC:L2x•Cl�.,t+E►1% Ct"�i.GS:bIi13 =ICEM'CQ?CC.iQCCKMz$ccxcc3cr. 'IrcC PaIS"•![=3c--Xxn'.X1Ll4Xk.=.rb. CQ •cCrctt':s:"U.1 :Apr.L•zt�:st¢&"*~Dcr:�lz:';t: tel2dCbxC.�CL lCtlltl:ls'2C 3SB:i4it.Qa3�:,MtEl6>ti. 'K=XcIlx7ra ttptt3ttt�IIltC7��tS1tlCM>RiKC1ls�9Gx i9wIr"I.2CllfitcS. ffiX Y�'A1FmktKOKIN 3CC.11t¢C1tm'1l rA 1Et:`i4.RY L"9FS.'SlurrhtQALMaxF�i'tAt'.1Ezxxx G:x'S 1sR7 1iJS. 9.r% t:i476"•.:lr,FF;r,(ja"•C3t.- :'T.fir+fiG87CLi7C fit'izer. L•�aUct'l'C7trGx F. fctxRIN c$M11xv i OM'"IM11091 39LK Croz�fe sexMc cMxxc_t�ctsc:a�scr.>r. Xrr:.xef�ttc>an, :n'�tuftx.sea:c�eaxa:aa�t:atactxtsse` I I s. t.s„�,,�,-. RX:t:t NjI&sCCria: 3XtHRM}7�.ttl6.gWXtlt taFn Cai MM 1:04 L' e••t:sffxcf� 4taf.Lz;tstfsIC-. iKGafi CAtCbiCbta3a.'Rakkax£xKafiid&xr.S3GR3t a.SB: aaafrt.;bL'it c2La.Cl;:FSt>Itt{'bs�S-P:2icrICOPOCCtC:. O xcWgissCrskC7er1..yztrtta.3taaa.t3a:tt;sCFAtCr..fcealsA:Y 4 1 Iet=:~+r;:taasin;.tFgc tKnicacmtrs:asts.:uttico;waiaaae>~«asc a: is c2itS£xcnxt~trat' �Stcsto.SGts.t;swsxt=ttecs atticsM9 Ci Dts W acral�•fe e+tcfaar• tta;zest:.ic,akczo;rexte.xt:•sect a a 1 J a1�iS.CMMIsm.rtt sa; QCfiS SY:aII>!►sxct.faia".tiCCtt4�xpt. G Q Ibse^.1C^*,.CL"KGa it GL"=:l;=ztj.4o:cF;x.Cr. AN I7C.t6=44L'.if:Ai.'g1kr.:A'S;rlw IYYA:LFFCCiIL 4%bl7FiA:,FC2:i[C.e'CC, :i cc a•iczVXVA:rf�c>9Mtt Xaatreeasir�:Es��:zs�n.x.tactYtcc. _" �a:cfaC+t:•!eftcaar£fH;slit.cit.^'�'&e�27ctatars+x�>tnt:t7t~2sAF:1►. i !n oW4Mx."t:xa�CtCt SClStat:sII::Klt.QlCteid2dcx¢axis~Y'IIgita X,'�L �t �� �y Clti C:nir4AFAwr'4%: L1iRC:nC1t c::.YGL'.s itCaC.Y.M.C7CGii�J1t C. -'32Y 'r IL t:iti$t7sCtL•iCRFCDetaCt.Ys''aattliSl:fie.'".23TiYCi;fC1ZRFa4Sttm2`SCGfits.S ";i Q tL'C;S.4 i CsCCFtilib?'s', CfI CC.KAP:>rIGACt{2C^bE.:a 3bKrG!f9:".pRlff.' �F '► abg7S3;..'}:aifl:'t".f+S�'k"ibS�'b'C:tlI�C.RL7171a"'.f�2GC9ik"3:k't4'8:.�.S:.�t"+.".BtS:.1'LSS � Eif�lwlttLhfl.:3tat{:Ka;M"' tfeattrtant:artIItxexxc'retatuctaac rwt': '�` � O •xs£iRCa:cCt3et�tCaxiax•"2EL'Ck'4'>Iib t'JtC«fT.1.'!.'EC31CW&`RfCE,fL'Jt CfC yA(. C»6tmtitR$'fr.6.i,i3CA:DaaC °;:Xt,,1Ci:1iTt2SCtl'li;t+'tCCGflik"742CC2CL"`P3L` C CCa.~c•ffi'C;i;a �+Tlx ,,�ii}"CTa�a 3'+i$w" !'^id'Rtt t } m 3:iv CIs:C C fSIC c A71F.4f•f, alifYt.��� a.'Wrl t:xfa7ca:isKiFsCCfit11GGIS1!aSltl+eftC2lsCt;tigt:Cs}$",2x:t74Lla.iClm k'; Q U i t+iOXU39ZHKCXIC Xffirft>i fia2afSEtptICaCXIt:uv Sa7Xitffi2ti7fE?t1Ctt •:S Q9CetCti_MxztZ1¢ai TS-ii..KZ '!1S R7CC^..S.ya�fitC.."`.a?3 T:&CN*9Cl;Im'..,SUMMONER OBVION V03 RON ."IMI.- In' �[:2: >RI,`•]f�E".t.'7C.-.f}�.Cf':it.fi"YC'A ?'St:g:CPeJGd5tCa3fa:r]ik'6Rie.'t•&a td"1�.fCk'.2 ta'ffi r. ,€cC,CLAt C11.Cid+�tatlL Mtrk. aPij:"dg W(Ur 7Qi97q'C6R ID',p'iJl'C$t"fi �f�K� 0 Z S Ati CXa lrEA ctt6atS mscm I:as astsfz�ctf,Rt.cx�s(rstsGa:s:><t;s�ci;c• tmft CD Q s?arsAlralmpl7are t;a1tAR'i"'C�RC..P:r R'1iAF'•F.'7"AF4R7ti`�FDt¢ s�xrlae Ri•Ca -St' p!?tR 71CaC Gt&Srra"a►'!^Lila Now 1I'a� �;3'ktYtimal���tsisek S CS'xf'it - J LL 'I}i�.�..:C6'TgxCCt,'L.iF"ktltC.fi8trtiL. •.. F �l• i'a�1E v W U I C$l;33^"a!RffiEt+Cs't1+.1wM sr fC 1Ck`. Ja"CSCEfkAit].K.Bhf MMU MLK-a;X cat I x>r►ax'r!-s,nek ta�Irsacx ns r*ts,. F;frtt:msizl.a�e:eFist:-?Frvt,se�x4RAts w� !' . •.g� >z U � � '?'I:eec aCI i:`FRi9alISaY" •SCC. F'la..,w. '.h`�.C.2•:��:'•�i$,r^�74.T.Lh.'.�'i�:C ftC''.£Tt.LYt• f+���r'ee `-'' n• T; CSTS:RRI 1"Ya:fi'L 3'±'{ x:L, .ta.3YCSt C71:L•ICI:CQSbf{faRi'6t0:SGa ;r py C U ' '+C:*i2SCly"'L',yi'rldkCf4CFf€R'ke7cGf( £'2C1aS$L•aSBaf;2:stflExl.f�*oI:'.Cf+-�. •7c.W.M.1Cttic iaKeef 2:s6 c.,_itt►a I:s'sx fLL'91xt8yTaltfCfif4TtT.$R2,"Lt rpk at f!}tS�t;9.'C`"!'1C:FettlS RT:f:1QAS;C'r•Y YAr, :67XRl7L:CCTSR7;iC s7 s11•L^91 Wile 14= +1 t'"i..•'iIr""'+.i'Rliclt',.9f'aPCaa4`Ic�slMl f�Cf�i2:w`p'alt'•L'«91iQCPEC.jl,i�t.$a"S�"1C1C.Cf*c .i •" .a.'�9CtSIf Cf 5isgat>f:MpatCt`1.c�-� fB��II4c�+CCblKTSBCb'14i:l�aCixCYfCt2CI Qtieftt li. •': K nti7c3zt:ft JdttiSi3fiKtxttpf;fG a X i�¢a6 .fCL'>7Ct"1tbO3ll°12C1Ga fICDI'}if3�tD itta2L: G ' ixlti:xs4mP:52atEtefSt=�Ifa;A -f�L^s�:::s�:leSiTrtltb0.fi2'►biCrcaffDtxIItl2t�icGll xC( 2. .. �t3c. *� it ca aacr na19'Mt=i.-s=ss>t 4.rsr�e+c'. xtss++Rz;sr.GserZ'>w.r<els�if;tlemsexe•x'rc tc ' zoo ".:••••S: as'.4 ICtRIZXIRS$•'OY►08SL'CaiY.'`tFt2FCL^C'2.Rfi• 9d•r ' SCf a«YQ16ezAiritf4II.iSX 'tt :aar« lttceXAM l±tCIxxxiti2CStRxClffd CA Xvaftts.,t;+tirxi�t+peciit:.fsc• tltq tSTY Y MIXI:r,fa fcxsttxn�.ser~X)Ri `Me, c7a,13 hi�afCmG.IMMMM�ly FTC•CV•'*' 1iJMU.1(r-m1')MISMa2CGaXLIJ B. ea. CiSi=C.L-t4'SCVIaz=%C ':�: c a eatYitt4.cf EYSCLfgs t...,R, b .c, aMo$eawarRE2tle.fiKrMUMMIC C c �� S3i•T,k`"'r :$:TaLY3SCa1f6:C.T•.:' C a.Cf/ '�'r"L''t:'f£72M,it-,ri4C�:2I61�'L'$ht.17dS.•f�iS 1 •.fyi. 9: OMOM't'»::3: r X AxxI'.r*aFut'>-14'.Mr.ts.fstit7ioC�2C". IC !Mr. NOXI M13 . ~ 8.^CS:iTiA Ica lc a:d+g1yiS,fCi':ttr+ClKCft%M is 'Pi29.s:3.z±A.�:;�:a Fctxsrsriri„=�, s P.rz4e.ltz==Fa.:,4zss+sz�tst:=T7xcu:t: ttCCi4+*'3QC,aPIt. ab Ca XEftCr_ .Y26PFt x•*fa'i1iC43rtEL'?(Ot:2lC' C c mfCeY.tcc>~. II)a ;&asIKE S>^ CC:! �.atc:rttP taa7Sat«mDxt:!@atF,lt R At 1i :fsIlk O rt itrAtm 09 3e=. :ti toan�c+a xxrvxrr,%Azxvhfc>sixCMI:...» laaw-r-sic�t.41 CCi L i�uF,tl?a aP+*''1S i'•csl' x:�&fi.o9S:�..sl1iR2C>vB2Cia2itCt kt �ssaei:„:lexsrr t4lRsttrtt "m trrc :acaec:av5beaeaiztCssseaaraiste cs r3 'r�p>caftttiKxctartp.�r`.airxxcsac., 8t:"�ftD aM3,1l2CEa.TatilCtta;:ilfc.Ktemite Inaft C75kZiCmfa9left;amfi frtro.At&>at£a. .fa7a !Cn"*''�c�ldsecas;:t2ss7leKlialtRtlt9t IMN: a XaCiKCA;SSa2te:idPtM ffSafCt tM:. A�2 AacfKt:'iat 'EhtSPX iCti cUMMIcc xcXMcfSfia�ss:ataitltM cc 11.E rffXMtxr-,x '.c �.'C!Sark d � rii1�G C MCC Is=z X.,x=tugAm 't1z.XI6%>t11CtM �-li.rAt r to s"W&COU DLAC, t•.F7.5C.•XR'L, G IG ''.fa:=gVMx)r96%`fct"flti IK t(C7$'CCX tTf. E a:ft .+.XCSILtto: •�•'" Xra, ti' X Mai nMJWaIrcI.MsxA r;� nxc WEX..� uL ccy a:�n�_ .:Irfis �:�.cfs� ttt r �L.:ritRaat.stt f4lK'at$ tccxttteXcatirra'cX`::�e e+a:cEtsr.• 'isiyti.' - bISII`,.iCt a8iiltL"a'.ASiao.^.trCt:fCL*.At Ix cfttt� YC isC:F6:ti5s«YCeit. F I4GPC'' auXa Yit i:S�i aXa6sF[aMalpalF3ms6ia.XF =1AC.XIFI:4- G u r 6:6 acrcA[a; Ft$u Feq�CIC C:J3 414 {. l:.IIiCAta;fE:p6ciC•^.tltMSr. Ox ali;Xt:fttt 1 "• Li32tift f:$1fa +CMUM msacm#iCIa1COKmixi4Ftrcl;.'acGKiiL`Ka.. C Lk' tD�1ts4'•:APcicccft = ^^f4►ef: 7.1C RtlataCCSfttty'S;Si2StCY,LMXEaKiz ' 258.dal :efEet.i�•-n-hA;PtpiS1CA?:.£fCC1tt' a3; Cti2:aKilt(Sst~S�oC�UAC ,e:AdCuftie.aiC ei rt5lti:.116M'UXLfi1d. 'ail:tifriiit4" atll;taR•mC tCi 017o1Ci6IS:!`4 s,"iLC6t7 i4CFR t: un C,C.Y:J=:t S4 c:C:1'.i'1:rWiy1 SMA1.YLiC"3[CiiM GY.t:CKOG - 1:Csi^aC€STf71C ffT Mg.".•.fesca;cl�a ef.axfc.i f Ca.:n^.C$:."w ^Baits .a'ct LtCfb"F" +(• s+ ftaiL" sa 'zi.itC1ta.«esta::ie ZAAL�S.T.?.t�.3d1.'iCCt•1C cEft.EldaF C1+'sT ria StcfilF�G.Ya:aft Ei D ` X= Si19.•.ft.`Xt3k•14KL'we s l•«:iRiC2EI'a;t�i'.$ff•.L• t'TSiar.fcaOlCi& "1LS7fG^ 7Slz::xcxxcxl � FiabliG"-Mg fCaL''3 r:uj.. fYltLt4iSL.$$ltQCl:`�C9C.12(f(2CE1�'. ca t^ >;..chliQPFs14'itRffi �- .CLi{C4G.0'YraX;ICC}r•:F4ii.ii6: XiRGiGF/.iC73tiTIi.C�F: F1:Fi►CDl�CCXf:uF:,M ttYL:K CXigF.iCSCPCIa1tAt1K rtsa r t t;iSfCE7ARc`iKt:>�cx A>;YSffi�J YM3er.;fib*, 23Cxaatctt' {:!tato JCt'.c2t>rapSai:C1 , yCEMC•z:af',Iifle`.wc.lCi'ifSK=Vaa•^tC abli65(•i3CM f •.'J26.XwIV9iWtrb1rbtMUXEZ:.J. •:@ate 2'.9.'l7G.t�iEhlf34i2ii7�pitC9tti 9aC aSKOXIaf�ZI*=ffir'it t::xaa2ts..•� Et=E:G 8'ttteYiLSfOiA.8tC1 'r �Rm Eck lli it•x^z 4X tt'1CCv.1+C#:.`ID F`.:'A't1 $Aiar.r..LfC ./ ?► +r'i tat'1.tL C1:?L. CY+mK`t7 t C89tC.1C^e4a"" Cita 1CCF'C..ir^r `�.tc: » �" !C 1+'1"S"iti.'M2h N S��Ci9E'� w.R t• Z Z :1".ij'.L•kt�::.ral4aitaEsC•aa..rr= xr.dF.'..Mr-'a.S'LCR i;L•C.^.'••,�24`•k .,i+'aCWCl+�.Ci..CCXC. Rtt '• O :� e* 1~tifaxE' ': S t'4Ct"noyQ *-Cai• it �. L �OC C'tip .. cos sx�at'c .::sc�ea�....#.: «qtr x .��:,:;cise Ira`tacfcam y A •FI.rrCb,Cfi'.::.ta'.7tGCxSt�i.sC1K.T7tEEb^YraB."e.fa:IGaIX••a KLaxar. 'Fa0:10.}.a 8tuefRwimc.rooppW SK •:s1+1SSea:t�t^Kat4ta�ttcxa:^•*xes:acC7F.IIc.>l;acittts. '•'>r8.•cc sa st.:�a a a.c �A f: � is LL � TAi'£:tftC'F'.n'r'SI'?;Rt KLfui,�>✓aI?c'^iCR:R ia2tal8.CT iCrJ'.�;�:il F�•F1�7StY'.C i §9060-Yx -'T- � 1 •:d;.at6 K iSIL+t €CA:C^iaL'yY.a Cia1:C S(9C!SFT t afC7faC fi*S:t:wb M. All :i�cL•I cfs,~:e+Ca�7r.a-ftiuex,•tsi�a[: *a"'ette :.',B:C,dr�'. MU MCK"t;lcmiMti3CXA.i;aaKec ^2iltClt frl6t 7:Caa a Ef.g SiArM.&COEMMMIM ut lMi�t aser F>M91UAF7.ar``!SSAegwtRS:Rt'M;C;3"0 ARRPt Ow CAM 1>f;L•9C,,., 7F4�I:m= ttv"=1�'- two• G2513 at"Q1�;ftt3GtCtsfil,.aS tttl C13 Cs:Fmsr-01.KtIr" ?C cat r t LU i>:3sdaes 7C.s c;aZgCEicl'xXr case KttelCsia[±c:ataafti s.a.tr: stc IDfKs.ar Sti�,sCa:2SC: f Z _ a 31ciCoa.$t=Ft't3S t%:: ' ?'£::K 3S trsx£fema tsCsxC�cacl. tcY.aAa f::xC.3t£tix..essY•. la Lrs:sc_'u.iia.xt ."•r Ii itmtstA' m m (� ,Msec e�0.F i 4aa/1;4aCAct¢n+rCai6. sinr2tcri;iet:ile! a�rCtast tire!is - ryrAp�ci :!colt Z CiIFs.L'iSrti'2:..?tID9.tECafeCQi E'14tC O31tlC2SCa:53L',2Ctiaz i 214. ala Mi.-8CK'.i txT�tGlt/.+t3t'�71�:a ' Q' ', LL fiiat;iSbK.2 FAd2:.ftm w^aCb+.at�t):CXc F c=3cA= &a©t a 71�?3 tkIM I x :cesr: 4. o azSa,rtCsRatssCtcs:l.rMX:.>Ct•• E gcxcr9r:2-W:c k3aSA .�.r+:---• NICCe - scC3taAttte.XePCkicxasftelCcsw C.alcTiliflialtC"�7KL+L1'eaetR°_ i:kstr° icrcft;•.....TT 'rafG. iefslrteral7lRFres>rR;7e OCC]I tP,C4t7GbSt•tris IK>~TpL, S"S:JCiPi•1C,-••••-••••SID 4t rsarF 4eAp.te,ptis ecs4r. iC •: fC7FiE 2Sa.'�.S:alfLt�7�.lgTf;ct1SC.1i}da. �Sis3r,QaiCs;��- ;:p(2•a.L'''.�:' Cl�f�i-�-. t:.t'aF+ r.,s iXffiC. r ;, KLxt3EdYt.C>:i251�S3C�E8'•fE 3t2a^.1C)�K��•ail4tilit~L ?tt:ld2�8° 20 ..� ap.':C'�� - 2'JF'i:��.9'8.,'�WYt"•f�".76."Ctrl:$SSti.'.C.26.axexertiasAatcr: .C�I7r;6.1FG �C.ti# Xr:C,, _r' $L�fG ....,•.. •-,:.,t XFtx:..tGG7P4' `..Y.CAftG'bEAtillS SSXl�i4•t111:eftiCT$C1rt:Clti:::+. /LL• 1R-_xr FC7�•°!7F'xr,41��+RD07c'L6'x:'.R'fCt{'t<'K Y!:".fi'RY7taF}i:C'F"R' [.+ScLY t>;SQ' RY•fet; ~ ,F:]: •,! CSC'St w Ivo ts�•ts���:� t;web:C.iilCIIal;aC>FtmFS.CC5ta1�CF 3E"_2.C22CtwffiC ,YCts�.3iCIN:�CaYs 2dIt:3CC8ws;ACAtai:•,:fCt:fifFiCXIDafSJ�,tL1fAt.fttRA . .1CQhSCY• X"CO. Itfsa:>:xs~t: ��.�ae7 y ef+lKtsffitstKaatcffir7casasatl;.ftmPacCk afCcsCtb ct:*)t-fit�aF ttCx" ^•S3!'trE.iK:LtCawC `+ 7ta:CiP trCnru'afe:icffiS7Ks~tcrixstai::a cf"tc*ss 3 tCL']wCClC3. 1%!rC ••C.A:C S.%6E.I'i 1 ,• f� , sxai�:'SP:SC F='iLn7' LZ KL t5 ?S L - rCfr:C••» _ e :.bua zErtic:�:aaFA'Anc.xa�ncxfce�rseti >4..x ctlrkfkfc fc• .�s:;fy t,wflaca x�z• ,��+ :. tccefistt..E!!rIMCfxt'ftXefrt=ixlaxitaxr.a:xs.cactxr:Mx.. EMltD1CC.fs.2isKCeflcfCeaP:'aast3lCWU%L.0 &. '�P.G.fli6z3x9z?1..cP1kL�.F?t., 41°• -'1 a PICBGe~CfsC F scaaf_taxtis fte.r sIZRxcwcMlcMx a:MssaZPtalrtQaxt: 'sic !:MM Mr3Kzt: x� a rr4ccr. :r�tan y•. 6;tlCCL+bfiliFXaC>Bmts'.t'iXi3iat.a)rZS PefLLlrxi�.'2+.2."fCfl'�T.T.L^LAGC7i3IE.`Si. ah1CC.tMN r. I Mc.MC1Rte2CC2&➢CrxCt3M C=Z c lx.itxc$Cssirs2CEaxMiCDX aCC2s...ltti X QKK: Cc. IIic t4 taiCBICCk't1«K43tC=ICCsai•-3CS.MIeRf[m..elte:~se2t3Cs:Kb RfdR.kC2eGt:7Celpics:.,:;Koitecla UIKX ., .tl00at 1Kt C.itG'1MMxr-%fCrf:MMC£ ZI:-..fafi L"fBtC.:ai4t3CCAKi5,ISItDXC.IIfC.LSx>aGaC>:7e»CKCriC6.^C$r 7. •JSCSS'3.rt.'J7tC.tRL1SSi 7Y.=i'^7C ftC7GLLiLSi::.T:Y�9RTi..6';✓?C.^•Si•,.^.i`."',SSC:tSP�C::C:.1X�C'b.YCSII."^.r•L^Sr^,r.• :acv.�>rfsax�:�tzrgc�ccx�f���.fs�s�csixcfciL��cx�ti�>!c:tmxuti��.•�IIs~x�aaas:x�x�tsr �1 E tRsexoX ax••A�ecatmx>eaftt ctdat>rttrfrxcsl:eaattscQaaf e:falcmxs�xuelimaaMxr.3femXK-alit c a;5 rttSuf*teKscW13b9�-SiE>t++. F Estssflcmlr.*CF,a1C ltftb.f"bzft:arstt.tcoxic"Clar.M. Cfc TwXE"'.S.$bC. G34r.«7ftafK L'aLP47i,L°•fl:a'131tCs7P,C&IIIb:fibC.3CiEEiSL^fi'd�tSZaCu'I:CSCi�BlAK no S::X 1LLiE[xai i/Y.L4JSf;is3ji..'• i,I4JK4%LO:3X.LL':,X:07,iY2:x:.C16 M:FarKt7 iiCiGXJC.CDCitii AK no t4,•J. a:g�ECi7yiC?i:]C.FiAF:M': •a`defXCa24C7CaCfF:Pag6a§jL'3fAck:bq`•fliEC:CaOU-2-2•Myi=:RM2v:C$DQtfi 8S iX:.X k.';z%c11CR't318CV=' _39;•39)CC c7(Fin cMX;:..0 c3F'Eltl'ltF..1'►.SfYfit"�SCLifC.fri¢fC1^�9CC�C CIi R CO 3tsdtcx6s.FtaiamafLRat:c gAtsaftirXc;�iCtat4atiti;4;fCXi'f�etf5mt[KD smallemxtP-'r.'axcoa. C .ilt. iKffiaGit:.flelNlCm2C.^.1a aimfERfl:'CCtcafe�iB2to111RAsts2aMAAixasltmAiExCKIIacxt2SesfCpAn-z"L"«�... `Z Fei +RowCrxCistisi�x,:te:>CLaryacCroRflairsa A>ssca+ct.scc yCC.auFsi4aeusxios ieG.araXraieCrfwrasa :a'fTiGpSS^.x3i LSFI.t3t£li'iE.ffir. 2maCECt:S23C.EtcG3CIISiCLfC•Ritz:9ttstonc =X=3c1C:71 aC C }' 1GZ?.711L'2:kL�R:f[tFi,�..7fa..7M£faisCrwf}iF.YtYBfSQk]i.-.xtSCIQO'rc'^ 1Bli' ••. F" taiIKGRG$PCAKf:FfiUF:tt7C GSACf;1C�1Cnit>sritc]tRtlsloa7iKnxxz.LiatcttMX.It .;stxr.XCc!aft J Z J vj J xg.-C..axr-tfXf'g a ZCfKatcfc1R9t1Ct1i1Cf[Atmlrmai!t7Kesa3:T ltmmYtC>alttiK 2Eri2al:D NAMStd - niC-sc=xA ry►CA.CtaliG;t >KiYiIY'i9yf�C.iti�KC7CClYK6?itCCK:.Y.FC<L3111G7[. 1GC�.OrW'"A%Mw .• < w Q Z CXKC2t."Cf�:C,a1paSL'AifC."a'•taLMII it6i4i."I?.SQtLAlQXie:1.71fKICAs1.LPd;16:;Mro m1C•':aR'r'1tMx O- :xsrttca�axc:lettcts crct�>Ie;.xreetcm.xatsrxcaaceuca scsa,:C=xct� �tx-icauge3a. _Z Cl Z w Z ttsEt(xsfMIDetC� 'sstfxtHasan!>rfcamfKc7eccst:sxHt�t:��ttafctir.K' At.ealcrtf=V.Ia asacag>tf�zxftcrxafatai c r��taxtiYxxeanitectttiyt¢xtcc=x='r:ttZX tot .tKrzx"-2 W W W X:.'3ifiiCiX6CGY2.'R.1<dCCAFi J[LSi«..iA3.r.FWAG#rCii jCYiF(CYr1YY."R.Lr.IIrpp��L;-p•'.TP-M-X';%iRG ^:fica:-...t:R:C?CestCtll€^fC"f►"1a*sfi sats ss-6 frxaP2as>rc=c»r .:, 3reafr:clCea _�p yy....=yyZ••c Z Scrcy.ss a♦ CafClscra 2tIIy£'fySY W.laKrat.e.+c�ti.T�yanr yt{.Esti fi.f. ^.?• :•�Mp2Vt aflCyfiil�4, - Yl..ir.Yp.Y0..'1"'..^.ar'•...^.1ye'jf•'�I.yigY;M1.4�+•'�wylf� g�� yPwr.�•p�Qi F�}g�{9Yi Ff9.M C�V/ cO VJ Q.(0 Uj IME IxMUCH ��AT�i3��•'��£.RtR'����fl�t:`.4'Ll:1S'.7c3,T�:.�Ft•��[faf.,R EF .T,aC :4IC.s cR!&,•A:Ctta�te:?3mE;+tC teK£?RCiaftia+2teAttef>t iC$CT:A�C'S4C KC ft;t .1Rik3ft.`fi>:flRta.CPi£a..F:LS;iCCR£C"'CLACCffFCIYK.^33 L:E C�+kCW^ •^.1"' °*JY CID7CL'ff r•. �ct��eY[��sa�ri.:�stc5csa�astt Kot+Leftsa�tsF!icc�=riuc>wAsctcz'ysrttc�xftaf�alxf¢c Kc�!s• tcif�r..ft. Atr .cC aCF 3sa7 c � asltefltts 7ifiY>y�; etas tg` " COR - fes t1crsC^Y.e^i�; ttr:fKlFtetti:z"'tl�wc:k'xrm.A..xa"s;itca�tc��t� -�s;:f,'fseiesi:ctar:� -K�aiccaxafc:Wm��t�:�xscx t"l,'t:lcf;£F.•- -.�: fib t,>C. >As S r�d,. ps>r�b{t,KC�s►:�/1,.xC.,f'c• _ ;CPtaaQ2dtBf:attS.>69t:YC ttafi:int}Q.Y.L'L'fCGay 1CSE 1<:a1CZSi(Y:iPi:i'811 6 tot x:C. 7fs:C^•EC2;cCacC1PJCC FKaSCC3ia.;C:CRc7teA>6>!_C7LC7t..::1CSC:gt_A: cs!!s!'•'>ti •. ;eacr:c>S.C>:.sF:&iCSttF': rsfroxer^ef�c�_C�P.rfa.2i�:r,n:�axa.9:II:=2cc:tteirxe' i =��i��: !Ft R71Y21litil'fRRAR>Q_kR'RKOYQf.SitYRTaJZfft Y AR>1CR'PI.lRA1Kt71oRXQ1<'T.SYSS 061ClRR:'k.A>< **�.ft>:x�catt+fasz. C?tA7CmCXrtC1tC.>r-.R,ftsr.. Tfca�zx r:scstafClcf;xo�cmEttm 4t39F'SKsrt.7tmK'aTst ffiXesiffiCKaSS"'.eti2aCS.a:CstilCc.�tSft2tc.ltirafCGItKCP:Aa.flaRbA: " +s 1tC8E SC...^.fE:atitim. "'•:T6,�fiL"tiYSZaS.`t171ZZ7CICF:A'.A'tG fiXCtiC:fE.'i.t2.:.r:FEL+'. i `'.�;: .ai tC:S':.'.�if MSMax sem."XMIWeitt:i%M3CMrT salt la+i'fLTaL'CffiL"1+.:imIIiC]ma,n • •:I ![-�.lfCIIt3C'RARR1rZ.,/@ tib X4rswl�'te.}RaIDftxlsYikkkiiiiTI*A �Ttr.'aclCRxee�Ftx,:}riaasc srx 7NR a[ IMSOM x5accx:vir.tt!ata9taasxn2crcuclAt Tact Tf ataac sat;Yc7taZ'!:ffitt'�Jit f kalC:a:aiIIk:E3:1:C;saiSi .YCSift-ltta�2SG3CXC: EXCiC3t,r.5iI:=XO3CCCKZ3CKC a`trt:r_c4at*T.4tr.4elF;xsKe ss sR>lnstaaeeas,M;+s:. F..:2uvRa;tearas7�xbe4ese�+Frtsmcssa ~ X=,XIZXuta7'StlAaCL`Aa1Rfi ltasrrlarfC'�itCC:KC'XICZX OX ICIAXA 2CL"7ttCafA:tiC. ksgwMxchxsxtuxrrXtcxaatttw MM'S xssctxA:MxX:t9x--�ssafcatat x=29'astaxcsatactfa"m EatC.0 x1eaxa. fs.area tr AnictIrl's atr • ' XS�➢CCiCi+S.1lCK8.--.JR t.Exaaftas:tt:'se KOAa:CARaiBE3XMzrL•fft:fFf14 ...t ` . -XMzlcT.iT41GRYR R2Tx'S42LK1rD.'?44Y!'^�+tT4RAll'TAt`:S'tYF.}GAfi?GRltt•7tC Q �) .w11^f,t IONUMMSSL` L£Ata.'.16C1Kf:Ria6".�i1(AS ^.e"OwUMIC.^.Ill; SI!:Acct! Q ttii aI E�tCaC::ak'te2tz a:d9tRMCclsaiC.•'iCw ccxz:xxz.SC z<U;IW'ta't;e •14••••$FX L'aCffifltAawair. fCl.S4ZCs^tCL7CtKfpitL•tt 1`YGfit..t'.SI:L"lCi9 la>sii:X>sx +y 2=39M�Xa,+<"aC.ISCFsC.•'.'•' �.'K'OSXZIC.�.?'al at4n'`thC attf►.,"•Zt►CSiAiC(Aif'b.f3R as'.w"I6C�',saa�:m3Stt8l�.Q`17.C'Js'C.11'i'.:26:11'3.4 sag;" tiw .t^>rt'i,CT.r:'•tEaa; En W sC4?ts iS Yxss7tas$^x4.it70RtMrsatcf►ttt>r �ai�aa[fctttrtisse-fCQctttr � � U .AiamAt�aKL"7i?:1BltD'af'.C>:, at��fi3K_asll'.2f�z�zRt:�'•sC$fit?Ce'lr:&:CffifK' � y eS CfixCtS 3tbsit Ms zI:I2M Ft F mgt YfFe 3CC..ft.-.ffitt'Js+YCP' t'`•' Z �i - lttci x}CC iE2 CAtatiP.19MM1C�tA M XSC 1'*CSCCSGta9CIDatXesC:T.!tc ' CD CStKtsititixx6eaDacKstlCcg S1:lUEc.>C37at`�=:Ela AGtsffitSCa(Kt:fCbiCfRr$RFKe ia' } .iT X Xx.ba^tic$«:t�Ys2itt:2SSSi'iSrF•C::!!xt:ar~c'n�^F:ciixDX: � 1•- Z is r_x::«x?ZLP21;a•" �Lsir^rYClc aaccsKem .fi!t: CCrYaISx«Y.E7 _ ,.• 'r -�-'�-:•c+c -c;^tl`_.••-ter_sr r�ss=-n=s=r.-:=err Baa zr_. Q i W xaa^^iic^r:icxr&>Rts�weas:I MMxMstc"3s ala cza:"XMId&I3;M3zr.aieerII z....� A. W C� d afpe�t:ra:xcatmet�ax:b r•2 "-` �^^�:^:.:,icr!s3.7zc�r.� _.. 'aI•�Fs.�....�:._.,e. _.• •,. = J O tr6CTJ .,•F--:.;:M3F:CEt: 3 '•i'iF:::F.3R Ste!RCCA X":i6:t:F'.:+,5.«A:3FCCseL"f' t.•• ,.G ..y.•f k Xa.]�JYw ?4�:�i�t!•',f,�.�+Ft^' :SCh'f� 'F'F'^RCFifii::.T_.�e� '��:�t.- •3 i � r.i t4.'�. .:rr.�'f :•iY fr R •'lis'^.Ti F•�•iifii .7.Nif,.v��.M.i�:.Q•i.'1l•�fE J6y} Z yC1.43ffiCpfKOs.y$.".i- •ticiLfd Y "y`!M aiC^9+'yC*.�flYrfP:II.Y.. :L 't :dam'.Z�] �M_F6l�t:.'�.t.uaaiy"fr'I� -d'..•"..".'e•.�•aI.CIF.'4.^..tC•�•f(i'i.C,'r�'+:l•i!IvCi �f•1N Y. � ` �Y�� •�'i."�- .F. .t6 C.:l:.::.:iG S."C^Ch i "D6 x � �S .CAS.i•� L 6:C 'i.��.i� .'A•� +R.��i • :c•�s • ASC 5...36 C E^:+t S'ICCSC i.'1: r T - w .7.'•Ca k r. :$�h.' t:«I •. �'ri X �:t'd.!=-~r.2.•iE.k:..1F,..'�.. �i�. .��^ .'2 •�- ',.t5}T.fIS "A^K C7 i'F.a6 i'L 7~FYCii.: ..TS 1.L-Fi.:.'.?:'L-F,Pa bC.:Sf C2=•`.L w:.ii ii��,,,Zt,, +I: ' M•.� � �• • 'L d.- tt'.'t i 1`7: - ii?._ k 3 : j-�tL'1:.`1:i� ' 2i • 3• "c .♦ _ ++ t:iCCb 14 as?LFX Tw WiA S J=C tion ib?}'Sb 1~cf'f.i6•Sk}".i�'es�:�I. -•aa.': ,� ' •i ••t.; r � d / y�-��^ 3w '•••�L'x..,k `K .y ,te Y. h �' e- ..■.,..1 •�. __iii ~i i C••aa:�C, yf.:la g iy y;SM!• .:sem.. s_s L.,,,. r.L^ '� •.•r-.. `_' -:F. �.� �`:` �•_ •:.sit:S..r>� i�:n�,+f'sr:.+.rr'jK3 i� �� .� � tiG� .��' -i�..•r and fabrication), and a number of small businesses. Further west, the area becomes residential. Directly south of the site, the area is commercial/light industrial. 2.6.3 Size of Property The G-P Gypsum property covers 36.79 acres. The 520001 Energy Center will occupy approximately three acres. 2.7 Operations Involving Hazardous Material The CTG will be equipped with the required accessories to provide safe and reliable operation. This unit includes the combustion turbine inlet air filtration and evaporative cooling system, generator and excitation systems, and turbine control and instrumentation. CTG exhaust gas will be treated with a SCR(selective catalyst reduction) system to control emissions to the atmosphere. The SCR system includes a reactor chamber, catalyst modules, ammonia storage system, and ammonia injection system. Aqueous ammonia is injected into the reactor chamber in the SCR to control NOx emissions. A LEMS (continuous emissions monitoring system), which uses NOx sensors located in the facility stack,will control the rate of ammonia injection. The reactor chamber contains the catalyst modules and is located in a temperature zone of the ductwork upstream of the stack where the catalyst will be most effective at the desired levels of plant operation. Hazardous materials are used within the evaporative cooling system for the chiller. Dispersant, sulfuric acid, and sodium h3q)ochlorite will be used in this system for biological control, dispersing dissolved solids, and pH balance. Figure 3 is a process flow diagram for the facility. GP Enterprise Energy Center 9 Land Use Permit Exemption Application 3.0 FACILITY PLOT PLAN Figure 4 is a plot plan that shows the general arrangement of the facility. Figure S presents an isometric view of the facility, and Figures 6 and 7 present elevations. Figure 8 presents the interconnecting facilities for the project. 1 I GP Enterprise Energy Center 12 Land Use Permit Exemption Application M I a t s t ; CONTRA C �'►�=��� � �.� �: �1" HEALTH SERVICES 0,41" jUh;, AM I I't 3 1 NA �RDkUS ,r .TER1,%LS PROGRte N. -I" L- T V��. , TO: JOHN OB ORNTE . FROM: HABIB SUBJECT: C_kUINTE'S PROPOSED PEAKER PLANT AT G-P GYPSUM CORPORATIOMS ANTIOCH• WALLBOARD FACILITY,CONTRA C O STA COUNTY TY DATE: 6/4/02 CC: RANDY SAWYER, ROBERT DR-AXE,D O 'NNA ALLEN, 1NS.ARTHA WATSON(CALPINE,FAR:925479-7310) I have reviewed the exemption request from the Hazardous Materials Land Use Permit for the installation of Calpi_ne's proposed Peaker Plant at G P Gypsum. Corporation's Antioch wallboard Faci i r. This proposed installation is for a nominal 4:5-megawatt*(N[W) power generation facility also referred to as 520001 Energy Center that is located at 801 Minaher Drive,Antioch, California. Mia Watson of Calpine submitted the exemption request. We met with Martha Watson on May 24, 2002 to review this project. The purpose of the discussion was to determine if the installation of this new facility should be defined as a development project per the County ISO Section 84-63.410 and if it would be exempt from a land use.permit under Chapter 84-63.604(c) of the County's ordinance Code. Contra Costa Health Services reviewed the document titled "Project Information for the 52001 Energy Center,Antioch, California'',..prepared by!Calpine Corporation and Foster wheeler Environmental Corporation dated May 2002. The proposed 5)20001 Energy Center is designed to provide+peg power to California's electrical grid. and waste heat is to be used by the G-P Gypsum Corporation's Antioch Wallboard Facility. The major hazardous materials that are associated with this project are 9 8 7o sulfuric acid, battery sulfuric acid and aqueous ammonia. 98% sulfuric acid and battery sulfuric acid are +Category B_chemicals r and aqueous ammonia anal ether miscellaneous chemicals are Category C chemicals. Based on data presented in Calpine's report, we have confirmed the hazard score calculations leading to a max�musn hazard score of 101. However, based on .Article 84-63.604(c) of the County Code, "Applicability", we have determined that this project is exempt from the land use permit.requirements. The evaluation has considered the storage or transportation of money quantities of hazardous materials and has coed that storage and monthly transportation quantities are below the required its (Hazard Category C — 4,000.tons,Hazard Category B--5 tons). Contra Costa Health Services concludes that this development project is exenipt from the land use permit requirements that would be required under Chapter 84-63.2 of the County's ordinance Code, because the quantities are well below the nimum quantities that would be significant for consideration for a land use permit under ordinance. Exhibit D r ly Building InspectionCarlos�jQntr-� ealtodano 'department Director of Building Inspection Costa .County Administration Building Co' ' 651 Pine Street, 3rd Floor, North Wing unt y . Martinez, California 94553-1295 (925) 646-4108 FAX (925) 646-1219 A . of (925) 335-1107 January 27,2003 By FAX do by Federal Express Mail Nick Gaglia Calpine Construction Management Company, Inc. 4160 Dublin Boulevard Dublin, CA 94568-3139 Dear Mr. Gaglia: Re: Notice of Violation of Chapter 84-63 Suspension of Building and Grading Permits Proposed Riverview Energy Center � #795 Alinaker Drive,Antioch area (APN 065-020-006) Building Permit #IN 331368 Grading Permit #G330834 This is to notify you that effective immediately all building and grading permits for the above referenced project are-suspended-on the-basis that Calpine misrepresented the facts upon which I, as the County Building Official, relied upon in the issuance of permits. (Ord. Code § 72-6.006) This is also to advise you that it is my intention to revoke all building and grading permits for the above referenced project on Monday,February 10, 2003, unless the Community Development Director determines based on new information Calpine will provide to the Community Development Department on Monday, January 27, 2003 that the project does not require approval of a land use permit under Chapter 84-63,Land Use Permitsfor Development Projects Involving Hazardous Waste or Hazardous Material Ordinance (aka Industrial Safety Ordinance, or ISD). EXHIBIT E 2 y All grading and building activity, including construction of the peaker plant shall immediatelycease and desist. Each,daythat an y grading or building activity that occurs while this suspension is in effect is a separate violation of the County Ordinance Code. Provision of Aupropriate S afety Measures Under the Ordinance Code, Calpine must undertake all necessary steps to leave the premises in a condition that will be safe and will not cause damage to adjoining properties or public facilities while this suspension is in effect. (C.C.C. Ord. Code §§ 716-6.U16) Background On October 3 1, 2002, this Department issued Grading Permit#3308.34 for the above captioned pecker energy plant project. On December 31, 2002, this Department issued Building Permit #331368 for the same pecker energy plant. The issuance of these permits was based in part on the determination of the Community Development Department (CDD) that the project had been shown to satisfy all applicable zoning regulations. The Community Development Department informs me that their determination was based on information that your firm provided to that office prior to issuance of the above referenced permits. The documentation from your firm included a report dated May 2002 that lists a number of hazardous materials that would be used in the construction and operation of the plant. The report indicates that the amount of hazardous materials used would qualify the project as exempt from the land use permit-requirements -of the-ISO. (Hazard-Category B Materials were reported to total 4.6 tons.) Based on that documentation, and following review by the Health Services Department, the Community Development Department determined that the proposed plant was exempt from the land use permit requirement of the ISO pursuant to Ordinance Code Section 84- 63.604(c). Even though the May 2002 Calpine report concludes that the project is exempt from the ISO land use permit requrement, the report also includes a hazard score calculated pursuant to Ordinance Code Section 84-63.1004 that would hypothetically apply to the project in the event that the project were ` 3 not exempt from the ISO. The report determined that the project would have a hazard score of 101 points. A memorandum dated June 4, 2002 from the ---Health-Services Department (attached) confirmed that the hazard score was calculated in accord with the I50 formula. New Information About the Extent of Usage of Hazardous Materials Not Previously Disclosed Subsequent to the issuance of the above referenced permits, the Community Development Department has reported to me that they have learned that the hazardous material listing in the documentation that you provided to them to support an exempt determination from the ISO did not disclose the full extent of proposed hazardous material usage that will result from the operation of this project. In a memorandum dated January 17, 20.03 (attached), the Health Services Department indicates that the project will use natural gas, and has calculated that it will use it at a rate of approximately 3,273 tons/month. The memorandum indicates that the Health Services Department recently reviewed this calculation with a representative of Calpine who confirmed that the calculation was a reasonable estimation of the plant's usage of natural gas. The Health Services Department indicates that for purposes'of compliance with the ISO, natural (flammable) gas qualifies as a Hazard Category B Material. The May 2002 Calpine report did not include natural gas in its listing of hazardous materials that would be used in the operation of this project. Applicability of ISO Land Use Permit Requirement Based on New Information The ISO applies to any nonagricultural zoned property (Ord. Code Section 84-63.602). This site is zoned Heavy Industrial, which is a nonagricultural zoning district. Therefore, the ISO applies to this site. Unless otherwise exempt from the ISO requirements, Ordinance Code Section.84-63.1002 requires approval of a land use pen-nit for a development 4 project proposed for the management of hazardous material if any of the following apply: • The development project obtains a hazard score of 80 points or more pursuant to the formula set forth in Section 84-63.1004; or * For Hazard Category A or,B Materials, the developmentl1project will result in anew process units) unless the process unit complies with Section 84-63.1004(d)(1) through (d)(6), (perta=* * g to credit for reductions in points or projects to be closed). � For purposes of this ordinance, the following terms are defined to include: "Development project" means a new permanent building, structure or facility to be constructed that will manage hazardous materials. (Ord. Code § 84-63.4 10) "Process unit" means a collection of interconnected vessels and equipment designed to separate, purify, react, combine or otherwise chemically or physically alter one or more feed materials, to produce one or more shed or intermediate products and associated wastes, defined by plot or boundary limits. (Ord. Code § 84-63.4218) � Based on the project description material provided to CDD, staff has � concluded that your project is a developmentproject, and includes a new process unit. Review for Applicability of Ordinance Exemption Provisions In light of the new information on the natural gas usage,the Community Development Department has reconsidered its previous position that the project is exempt from the ISO requirement under Ordinance Code Section 84-63.604(c). One criterion for a project to be exempt from a land use permit requirement under this provision is that the quantity of Hazard Category B material transported to the site (via trucks or pipelines) is less than 5 tons per month. Insofar as the quantity of Hazard Category B Materials (including natural gas) that will be transported monthly to the site 5 is now known to exceed 5 tonsl, the project will not meet this criterion for exemption. CDD indicates that they have found no evidence that the project would qualify for the other two exemption provisions of Ordinance Code Section 84-63.604, which are as follows: (a) Projects built solely to comply with federal, state, regional or local agency enforcement orders, or (b)Rebuilding of a project damaged by a disaster. Therefore, CDD now concludes that the project is not exempt from the provisions of the ISO. Applicability of LLT Requirement Due to Hazard Score As previously mentioned, your May 2002 report calculated that the hazard score for this project is 101 points (even without apparent consideration of the natural gas component). Because this score exceeds 80 points, the project requires approval of a land use pen-nit pursuant to Ordinance Code Section 84-63.1002 (a). Applicability of LLTP Requirement For a Project with a New Process Unit and Use of Hazard CateRoly B Materials This project will result in a new process unit and will use Hazard Category B Materials. We have found no evidence in the record that the process unit complies with the provisions of Ordinance-Code Section 84-63.1004 (d)(1) through(d)(6) that authorize credit for reductions or projects to be closed. Because tliis projec 'wilI_resuIt ri-anew process-unit and will use Hazard Category B Materials, the CDD advises that the project requires approval of a land use permit pursuant to Ordinance Code Section 84-63.1002(c). 1 The ordinance defines"transport"to include the act of moving hazardous material by road or pipeline (Ord.Code Section 84-63.438). 6 Violation of ISO Land Use Permit Requirement Because a land use permit was not-filed with the County, the project is in violation of the Ordinance Code. [Ord. Code §§ 84-63.1002 (a) and (c), and 82-2.006] Response to January 24, 2003 Calpine Letter This letter is also intended to respond to your letter of January 24, 2003 in � which you indicate that you will be providing new information to the Community Development Department on Monday, January 27, 2003 in an effortto try to demonstrate that the project maybe exempt from the ISO land use pen-nit requirements. The Community Development Director will begin consideration of the documentation that you provide the County on that date. Thus, we are only suspending your pen-nits at the present time. At the same time, we disagree with several assertions in your letter. First, in its previous evaluation of the project, the County relied on the information you provided to determine that the project was not subject to a land use permit requirement and to issue building/grading permits. Contrary to your assertion, the County's determination of exemption was not made in error. Rather, Calpine failed to disclose all relevant information to the i County. Therefore, Calpine made misrepresentations in its permit applications. The County also disagrees that a stop work order would not be issued for this project. The County only agreed to consider additional documentation that the applicant-might-submit-on-the morning-of January 24, 2003.2 Potential Remedial Action According to the Community Development Department, before work on the proposed pecker plant would be lawful, you will need to file for and obtain approval of a land use permit with that office pursuant to the requirements of 2 In a meeting with Calpine representatives on January 23,2003 (be, •nni gat 4:00 p.m),the County agreed that any written correspondence received by 10:00 a.m on January 24,2003 would be considered prior to a decision. A letter signed by B.W.Gaglia and received at 11:00 a.m on this date was considered. the Ordinance Code-including the Industrial Safety Ordinance. They have also indicated that the project does not appear to qualify as exempt from any of the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Therefore, it is expected that a land use permit application will be required to comply with the review requirements of that law prior to consideration of any approval action. The Zoning Administrator hears and decides land use permit applications. CDD advises that you contact Mr. Robert Drake of that office to learn of the application requirements and procedures for filing a land use permit application. Should you have any questions on the zoning/planning matters, please contact Mr. Bob Drake of the Community Development Department at (925) 335-1214. Sincerely, CARLOS BALTODANO Building Inspection Director and County Building Official Att. Excerpt from the May 2002 Calpine Report Memoranda from the Health Services Department 6/4/2003 1/17/2003 Cc: Me ers, oar o upai-vlsors Clerk of the Board County Administrator County Counsel Building Inspection Department Soen Thung Kevin Durnford Gary Faris CDevelopment Department Dennis Barry Catherine Kutsuris Bob Drake Health Services Department Randy Sawyer Habib Amin er PROJECT INFORMATION for the � 52000`! ENERGY CENTER ANTIOCH, CALIFORNIA Prepared by: Calpine Corporation 4160 Dublin Boulevard � Dublin, California 94568 and FOSTER WHEELER ENVIRONMENTAL CORPORATION 3947 Lennane Drive, Suite 200 Sacramento, California 95834 May 2002 0 r. 7r - INTRODUCTION .The 520001.Energy Center is a nominal 45-megawatt (MW) electrical generating facility designed toprovide eaking power to California's electrical grid. The project is planned to be located at the p G-P Gypsum Corporation's Antioch wallboard manufacturing facility, 801 Nfinaker Drive, Antioch, California. This facility is located in an unincorporated area of Contra Costa County, adjacent to the City of Antioch. Figure 1 shows the location of the Energy Center. This document has been prepared using Application Submittal Requirements, Land Use Permits for Development Projects Involving Hazardous Materials as specified in Chapter 84-63 of the County of Contra Costa County Ordinance Code. Article 84-63.604(c) of the County Code, "Applicability",indicates that certain development projects are exempt from the land use permit requirements. These include projects storing or transporting monthly quantities of hazardous materials less than: Hazard Category C -4,000 tons • Hazard Category B - 5 tons • Hazard Category A- 500 pounds or the Threshold Planning Quantity on the Extremely Hazardous Materials List (Appendix A to 40 Code of Federal Regulations, Chapter L Subchapter J,Part 355), which ever is less The 52001 Energy Center project does not exceed these criteria for these hazard categories (see Pp A endix A of this document). This document is being submitted for review and a determination whether the project is exempt from a land use permit requirement. This document includes the information necessary to complete and verify the hazard score of the project, such as chemical identification distances to nearest receptors,transportation routes, and a summary of baseline data. The following project description addresses items 1 through 14 of the Application Submittal .Requirements in the corresponding order. 1.0 HAZARD SCORE The hazard score for the 520001 Energy Center project is 101, as calculated in accordance with Section 84-63.1004 of the County of Contra Costa County Ordinance Code,Land Use Permits for Development Projects Involving Hazardous Taste or Hazardous Material. The maximum value for each risk factor was used to calculate the hazard score. For example,the transport of hazardous materials to the project site requires travel through an industrial area and adjacent commercial/residential area due to the distance and location of the nearest highway. The transportation risk value is greater for residentiallco=ercial areas than the risk for industrial areas. Therefore,.the transportation risk for residential areas was used in the calculation of the hazard score for the Energy Center. For complete calculations and comments,refer to Appendix A. p�Np�X A Ap � cP�GULp,'t1o�s JA�R� ScoR w r t 4 520001 Energy Center Hazard Score Calculations: Hazard Score= [(T +C+P) * H] +D +A T=Transportation Risk C= Community Risk-Type of receptor P =Facility Risk- Size of Pro j ect-Percent Change H=Hazard Category of material or waste D =Community Risk-Distance from receptor A=Facility Risk -Size of Pro j ect-Total Amount Transportation Risk(T): Highway 4 lies approximately 1.2 miles to the south and approximately 1.9 miles to the east of the project site. Truck transport of hazardous materials/waste requires transport through industrial areas and adjacent to residential/commercial areas. Transport will be by truck. The Calpine proj ect is a new development. Therefore, the transportation risk is: T= 10 Truck,residential/commercial,new development Community Risk(C,D): The proj ect site is.zoned for heavy industrial use. Eight buildings belonging to the gypsum plant are located on the southern portion of the site. The proposed plant mrill be adjacent to, and approximately 40 feet north of the existing G-P Gypsum wallboard manufacturing plant. Outside of the property boundary; the area is industrial to the east and west, and residential to the south and west. The area south of the project is primarily residential. The nearest residential property is 800 feet from the project. Several schools are located within a three-mile radius of the project. Kimball School and Holy Rosary School off of East 13th Street are located about 0.6 miles from the site. Fremont Junior High School,between D and F Street at the intersection with 13th Street,.is approximately 1.1 miles from the project and the High School, off of West 18th Street, is approximately 1.3 miles from the-.site. John Marsh School.-on-W-est-Madill-is-approximately.1.6-miles from the development. There are also several small businesses within a one-mile radius of the project. The distance to the nearest developable commercial lot is approximately 680 feet (south of Wilbur Avenue, east of Apollo Court). However,the nearest commercial receptor does not drive the hazard score equation because the risk factors are greater for the residential and sensitive receptors. Type of Receptor C Distance to receptor D Sensitive 7 0.6 mi. (3170 ft) 19 (2800-3200 ft) Residential 5 800 ft 26 (700-900 ft) Commercial 4 0.1288 mi. (680 ft) 27 (550-700 ft) J Facility Risk - Size of Project - Percent Change (P): This project is a new development. Therefore: P=6 Hazard Category of material or waste(I-I): Hazardous INIaterial DOT DOT Hazard H Hazard Packing Category Class Group Sulfuric Acid (98%) 8 II B 3 Corrosive Battery Sulfuric Acid 8 II B 3 Corrosive Aqueous Amnzoni a(19%) 8 III C 1 Corrosive Phosphonate 8 ITI C 1 Corrosive Polyacrylate 8 III C 1 Corrosive Sodium bisulfite 8 IlI C 1 Corrosive Sodium hypochlorite 8 III C 1 Corrosive Sodium tolytriazole 8 III C 1 Corrosive Carbon Dioxide 2.2 C 1 Compressed gas CO Calibration Gas 2.2 C 1 Compressed gas Nitrogen 2.2 C 1 Compressed gas NOx Calibration Gas 2.2 C 1 Compressed gas Antifoam: Paraffin wax, Not Regulated Hydrotreated light distillate, HydrodesuLfuxized mineral seal oil Mineral insulating oil Not Regulated Lubrication oil Not Regulated Hydraulic oil Not Regulated Waste oil Not Regulated Natural gas knock out liquid Not Regulated Wash water Not Regulated Facility Risk- Size of Pro j ect- Total Amount(A): The Calpine Corporation King City Energy Center is one of several projects similar _ to the proposed Antioch project. One I M6000 combustion turbine generator was used at the King City facility. Hazardous material quantities for the Energy Center are comparable to the quantities reported in the King City Hazardous Materials Business Plan. v , Hazardous Material Max. Specific Density Max. A Qty. on- Gravity (Lb./Gal) Qty. Site On-Site (Gal) (Lbs.) Hazard Category B Sulfuric Acid (98%) 400 1.844 15.38 6152 Battery Sulfuric Acid 306 1.215 10.14 3103 Total Hazard Category B Materials (Lbs.) 9255 (>4 - 6 tons) Total Hazard Category B Materials (Tons) 4.6 12 i Hazard Category C Aqueous gonia(19%) 12,000 0.92 7.67 92074 Phosphonate 400 1.27-1.3 10.59-10.84 4335 Polyacrylate 400 1.15 8 9.66 :)864 Sodium bisulfite 400 1.37 11.4 4560 Sodium hypochlorite 400 1.21 10.09 4037 Sodium tolykriazole 400 1.15 9.59 3837 Carbon Dioxide -- -- -- 1200 CO Calibration Gas 400 ft3 -- 0.06 lb/ft3 25 Nitrogen 6000 ft3 0.06 lb/ft3 360 NOS;Calibration Gas 400 ft3 0.07 lb/ft3 29 Total Hazard Category C Materials (Lbs.) 114321 (>50 - 90 tons) Total Hazard Category C Materials (Tons) 57.2 17 Non-regulated Materials Mineral insulating oil 6,200 0.88 7.34 45503 Lubrication oil 680 0.88 7.34 6055 Hydraulic oil 40 0.88 7.3 4 294 Antifoam:Paraffin wax, 25 0.84 7.0 175 Hydrotreated light distillate,Hydro desul- furized mineral seal oil - - Total Non-regulated Materials-(Lbs.) 52027 Total Non-regulated Materials (Tons) 26.0 Nalco 7385 was used as a representative phosphonate scale inhibitor/dispersant. Chemlogis Aqua Mate 2261 was used as a representative polyacrylate dispersant /scale inhibitor. Nalco 71D5 Plus was used as a representative antifoamin9 agent. Hazard Score Calculations: Hazard Score= [(T+ C+P) H] +D+A Hazard Category B Materials: Sensitive Receptor: Hazard Score= [(10+7+6) * 3] + 19 + 12 Hazard Score= 100 Residential Receptor: Hazard Score= [(10+5 +6) * 3] +26 + 12 Hazard Score= 10 1 Commercial Receptor: Hazard Score= [(10+4+6) * 3] +27 + 12 Hazard Score=99 Hazard Category C Materials: Sensitive Receptor: Hazard Score= [(10+7+6) * 11 + 19+ 17 Hazard Score= 59 Residential Receptor: Hazard Score= [(10+S +6) * 1] +26 + 17 Hazard Score= 64 Commercial Receptor: Hazard Score— [(10+.4+6) * 1]+27 + 17 Hazard Score= 64 Al um Hazard Score= 101 r. r 10.0 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 10.1 Construction Phase Hazardous materials used during construction gill include gasoline, diesel fuel, motor oil, hydraulic fluid, some solvents, cleaners, sealant, welding flux, various lubricants,paint, and paint thinner. No acutely hazardous materials will be used or stored on-site during construction. There are no feasible alternatives to motor fuels and oils for operating construction equipment. The types of paint required are dictated by the types of equipment and structures that must be coated and the manufacturer's requirements for coating. The potential for environmental impacts from hazardous material incidents during construction is minimal. Small volumes of hazardous materials will be temporarily stored on-site inside fuel and lubrication service trucks. Paints and solvents will be stored in flammable materials cabinets. Maintenance and service personnel sAdll be trained to handle these materials. 10.2 operation Phase A number of hazardous materials, including one acutely hazardous material (aqueous ammonia), will be stored on-site during operation of the project. • Aqueous ammonia (19%)— 12,000 gallons stored in tank vrith containment • Mineral insulating oil— 6,200 gallons contained within transformer systems • Lubrication oil—a total of 680 gallons: 650 gallons vc%ithin the CGT enclosure (150- gallon tank integral to the generator and a 500-gallon tank integral to the turbine); 30 gallons in compressors • Hydraulic oil—40 gallons within the CGT enclosure • Antifoam agent—(e.g.,paraffin wax,hydrotreated light distillate,hydrodesulfurized mineral seal oil) 25 gallons in 5-gallon pails with secondary containment • Phosphonate(45-50%)—400 gallons in totes with secondary containment • Polyacrylate—400 gallons in totes with secondary containment • Sodium bisulfite (40-70%)—400 gallons in totes with secondary containment • Sodium hypochlorite (10%bleach)—400 gallons in totes with secondary containment • Sodium tolytriazole—400 gallons in totes with secondary containment Sulfuric acid(93 to 98%)—400 gallons in totes with secondary containment • Battery sulfuric acid (<3O%)—306 gallons contained within batteries h t • Carbon dioxide— 1,200 pounds • Carbon monoxide calibration gas—400 cubic feet • Nitrogen oxide calibration gas—400 cubic feet • Nitrogen gas—6,000 cubic feet Small quantities (less than 5 gallons) of paints, oils, solvent,pesticides, and cleaners, t rpical of those purchased at a retail hardware store,may also be used at the facility. In addition, followinb hazardous or potentially hazardous wastes are generated. • Waste turbine oil—600 gallons (double-walled underground storage tank; waste oil pumped out and recycled) • Fuel gas knockout liquid—less that 600 gallons stored in double-walled underground storage tank; liquid is pumped out and disposed of off-site • Oily water and sludge—less than 1,000 gallons retained within an underground 2,000- gallon, double contained oil/water separator;retained liquids and sediments are pumped out and disposed of off-site • Washwater—less than 100 gallons stored in tank on skid in containment area(liquids pumped out and disposed of off-site[detergent and metals present]) ' i P d 11.0 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS USE Hazardous materials use will be as follows: • Aqueous ammonia(less than 20 percent by weight) is used to control NO.,emissions and is injected into the SCR system. • Mineral insulating oil is used within the transformers. • Lubrication oil is used for turbine and compressor bearing lubrication. • Hydraulic oil is used for mechanical movement for turbine associated equipment. d Antifoam agent (e.g.,para ffn wax,hydrotreated light distillate,hydrodesulfurized mineral seal oil) is used to control foaming within the evaporative cooling system. • Polyacrylate is used-within the evaporative cooling system as a dispersant/scale inhibitor. • Sodium tolytriazole is used as a corrosion inhibitor. • Sodium bisulfate is also used to inhibit corrosion. • Phosphonate is used as a dispersant scale inhibitor in the RO system. • Sodium h3pochlorite is used for disinfection within the el7aporative cooling system. • Sulfuric acid is used for the evaporative cooling system pH control. • Battery sulfuric acid is contained as a component of facility batteries. • Carbon dioxide is part of the fire supression system for the turbine, generator, and accessory equipment compartments. • Carbon monoxide is stored for use as a calibration gas. • Nitrogen oxide.,is stored for use asa calibration gas. • Nitrogen gas is stored for use as a calibration purge gas and for back-up pressurization on systems used during an emergency turbine shutdown. t i I i r r CONTRA COSTA rCv1vTi:41 COSTA HEALTH SERVICES �, .. i JUS -- AM 0 � 3 H A� l%RV OV S IYI/1TGRttAL-S t—ROG Rt-%lYiL7 C: s+:"4Va' L=' ��= ~�-_ j-0 ==^^ ti 7. J i:a..l h TO: JOHN OB ORNE FROM: HABZB SUBJECT: CA.LPINE'S PROPOSED PEAK R PLANT AT G-P GYPSUM CORPORATION'S ANTIOCH WALLBOARD FACILITY,CONTRA COSTA COUNTY DATE: 6/4/02 CC: RANDY SAWYER,ROBERT DRAM,DONNA ALLEN, MARTHA WATSON(CALPINE,FAQ: 925479-7310) I have reviewed the exemption request from the Hazardous Materials Land Use Permit for the installation of Calpine's proposed Peaher Plant at G-P Gypsum Corporation's Antioch wallboard Facility. This proposed installation is for a nominal 45-megawatt.(M`W) power generation facility also referred to as 520001 Energy Center that is located at 801 Minaher Drive,Antioch, California. Martha Watson of Calpine submitted the exemption request. We met with Martha Watson on May 24, 2002 to review this project. The purpose of the discussion was to determine if the installation of this new facility should be defined as a development project per the County ISO Section 84-63.410 and if it would be exempt from a land use permit under Chapter 84-63.604(c)of the County's Ordinance Code. Contra Costa Health Services reNdewed the document titled `Project Information for the 52001 Energy Center,Antioch, California",-prepared by Calpine Corporation and Foster wheeler Environmental Corporation dated May 2002. The proposed 520001 Energy Center is designed to provide'peaking power to California's electrical grid and waste heat is to be used by the G P Gypsum Corporation's Antioch Wallboard Facility. The major hazardous materials that are associated with this project are 98% sulfuric acid, battery sulfuric acid and aqueous amrnonia. 9 8% sulfuric acid and battery sulfuric acid are Category B_chemicals and aqueous ammonia and other miscellaneous chemicals are Category C chemicals. Based on data presented in Calpine's report, we have confirmed the hazard score calculations leading to aaximunl hazard score of 101. However, based on Article 84-63.604(c) of the County Code, "Applicability", we have determined that this project is exempt from the land use permit requirements. The evaluation has considered the storage or transportation of monthly quantities of hazardous materials and has confirmed that storage and monthly transportation quantities are below the required limits (Hazard Category C — 4,000 tons,Hazard Category B—5 tons). Contra Costa Health Services concludes that this development project is exempt from the land use permit requirements that would be required under Chapter 84-63.2 of the County's Ordinance Code, because the quantities are well below the nninimum quantities that would be significant for consideration for a land use permit under this ordinance. CONTRA COSTA HEALTH SERVICES% HAZARDOUS MATERIALS PROGRAMS- TO: ROGRAMS_TO: RANDY SAWYER FROM: HABIB A JON SUBJECT: CA.LPINE'S PROPOSED PF.A.SER PLANT AT G-P GYPSUM CORPORATION'S ANTIOCH _ WALLBOARD FACILITY,CON'T'RA_COSTA COUNTY DATE: 1/17/03 j CC: - Per your request, I have re-ex ed the exemption request from the Hazardous.Materials Land Use Permit for the installation of Calpine's proposed Peaker Plant at G P Gypsum Corporation's Antioch Wallboard Facility. I have confirmed that Calpine has not included the quantity of natural gas usage that is delivered to the site for evaluation of hazardous materials transported to the site. I have calculated the quantity of natural gas usage by the Facility to be about 3,273 tons/month. This is based on the natural gas flow rate of 21,823 lbs/hr (from the Calpine Report titled Project Information for the 520001 Energy Center, Antioch, CA, dated May 2002, Drawing Number F530001) and a maximum expected operation of 300 hours per month(provided by M,artha Watson of Calpine on January 16, 2002). Natural gas is a Hazardous Category B Material (Flammable Gas). One criterion for a facility _ to be exempt from the Land Use Permit is that the quantity of Category B Material transported to the site (via trucks or pipelines) is less than 5 tons/month (Article 84-63.604(c)). Taking into account the quantity of natural gas delivered to the site clearly makes the Calpine project non-exempt from the land use permit requirements based on Chapter 84-63 of the Industrial Safety Ordinance. Per my telephone conversations with Martha Watson of Calpine }yesterday, she acknowledged that they did not include the amount of natural gas delivered to the site in consideration of their request for exemption submitted to the Community Development Department-(Letter from: Martha Watson of Calpine to John.Oborne of Community Development Department dated May 21, 2002). Martha Watson has acknowledged that the quantities I have calculated for natural gas transported to the site appear to be reasonable and correct. She has requested for a_meeting with the_County to discuss the ramification of their incomplete submittal to the county on their planned schedule for the project construction. 1 J Aa . CALPINEWESTERNwEsRN xEcroN OFFICE 4160 DUBLIN BOULEVARD January 24, 2003 DUBLIN.CALIFORNIA 94568 �� ■ 925.479.6600 92.5.479.7300(m) Ms.Catherine Kutsuris Deputy Director Community Development Department 651 Pine Street - 4th Floor,North Wing Martinez, CA 94553 Re: Riverview Energy Center: 45 MW Gas-Fired Peaker Plant Dear Ms.Kutsuris: Thank you for taking the time to meet with us on January 23,2003,to discuss the County's position that a land use permit pursuant to Chapter 84-63 of the Zoning Code is required for the Riverview Energy Center Project and that the County's determination of exemption pursuant to Section 84-63.604(c)was made in error. In light of the County's current position,Calpine has reassessed the configuration of the plant and has been able to devise means,at additional operational.expense,to eliminate all Category A hazardous materials and to thereby achieve a hazard score of less than 80. Calpine is preparing documentation and explanation of this revised hazard score to present to the County on Monday, January 27,2003. Calpine also proposes to reduce the use of hazardous materials at tha adjacent Georgia-Pacific on-site plant in order to comply with the provisions of Section 84- 63.1004(d)(1)through(6). (See exemptions from the permit requirement under Section 84-63-1002(c).) The applicability of these provisions to Calpine's proposal will be set forth in detail in Calpine's submission of data on Monday,January 27,2003. Given these project changes, Calpine believes there is no basis for requiring a land use permit under Chapter 84-63 and respectfully requests that the County refrain from making a final determination on the exempt status of the project until it has reviewed Calpine's new information. Calpine also understands that the County's_agreement.not_to_issue a stop work -- order while it evaluates Calpine's proposed project changes does not constitute a waiver by the County of any claim, assertion, cause of action, argument,including but not ted to claims that the project requires a land use permit or is being constructed in violation of law. Calpine likewise is proposing changes to its project configuration without prejudice to any claim, argument, assertion, cause of action, or defense it may now have to complete construction under the existing permits,including but not limited.to, compliance with the law, equitable estoppel,vested rights, abuse of discretion or denial of equal protection of the law. r` a i Calpine is committed to cooperating with the County to resolve this issue in an expeditious and fair manner. Calpine believes that the proposed project reconfiguration allows the project to proceed in compliance with the Industrial Safety Ordinance without obtaining a land use permit and looks forward to working with the County to allow this occur. Yours truly, ty, B.N .Gaglia Director of Projects CC: Rick Thomas Nancy Murray Federal D. Glover Bob Fishman Eric Zell Chapter 84-63 LAND USE PERMITS FOR DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS INVOLVING HAZARDOUS WASTE OR HAZARDOUS MATERIAL Article 84-63.2. General 84-63.202 Purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to promote the health, safety and general welfare of residents and persons in the county by encouraging businesses and other entities, in planning and developing projects involving hazardous material or hazardous waste, to consider factors which involve potential health and safety risks to the surrounding community, and by requiring land use permits for development projects which could significantly and adversely affect public health, safety and the environment. (Ords. 9848 § 51 96-50, 96-20, 90-92, 86-100). 84-63.204 Conflict. This chapter is not intended, and should not be deemed, to prevent or preempt compliance with federal or state laws, regulations, rules or orders, or to excuse compliance with any other county ordinance, including other requirements of this code. (Ords. 98-48§ 51 96-50, 96-20, 86-100). Article 84-63.4. Definitions 84-63.402 General. As used in this chapter, the words and phrases defined in this article shall have the meanings given.unless the context otherwise requires. (Ords. 98-48§ 51 96-50, 96-20). 84-63.404 Baseline period. "Baseline period" means the consecutive twelve month period of time during which activity is measured for purposes of this chapter. The baseline period shall be any twelve consecutive month period within five years of the date of the submittal of the application that is reflective of a normal year of operation. (Ords. 9848 § 51 96-50, 96-20). 84-63.406 Change-in-risk project. A"change-in-risk projecty) means a new use of an existing building, structure, or facility, not involving construction other than minor alterations, which use will involve a hazardous material or hazardous waste in a higher hazard category and which use will result in a hazard score higher than the hazard score of the previous use. (Orris. 98-48 § 51 96-50, 96-20). 84-63.408 Commercial property. "Commercial property" means all properties with a commercial designation in the general plan including but not limited to the following: commercial, regional commercial, airport commercial, office, and business park. (Ords. 98-48 § 51 96-50, 96-20). IT F 84-63.410 Development project. (a)A"development project" means a new permanent building, structure or facility to be constructed that will manage hazardous materials or hazardous waste, or a permanent change-in-risk project. As used in this section, "permanent" when used to describe a building, structure, or facility, or the new use of an existing building, structure, or facility(change-in-risk project) means that the building, structure, facility or use is intended to be in operation for more than six months. (b)A"development project" does not include: (1) Pipelines and related equipment more than three hundred feet from commercial or residential property. Related equipment includes, but is not limited to, items such as valves, fittings, pipe supports, insulation, instrumentation, corrosion protection systems, heat tracing systems, leak containment systems, and fire protection systems. Related equipment does not include storage tanks, storage vessels, process units or plants, mechanical rotating equipment(e.g., pumps, compressors, motors, turbines, internal combustion engines, etc.). However, the zoning administrator may determine, at the zoning administrator's sold discretion, that minor equipment defined above as not related is exempt from the ordinance. (2)Any project consisting only of maintenance, repair, and replacement or minor modification of existing equipment provided the storage design capacity is not increased and the hazard category of hazardous material or hazardous waste handled is not increased. (3) Any transportable treatment unit that has obtained all required permits and is used solely for site remediation or waste treatment purposes, provided the transportable treatment unit will be located on site for a maximum time limit of one year. The director of community development will have the authority to grant a one year time extension if the applicant can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the director that the'jnit is temporary. Otherwise, a land use permit will be required if the unit will remain on the site beyond the time limit specified above. (4)Any project for which permit applications have been deemed complete on or before the effective date of this chapter by the Bay Area air quality management district or other government agency with jurisdiction over the project provided the project application has been deemed complete within one calendar year and has completed CEQA I documentation. The proponent of a project described by subsection (4) of subdivision (b) of this section may elect to be subject to the requirements of this chapter in lieu of any requirements in effect prior to the effective date of the ordinance codified in this chapter. (Ords. 98-48§ 51 96-501 96-20, 90-92, 86-100). 84-63.412 Dispose. "Dispose" means to discharge, deposit, inject, dump, or place any hazardous waste into or on any land or water so that such hazardous waste or any constituent thereof may enter the environment or be emitted into the air or discharged into any waters, including ground waters. (Ords. 98-48§ 5, 96-50, 96-20, 86-100). 84-63.414 Equipment. "Equipment" means pipes, pumps, vessels and other similar types of apparatus. (Ords. 98- 48 § 51 96-50, 96-20). - 84-63.416 Facility. "Facility" means a group of buildings, structures, or units with the same purpose on contiguous parcels (including parcels separated by a right-of-way, as defined in Section 1002-2.002 of this Code) under common ownership or control. (Ords. 98-48 § 51 96-50, 96-20). 84-63.418 Finished product. "Finished product" means a material which can be sold to market as a commodity. (Ord. 98-48 § 5). 84-63.420 Hazardous material. "Hazardous material" means any material that, because of its quantity, concentration, or physical or chemical characteristics, poses a significant present or potential hazard to human health and safety or to the environment if released into the workplace or the environment, and includes any material that is listed in the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 49, Section 172.101 (Hazardous Materials Table), as amended from time to time. (Ords. 98-48§ 5, 96-50, 96-20, 86-100). 84-63.422 Hazardous waste. "Hazardous waste" means any substance which is regulated as a hazardous waste by the California Department of Health Services under 22 California Administrative Code, Division 4, Chapter 30, or defined as a hazardous waste under the Health and Safety Code Section 25117, generally as follows: (a) "Hazardous waste" means either of the following: (1)A waste, or combination of wastes, which because of its quantity, concentration, or physical, chemical, or infectious characteristics may either: (A) Cause or significantly contribute to an increase in mortality or an increase in serious irreversible, or incapacitating reversible illness. (B) Pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human health or environment when improperly treated, stored, transported, or disposed of, or otherwise managed. (2)A waste which meets any of the criteria for the identification of a hazardous waste adopted by the State Department of Toxic Substance Control pursuant to the Health and Safety Code Section 25141. (b) "Hazardous waste" includes, but is not limited to, Federal Resource Conservation and Recover Act("RCRA") hazardous waste, extremely hazardous waste and acutely hazardous waste. (Ords. 98-48§ 51 96-50, 96-20, 86-100). 84-63.424 Intermediate product. "Intermediate product" means a material which requires further process treatment on-site or off-site to produce a finished project which can be sold as a commodity. (Ords. 98-48 § 5). 84-63.426 Manage. "Manage" means to generate, treat, store, transport, use or dispose of hazardous material or hazardous waste. (Ords. 98-48 § 51 96-50, 96-20, 86-100). 84-63.436 Store. "Store" means an act to contain hazardous waste or hazardous material for any period of time in such a manner as not to constitute disposal of such hazardous waste or hazardous material. (Ords. 98-48 § 5, 96-50, 96-201 91-49, 86-100). 84-63.438 Transport. "Transport"or"transportation" means an act to move hazardous waste or hazardous material by truck, rail, marine vessel or pipelines. (Ords. 98-48 § 51 96-50, 96-201 86-100). Article 84-63.6. Applicability 84-63.602 Applicability. The provisions of this chapter shall be'applicable in any nonagricultural zoning district. (Ords. 98-48 § 5, 96-50, 96-20, 86-100). 84-63.604 Exemptions. The following projects and structures are exempt from the provisions of this chapter: (a)Any project built solely to comply with federal, state, regional or local agency enforcement orders under a compliance time schedule that precludes timely review under this chapter. This section is primarily intended to allow exemptions for compliance with laws, regulations, rules, or administrative or judicial-orders such as nuisance abatement orders or other short-term or immediately necessary actions. This section is not intended to allow automatic exemptions for projects being undertaken to comply with changed federal, state, regional or local laws. A facility claiming an exemption under this section, must file a copy of the enforcement order and proposed project description within thirty days of receipt of the order. (b) If any building, structure, or facility is destroyed or damaged by disasters such as it earthquakes, floods, offsite fires, or an act of God or public enemy, the facility may be rebuilt under the following conditions: (1) The rebuilt project is used for the same purpose as the destroyed or damaged project; (2)The rebuilt project complies with all environmental regulations in effect at the time of rebuilding, including best available control technology (BACT)or at least the same level of control that previously existed, whichever provides the greater level of protection to the public; (3)The rebuilt project does not have a higher hazard score than the destroyed or damaged project(both rebuilt and destroyed or damaged project to be scored as if they are new); (4)The hazard category of chemicals used in the rebuilt project is not greater than used by the destroyed or damaged project; (5) Construction is commenced within one year unless an extension is granted by the community development director; (6) The rebuilt project is at least three hundred feet away from the nearest residential property or sensitive receptor and no closer to the nearest residential property or sensitive receptor than the destroyed or damaged project; and _ (7)The rebuilt project will not manage hazard category A materials in quantities greater than the destroyed or damaged project, will not manage hazardous wastes in quantities greater than the destroyed or damaged project, will not manage hazard category B 84-63.428 Process unit. "Process unit" means a collection of interconnected vessels and equipment designed to separate, purify, react, combine or otherwise chemically or physically alter one or more feed materials, to produce one or more finished or intermediate products and associated Wastes, defined by plot or boundary limits. For example, a catalytic cracking unit, a hydrocracking complex, etc. Pieces of a process unit such as pumps, compressors, towers, reactors, vessels, and other such equipment and appurtenances, do not constitute a process unit. (Ord. 98-48 § 5). 84-63.430 Project description. "Project description" means a written description and explanation of the construction and operation of a development project. A project description shall address all phases of and for the life of the project. The project description shall include the following information as well as any other information deemed necessary by the community development director for the purpose of determining the hazard score: (a)A description of the facility location with respect to major freeways and immediate neighbors, and the size (in square footage or acreage) of the property on which the facility is located; (b)An area map showing the facility in relationship to the surrounding community; and (c)A description of all significant operations involving hazardous material and/or hazardous waste currently being managed, and/or proposed to be managed, including a brief general history of the facility; (d) A summary of the baseline data for all five years and a justification for the selection of the representative baseline year of data used in the calculation of the hazard score. The community development director may waive the requirement of submitting any or all of the information required by subsections (a) through (d) of this section. (Ords. 98-48 § 51 96-501 96-20). i. 84-63.432 Residential property. "Residential property)) means all properties with a residential designation in the general plan, including but not limited to the following: single-family residential, multiple-family residential, and mobile homes.. (Ords. 98-48 § 51 96-50, 96-20). 84-63.434 Sensitive receptor. The term "sensitive receptor" includes schools, general acute care hospitals, long-term health care facilities, licensed day care facilities, and similarly less-mobile populations, and detention facilities including jails, youth camps and other locked facilities. These facilities have more than twelve people. For the purposes of this section, "general acute care hospital" has the meaning set forth in Health and Safety Code Section 1250(a), "long term health care facility" has the meaning set forth in Health and Safety Code Section 1418(a), and child day care facility" has the meaning set forth in Health and Safety Code Section 1596.750. "School" means any school used for the purpose of the education of more than twelve children in kindergarten or any grades one through twelve, inclusive. (Ords. 98-48 § 57 96-501 96-20). materials in quantities greater than ten percent more than the amount managed by the destroyed or damaged project, and will not manage hazard category C materials in quantities greater than ten percent more than the amount managed by the destroyed or damaged project. (c)A development project in which both the size, as defined in Section 84-63.1012 and the monthly transportation quantity are less than: (1) For hazard category C materials: four thousand tons; (2) For hazard category B materials: five tons; (3) For hazard category A materials: the quantity specified as the threshold planning quantity on the extremely hazardous materials list(Appendix A to 40 C.F.R. Chapter I, Subchapter J, Part 355, as amended from time to time), or five hundred pounds, whichever-is less. (Ords. 98-48§ 51 96-50, 96-20, 90-92, 86-100). Article 84-63.8. Standards and Procedures 84-63.802 Application for applicability determination--Exemption. Any person proposing a development project which may be used to manage hazardous waste or hazardous material shall apply to the community development director for review and a determination whether a land use permit may be required under Article 84-63.10 or whether the project is exempt under Sections 84-63.604(a) or(b) or 84-63.606. Projects exempt under Section 84-63.604(c) are not required to submit an application pursuant to this section. If the hazard score of a project is sixty-nine or less and the project does not increase the amount of hazardous waste or hazardous material managed as compared to the baseline of the last three years, a determination of noncoverage and an application therefor are not required. The application shall include all information necessary to complete and verify the hazard score of the project, such as chemical identification, distances to nearest receptors, transportation routes, and a summary of the five year baseline data. The application shall be accompanied by all fees established by the board of supervisors. (Ords. 98-48 § 5, 96- 501.96-20, 91-49, 90-92, 86-100). 84-63.804 Application--Review--Determination. No later than ten calendar days after receipt of an application, or the submittal of additional information, the community development director shall inform the applicant in writing that the application is complete or shall inform the applicant what additional information is required. Within twenty calendar days of the application being deemed complete, the. community development director shall issue a written determination of noncoverage pursuant to Section 84-63.806, ap exemption pursuant to Section 84-63.604(a)or(b), or a determination that a land use permit is required pursuant to Section 84-63.1002. (Ords. 98-48 § 51 96-50, 96-20, 90-92). 84-63.806 Determination of noncoverage. Upon determining that a proposed project has a hazard score up to and including seventy- nine or that the project is exempt pursuant to Section 84-63.604, the community development director shall issue a determination of noncoverage or exemption. A determination of noncoverage for projects with a hazard score between seventy and seventy-nine, inclusive, means that the project is not subject to the requirements of Article 84-63.10, but is subject to Sections 84-63.808 and 84-63.810. Projects with a hazard score below sixty-nine and projects which are exempt pursuant to Section 84-63.604 are not subject to the requirements of Sections 84-63.808 and 84-63.810. (Ords. 98-48 § 51 96-50, 96-20). 84-83.808 Determinations--Public notice. All determinations of noncoverage made pursuant to Section 84-63.806 shall be summarized on an agenda for the county zoning administrator within ten calendar days of issuance of the determination. (Ords. 98-48 § 51 96-50, 96-20, 91-49, 90-921 86-100). 84-63.810 Determinations--Further public notice. For projects with a point assignment between seventy and seventy-nine, inclusive, within five working days of issuing a determination of noncoverage, the community development director shall mail notice on the date of the determination to all organizations and individuals who have previously submitted a written request for such notice. The community development director shall publish a four-inch by six-inch advertisement in a newspaper of general circulation within ten calendar days of issuing a determination of noncoverage. The notices required by this section shall state the name of the applicant, briefly describe the project, provide the names and phone numbers of a representative of the community development department and a representative of the applicant who will be available to answer questions about the project, and shall state the date by which an appeal must be filed. (Ords. 98-48 § 51 96-50, 96-20, 91-49, 90-92). 84-63.812 Appeals. Any appeal of a determination of noncoverage shall be filed within ten calendar days of the date the determination is listed on the zoning administrator's agenda or ten calendar days from the date of publication pursuant to Section 84-63.810, whichever provides the longer period of appeal. Appeals from a determination of noncoverage shall be heard by the board of supervisors. Except as expressly provided in this section, appeals from all decisions and determinations made pursuant to this chapter shall be governed by the land use permit provisions of Article 26-2.24 and are subject to the provisions of Article 26-2.30. (Ords. 98- 48 § 57 96-50, 96-20, 86-100). Article 84-63.10. Land Use Permits--When Required 84-63.1002 Hazard score--Permit required. Unless otherwise exempt from the requirements of this chapter, a land use permit shall be required for a development project proposed for the management of hazardous material and/or hazardous waste if any of the following apply: (a) The development project obtains a hazard score of eighty or more pursuant to the formula set forth in Section 84-63.1004; or (b) For hazard category A materials, the development project stores twice the quantity specified as the threshold planning quantity on the extremely hazardous materials list (Appendix A of 40 Code of Federal Regulations Chapters I, Subchapter J Part 355), as amended from time to time, or two thousand pounds, whichever is less; or (c) For hazard category A or B materials, the development project will result in a new process unit(s) unless the process unit complies with Section 84-63.1004(d)(1) through (d)(6), Credit for reductions or projects to be closed. Modifications to an existing process unit do not constitute a new process unit; or (d) For hazard category B materials, any development project that has a fill to the maximum capacity of forty thousand tons or more unless the development project complies with Section 84-63.1004(d)(1)through (d)(6), Credit for reductions or projects to be closed. (Ords. 98-48 § 51 96-50, 96-20). _ 84-63.1004 Hazard score. (a) Formula. The hazard score of a proposed development project shall be determined pursuant to the following formula: [(T+C + P)x H] + D +A; where the following symbols have the designations: , i T � refers to the point assignment for Transportation Risk"; "D" refers to the point assignment for"Community Risk- Distance from Receptor"; "C" refers to the point assignment for"Community Risk-Type of Receptor"; "A" refers to the point assignment for"Facility Risk-Size of Project-Total Amount"; "P" refers to the point assignment for"Facility Risk-Size of Project- Percent Change"; and "H" refers to the point assignment for"Hazard Category of Material or Waste." (b) Project Hazard Score. If more than one category of hazardous material or hazardous waste is used, the formula set forth in this section will be used to calculate a separate score for each material category. The material hazard category which results in the highest hazard score for the project will be used. (c) Point Assignment. The factors set forth in subdivision (a) of this section, shall have the following point assignments: :."TRANSPORTATION S t :RISK (T) :POINTS ........... ................. ......... ................ ........... .......... .'Truck-- residential/commercial 10 ;s(>25% increase or new :Truck-- Aresidential/commercial 9 :( ]` >5 --25% increa........se) ................................... ...........Truck industrial 1(>25% increase or new) 8 ..................-........ .......... .._......................_._.........._ . 'Truck-- industrial P5 --25% increase) 7 `Rail -- (>25% increase or 6 Anew) _.. _. __... ...._..................... ....... ..... .... ..................._........ •2 :increase) £Marine vessel --(>5% 3 Fincrease) i f lPi eline-- >5% increase 1 p ( ) { f0 -- ....................................................... .......... ......... ...... 5% increase {� 0 s E . :g €COMMUNITY RISK _ ........_ .......«_..«_»._»»..»....._ ....»«..«. ._ _«_«.._...............«.« _...._« _. _. .._ i 'Distance of project from .receptor(D): .... :, i0 -- 300 feet.....................I 30 >300--400 feet " 29 :£>400--550 feet := 28 __. ........... . >550 -.......-700 feet........................................... 27 s>700 --900 feet 26 AF 1>900 -- 1,200 feet 25 f ............... _ >1,200-- 1,500 feet 24 i __.._ > 11500-- 1,800 feet 23 >1,800--2,100 feet 22 _ ___. _.._............. >21100--2,500 feetw. ..................................................... 21 .............................................. ............ T;21500--2,800 feet 20 i 1>21800-- 3,200 feet 19 .. ............................. ............. >3,200--3,500 feet := 18 ... f_ __.. .............. ............................... .............. ....... 31500--3,800 feet 17 > 31800--4,000 feet16 ............ . ...... ............................................................ >47000--4,200 feet ....... ..... ........... 15 t>41200--4,500 feet 14 41500--4,800 feet 13 ............ ........................... ....................................... .......... _ 41800--5,400 feet 12 .......... ...... .................................... ....... ........... ................................................... 400 --5,700 feet 11 _>5,700--6,000 feet 10 ......... ...................... ........... >61000:i --6,500 feet 9 .................................. ........................ ........ ......................................................................,;>61500--7,300 feet 8 t;7,300--8,000 feet......... 7 81000--8,600 feet 6 ..................1>81600-- 10,000 feet 5 ->10,000-- 11,000 feet 4 _.__.................... ................................... _>11,000--..12,500 feet 3 ................._. r ............................................................................... -1>121500-- 14,000 feet 2 >14,000......... --.. 15,840...................feet.. 1 ............ . . 'Type of Receptor(C): 7 5 t ............................»...............»....._.............._...»«»_..»_».......».........«.»...««......«...»....«........._«.« .««........«.............«......«.............«...... #4 i.. _........._ ..._....................... ,:..._..:..... .FACILITY RISK: W SIZE OF PROJECT — Total Amount of Change, tons { { :;>0100030 i _..... ...... 1>32,000--40,000 29 1>181000-- 321000 28 ; >1 0,000-- 18,000 t 27 ` ..........F>67000 -- 10,000 26 _... _. _ ....... _ >41000 --61000 25 ` _ :1>27100 --4....,000 ....................... 24 r >1,200--2110023 ...........................-.... .............. .. .... ........................ ........ ...... 1>750-- 11200 _ 22 i 750 .......... _. 2...1. _.. _ >200 --400 20 .... ' ...__. > 150 -200 19 :3>90 -- 150 18 ...................... .............. .. 1>50 -- 90 17 30 - 50 16 :>20 -- 30 - 15 E........................... ..... .... .... t A 10 --20 14 ._ _ . _ .. ........__ _... _. _. .._ .... > _- 6 10 13 A>4—6 ........... ....... ...........12 >2-4 11 r . _.. >1 —2 10 j>0.8 - 1 9 _ . f>0.5 --0.88 _. _. ....._. ................... 1>0.35 -- 0.5 7 ' s >0.25 --0.35 6 .......................................................... ............... ........................................................... _ k>0.20 --0.25 ..... ......... >0.18 --0.20 4 ..................... _____.«_ __........_____ >0.14 --0.183 ..........:1>0.12 --0.14 2 ............ ........ >0.10 --0.12 1 ......... ....... ..._._... ..».................». r...««««.......»»....«.«................_.................. no change (0.10 or less) 0 .... { e ..Percent Change (P) - E .f 'fNewj 6 ................... ........ ._. ... _...... ........................................ ......... {>200% l >100% --200% 4 .................. ...................................................................-............................. ................................................................ 11>50% -- 100% 3 _... ................... ..... ................................... ... _.........................; : > 1% -- 10% ................................. 1 FO% -- 1% 0 __. ..... .... _.............................................. ........................._ _ ... _ _ s f .'HAZARD CATEGORY OF F MATERIAL (H) .. . . ... .............................. :Category A 5 !Category B 3 ._.. ................... ... ...{ .... .................. .................. o -Cate C 1 9 rY .............. .. _......................_......... . (d) Credit for Reductions or Projects to be Closed. A development project that would have a hazard score of eighty or more as determined by the formula in this section shall be entitled to a reduction credit for project closures and/or reductions in accordance with the criteria set forth in this subdivision. Reduction credit shall be given if the community development director determines that the applicant will concurrently close another project or reduce its operations and finds that all of the following criteria are met: (1) The project to be closed or reduced is in the same facility in which the development project is proposed; (2)The project to be closed or reduced is currently in operation and has been in operation for at least three years prior to the date of application, during which period the production schedule has been reflective of a normal production schedule; (3)The project to be closed or reduced is the direct result of the proposed development project; (4)The project to be closed or reduced has a higher hazard score than the proposed development project; (5) The hazard category of the material or waste in the development project will be no greater than the hazard category of the material or waste in the project to be closed or reduced; and (6)The development project will be more than three hundred feet from the property line of the nearest residential property or sensitive receptor. The hazard score for the project to be closed shall also be determined by the formula set forth in subsections (a) and (b) of this section and pursuant to the provisions of this article. In determining the hazard score for the project to be closed or reduced, said project shall be deemed a new project. The hazard score of the development project shall be subtracted from the hazard score of the project to be closed or reduced. The resulting difference will then be subtracted from the hazard score of the development project to obtain a hazard score adjusted for the closure or reduction. The adjusted hazard score shall be the basis for determining whether a land use permit shall be required under this chapter. A determination by the community development director that a project is not subject to the land use permit requirement of this chapter as a result of credit afforded for a project closure or reduction shall be reported to the zoning administrator pursuant to Section 84- 63.808 and shall be subject to the public notification requirements set forth in Section 84- 63.801. (e) Closure, Reduction Required. Projects proposed for closure or reduction for which closure or reduction credit was afforded under this section shall be closed or reduced as proposed within one year of completion of the development project. This subsection (e) applies only in cases where a land use permit would have been required but for the closure or reduction credit afforded under this section. (Ords. 98-48 § 51 96-501 96-20). 84-63.1006 Determination of transportation risk. The transportation risk point assignment shall be calculated based upon planned total quantities of materials in a hazard category, measured in tons per year for each hazard category proposed. The transportation risk point assignment shall be calculated for each mode of transportation proportionally within a single hazard category. That transportation point assignment shall be compared by hazard category with the total amount of material in the hazard category transported during the baseline period in order to obtain the percent change in Section 84-63.1004(b), Transportation risk. For purposes of determining whether truck transportation is through residential/commercial or industrial areas, the shortest legal route from the closest two-lane (or larger)freeway ; shall be considered. If the route used in the county does not traverse a two-lane (or larger) freeway, the entire route shall be considered. (Ords. 98-48 § 51 96-50, 96-20). 84-63.1008 Determination of community risk--Distance to receptor. "Distance to receptor shall be the shortest distance between an exterior wall or other part of the development project and the property line of the residential property, commercial property or the sensitive receptor used to determine the hazard score of a development project. (Ords. 98-48 § 5, 96-50, 96-20). 84-63.1010 Determination of community risk--Type of receptor. A hazard score shall be developed for each type of receptor(residential property, commercial property and sensitive receptor)within three miles of the development project based upon the distance of the parcel of each type of receptor that is closest to the development project. The receptor that produces the highest hazard score shall be used to determine the hazard score of the development project. Receptors more than three miles from a development project shall not be considered. (Ords. 98-48 § 51 96-50, 96-20). 84-63.1012 Determination of project risk--Size. The size of a development project shall be measured in terms of tons of hazardous material and/or hazardous waste stored as a result of the development project, based upon the fill-to-the-maximum capacity of the development project, including amounts stored in tanks; reactors; columns; process lines; tank cars, tank trucks or rail cars when connection to process equipment; or any other receptacle used for the containment of hazardous materials and/or hazardous wastes. The amount of material in hazard categories A, B, or C to be added to the site as a result of the development project will be used to determine the total amount of change. If more than one category of hazardous material is used, the amounts of materials (A, B, or C) shall be used with the respective hazard category in the formula in Section 84-63.1004. The specific gravity of hazardous materials or hazardous wastes may be required to calculate the number of toms (or pounds) of hazardous materials and/or hazardous waste managed at the development project. The standard of two thousand pounds equaling one ton shall be used. The point assignment for storage of containerized material in buildings, such as labs or warehouses, shall be based upon the maximum anticipated amount of materials for each hazard category as a result of the development project. (Ords. 98-48 § 51 96-50, 96-20). 84-63.1014 Determination of project risk--Percent change. The percent change of a hazard category shall be determined by comparing the amounts of materials for the respective hazard categories A, B, or C to be added to the site as a result of the development project to the total amount of all materials for the respective hazard categories A, B, or C handled at the site from the baseline period. (Ords. 98-48 § 51 96-50, 96-20). 84-63.1016 Determination of hazard category. (a) Method of Determination. The hazard category of a material or waste shall be determined pursuant to this section. (1) The primary method of determining the material hazard category of a hazardous waste or material shall be by reference to the Winter 1994 version of the U.S. Department of Transportation ("D.O.T.") Code of Federal Regulations, Title 49 ("40 CFR"), Section 172.101, Hazardous Materials Table. From columns (3) and (5), extract the "Hazard Class or Division" and "Packing Group" information, then proceed to 49 CFR 173.2 to determine the "Name of Class or Division." Proceed to subdivision (c) of this section to determine the material hazard category as either A, B or C. If a material is listed in 49 CFR 172.101 more than one, the rating that results in the highest hazard category shall be used. The hazard category of a mixture is determined according to its common name as defined in Title 49. (2)Where a hazardous material, waste, or mixture is not referenced in 49 CFR 172.101, and the hazard category cannot be determined using the primary method, refer to the manufacturer's MSDS for the D.O.T. "Hazard Class or Division," "Packing Group" and "Name of Class or Division." Proceed to subdivision (c) of this section to determine the material hazard category as either A, B or C. (3)Where the preceding methods are not successful, the Contra Costa County health services director or his designee shall be responsible for determining a material's hazard category. (4) Regardless of the hazard category obtained using the methods set forth above, materials with the word "poison" in column (6) of 49 CFR 172.101, Methyl chloride, and the metals Antimony, Mercury, Lead, Arsenic, Thallium and Cadmium and their compounds, shall be hazard category A materials, and denatured alcohol and methanol shall be hazard category B materials for purposes of this chapter. (b) Exclusions. Regardless of the hazard category obtained using the methods set forth in subdivision (a) of this section, hot coke, hot coal briquettes, and materials not regulation by D.O.T. or which have no D.O.T. hazard class or division are not regulated by this chapter. (c) Hazard Categories. Hazard Category A Materials I. Forbidden Materials As referenced in 49 CFR 173.21 and 173.54. II. Explosives and Blasting Agents Class 1, as defined in 49 CFR 173.50(b)(1) through 173.50(b)(6). III. Reactive Materials A. Air Reactive Materials-- Class 4, Division 4.2 as defined in 49 CFR 173.124(b)(1) and (2). B. Water Reactive Materials --Class 4, Division 4.3 as defined in 49 CFR 173.124(c). C. Organic Peroxides-- Class 5, Division 5.2 as defined in 49 CFR 173.128. IV. Radioactive Materials Class 7 as defined in 49 CFR 173.403(y). V. Oxidizers D.O.T. Packing Group I Class 5, Division 5.1 as defined in 49 CFR 173.127(a)when Packing Group I is required per 49 CFR 173.127(b)(2)(1). VI. Poisons, D.O.T. A. Poisons, Class 6, Division 6.1 as defined in 49 CFR 173.133 (applies to all hazard zones). B. Infectious Substances, Class 6, Division 6.2 as defined in 40 CFR 173.134. VII. Poison Gas Class 2, Division 2.3 as defined in 49 CFR 173.115(c). Hazard Category B Materials VIII. Flammable Liquids Class 3 Packaging Groups I and 11 as defined in 49 CFR 173.120(a). IX. Flammable Solids Class 4, Division 4.1 as defined in 49 CFR 173.124(a). X. Oxidizers, D.O.T. Packing Group II Class 5, Division 5.1 as defined in 49 CFR 173.127(a)when Packing Group II is required by 49 CFR 173.127(b)(2)(ii). XI. Flammable Gases Class 2, Division 2.1 as defined in 49 CFR 173.115(a). XII. Corrosives, D.O.T. Packing Group I or II Class 8 Packing Groups I or II as defined in 49 CFR 173.136(x) and 173.137(x) and (b). Hazard Category C Materials XIII. Nonflammable Compressed Gases Class 2, Division 2.2 as defined in 49 CFR 173.115(b). XIV. Combustible Liquids Class 3 Packing Group III as defined in 49 CFR 173.120(b). XV. Miscellaneous Hazardous Materials Class 9 as defined in 49 CFR 173.155. XVI. Oxidizers D.O.T. Packing Group III Class 5, Division 5.1 as defined in 49 CFR 173.127(a)when Packing Group Ili is required per 49 CFR 173.127(b)(2)(iii). XVII. Corrosives D.O.T. Packing Group III Class 8 Packing Group III as defined in 49 CFR 173.136(a) and 173.137(c). (Ords. 98-48§ 5, 96-50, 96-20). Article 84-63.12. Land Use and Variance Permits 84-63.1202 Granting. An applicant for a land use permit shall submit a project description. Land use permits required under this chapter may be granted in accordance with provisions of Chapters 26- 2 and 82-6. (Ords. 98-48§ 5, 96-50, 96-20, 86-100). Article 84-63.14. Offsite Hazardous Waste Facility Compliance With County Hazardous Waste Management Plan 84-63.1402 Authority. This article is enacted pursuant to Health and Safety Code Sections 25135.4 and 25135.7, concerning the siting of off-site hazardous waste facilities. (Ords. 98-48 §51 96-507 96-20, 90-73). 84-63.1404 Definitions. (a) General. Unless otherwise specified in this section or indicated by the context, the terms used in this article have the meanings ascribed to them in Health and Safety Code Chapter 6.5 (Section 25100 et seq.). (b) "County hazardous waste management plan" means the county hazardous waste management plan adopted by the board of supervisors on August 29, 1989 and amended by the board of supervisors on January 30, 1990, approved by a majority of the cities within the county which contain a majority of the population of the incorporated area, and approved by the State Department of Health Services on February 28, 1990, as said plan is amended from time to time. (c) "Hazardous waste facility" means all contiguous land and structures, other appurtenances, and improvements on the land used for the treatment, transfer, storage, resource recovery, disposal, or recycling of hazardous waste. A hazardous waste facility may consist of one or more treatment, transfer, storage, resource recovery, disposal, or recycling hazardous waste management units, or combinations of these units. (d) "Offsite hazardous waste facility means a hazardous waste facility at which either or both of the following occur: (1) Hazardous waste that is produced offsite is treated, transferred, stored, disposed or recycled. (2) Hazardous waste that is produced onsite is treated, transferred, stored, disposed or recycled and the hazardous waste facility is not owned by, leased to or under the control of the producer of the hazardous waste. (Ords. 98-48 § 51 96-50, 96-20, 90-73). 84-63.1406 County hazardous waste management. All land use permit, variance or other land use entitlement granted for the operation or expansion of an offsite hazardous waste facility shall be consistent with the portions of the county hazardous waste management plan which identify siting criteria, siting principles or other policies applicable to hazardous waste facilities. Before granting the application, the division of the planning agency hearing the matter initially or on appeal shall find that the application complies with the applicable siting criteria, siting principles and other policies identified in the county hazardous waste management plan, and that the proposed offsite hazardous waste facility is consistent with the county hazardous waste management plan. (Ords. 98-48 § 5, 96-50, 96-20, 90-73; Health & Safety Code, §§ 25135.41 25135.7). 84-63.1408 Exclusion. The requirements of this article do not apply to projects which are exempt projects under Section 84-63.604. (Ords. 98-48 § 51 96-501 96-20190-73). f Ct � s � CALPINE VIA HAND-DELIVERY WESTERN REGION OFFICE 4160 DUBLIN BOULEVARD ` DUBLIN,CALIFORNIA 94568 925.479.6600 925.479.7300(FAX) January 27, 2003 Mr. Bob Drake Deputy Director Community Development Department 651 Pine Street 4th Floor,North Wing Martinez, CA 94553 Re: Riverview Energy Center: Compliance with Chapter 84-63 Dear Mr.Drake: Calpine is pleased to submit this revised hazard score calculation based on reconfigured plant systems and operating practices for the Riverview Energy Center. Calpine is submitting new information to address the County's concern that a land use permit is required under the County's"Industrial Safety Ordinance," Chapter 84-63 of the Zoning Code. We believe that the revisedro osal demonstrates that no land use permit is required under Section 84-63.1002 of p p the Code because the proposed project has a hazard score of less than 80 (see attached hazard scoring calculations) and the resulting new process unit meets the criteria of Section 84- 63.1004(d)(1)through (d)(6). The concepts embodied in this calculation are consistent with the Riverview Energy Center's contractual arrangements with the G-P Gypsum Corporation regarding"shared facilities". As discussed at our meeting,the Riverview Energy Center will not be using any Hazard Category B materials, except for natural gas. No liquid sulfuric acid will be used. Batteries at the site will use gelled electrolyte, which is a Hazard Category C material. In addition, as configured in the shared facilities agreement with G-P Gypsum,the Riverview Energy Center will be providing high quality treated water for use in their plant. Systems at the Riverside Energy Center that utilize water consist of the cooling tower and the combustion turbine. Water is also treated and sent to G-P Gypsum,which is used as process water. Both city water and ' f process water can be treated b dernineralization where its salt content is completely removed for Riverview Energy Center and G-P Gypsum operations. When the demineralizers have reached their ty ca aci to remove salt from the water, they are removed from the site and replaced with capacity fresh beds. The demineralizers will exhaust much less frequently with reverse osmosis pretreatment. The exhausted demineralizers are regenerated off site. Water that is fed to the cooling tower, combustion turbine and G-P Gypsum is eventually lost to evaporation. A schematic of this is provided in Figure 1. By reducing the hardness/metals in G-P Gypsum's water by half with treated water when running, the Riverview Energy Center will reduce G-P Gypsum's dependency on a chelating agent by an estimated 30%. Also, when sewer service is made available to G-P,reverse osmosis will be utilized for pretreatment. This will further reduce the tonnage of Hazard Category B material used at G-P EXHIBIT G Mr. Bob Drake January 27,2003 Page 2 Gypsum. However, sewer service is not necessary for the shared water treatment facility to proceed. The following outlines the compliance of the Riverview Energy Center project with Contra Costa County's Code regarding land use permits for development projects involving hazardous waste or hazardous material. The Hazard Score for the Riverview Energy Center project and the Hazard Score for the reduction of G-P project is provided in Attachment A. Compliance with Section 84-63.1002: Hazard Score—Permit required Under Section 84-63.1002,the project as reconfigured, does not need a land use permit because the criteria calling for a permit under that section do not apply, as discussed below. • Section 84-63.1002 (a) does not apply because the project has a hazard score of 64 (see attached calculations)without taking credit for associated reductions at the GP Gypsum project ("G-P Project"), less than 80 pursuant to the formula set forth in Section 84-63. • Section 84-63.1002(b) does not apply because the reconfigured project does not use any Category A materials (see attached calculations); • Section 84-63.1002(c) does not apply because the new process unit will comply with Section 84-63.1004(d)(1) through(d)(6) [see explanation below and attached calculations]; • Section 84-63.1002(d) does not apply because no Category B materials are stored at the site. Compliance with Section 84-63.1004(d)(1) through (d)(6): Credits for Reductions or Projects To Be Closed. A new process unit does not require a permit under Section 84-63.1002(c)if it complies with the criteria in Section 84-63.1004(d)(1)through (d)(6). To comply with these sections,the Riverview Energy Center will provide the existing G-P Project with shared water-treatment units that will allow the G-P Project to reduce its operational use of Hazard Category B chemicals while the Riverview Energy Center is in use. The Riverview Energy Center therefore results in a "reduction in operations" at the G-P Project as that term is used in section 84-63.1004 and also complies with criteria(d)(1)-(d)(6) as explained below: "(1) The project to be closed or reduced is in the same facility in which the development project is proposed." The Riverview Energy Center is a shared facility proposition with the G-P Project, including numerous shared infrastructure improvements involving fire protection,water treatment, and in the future,heat. The G-P Project is in the same"facility" as the Calpine Mr. Bob Drake January 27, 2003 - Page 3 project. Section 84-63.416 of the Ordinance defines "facility" as "a group of buildings, structures or units with the same purpose on contiguous parcels (including parcels separated by a right of way as defined in Section 1002-2.002 of this Code) under common ownership or control." "The project to be reduced"in this case is the use of Hazard Category B chemicals at the G-P plant while the Riverview Energy Center is in operation,by providing higher quality water. The shared infrastructure is part of a group of buildings, structures, and units located on contiguous parcels under common ownership or control. (G-P owns both parcels and leases one to Calpine.) The common purpose of this infrastructure to treat water, fight fire and, in the future, generate heat is the same. (2) "The project to be closed or reduced is currently in operation and has been in operation for at least three years prior to the date of the application, during which period the production schedule has been reflective of a normal production schedule." The G-P Project is currently in operation and has been in operation for at least three years. To Calpine's knowledge, its production schedule has been reflective of a normal production schedule "(3) The project to be closed or reduced is the direct result of the proposed development project." Without the Calpine project, the G-P project could not reduce its use of Hazard Category B materials in the manner proposed. "(4) The project to be closed or reduced has a higher hazard score than the proposed development project." The hazard score allocable to the G-P project's use of chemicals to address poor quality water is 99. This is higher than the project hazard score of 64 for the Riverview Energy Center,which includes the use of water treatment chemicals to provide higher quality water, but does not include a credit for the reduction in the G-P project. "(5) The hazard category of the material or waste in the development project will be no greater than the hazard category of the material or waste in the project to be closed or reduced." The highest hazard category for the Riverview Energy Center is the same as the hazard category of the material in the project to be reduced. "(6) The development project will be more than three hundred feet from the property line of the nearest residential property or sensitive receptor." Calpine's development project is more than three hundred feet from the property line of the nearest residential property or sensitive receptor(see Attachment A for the distances to the various receptors). Mr. Bob Drake r January 27, 2003 Page 4 Calpine's proposal therefore complies with the letter of the six criteria in Section 84-63.1004(d). The proposal also complies with the overall purpose of the ordinance. Section 84-63.02 states that"the purpose of this chapter is to promote-the health, safety and general welfare...by encouraging businesses...in planning and developing projects involving hazardous materials or wastes to consider factors which involve potential health and safety risks to the surrounding community..." Given the plain but broad language of the provisions under review and overall purpose of the Ordinance, it is reasonable to interpret the intent of criteria(1)through(6) as encouraging new projects to be designed in such as way as to close or reduce other industrial operations to achieve an overall reduction in the volume or hazard content of hazardous materials ! used. Calp fine's proposal satisfies these purposes and objectives. Calpine appreciates Contra Costa County's consideration and cooperation in this matter. Very truly yours, 7/3 B.N. Gaglia Director of Projects Attachment: Hazard Score Calculations cc: Harlow Dodge Rick Thomas Carlos Baltodano Federal D. Glover Bob Fishman Eric Zell Catherine Kutsuris Randall Sawyer 61 gpm Scale inhibitor Corrosion inhibitor Sodium hypochlorite Anlifoarn agent 1401000 gal Fresh Water RCS System Cooling Tower of&P sewer available) Tank ------------ 13 gpm To G-P Process Raw Water 53 gpm Scale inhibitor To sewer Sodium bisulfite (ff avatiabie) Ammonia Demin Combustion Turbine Plant Water Use Riverview Energy Center ATTACHMENT A HAZARD SCORE CALCULATIONS Riverview Energy Center Hazard Score Calculations: Hazard Score= [(T+C +P) * H] + D +A T= Transportation Risk C = Community Risk-Type of receptor P = Facility Risk-Size of Project- Percent Change H = Hazard Category of material or waste D =Community Risk-Distance from receptor A= Facility Risk-Size of Project-Total Amount Transportation Risk (T) Transport will be by pipeline for Hazard Category B materials and truck for Hazard Category C materials.Truck transport requires travel through residential/commercial and industrial areas. Highway 4 lies approximately 1.2 miles to the south and approximately 1.9 miles to the east of the project site. The Riverview project is a new development. Therefore,the transportation risks are: TB= 1 Pipeline Tc= 10 Truck, residential/commercial, new development Community Risk (C, D) The project site is zoned for heavy industrial use. Eight buildings belonging to the gypsum wallboard plant are located on the southern portion of the site. The proposed plant will be northest and adjacent to the wallboard plant. Figure A-1 shows the project location and sensitive receptors. Outside of the property boundary, the area is industrial to the east and west, and residential to the south and west. The area south of the project is primarily residential.The nearest residential property is approximately 800 feet from the project turbine. Several schools are located within a three-mile radius of the project. Kimball School and Holy Rosary School off of East 13th Street are located about 0.6 miles (3170 feet)from the site. Fremont Junior High School, between D and F Street at the intersection with 13th Street, is approximately 1.1 miles from the project and the High School, off of West 18th Street, is approximately 1.3 miles from the site. John Marsh School on West Madill is approximately 1.6 miles from the development. There are also several small businesses within a 1 mile radius of the project. The distance to the nearest developable commercial lot(zoned light industrial)is approximately 650 feet. Type of Distance to Receptor C Receptor D _Sensitive_______ _ 7 3170 ft 19 - (2800-3200 ) Residential 5 800 ft 26 (700-900 ft) Commercial 4 1650 ft 1 27 (550-700 ft) Facility Risk-Size of Project- Percent Change (P) This project is a new development. Therefore: P= 6 Riverview Energy Center Hazard Score Calculations: Hazard Category of material or waste (H) DOT DOT Hazard Packing Hazard Hazardous Material Class Group Category H Natural Gas 2 -- B 3 Gell Electrolyte Batteries (10-30% Sulfuric Acid) 8 III C 1 Aqueous Ammonia (19%) 8 III C 1 Phosphonate 8 III C 1 Polyacrylate 8 III C 1 Sodium Bisulfite 8 III C 1 Sodium Hypochlorite 8 III C 1 Sodium Tolytriazole 8 III C 1 Carbon Dioxide 2.2 C 1 CO Calibration Gas 2.2 C 1 Nitrogen 2.2 C 1 NOx Calibration Gas 2.2 C 1 Mineral Insulating Oil Not Regulated Lubrication Oil Not Regulated Hydraulic Oil Not Regulated Antifoam Not Regulated Waste Oil Not Regulated Oily water and sludge Not Regulated Facility Risk-Size of Project-Total Amount(A) The hazardous material quantities for the Riverview Energy Center are comparable to the quantities reported in the Hazardous Materials Business Plan for the King City Energy Center (which is a similar LM6000 combustion turbine generator), except for the use of gel electrolyte, instead of liquid, in the Riverview Energy Center's batteries and the elimination of sulfuric acid in water treatment. The Riverview Energy Center will not store any Class B hazardous materials except for what is resident in process piping. Max. Qty. Max. Qty. On-Site Specific Density On-Site Hazardous Material (Gal) Gravity (Lb./Gal) (Lbs.) A Hazard Category 8 Natural Gas T 220.7 0.33-2.00 63 Total Hazard Category B Materials(Lbs.) 63 <0.1 Total Hazard Category B Materials (Tons) 0.03 0 Hazard Category C Aqueous Ammonia (19%) 129000 0.92 7.67 92074 Phos honate 400 1.3 10.84 4337 Polyacrylate 400 1.158 9.66 3863 Sodium Bisulfite 400 1.37 11.43 4570 Sodium Hypochlorite 400 1.21 10.09 4037 Sodium Tol triazole 400 1.15 9.59 3836 Gell Electrolyte Batteries (10-30% Sulfuric Acid) 44.3 1.3 10.84 480 Carbon Dioxide -- -- -- 1200 CO Calibration Gas 400 ft3 -- 0.06 Ib/ft3 25 Nitrogen 6000 ft3 -- 0.06 lb/ft3 372 NOX Calibration Gas 400 ft3 -- 0.07 Ib/ft3 29 Total Hazard Category C Materials (Lbs.) 114822 >50 Total Hazard Category C Materials (Tons)l 57.41 17 Page 2 of Riverview Energy Center Hazard Score Calculations: Non-regulated Materials Mineral Insulating Oil 61200 0.88 7.34 45503 Lubrication Oil 825 0.88 7.34 6055 Hydraulic Oil 40 0.88 7.34 294 Antifoam: paraffin wax, hydrotreated light distillate, hydrodesul-furized mineral seal oil 25 0.84 7.0 175 Total Non-regulated Materials (Lbs.) 52027 Total Non-regulated Materials (Tons) 26.0 Nalco 7385 was used as a representative phosphonate scale inhibitor/dispersant. Chemlogis Aqua Mate 2261 was used as a representative polyacrylate dispersant/scale inhibitor. Nalco 71 D5 Plus was used as a representative antifoaming agent. Hazard Score Calculations: Hazard Score = [(T+ C + P) * H] + D +A Hazard Category B Materials: Sensitive Receptor: Hazard Score = [(1 +7 +6)*3] + 19 +0 Hazard Score = 61 Residential Receptor: Hazard Score = [(1 + 5 +6)*3] +26 +0 Hazard Score = 62 Commercial Receptor: Hazard Score = [(1 +4 +6)*3] +27 +0 Hazard Score = 60 Hazard Category C Materials: Sensitive Receptor: Hazard Score = [(10 +7 +6)* 1] + 19 + 17 Hazard Score = 59 Residential Receptor: Hazard Score = [(10 +5 +6)* 1] +26 + 17 Hazard Score = 64 Commercial Receptor: Hazard Score = [(10 +4 +6)* 1] +27+ 17 Hazard Score = 64 :..:.:. ,:..:.:.......::.:.... axe u :::Hazard:::Sor:e.:—:::::::::::::::: M. r 6.4 Uorrs nf'2 GP Gypum Hazard Score Calculations: Hazard Score = [(T+ C + P)* H] + D+A T=Transportation Risk C =Community Risk-Type of receptor P = Facility Risk-Size of Project- Percent Change H = Hazard Category of material or waste D = Community Risk-Distance from receptor A = Facility Risk-Size of Project-Total Amount Transportation Risk (T) Transport is by truck and pipeline for Hazard Category B materials and truck for Hazard Category C materials. Truck transport requires travel through residential/commercial and industrial areas. Highway 4 lies approximately 1.2 miles to the south and approximately 1.9 miles to the east of the project site. The Riverview project is a new development. Therefore, the transportation risk is: TB= 10 Truck, residential/commercial, new development Community Risk (C, D) The GP Gypsum site is zoned for heavy industrial use. Eight buildings belonging to the plant are located on the southern portion of the site. The Riverview Energy Center affects water treatment and chemical use at the northeast side of the largest building. To provide the lowest possible hazard score for comparison to the Riverview project, this area of the plant was used.to calculate distance to receptors, rather that the closest building wall (which would result in a higher hazard score for GP Gypsum). Figure A-1 shows the project location and sensitive receptors. . Outside of the property boundary, the area is industrial to the east and west, and residential to the south and west. The area south of the project is primarily residential. The nearest residential property is approximately 1300 feet from the GP process area of concern. Several schools are located within a three-mile radius of the project. Kimball School and Holy Rosary School off of East 13th Street are located about 0.8 miles (4400 feet)from the site. Fremont Junior High School, between D and F Street at the intersection with 13th Street, is approximately 1.2 miles from the project and the High School, off of West 18th Street, is approximately 1.4 miles from the site. John Marsh School on West Madill is approximately 1.7 miles from the development. There are also several small businesses within a 1 mile radius of the project.The distance to the nearest developable commercial lot(zoned light industrial)is approximately 600 feet. Type of Distance to Receptor C receptor D Sensitive 7 4400_ft _ _._14_. (4200-4500 ft) Residential 5 1300 ft 24 (1200-1500 ft) Commercial 4 600 ft 1 27 (550-700 ft} Facility Risk-Size of Project- Percent Change (P) To determine the hazard score for the project to be reduced, said project shall be deemed a new project. Therefore: P = 6 GP Gypum Hazard Score Calculations: Hazard Category of material or waste (H) DOT Hazard DOT Packing Hazard Hazardous Material Class Group Category H Versenex 80 Chelating Agent* 8 11 B 3 Natural Gas 2 B 3 Potassium Hydroxide 8 III C 1 Potassium Sulfate 8 III C 1 Lignasite (not affected by Riverview) 8 III C 1 Boric Acid Not Regulated Potash (Potassium carbonate 584-08-7) Not Regulated Mineral Insulating Oil Not Regulated Lubrication Oil Not Regulated Hydraulic Oil Not Regulated * 38% Pentasodium diethylenetriaminepentaacetate(see attached Material Safety Data Sheet) The following table provides the estimated annual quantity of material that will be removed from the GP Gypsum Project due to the operation of the Riverview project. Max. Qty. On Specific Density Max. Qty. Hazardous Material Site (Gal) Gravity (Lb./Gal) On-Site A Hazard Category B Versenex 80 Chelating Agent 91926 1.3 1.084 10,762 Total Hazard Category B Materials (Lbs.) 107762 >4-6 Total Hazard Category B Materials (Tons) 5.38 12 Hazard Category C Potassium Hydroxide (unknown, but should reduce) Potassium Sulfate (unknown, but should reduce) Total Hazard Category C Materials (Lbs.) 0 Total Hazard Category C Materials (Tons) 0.000 0 Non-regulated Materials Boric Acid 40,742 Potash (Potassium carbonate [584-08-7]) 1 2.2 91 1 58,955 _ Total Non-regulated Materials (Lbs.) 40742 Total Non-regulated Materials (Tons) 20.4 11 Pape 2 of I GP Gypum Hazard Score Calculations: Hazard Score Calculations: Hazard Score= [(T +C +P)* H] + D +A Hazard Category B Materials: Sensitive Receptor: Hazard Score= [(10+7 +6) *3] + 14 + 12 Hazard Score= 95 Residential Receptor: Hazard Score= [(10 +5 + 6) *3] +24 + 12 Hazard Score= 99 Commercial Receptor: Hazard Score= [(10+4 +6) *3] +27 + 12 Hazard Score= 99 �Maxrm:u:rn=::H:a a f • rr t, r4 ra 1 �' (a, p► .rai(Pena� _ iii. --- 16 4 k1 1 i� � ` ! � .r1 T ?{ i�'•�pZ`1?,!•��•s y >ir;�' :;f d'�''tt. ;I '"�' ��ll�,• %� 1 ¢�1'l:"k.+'N7 �r{,..A.j��l` tr e,�'•Ilc ,�.�,,,, r r v 1 1r3r - 4r r1� � x�F'• �i y71 y}.�• �=,,�{,T"'r rt ��a��l � a i ,'. ! I, 1' f+� r!••rti f ��• ,1 rV3 ��,�{`,i j/•i'�1•uY1 4�,tt ,w / � } 1, • •� � �1 •1) 1 �N♦«7 ,$ L�¢yy1 r:�i1�r L�� til ���'� � a 1R } 1 r? 1 ,�v r+f;K,� 1.� �'1,..!•C'1.1i�ti. r+ 1 . s � 144 {AU ii `,•` �1�V`{,Ir1�g�,`"��ll,� �. �'�a4�•�(�G'�>'Y 1 F�-�,r ,, r 4�•M1� �!7 ,f •,,�r �,,T`i i'ilf�'W`A�';/,���4� '' r�•tl,�;��11�1�r�4�r}�'��1�;:��I��(,a�y�fl��"/(I}tf,j�,�J�i �f I�� :•;` T '?,�"{�� t{ly� r'l,�Gr,r•\aAv } ��t,�11{{�,l l�il �;r.�1 ,�7.xl �, 1r Jf•.� ►' � ��r t ,, ! , p'�,}rff �•f'�}.^1 r' IV''''!i'�rr lr•1'T}T,T,,/',''��i'�' 1•,Il � r• 1,�;,,� ,11' r r 1 r',��r i;r r1,1 '1.'„Jr r�, �,1.1y ,, • r U •,yl; r�iaii •� �-� ',�y�� s�'�t '�,I,C♦l� !}�`7 il'rl��l�ti Lir,.• 'f'�1'••i i��>!�,l,�sl+'� 1�'4�,♦�11�1t•1� 1 L•1 r'•{n{ti�I A Y.V t� � `1♦♦�1 77""{11;� .d } ll��}�,rr3 f1►r�,� < <�`'�, �.t� 1.1• rrrrSS`f .!i� J��1 - - ` I. �1�1����'Ll�.j�r�'!�r�e Itvltr�•1�'�{jt �hv�:r1}G��\�},'[,�/y'�'��j 7�,�% t , i r,'►•����fl �.r•.� �:r r � 11 L,r,�• ..1 �.•��. X'•Zi� 7{f�Ir`i i�._}'n::�C'>,•,t�`}l 4'!� ��� I {.�i t!. ,�,1�• r.. 1 C', �.' ,'Y FV i Lr •."r!,r r'r.a�l^ ar ,r`'1'l •I{ '! i, 1�n_'`{���4 4+��+•.!`•�,��?� ,�,~ , (fj�;�•,«,,,�:1��(r(:�7,rL,r�r;�!`���1�-�t1'�'�*� �r.. '/ �,�' ,�'� ►�•Y��•#�. r♦1' ' K:�.zj•'•✓t%t�J'1.�if d..•i•�/1`t�rrL^ 1►� • I �-ti�. �/. 1 /r _'M�'Nyr,i.��''1^� � '`�1�'Y :J� �!• '�,�:n+'j.ti� �^` ' i.,'T�!� f- � � _y •.. 1 '4?..rill 1 .f J' 1 r Y �}„,�5,.. 1y.1��-:�Y-,• r• _ ,,�(,rS., r1.rr t� i,��T. Z ;Y •.S(, !',y�1 +,r�.• '1 + ctR � .�, •'•-S•.L',�l�.C�:.�,i�.,J✓ �. V,,l�. r�(, ..�1r�f,�'�I�7,411-t rt,It f II��a _ i { r !� �lt�.;1L./� }�'�� 'i!v rC��r�Zati!' .�a���:L rt•Li�l,•1.�t� .� ��,► _ _ _ � .� r' ar•� r.j�7v ti Y,�v, t v +y ^ +t.. ti v IF•f-K }L r.•M._•.(I,/tl.nF.`I t;,.. n �.. •� r ,1' A .�- r ,•rY� 1f.1 1�'1;j Y} of �._,-3-;�r'N' ,,�j..,,((,/••J.1�/�Ir..,�, :v�Z�^�- 7 • ' � - ._ � S �� ��.r.. �,-•� t-.� �� • f,}��Z�'n1�.rr r:r.{+ r �'1/ter T �(!f ., 1►". rC:�I�.SGlhti� ••� {�,�1 n+•j� ((f�r 4=/�•,�..:r�•,IJt f i�� �(:r�r� •dn•�`1r t 77'�, "i� r y:-l~:�r 15 ♦� �FB,'hS:,�4( `�r-11 rW .y. 1-•r�•Ir/�At�'1 •i It rL •'''��^('t"'J I'1/%_ �� !'r T t 7.'� '� .•�i .�•( 'f '��' , 1G"k/+� :L• r' '1 :i ,{��''r�W.��Ir r'Q� i :r� I '� �••.� tl` . 1 +��„�:' �i:.� r f 1 •r. r1,s .r; S .I ,�! f ���E7' r•t• `d4S jc'�c 11� r 'wiY 1 �+Irif^'':f LJ,�•t, ��` a � � � Yj.r• 4 , �1 •rte t�G [ r'J+1 lj/r/�A++ 1\,,'•`r J1.� � t� `rmvl ;Gli t, t��I, r �t 1•J_1 'l n �('+.,y�y 1'1�'a r��m 1 ,2 �� r» !•'_fir����St��y;��•� r!, , ''Z• ;�k+t•r k''¢,•-ti'- ,�^Ty, r �'^.:� ♦ yrl' t� -L �S�r.r..•, ':•14'4 f/(.' rJ �. _ � 7- rjQ.a •f Rr ��i li...'�� ��• V'r,} {!• r 7 I.♦ •.��.�' Ir ••►) I� y � ' {�,t Y`�uti �`�?�ti,y.r(°f�((�'1 f► �1j''�1`',i4�x,�l'.`�y',�1'�'7 r• �� T•1 r '"��'. ••r I�i�'�i ` ,�,.,�.•w�u,l(,..f•�,,���IV'� Maw I�r•t }�e'`t,�,r�:.� _11 1• f�rl�\ri�•,j y��1�'�I Y.y, �/ r �r. ^�afti' � ���3• '1•'• FF, � � � Fit lb w• l,, �, �''^ �.'�` 4► /rti•Y.r / T :'U7 n1• f• t't't�, �r: .���lf�r,���7,G`.1�'Ivl rit >�� ,y� ! • �A{ l1'i!7' �,T.".� - 1�1 a�3t1�µr9'�,,,lr.."t. j �'��{ {{• '!r `r'�1.All � .1/ .I11�F 1'.�'.'n,A7/,,It,1.1 f.,,�„ :1/' ♦"rr. �v,..."�+v'�'i• I �1�•'..h 4'1.�'�!�4�}'�, ,-.t 'I� nr}r k,1,,S,rl/ ,1 1 fx ' ►� 4 i �j)"r� 5 ,' � C r`;�1"w'y.,, , Ir. ,�, �•�• +} ,�r't ,, .'.�i�.IL—• sol.rrr H rn,!>A...a,.. + ,• � .1 „� }1 �,1 4�(..t,,11} �., •F ,s,�r 11l'r• _�.•1-�-..•'{, ti r, r /i.�.!IrjiAl�'�1�YT!..'wi,�Y'`1'-` �!ti 1�+ ''l�"1 �+� a�:''X�,+� � � MAO' :rlr ,,,'u', a r ���� , ,/'1�(1. ,Y,•% 1 ,. L-S/![rr',r.' .�Sr, '�_,vf��y t�' A ry`\tl'Y• ti •/Yr6 1.5•••1,f•�•rs�••1 '(1"Lr K;�'`�'! � r J'•r � - �jv�f,'•�`�t;•4Zi�'C �, �1 r,a �� �u.r.�R,'f-; {' .v, i, `} 1.{�. r �'���t ,j• � /' •'�1 �1��r}'�l ���7,1,�,���f �I NI' (•,•1�� ��..i}'y'l�� , I rel, }U•r,! l\:,L� {3i( S;.:v' }�1 FY�1,,t�t�,I{y P,r i,.��,f', '.lr !1',r, h� ►.v� iirr Vv, _: ,!:�i�-" -. 1 u. •, �.•���il�U. ^�� f:'\ �..rr,b'f1..y1r,{11�•r'i TT /1 ''t1:A�yf� •�4 ••,•���'� ?t S .Y 1, �. �, c•/ } ;�'l���u ,.� ,+ r••,-1• F •J; r�.•1tt I,r �� 1'k,���It.��r'' �=• 41 1 .���,•,�1%�r�ry�'�r J�,!> �`�,,fS.-�`�l�t i}'"•j'1�;µti�"'`�? !f _,` •l�.�-p,•.r, \S�rl�k�'.��''fi '.T„a•,i •��`N p�. �`::}•iy(,r,�l},Iy��Yss Rr>; •� 1�tr ,�I A 7 T\!i1;l�v„ ,� R''•r r�I} aI1 +►T � V,G'/I'1.",`y,. fnl1f.''!• 1+:�. •. • ~ter .}'r1,.J�`r}^,"( �. rf�. r.ti^:'i T'l'I'• �.� �,� •1.Jt�•,,'{G,)1�y(il:'T': ?%,{♦..4*� —- __ '''"1'�''!11�'►,�'.' .�'1'�`w=JL '�. �ji,•r.1C 'lll J t 1 i2 h��cl�krl`it-�' R'•r r r 7f�.•• 1'`Z-- '1'Jj.,1^r`ff�S'Irr Uh� (��'.Iir ra`1� � �.' •h(-�i rl..•�. � �� �i �,r�.�•_ rr.T,./,• 'r�`�� r'.f'f "' ,.{N w 1� / r{►�J�a�r C! rR+�rV•"�Jk�y�'!T rr r" 21�•,•,L, T • ��'1�'''J I e � T t ,. (1, 'tr !i r 1`i�.�'�.J,,'}rf v,;:� � N•Q r1 Pl�gAZf i t +.'�,K 1'r`' Ly f jn,':{�jy}���tLj•�'�t'�it !.��(`t�lr`f�,,f,�r�L� l�"��•,I���f..•'1 _t / � .('Y7. fi;',-t�','!^��•'4';,ir � ;��t'j�� �t�.� , ., 1t,1T�'�`L� 'y `• r Y�.1.l .11 I�;,�(.,,/ `r�/t {r�" ,�{ �7/l,r" • �Tx.� 1 Itr�ltli:' (�.�'•h�ll1J�r1x� .•:�r rt''�7` ��� 1, lr7l�.`� rr- ++`. �1 �LLT {�v '�`': '1Z.r7_V:.7n.:iR�i (l,.�j`r `� T,nfl •�. ,4l� �✓1- 1 T�ry .�'rS_�;•.�� :h • lr, > > r � r�' r,r+ry1-�"!.,•� .,,T t y �•..l:,••�7: � r'� Y. '.C. �r..{��y,.'�•{ � I'.r••'Z �' / �►! �..�.�1^'{,F r,c' .�c �''L'1'��i ��»”" ►w^•t •t,iu•�-�•1r ��. l:}�' •• "`111 ���.'3L��'. �: `r�•. �'�. ♦ a IL't'• I r� tt���,TT'�' w��++{{})�.•�•L�. J,? i�' , �r! � r. 1 � �}I rl- � r R• 1 .rSnJ+tir QS'.. *IL.7'{,� Cnu:4:..lITT.Lb...3S:i+• r.. {- f -r •.',�� •Lr1� y4�`,• ��,f,yk Lly��(•r�:r-l,y,2 i,, �i � �C••,1hfV'+•'r•\.�,, ,,r,rl�l..., 1.,�j��•7r}� r„ /\ �vF `+,(,M } .J,. �_ 2.1,: �Z��r� 7 !.� �I.f I,r, �+ • 1 r ,f,�-, � / r 1�'},��' t��r�,I v ':k•. `,'� r.!'7-' ♦ ��ti •'( f Yi r • ��u v 1 Y} �::f:. {t/...{� fT, irL1,`•� 1.• frT.{1'•)7.! '' tj1q��' • - r. �r, !.� t �'' �Ctlr(•,�;kt Z 1 T �v a�� I �� J � (:•� 1 i''1�+'a/T1 r ./� Oyu"+• 't'�`t t'Y IT,.:,t:�h'�•? i7�� f,� '.i',1 � f ��� f�� , L, 1 �� i,r «,.'t�,:11*�l?'r4�'�••` I.'• � ..�':11rw�l�`.f;�tli•:'.r.'1•r � ♦ 1./'A v7 '►'f L•, }4•!,i.� r,•� ti /.� ♦ � ra ;'� 1 r`!.'\•1�'i i.�•,�Ir '�ty�F',`J^'_} ,�;•r1���;�•�11 C1, 't i =�� •"?.1 "af .r+(�;,,W�� :�:,�r�l:�' .'�`t`���-��' �'.I!�r ISJ;�'�`�,,,�.� �-I, y,�, • 55y} (/ l 1_�} �y/!f' lr Q yr -. • r �'}l 1 .11 i �� k*.�y,, ����� � L�.�r,1�!•:.r. .ii.,> �. . r���l�}�({[�`.'1�.�i�1rf.Y��7�F-�L�j��``;'i,�• +^4�'l�l�••w ♦� '��'�`r l[/'iL.`,�/ • }q F�7tiM{7�{I"dgr!,!.�'S� J,u�+�l Lr2C.:1�+�'�-V��`�r,�.li.`�,..vif,��+,'ii r' y.,I,��SC'�...-,`n':♦i'fir}1 l`tll;��Lf/rte �;r��}���.`,.Y�t��, �.i f..T7�14-� � J" l �-war•✓ry•-v,•�• _M,'-� ..T .:iy�,q ,ln,, .T:•*N: �.\..�I• Q+�Y 1•':1,'rr v,it / 75} ya/r y ,. .k� } •/y, !r� ^���L�Nr ID(f1 I+ (rE[�-- r"` '(1'�' �,yl f",�,+1�/�{ch,r►'(t�`r"�``r�y'`�{��1{R,a , r r ( +, '1��ry�y'r�+.'�'�y,}Y',yt�`iF.k�N(��N�,tj t���p,'�(�,�1y+,a��• rlj,W�,�If:�•r :r<1�1, 1 r.iy,l.,�,if�.'yy.L41�♦.k:!,�r:eti�. ,;� ,r. /n .r�t�}!• ,`'�� 1 lllrl'f1.1;T� 2�1f�M^-}�"!�� �I. !: i111��..l.yr*M�•-,R�'�h•n�,L�••l\1/ll varr�n.til.lfinll'1`T•,iv C�(�T,��.`r'.{'.��.,lb�'. 1 5}_. t r. _�.,.(� ':'i1"'x.'S>��N j(��'��(I'�,t'�r•7'`f �}�`� r ''ll cif r13L131f.Lf.M1.r. M!, ... .�}(. i•, a a/ r�r1 ` -♦ -•'� '.r, •.,:ti.i•"{.1•j�'.�. r I t •4't'.Y �+ii'•11�.. �1�;]1':�'�T`1•rr�'�{r •1 �.,v•.•♦,,Srfl;�jrl, � i _w1',,.1.Y:•..,r.�,e..f,,, n �rytLa Gt'`r -�, �.•� �r}I ^�+.. y �lt _ i} • I7. r• ^„ ./.. r'��.�•: { '�1 � .r.• 17r•..,� 1 •, 1 •=r� i1n�W,if'. /.yT' r•i,�,',v',\h1.In,rr.liul.lJ..�.'r „• .I I/):+•3r', _C'. r ' �f`•4 ••y C..i�.t1 � � . , ��t,�I,J�r,��►r •rrl�h r-�j i'. , .j�}r r4+i rry,,�7 � , .,..1•.;�:�*,r,�' •" lyr � r• rr�1`rl\1'I�}tl.� rti"'Iti 1� '� �,�`, �1�� �`•� �". :' :i���a�I�II, "R• 'lr'.�,F'. f(, r�}. �•r�,tih.rr�f+,�nZ,t.,...1,�4L�•1 r �� iT i c i �•� tt 1 1 �.. .•��iA. �' 1. r j. .t�'a:'h�?�' X11' ;r•rur';,�_�.��..n..,_r�_�•��'�1%�:�',�,A r � � 1 ?,f{I} ry T���,-1 tl"r`�'i:�.�>'u ti� J2'.rAi.�( r I•�1 ^,. r»r;'.:.t1 �,'._>�r`;rt�i4��f rM 1fe�+,u �.•4"�R �r'�,�1�' Via'' w, J 'j]j ,f`�'1..7 4: {I .• •1� F{ t' t 1�t� l,}��pec,T yr , r/ jr 3F t r p• M�T♦� t y 1'.�,1�Q}�15�+• Yvy�r yCTti��{q! IJ tTlr���• 'Y-►••` �i4(:'�•�Lam`•`;�r��N:`M�+,M-:' ,/'� �� J�`n'"�Il.'',�11�•i ' 1 FJ �,� 1y 11 T' ♦•�� ,�[�l, ,` 4lkrl fj�;�;'S l�t+� j` tj?•', 1+ a:�nT r �� •��'J,�1� r11��► i 1' [l�•/ 1'1`,>}• J,1 n }; +..ti•� / 1 ti?�i '�1�\a'" nlry J, �1♦.�,�.li!�' "r- - - i ;L. i ��{t•Y iii ' ,� �i�� rCU:t� WM4��N, v, V, 4r.t r•�t� )�ticitir,� tr, yl�a• • -yM�? 1i'If ��r,.l,'�1 (�w{jTr.�1 Rt;`1.t .i,�'' 1 C d � '��/!'7 �C�GT7"r 1 �t'*/1x:• 'I}�al� �{}{r���•'``l��r:yr{_•�,.+{> .r �T•?;:i. �r'•'tt��t.�r 7A' ,,� L': r �`, I I �., �"1�,11 r y1.�..1._ 1��'111 Rr1,1•reIVIJ�r.{,S.LIr..P•f!f `�,rryt.��±'•�.,z` i_ , R' � �1 ��tJ I.1 �. - _-- 4V f �I ►�• + r� n 1 ll V`ti rrM,�'.- .. � 1� � "��♦I�' T �L'�'LLi (I 'l r1 �. (� !;(�,'y " ?',,,1•rtarll� ,i��77',1 r 11}�1,1 1 r' 1 1 /IYJ,,•t�i��� 7LT1 ( f•'1�1ti`+w'• I�rFJT. X y'•♦"1w1,i'�'!f/•'�f� 1 1'- J}1. �•( �r )� ���!4}+:�*<�S�;�u�`��rS�y• 't 'i+� � 1',�II' �':�v �'M�'�i �}k;�bR��t�Kt�'�'�,.:, ;�'•l.� +lLJ,7�.1f''1�v•f-1-.�T �J' 1 t-. 'yi T rl �, • a'ri r 4, �i` + . �'i• F 1 � � �� • ar}�fr 'r 1,'}.'. ..•'l,rl° i- 1. �� �'� 1 . �r G`Y��L � }} 1,-,��.,-+�,�,,r,_�1 it)f �, 4 � !'f1�f I I � l�t = � y��r,� 1 ♦ Y. lll,,ar�4•.w•A+�1L.)...:L n•r,.•1 Jn•' (}� rr''fr.� / hi!'L•/{�f',�ti,if♦!:i} �.!�/ .i r ; 1 '�1�" �,' *� .Irn`•'N r `r�.��l r1 �;,'!�, �j`� ��N r .. ....A. ',i I '�_ ++�?i�, {, •�. � , �-.r�r 1K� 1 fit► J,ff r t t1�' 1�..�' •�+\�.•,C r'A:r�,1••G�•:,•'�r"'C•f� ♦.r I rr}}•:��••. '��!,�.! r'1 �, �''T�t 7'•;y.'1- 1'!k _ r i 1 '�•A`�r 1 1,�`,,ru'�,r` � ^ 'f •�,.1 ' 1�.•{'n�♦1_•,;•' k 1 ',i't } ,w7 Y 9% •p J 1 ',� �1 , /fvl1. '•� rti}T c,,r ,J ', l}j}L' i� •' _ ,c' •, ��(�rW� ��'�,' !q•f�'}Y� S I .,r���lr.�•i,`:•MS"(�'r-t�}�Afr.. .'�C�•�1a ,1,(}•{Iry?•'-,�' I i 1 '1 ♦T►- J.r,M 1 '"�h�•�;S''AN�';A�• r. . '� A�[}j�j /�IIAIr i�vinJls .1,6�r•1'�..�'.�in 'a_L,:.�II In I){��t L.Y•r r � �t 7-.�,�1177'... r.-ia` •� ` M 4 I• ] i` Ij I`I.'' 1 f{•r 4�y-i'v.r } i't•' r,11'_yl�t'.'�., I t �+��.,..{� .c'fitt�tf����� fi; �:'�,�si�.l�•• t�•"�W' y _ '.,*.:SI.- S } .�� I F+\,I}:: •.�7'1 Vii:�y'�!� fr1�L/ :�'Y�t r•SS: �+.a� �ptv�tI -AO T+.., ....,...., 1►k 4-1L11�.:. i��n I 'r Sl b'• .. �t'.r• _♦c.e...� .Ir r�a f:311'.t �[ !'�'. '�{'{'^,1'•►�'�•} '1' w •� !!�key, �. • I �....,�v.l , }�y C_�'• ,-, Z. vv fra�a�f, j. �' '1 ''1'It.�,'.�'•1',�,-rt/'}I.,J�yi,�rS'1.�� �•'y�', ,,�,'A[� 't�"i�f1•GS� �4�' a� '7.3��yy� �' r'` r' �ii���'�l•�` �j"i.��1.f� J�•A` ¢•/ c1• •`r � •' 1(,.��•.,�•i,r}' ,f;7�'±Sf.11r i„' �I,��l1i,'F/'J�,c1(;.\..�,4 `((�� •-�.r rV(�{L,,+,'r������''''''',,,,••������•i��}�y,,�1 � � y�il �7 �'V.� '�1 ��l�.�� -I r �J:.;hy�i.`;�''T`:r t i�:•-I(\+ `��.1i 7��1 � ,' 1 'r I�j� �'„' 'Z1'' •�;tiC''! ♦�1�1 ��IrJ►`1►�•�kLJ- � ��'�. � y, �1+�+1 �, 1 f��{{f1 .A 1�`.t �r ,/.h91.,':1?.rtY 1•>�`y'!- J!,ht ��••1l/ •` T•�'fn.'!q SIF$•►f� :`t F ty[ 'A�'t, -• . :ln ir;{ `irljx:�'♦. rai K,,;, t11 .�/,�.•� •y�1 �f�,,!'�� r' r .>�, r 11 �C � � .,,.�j, •�� K•,1 � t'%.1.' � IT •} -, yf {� ' '' : j. }`L�'i�' �: �'r 'r�' i � 1 � �� { �p1 �1{f,tiv, yillrill!, ,4 ,y, .. ••.- t• a 7 't {MIA' 1.1ti.y_.,�yt,tC� �_ � ,JW {' . { . .+ la •1 �` ._. • LL —iP`' Sct• "�•i,ta,a ✓.rfJ r•.,.)r+.U,. ►ry�la,.�.r,-f~^r I ;i ,.�[}[�•LL/y.{ WI ('� ,, ,..-'-�yw It .y.••'; O.y '�irT '77sl�ry-•.y'it}'�-r• J IUtt I 1c 5��. •/7 Y t`�Sr 171�}>�jjj))}�'1~Il:��J•?`ar•�ttlMly"'��, r�� � �Ir'1f�11'�^,�tf�+1•.�1��.`�".�...A..a� , ��' „�f' �- e'v'' �i 1�:4Lr�v�.r �.rnT`,TY+rYr�'f'.�I��•1- ve`r'y '1 �J 1,;,,wr .�J,T'�,�. G'. �'�'rK;{ �r♦� .�7�f�."�i >�i�r.��S�y!1t.w+•„1 I .A" 'l�• 'X�.fjj��,:•'it t•T.�••17�r�1••1Y!r��3}�' ..'ic'♦Z ((��I1 r 7� 4•'yE'A�,;t � �I � �iL it rr.� .;�•S 1/'.1}� •� 'I� � f ,11 1�.(fi �,71.r{;.t _r_.� �,� r ��,r r1� h•'� J( (1� 1��t' 1 ^jP,�}r/J , �ihy)u..3if.rrT1'i''ia.�� �♦�Allll �,3(�RM _ - ' " t �•T-`{� �eAlr! �.K/"�7,'T:�'�+`�+i �'tl� r .L...L}._•.,� "7 t� • µ' _ 7 rr► a . ,�t-1♦...;.1fia�>.�dur�t • h: � •� „}�1�IpA'l*�i��y�ry''{{�r�����3}�'(�[,1��/1�.t�fil�,.�I�♦�+�,�,Rif {���1Vy�[�(_ �t i �h'��'r�,•� � ! f , }}�j�r� ,�i.� t�1 f!'���'T����i.•}d+ II �C���, 1 }` + •/ 4 ..=.J-I.I A LYM1 W. •.•A1 T� 7 y�,�' `•1.(, G �ta �'� ' M !'{`t�, w, �.,• M�.Li.y► ,-w. �•r ,Y/ �.��'i`(•i}.�ctS :1}.^� r _ +, , ?, .ti t} T � � t �1 y '`!:'��1� � r{ -.l{t� `r;;f�.'°" ^� '� ,�� l^ 1. / ~. j"tJ ff' '� '�Ti }�•ro��^.t� ,.7.'"�,Il.y I • 11.. ��t}'•L'1'�,�,��L-•(fi~!r��i'�!':.i�-''`���'�I'zt•~l ray�11�.j/'( I �i� ( ,!, 1 ),/ �1'f'�`� r� I{��',. 1}� .L�'�TS1��.�\�,�...:,�r r.T7 i-.,r +7"{•H� l �S 1 1. �}. �T f' `r Fni •4' r tl �v„•ro..,.i !, 1177 � Y'�•, �r.l� i.� 1 , t .•1L: '�:\,TERM^.' I�i 1 � 'Q•� .V a r ' � . l•'� v , .�tlr? � 1�j `1j.•�*>t acjfr"r�y+Ar t.=��r�a!1-!P�r - k� ? t� Jam, 4 J•�.•vl,til/, ,.1�_��k�,L•..��•y �� f�cuu r ��� G�'r'S., �'1�,� �I_•�•„��,T,� •�� � I� - ���� 1 • rail�7 I 'f(y�7 4[i- ��jTi� t !• t }t}_ .1 1 };t1' f iV Ill •' 11 .-rr�►;.�C�`My.��c ! - L1e�u♦1�1uJti: `+ { C - 7 f1EIm •' i�I.F;, l i ,_vi`'1, '� GY} It�Ffi4.}'fit(�,�•�1'};j;y`Tr!;,''t'�� • .�-_ �t.;.. a!+ 1 (f!, �\ i . � .:��. ..r i.�'.,•►��!�N,�� r ��'�•��1h w k 1 Y�, � ,: ;r�r•r.t�.� 1��� �' � {{��}}Il�'+♦f(�i1 i a :�j '�•�.r r•:�IL�c�:,, — ryz���.•r.l S� Y teltr �O,Lit*��If) rltr! rlr 'ie't3 ,1�1v'h � t���tY. �+ I yl �•.r ; �!'* k,y���}r,, �lr',��S+i i�•�s,;�({� t rl �r�•/ •r A t .•�r'�� .J,�/',hli.�i,SvV � 11'i.1. � v � • �'����'j,,i1�':�,. �• 1`'ti TM ^ rfh �,,f 3llr �►�;f�r .�r•�r;'r�rr W1#-:A�rT. �'i': / I —•��,,• V;� ? �;r�E: +'�:j L, .• fj,) 1{}���.�?�� ...A 1v' •-,j. _! L j •� t �.I�,�"�l'Ur J+.. •cLra 1 T�..� �''1 y .(�{• a,tL+r,L .r_efl }t'�, l�77 rr.t"r' �I�T :,t7,+l. +.• �r, w 4 .r;� �.! l• .•T /" r1 r,, T ( � 1 CJi. t„r. r1J. �'•• �� � Fill;''h+T,i��S''JyW-+�✓�f r r• J - _ � .�,t►�V��•+-"•♦l ilj.�;�,;IT1(�{�yl'•S:i''{�,,.ynt Z-11 ST :l"��j1yl r f�'�7. r `:Fi• • +,�I v''/' f' f, �x"•; � '�}�r��l y wLM�����a�,' r I��� 4 �,. ����l','���'i i� � t �1♦ I Cts'/.�'.':�•'_'%�� �- - - j1 y� , �{ �!1 .�y`t�'.^'.`��}},,,,_`�Sh��lti/�_ �, t+ ,'+). .TIS/' '���.�• i�ti.,rM ,(f rt� `r � �i, / ''`I i .,�..RL;4-�•I�fi'..j�l�a�lJl���^'�'��`i 'r; I�I1 r1II r► 1 y 1 JAN, -24' 03 (FRI) 17:08 GPGYPSUM;,,iJl0GH TEL:925 8540 P. 002 5t uzj 1 06/14/01 02 : 15 VoPak USA In 2018 315 - 07/27/00 VERSENEX* 80 CSELkTINTG AGENT ?RODUCT NAME TERS ENEX* 80 CHELATING AGENT 4SDS #: DW90947 Z _ COMPOSITION/INFORMATION ON INGREDIENTS PENTASODIM4 . DIETHYLENETRIAMINEPENTAACETA.TB CAS,# 000140-01-2 3 8 TETRASODIUM D IETHYLENTETRIAMINETETRAACETATB CAS## 075348-60-6 4% TRISODIUM D IETHYLFNETRIAMINETRIACETATE CAS$# 075348-61-7 1% TRISODIUM NI TRI LOTRIACE TATE CP_S# 00506431-3 1% SODIUM! HYDROXIDE CAS# 001310-73-2 1% SODIUM! GLYCOLATE CAS# 002836-32--0 3% WATER CAS## 007732-18-5 52% (ACTIVE - INGREDIENTS CALCULATED AS PENTA.SODIUM D IETHYLENETRI MTNEPENTAACETATE - 40 .2%) 3 . HAZARDS IDENTIFICATION EMERGENCY OVERVIEW * LIGHT YELLOW LIQUID. SLIGHT AMINE ODOR. CAUSES SEVERE EYE BURNS . � POTENTIAL HEALTH EFFECTS (SEE SECTION 11 FOR TOXICOLOGIC..A.L DATA. ) EYE: MAY CAUSE SEVERE IRRITATION WITH CORNEAL INJURY WHICH MAY RESULT IN PERMANENT IMPAIRMENT OF VISION, EVEN BLINDNESS- SKIN: LINDNESS_SKIN: PROLONGED OR REPEATED EXPOSURE MAY CAUSE SKID IRRITATION, EVENT A-BURN. MA.Y CAUSE MORE SEVERE RESPONSE IF SKIN IS ABRADED (SCRATCHED OR CUT) . NOT CLASSIFIED AS CORROSIVE TO THE SKIN ACCORDING TO DOT GUIDELINES . A SINGLE PROLONGED EXPOSURE IS NOT LIKELY' TO RESULT IN THB MATERIAL BEING ALSORBED THROUGH SKIN IN EL%PJAFTjL AMOUNT S. I INGESTION:- SINGLE DOSE ORAL TOXICITY IS CONSIDERED TO BE LOW. SMALL AMOUNTS SWALLOWED INCIDENTAL TO NORMAL HANDLING OPERA- TIONS AM NOT LIKELY_ TO_ CAUSE.__INJURY., -- SWALLOWING- --LARGE R- AMOUNTS MAY CAUSENOURY. INGESTION MAY CAUSE GASTROINTESTINAL IRRITA- TION OR ULCERATION. INGESTION MAY CAUSE BURNS OF MOUTH AND THROAT- INHALATION: HROAT_INHALATION: SINGLE EXPOSURE TO VAPORS IS NOT EXPECTED TO POSE A HAZARD; VAPORS ARE PRIMARILY WkTER. MISTS MAY CAUSE IRRITATION OF UPPER RESPIRATORY TRACT_ CANCER INFORY...AT I ON: THIS MIXTURE CONTAINS A VERY SMALL AMOUNT OF THE TRISODIUM SALT OF NITRILOTRIACETIC ACID (TRISODIUM NTA, CAS=005064-31-3) WHICH IS LISTED AS A POTENTIAL CARCINOGEN FOR HAZARD COMMUNICATION PURPOSES UNDER O S 13A STANDARD 20 CFR 1910 . 1200 . COMPONENTS LISTED BY IARC AND NTP: TRISODIUM NITRILO- TRIALCFTA.TE. ALTHOUGH LARGE DIETARY DOSES OF NTA HAVE CAUSED URINARY TUDORS IN LABORATORY ANIMALS, THERE IS LITTLE LIKELI- HOOD THAT NTA COULD CAUSE CANCER IN HUMANS, ESPECIALLY AT SUB- TOXIC DOSES . JAN. -24' 03 (FRI) 17 :08 GPGYPSUM _71001-1 TF11.925 8540 P. 003 D 0_0 u 1 . 013114/01 02: 15 Vopak USA In 3018 WITH ZINC DEFICIENCY D*UE TO CHELATION BIRTH DEFECTS ARE UNLIKELY AT TYPICAL USE CONCENTR&TIONS. 4 . FIRST AID EYE: IMMEDIATE AND CONTINUOUS IRRIGATION WITH FLOWING WATER FOR AT LEAST 30 MINUTES IS IlmlPERATIVE. PROMPT MED ICAI, CONSULTATION IS ESSENTIAL. SKIN. WASH OFF IN FLOWING WATER OR SHOWER" INGESTION: DC NOT INDUCE VOMITING. GIVE LARGE AMOUNTS OF WATER OR MILK IF AVAILA.—BLE -AND TRANSPORT TO MEDICAL FACILITY. INHALATION: REMOVE TO FRESH AIR IF EFFECTS OCCUR. CONSULT A PHYSICIAN. NOTE TO PHYSICIAN: MAY CAUSE TISSUE DESTRUCTION LEADING TO STRICTURE. IF LAVAGE IS PERFORMED, SUGGEST ENDOTRACEZAL AND, ES OPE&GOS COP I C CONTR01* IF BURN IS PRESENT, TPEAT AS ANY THERMAL BURN, AFTER DECONTAMINATION. NO SPECIFIC ANTIDOTE. SUPPORTIVE CARE. TREATMENT BASED ON JUDGMENT OF THE PHYSICIAN IN RESPONSE TO REACTIONS OF THE PATIENT. 5 . FIRE FIGHTING MEASURES FLAMMABLE PROPERTIES FLASH POINT: IT EAS NO MEASURABLE FULSHPOINT. METHOD USEDSO PMCC AUTO IGNI TION' TEMP ER&TURBa NOT APPLICABLE. FLAMMABILITY LIMITS ow LFL-. NOT APPLICABLE.. UFL: NOT APPLICABLE v HAZARDOUS COMBUSTION PRODUCTS: UNDER FIRE CONDITIONS SOME COMPONENTS OF THIS PRODUCT MAY DEC01VIPOSE. THE SMOKE MAY CONTAIN UNIDENTIFIED TOXIC AND, IRRITATING COMPOUNDS . RAZAIRDOUS COMBUSTION PRODUCTS MLY INCLUDE AND ARE LIMITED TO: NITROGEN OXIDES, AWONTAIP OTHER FLAMMABILITY INFORMATIONN, THIS MATERIAL WILL NOT BURN OTHER UNTIL THE WATER HAS EVAPORATED. RESIDUE CAN BURN. EXTINGUISHING MEDIA-0 TO EXTINGUISH COMIEUgTIBLV4 RTES I_DUES OF TRIS PRODUCT USE WATER FOG, CARBON DIOXIDE, DRY CHEMICAL, OR FOAMS FIRE FIGHTING INSTRUCTIONS : KEEP PEOPLE AWAY. ISOLATE PIPE AREA AND DENY UITNECESSARY ENTRY. CONTAIN FIRUP3 WATER RTJN—OFF IF POSSIBLE. FIRE WATER RLN—OFF, IF NOT CONTAINED M&Y CAUSE ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE. REVIEW THE "ACCIDENTAL RELEASE MEASURES" AND THE "ECOLOGICAL INFORMATION" SECTIONS OF THIS MSDS . TO EXTINGUISH COMBUSTIBLE RESIDUES OF THIS PRODUCT USE WATER FOG, CARBON DIOXIDE, DRY CHEMICAL, OR FO.A.M. PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT FOR FIRE FIGHTERS : WEAR POS ITIVE—PRES SURE, SELF—CONTAINED BREATHING APP.A.-RATUS (.SCBA) AND PROTECTIVE FIRE FIGHTING CLOTHING (INCLUDES FIRE FIGHTING HELMET, COAT, PANTS, am BOOTS, AND GLOVES) IF PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT IS NOT kVAILABLE OR NOT USED, FIGHT FIRE FROM A PROTECTED LOCATION OR SAFE DISTANCE. JAN. -24' 03 (FRI) 17.:09 GPGYPSU�fAM100H TEL:925 7b , 8540 P. 004 vt5jjj%/u1 try : lt Vopax U5A In 4of8 PROTECT PROPLE : ISOL4TE ApyaA. PROTECT THE ENVIRONMENTs PREVENT WASH TATER ENTERING NATURAL WATERWAYS OR PU13LIC WATER SUPPLIES. CLFMMP . CLEAN UP RESIDUAL WITH NON—COMBUSTIBLE ABSORBENT MATERIAZ AND WASEI WITH WATER. 7 . HANDLING AND STORAGE MLNDLING: FOR MORE STORAGE AND HANDLING INFORMATION REFER TO BULLETIN 113-1290-394 AMSM STORAGE: DO NOT STORE IN ALUMINUM, CARBON STEEL, COPPER, COPPER ALLOYS, ZINC OR NICKEL CONTAINERS. STORE BETWEEN 0 AND 120F. S . EXPOSURE CONTROLS/PERSONAL PROTECTION ENGINEERING CONTROLS: GOOD GENERAL VENTILATION SHOULD BE SUF'FI— CIEN'T FOR MOST CONDITIONS. LOCAL EXHAUST VENTILATION MAY BE NECESSARY FOR SOME •OPEPATI ONS PERSONAL PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT EYE/FACE PROTECT IO14: ' USE CHEMICAL GOGGLES . EYE WASH FOUNTAIN SHOULD BE LOCATED- IN IMMEDIATE WORK AR-EA. SKIN PROTECTION: WHEN PROLONGED OR FREQUENTLY REPEATED CON— TACT COULD OCCUR/ USE PROTECTIVE CLOTHING IMPERVIOUS TO THIS MATZRIAL. SELECTION OF SPECIFIC ITEMS SUCE AS FACESETELD, GLOV-ES, BOOTS, APRON, OR FULL—BODY SUIT WILL DEPEND ON OPER— ATION. IF HANDS ARE CUT OR SCRATCHED, USE GLOVES IMPERVIOUS TO THIS MATERIAL EVEN FOR BRIEF EXPOSURES . RESPIRATORY PROTECTIONW IN MISTY ATMOSPHERESf USE AN APPROVED MIST RESPIRATOR. EXPOSURE GUIDELINES : SODIUM HYDROXIDE: ACGIE TLV AND OSHA PEL ARE 2 MG/M3 CEILING. MAJOR COMPONENT (S) OF THIS MATERIAL DO NOT HAVE EXPOSURE GUIDELINES . PELS ARE IN ACCORD WITH THOSE RECOMMENDED BY OSHA, AS IN THE 1989 REVISION OF PELS. 9 . OPHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL PROPERTIES APPEARANCE: LIGET YELLOW LIQUID. ODOR: SLIGHT AMINE. VAPOR PRESSURE: ' 14 .7 MMEG La 2 0 C VAPOR DENSITY: SAME AS WATER. BOILING POINT: 223P, 1060 - SOLUBILITY IN WATER. COMPLETELY MISCIBLE. SPECIFIC GRAVITY: 1.30 @ 25/25C FREEZING POINT: —28C 10 . STABILITY AND REACTIVITY CEEMICAl STABILITY: STABLE UNDER PLEPCOMEXDED STORAGE CONDITIONS. SEE STORAGE SECTION- JAN. -24' 03 AFRI) 17:09 GPG�PB� --- ANT I GCH TEL;925 8540 P. 005 .06/16101 02 : 15 Vopak USA In 5058 HYDROGEN IS FORMED IN THE PRESENCE OF ALUMINUMr STRONG y. OXIDIZERS . HAZARDOUS DECOMPOSITION PRODUCTS: HAZARDOUS DECOMPOSITION PRODUCTS DEPEND UPON TEMPERATURE, AIR SUPPLY AND THE PRESENCE OF OTE19R MATERIALS. HAZARD CRUS POLYMERIZATION: WILL NOT OCCUR. 11. TOXICOLOGICAL INFOP14ATION (SEE SECTION 3 FOR POTENTIAL HEALTH EFFECTS . FOR DETAILED TORI COL OCICAL DATA, WRITE OR CALL THE ADDRESS OR NON-EMERGENCY NUMBER SHOWN IN SECTION 1) SKIN: THE DERMAL, LD50 HAS NOT BEEN DETERMINED. INGESTION: THE ORXI -LDSO FOR RATS IS > 20 0 0 MG/RG. 12 . ECOLOGICAL INFOPMATION- (FOR DETAILED ECOLOGICAL DATA, WRITE OR CALL THE ADDRESS OR NON-EMERGENCY NUMBER SHOWN IN SECTION 1) ENVIRONMENTAL FATE MOVENFM & PARTITIONING: NO BICSC ONCENTRATION IS EXPECTED BE- CkUSE OF THE RELATIVELY HIGH WATER SOLUBILITY. LOG OCTANOL/ WATER PARTITION COEFFICIENT (LOG POW) IS ESTIMATED USING A STRUCTURAL FRAGMENT MT TROD TO BE -7 . 453 (FOR THE ACID) DEGRADATION & PERSISTENCE: BIODEGRADATION UNDER AER0131C. LABORATORY CONDITIONS IS BELOW DETECTABLE LIMITS (<2 . 5%) . Tlit6RETICAL OXYGEN DEMAND (TA OD) IS CALCULATED TO- BE 1. 18 P/P. ECOTOXICITY: MATERIAL IS PRACTICALLY NON-TOXIC TO AQUALTIC ORGANISMS ON AN ACUTE BASIS (LC50/RC50 >100 MG/L IN MOST SENSITIVE SPECIES) - ACUTE LC50 IN BLUEGILL (LEP OMI S MACROCEIRUS) IS 1115 MG/L. BASED -LARGELY OR COMPLETELY ON INFORMATION FOR DIETHYLENE- TRIAMINE PENTAACETIC A.CID. ACUTE LC50 IN WATER FLEA DAPHNIA MAGMA IS >100 MG.L. ACUTE LC50 IN FATHEAD MINNOW (PlbMPHALES PROMEIAS) IS >300 13 . DISPOSAL CONSIDERATIONS (SEE SECTION 15 FOR REGULATORY INFORMATION) DISPOSAL-: -DO NOT DUMP INTO -ANY --SEWERS ON-­THE GROUND OR INTO ANY BODY OF WATER. ALL DISPOSAL NITHODS MUST BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH ALL FEDERAL, STATE, PROVINCIAL AND LOCAL LAWS =D REGULATIONS- MGULALTIONS MAY VARY IN DIFFERENT LOCATIONS . WASTE CRARACTER- IZATIONS AND COMPLIANCE WITH APDL IC&ELE LAWS ARE THE RESPONSI- BILITY SOLELY OF THE WASTE GENERATOR. THE DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY HAS NO CONTROL OVER THE M M AGEMENT PRACTICES OR MANUFACTURING PROCESSES OF PARTIES EANDLING OR USING THIS MATERIAL. THE INFORMATION PRESENTED HERE PERTATNS ONLY TO THE PRODUCT AS SHIPPED IN ITS INTENDED CONDITION AS DESCRIBED IN MSDS SECTION 2 (COMPOSITION/INS`OP14ATION ON INGRZDIENTS) . I FOR UNUSED & UNCONTAMINATED PRODUCT, THE PREFERRED OPTIONS IN- CLUDE SENDING TO A LICENSED, PERMITTED: RECYCLER, RECLAIMER. FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REFER TO: REGULATION INFORMATION, MSDS SECTION 15 AND STABILITY & REACTIVTTY INFORMATION. . MSDS SECTION 10 . (FRI)SAN. - 03'2417 : 10 GPGYPSUM:mNTI0CH TEL:925 8540 P. 006 t54Da3 1 '06/14101 02 ; 15 VOpak USA In 6of8 TELEPHONE DOW T S CUSTOMER INFORMATION CENTER AT 800-258-2436 OR 517-"832-1556 FOR FURTHER DETAILS . 14 . TRANSPORT INFORMATION DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT.AT I ON (D.O.T. ) FOR D-O.T. REGULATORY INFORMATION, IF REQUIRED, CONSULT TRANSPORTATION REGULATIONS, PRODUCT SHIPPING PAPERS OR CONTACT YOUR DOW REPRESENTATIVE. CANADIAN TDG •INFORMATION FOR TDG REGULATORY INFORM.ATY ON, IF REQUIRED, CONSULT TRANSPORTATION REGULATIONS, PRODUCT SHIPPING PAPERS, OR YOUR DOW REPRESENTATIVE 15 . REGULATORY INFORMATION (NOT MEPN,k TO EE ALL-IN -- CLUS IVE SELECTED RE GULAT I ONS REPRESENTED) NOTICE : THE INFORMATION HEREIN IS PRESENTED IN GOOD FAITH AND BELIEVED TO BE ACCURATE AS OF THE EFFECTIVE DATE SHOWN ABOVE. HOWEVER, NO TY,• EXPRESS OR IMPLIED IS GIVEN. REGULATORY REQUIRF.JvMNTS ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE AND MAY DIFFER FROM ONE LOCATION TO ANOTHER; IT IS THE BUYERT S RESPONSIBILITY TO ENSURE THAT ITS ACTIVITIES COMPLY WITH FEDERAL, STATE OR. PROVINCIAL, AND LOCAL LAWS - THE FOLLOWING SPECIFIC INFORMATION IS MADE FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPLYING WITH NUMEROUS FEDERAL, STATE OR.P ROVINC IAL, AND L O CAL LAWS AND REGULATIONS . SEE OTHER SECTIONS FOR HEALTH .AND SAFETY INFORMATION. SARA 313 INFOPMAT I ON: TO TSE BEST OF OUR ENOWLED GE, THIS PRODUCT CONTAINS NO CHEMICAL SUBJECT 'TO SADA TITLE III SECTION 313 SUPPLIER N O T I F I CA.T I ON REQUIREMENTS . SARA HA&A..RD CATEGORY: THIS' PRODUCT HAS BEEN REVIEWED ACCORDING To THE EPA "HAZARD CATEGORIES" PROMULGATED UNDER SECTIONS 311 AND 31.2 OF THE SUPERFUND AMENDMENT AND REAUTHORIZATION .ACT OF 1986 (SARA TITLE 1 I I) AND IS CONSIDERED, UNDER APPLICABLE DEFINITIONS, TO MEET THE FOLLOWING CATEGORIES : A DELAYED HEALTH HAZARD TOXIC SUBSTANCES -CONTROL ACT. (T--SCA) ALL INGREDIENTS ARE ON THE TSCA INVENTORY OR ARE NOT REgUIRED TO BE LISTED ON THE TSCA INVENTORY, STATE RIGHT-TO- {NOW; THE FOLLOWING PRODUCT COMPONENTS ARS'. CITED ON CERTAIN STATE LISTS AS MENTIONED. NON-LISTED COMPONENTS MAY EE SHOWN IN THE COMPOSITION SECTION OF THE MSDS . CHEMICAL NA 4E CAS NUMBER LIST FORMALDERYDE 000450-00-0 PA2 SODIUM HYDROXIDE (SOLUTION) 001310-73-2 NJI NJ3 PA1 7)nOR JAN. -24' 03(FRI) 17: 1 0 GHYPSUM-W10CH TEL:925 8540 P. 007 585031 06/14/01 02 : 15 Vopal USA In 7of8 PAl' PENNSYLVANIA HAZAMOUS :aUESTANCE (PREStNT AT GREATER TEM OR EQUAL r TO 1. 0%) PA_2...PENNsYLvANIA SPECIAL HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE (PRESENT AT GREATER TM%-N OR EQUAL TO 0 .01%) . PA =PENNSYLVANIA ENVIRONMNTAL HAZAMCSU s SUBSTANCE (PRESENT AT GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO 1.0 OSHA HAZARD COMMUNICATION STANDARD; THIS PRODUCT IS A "HAZARDOUS -CHEMICAL" AS DEFINED BY THE OSHA HAZARD COMMUNICATION STANDARDf 29 *CFR 1910 - 120 0 . CANADIAN REGULATIONS 'WHMIS INPOP14ATION: THE CA14AJDIAN WORKPLACE HAZARDOUS MATERIALS INFORbMTIOIC STSTRM (WEMIS) CLASSIFICATION FOR THIS PRODUCT IS: D2A – UNTESTED MIXTURE CONTAINING A MATERIAL QUALIFYING AS D2A D 2 B – EYE OR SKIN IRRITANT E – CORROSIVE TO METAL OR SKIN REFER ELSEWRERE IN THE MSDS FOR SPECIFIC WARNINGS AND SAFE HANDLING INFORMATION. REFER TO TIDE EMPLOYER'S WORXPLACF, EDUCATIO14 PROGRAM. CPR STAT NT: THIS PRODUCT ETAS BEEN CTM SIFIED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE HAZARD CRITERIA OF THE CANADIAN CONTROLLED PRODUCTS REGULATIONS (CPR) AND THE MSDS CONTAINS ALL THE INFOPtbMTION REQUIRED BY THE CPR. HAZARDOUS PRODUCTS ACT INFORMATION: THIS PRODUCT CONTAINS THE FOLLOWING INGREDIENTS WHICH ARE CONTROLLED PRODUCTS AND/OR ON THE INGREDIENT DISCLOSURE LIST (CANADIAN HPA SECTION 13 AND 14) CON20NENTS: CAS # AMOUNT(-%W W) PENTASODIUM DIETHYLENE– CAS# 000140-01-2 38% TRI AMI NEPENTAACETATE TRISODIUM NITRILOTRIACETATE CAS# 005064-31-3 1 SODIUM HYDROXIDE CAS# 001310-73-2 1% mm.A.—–wo ow am --mum mm ow um 16 . OTHER INrORMATI'VN MSDS STATUS: REVISED SECTION 3 (SKIN) AND 12. a- FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION __- _ CONTACT: MSDS COORDINATOR VOPAK USA INC. DURI.NG BUSIN-ESS HOURSi PACIFIC TIME (425) 8 69–3400 iuwk a----ftwwr A� NOTICE , VOPAK 'SA INC. , livopARIJ) f EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS mm smw ­", s____=a mm an& "m ma i _Vit ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHINTABILITY PUND FITNESS FOR A IAN. 24 03 (PRI) 17 : 10 GP GYPSUM0-i 1OCH TEL:925 75/ v540 P. 008 �pU;51 06114/01 02 ! 15 Vopak USA In 8o-fs DAMAGES . * DO NOT USE INGREDIENT INFORMATION AND/OR INGREDIENT PERCENTAGES IN THIS MSDS .S. A PRODUCT SPECIFICATION. FOR PRODUCT SPECIFICATION INFORMATION REFER TO A 'RODUCT SPECIFICATION SHEET AND f OR A CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS . THESE CAN BE )BTAIDYED FROM YOUR LOCAL VOPAIi, USA SALES OFFICE. ALL INFORMATION APPEARING HEREIN IS BASED UPON DATA OBTAINED FROM THE MANUFACTURER AND/OR RECOGNIZED TECHNICAL SOURCES . WHILE THE INFORMATION IS 13ELIEVED TO BE ACCURATE, V'OPAK MAKES NO REFRESE NT.ATIONS AS TO ITS ACCURACY OR BUFF I CIENCY. CONDITIONS OF USE ARE BEYOND �TQPAKS CONTROL AND THEREFORE USERS LRE RESPONSIBLE TO VERIFY -TEIT-S DATA UNDER THEIR OWN OPERATING CONDITIONS TO )ETERMINE WHETHER THE PRODUCT IS SUITABLE FOR THEIR PARTICULAR PURPOSES AND THEY ,SSUME ALL RI-SRS OF THEIR 15SZ, HANDLING, AND DISPOSAL OF THE PRODUCT, OR FROM :HE PUBLICATION OR USE OF, OR RELIANCE UPON , INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN. !HIS INFORMATION RELATES ONLY TO THE PRODUCT DESIGNATED HEREIN, AND DOES NOT GELATE TO ITS USE IN COMBINATION WITH ANY OTHER MATERIAL OR IN ANY OTHER ?ROCESS. * * E N D O F M S D S i r I Ao ■ CALPINE WESTERN REGION OFFICE 4160 DUBLIN BLVD. DUBLIN, CA. 94568-3139 The Power ofInnovation Date. � ,�� 2,oO3 To: E35.�_ EL From: Phone: 925-479- CA.LPINE CORPORATION Fax: 925-479-7310 Subject: ZkV6,kVI-OL�J 6�R-CqV cc: Number of pages including cover sheet: If you do not receive the number of pages indicated above,please call Marrianna at 925- 479-6682 Message: PRIVn1EGED AND CONFIDENTIAL The information contained in this facsimile is intended for the named recipient only. It may contain privileged and confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not copy, distribute or take any action in reliance on it. If you have received this facsimile in error, please notify us immediately at (800) 359- 5115 and return the original to the sender by mail. GABusjv\BAEC\Fomis\Fax Form PD.Doc 4160 Dublin Blvd,Dublin,CA 94568 1 ,. rt Bate: Tuesday, February 04, 2003 To: Contra Costa. County Community Develop. Department Robert one: 925-335-1210 Fax: 925-335-x.222 From: Contra Costa Health Services Habib Amin Pho-ne: 925-646-2930 Fax: 925-646-2940 Pages 0 26 Subject: Calpine Proposed Peaker Plant ''lease review the attached.memo on the subject project. The original memo is sent.via internal nail, =BIT H 1, u Mae CONTRA COSTA r --•A'Y"�r..rr..r..•.rrww -..rr•r..rti� r•rrr,.rr. HEALTH SERVICES HAZARDOUS MATERIALS PROGRAMS TO: ROBERT DRAKE FROM: H"'B SUBlE CT: CALPINE'S PROPOSED PEAT ER PLAT AT G-P GYPSUM CORPORATION'S ANTIOCH WALLBOARD FACILITY,CONTRA COSTA COUNTY DATE: 2/4/03 CC: RANDY 9AWY'ER,JOHN ODORNE Per your request, we have.re-examined the exemption request from the Hazardous Materials Laud Use Permit for the installation of Calpine's proposed.Peaker Plant at G-P Gypsum Corporation's Antioch P P �P Wallboard Facility. My review is based on the most recent informadon that has been submitted by Calpine regarding the hazard score calculations and the reduced use of Foamer(or foaming agent)by GP Gypsum as a result of the treated water that is produced by the Calpine proposed Peaker Plant. The most recent information provided to us by Calpine regarding this project includes the following: • Calpiae letter dated January 27, 2003, from B.N. Gaglia to Bob Drake of Community Development Department. (You have a copy) • Calpine email containing revised calculations for the facility and credit evaluation for G-Y Gypsum reduced use of Foamer(a copy is attached for your files as Attachment A) Based upon our review of the information provided by Calpine on this project, and if Community Development Department determines that the two )ants are indeed a part of the same facility, CCHS then believes that the proposed project will be exempt from a Land Use Permit although the project results in a new process unit handling Hazardous Category 13 materials because the process unit complies with the criteria for the credit for reductions or projects to be closed(Section 84-63.1002(c)and 84-63r1004(d)(1-6)). Per Industrial Safety ordinance, Paragraph 84-63.1004(d), reduction credit shall be given if the Co=unity Development Director determines that the applicant will concurrently close another project or reduce its operations-and-finds that all-of-the following criteria are m-et: (1) The project to be closed or reduced is in the same facility in which the development project is proposed. (2) The project to be closed or reduced is currently in operation and has been in operation for at least three years prior to the date of application, during which period the production schedule has been reflective of a nom3al production schedule; (3) The project to be closed or reduced is the direct result of the proposed development project; (4) The project to be closed or reduced has a higher hazard score than the proposed development project; 1 r" (S) The hazard category of the material or waste in the development project will be no greater than the hazard category of the material or waste in the project to be closed or reduced; and (6) The development project will be more than 300 feet from the property line of the neatest residential paropeny or sensitive receptor. Per our conversations with Martha Watson of Calpine, the Calpine Peaker Plant will be equipped with a demineralization unit which will be able to produce a much cleaner water for their use and also for G-P Gypsum, thereby reducing the usage of cher-Acals such as Foamer(a denatured alcohol solution, a Class B material) and Vesenex B (a Class C material), thus benefiting G-P Gypsum plant. Also G-P Gypsum owner is the land leaseholder for the Calpine plant. The twp plants could be considered to be a part of the same facility aithou.gh we believe that this could be argued other wise. See our discussion of facility description below. The G-P Gypsum plant has been in operation for at least three years. The proposed reduction in cher ical use and storage by G P'Gypsum is a direct result of the Calpine peaker plant installation and operation. The hazard category of the material or waste in the Calpine development project will be Category B and C material and will not be greater than the hazard category of the material or waste in the project to be closed or reduced for G-P Gypsum; and the development project will be more than 300 feet from the property line of the nearest residential property or sensitive receptor. We have conducted our own independent calculations of the hazard scores and a copy is provided in Attachment 13. Based on information provided by Calpine, the results conf=a maximum hazard score of 63 for the new Calpine peaker plant and a hazard score of 71 for the G P Gypsum with their associated reduced use of chemicals for Class B materials. This is consistent with hazard score calculations performed by Calpine presented in Attachment A. E One key concern is whether any credit can be considered for the Calpine Peaker Plant as a result of a reduction in the quantity.of Class B and C materials for the landowner, G-P Gypsum. For submittal of the Risk Management Plan (RMP) documents, the facilities with different owners are considered to be separate and are required to submit independent RMPs if each has more than the threshold quantity of regulated materials. Attachment C provides reference to the Federal RMP program for consideration of facilities for the RMP documentation. Attachment C also provides a quotation from the Federal Regulations, Part 68 on Chemical Accident Prevention Provisions, Subpart A, Section 68.3: Definitions, which describes similar .definitions to the Federal Guidance on RMP. - For Land use Permit considerations,-the-Industrial-Safety -ordinance defines-the-facility as "a group of buildings, structures, or units with the same purpose on contiguous parcels (including parcels separated by a right-of-way, as defined in Section 1002-2.002 of this code) under common ownership or control. A final determination of whether-the Calpine pecker plant can be considered to be apart of the G P Gypsum for land use permit evaluation is entirely dependent on the Community Development Department. U the two plants are determined not to be a part of the same facility, a credit toward the new project cannot be taken and then the new,proj ect will be subject to a Land Use Permit. Please call,me C 646-2030 for any questions. 2 ATTACHMENT A February 4,2003 7, Riverview Energy Center Hazard Score Calculations: Hazard Score=[(T+C+ P) 0 H]+D+A T=Transportation Risk C Community Risk-Type of receptor P= Facility Risk-Size of Project- Percent Change H =Hazard Category of material or waste D= Community Risk- Distance from receptor A= Faclilty Risk- Size of Project-Total Amount Transportation Risk M Transport will be b pipeline for Hazard Category B materials and truck for Hazard Category C materials.Truck P YPR transport requires travel th.rou h residential/commercial and industrial areas. Highway 4 lies approximately 1.2 miles p � g to the south and approximately 1.9 miles to the east of the project site. The Riverview project is a new development. Therefore, the transportation risks are: TB= 1 Pipeline Tc= 10 Truck, residential/commercial, new development Community Risk (C, D) TheJro'ect site is zoned for heavy industrial use. Eight buildings belonging to the gypsum wallboard plant are P located on the southern portion of the site.The'proposed plant will be northest and adjacent to the wallboard plant. Figure A-1 shows the project location and sensitive receptors. Outside of theroPe�Y boundary,the area is industrial to the east and west, and residential to the south and west. P The area.south of the project is primarily residential.The nearest residential property is approximately 800 feet from the project turbine. Several schools are located within a three-mile radius of the project..Kimball School and Holy Rosary School off of East 13th Street are located about 0.6 miles (3170 feet)from the site. Fremont Junior High School, between D and F Street at the intersection with 13th Street, is approximately 1.1 miles from the project and the High School, off of West 18th Street, is approximately 1,3 miles from the site. John Marsh School on west Madill is approximately 1.6 miles from the development. There are also several small businesses within a 1 mile radius of the project.The distance to the nearest developable commercial lot(zoned light industrial) is approximately 650 feet. Type of F17 ce to Receptor C tor D Sensitive 7 19 >2800-3200 ftResidential 5 26 X700-90Q ftCommercial 4. - -- 27---- -(>550=700 _. Facility Risk: Size of Project-Percent Change(P) This project is a new development.Therefore: P= 6 Hazard Category of material or waste (H) DoT Hazard Packing Hazard Hazardous Material Class Group categm H Natural Gas 2 -- B 3 Gell Electrolyte Batteries M-Phosphonate % Sulfuric Acid 8 111 C 1 Aqueous Ammonia 19°l0 8 II! C 1 8 Ill C 1 Z7- I/ Riverview Energy Center Hazard Score.Calculations: Zol ac late 8 III Codium Bisulfite 8 111 C 1 Sodium Hypochlorite 8 Ill C 1 Sodlum Tol riazole 8 I11 C 1 Carbon Dioxide 2.2 C 1 CO Calibration Gas 2.2 C 1 N itro en 2.2 C 1 1NOx Calibration Gas 2.2 C 1 Mineral Insulating Oil Not Re ulated Lubrication oil Not Regulated 11ydraulic Oil Not Regulated bntifoam Not Re ulated now aste Oil Not Regulated 1011Y water and sludge Not Regulated Facility Risk: Size of Project- Total Amount of Storage(A) The hazardous material quantities for the Riverview Energy Center are comparable to the quantities reported in the Hazardous Materials Business Plan for the King City Energy Center(which Is a sirmilar LIUI6000 combustion turbine generator), except for the use of gel electrolyte, instead of liquid, in the Riverview Energy Center's batteries and the elimination of sulfuric acid in water treatment. The Riverview Energy Center will not store any Hazardous Category B materials except for what Is resident in process piping. Max. Qty. On-Site Specific Density Max. Qty, On- Hazardous Material (Gat) Cravlty (Lb./Gal) Site(Lbs.) Hazard Category B Natural Gas 2211 0.29 64 Total Hazard Category B Materials Lbs. 64 Total Hazard Category B Materials(Tons) 0.08 rFaciffity Risk,Size of Project based on tons of materiel stored on ) p gAqueous d Ca o C Ammonia 19% 12,000 0.92 7.6792074 honate 400 1.3 10.84 4,337 Pol acrylate 400 1.158 9.66 31863 Sodium Bisulfite 400 1.37 11.43 4,570 Sodium.H ochlorhe 400 1.21 10.09 4 037 Sodium Tol iazole .400 1.15 9.59 3;838 10-30%Sulfuric Acid) 44.3 1.3 10.84 480 Carbon Dioxide -- -- 1 p200 PNOX libration Gas 2,992 -- 0.008 25 en 44,880 — 0.008 372 alibration Gas 2,992 -- 0.010 29 Total Hazard Category C Materials Lbs. 114,822 Total Hazard Category C Materials(Tons) 5794 Facility Risk, Size of Project basad on tons"of material stored on elle(A) 17 FNco7)n-nulated Moterlala MinerelInsulatin Oil 6t200 0.88 7.34 45,503 Lubricatlon Oil 825 0.88 7.34 61,055 Page 2 of 3 Riverview Energy Center Hazard Score Calculations: Hydraulic Oil 40 0.88 7.34 294 Antlfoam" 25 0.84 7.0 175 Total Non-regulated Materials Lbs. 52,027 Total Non-re Ulated-Materiels(Tons) 26.0 " Para In wax, hydrotreated light distillate, hydrodesulfurized mineral seal oil Nalco 7385 was used as a representative phosphonate scale inhibitor/dispersant. Chemlogis Aqua Mate 2261 was used as a representative polyacrylate dispersant/scale inhibitor. Nalco 71 D5 Plus was used as a representative antifoaming agent. Hazard Score Calculations: Hazard Score= [(T+C+P)"H]+D+A Hazard Cateoory B Materials: Sensitive Receptor: Hazard Score= [(1 +7 +6) 31+ 19+0 Hazard Score= 61 Residential Receptor: Hazard Score= [(1 +5 +6) 3]+26+o Hazard Score= 62 Commercial Receptor: Hazard Score= [(1 +4+6)R 3]+27+0 Hazard Score= 60 Hazard Category C Materl��si; Sensitive Receptor: Hazard Score= [(10+7+6) 1]+19+ 17 Hazard Score= 59 Residential Receptor: Hazard Score= [(10+5+6)" 1]+26+17 Hazard Score= 64 Commercial Receptor. Hazard Score= ((10+4+6)' 1)+27+ 17 Hazard Score= 64 ,..;.,:...•...�.::r:;:;:•d:4;. ••:' ■ \,a;. .J. �• r�:�4•=tii..r. .,4.• .r.r.4.• Paye 3 of 3 op GP Gypum Hazard Score Calculations: Hazard Score = [(T+C+P)* H] + D+A T=Transportation Risk C= Community.Risk-Type of receptor P- Facility Risk- Size of Project-.Percent Change H = Hazard Category of material or waste D=Community Risk- Distance from receptor A= Facility Risk-Size of Project-Total Amount Transportation Risk(T) Transport is by truck and pipeline for Hazard Category B materials and truck for Hazard Category C materials.,Truck transport requires travel through residential/commerclal and Industrial areas. Highway 4 lies approximately 1.2 miles to the south and approximately 1.9 miles to the east of the project site.As stated in §64-63.1004 (d), when determining the hazard score for the project to be reduced, said project shalled be deemed a new project. Therefore the GP transportation risk factors are: TT= 10 Truck, residential/commercial (>25% increase or new) Tp= 1 Pipeline(>5%increase) The transportation risk point assignment is also calculated for each mode of transportation proportionally in terms of tons per year. This calculation is presented later in this document. Community Risk(C, D) The GP Gypsum site is zoned for heavy industrial use. Eight buildings belonging to the plant are located on the southern portion of the site. The Riverview Energy Center affects water treatment and chemical use at the northeast side of the largest building and propane use within the building. To provide the lowest possible hazard score for comparison to the Riverview project, this area of the plant was used to calculate distance to receptors, rather that the closest building wall (which would result in a higher hazard score for GP Gypsum). Figure A-1 shows the project location and sensitive receptors. Outside of the property boundary, the area Is industrial.to the east and west, and residential to the south and west.The area south of the project is primarily residential.The nearest residential property-is approximately 1300 feet from the GP process area of concern. Several schools are located within a three-mile radius of the project. Kimball School and Holy Rosary School off of East 13th Street are located about 0.8 miles (4404 feet) - from the site..Fremont Junior High School, between D and F Street,at the intersection with 13th.Street, is approximately 1.2 miles from the project and the High School, off of West 18th Street,Js approximately 1.4 miles from the site.John Marsh School on West Madill is approximately 1.7 miles from the development. There are also several small businesses within a 1 mile radius of the project.The distance to the nearest developable commercial lot(zoned light industrial) is approximately 600 feet. Type of Distance to Reoaptor G receptor D Sensitive 7 4400 ft 14 >4200-4500 ft Residential 5 1300 ft 24 >1200-1500 ft Commercial 4 1600 ft 27 >550-700 ft Facility Risk-Size of Project -Percent Change(P) Therefore: P= 6 GP Gypum Hazard Score calculations: Hazard Category of material or waste (H) DOT Hazard Packing Hazard Transport Hazardous Material/Waste Class GroupCategory H Means Natural Gas 2 B 3 Pipeline Pro ane 2 B 3 Truck Foamer' 3 111 B 3 Truck Versenex 80(Chelator)". 8 lli C 1 Truck Diesel 3 lil C 1 Truck ZEP Solvent mineralspirits) 3 Ill C 1 Truck DIS,AL(Diseersing--agent) 311l C1 Truck ftdriaullc UNAX Aw Coil Not Re ulated Truck I GUARDOL Motor Coil Not Ae ulated Truck Transmission Fluid Not Regulated Truck Gear Lube Not Re Mated Truck Oven Chain Oil Not Regulated Truck H.B..Fluller Adhesive 1pe Not Re Mated Truck A uallte 70 wax emulsion Not Regulated Truck waste Oil'and Absorbent, Not Regulated Truck Boric Acid Not Regulated Truck Potash.(Potassium Sulfate) Not Regulated Truck Foamer contains denatured alcohol and therefore is a Category-B material according to §84-63.1016(4) 40.2% Pentasodiurn diethylenetriaminepentaacetate Facility Risk; Size of Project -Total Arnount of Change(A)and Proportional Transportation Risk(T) The following table provides,the quantity of Category B materials stored on site (fill to capacity amounts) and their annual use based on the year 2002. This is followed by the quantity of Category B materials that will be stored on site and their projected annual use resulting from the operation of the Riverview project. The percent reduction in Hazard Category B material is then calculated. Max, owl Max. Qty. On- Specific Density On-Site Annual Ilse Hazardous Material Site(Gal) Gravity (LbJGal) (Lbs.) (Lbs.) C urrent Hazard Cale o B Gas 4,488 0.017 78 24,8961273 ne (compressed) 560 4.1 21296 1479149 Foamer 10roo0 1.02 8.5 85,068 03,754 Total Hazard Categgry B Materials Lbs. 87,364 25107,176 Current Total Hazard Catego B Materials ons 44 1215S4 Facility Risk,Size of Project based on tons of material stored on site(A) 16 Transportation Rlslrc, proportionally calculated based on mode of transportation and tons of material used on site(T) 1.1 Fufure Hazard Cotegory A Natural Gas* 4,341 0.017 75 24,896,000 Pro ane com ressed 560 4.1 21296 147,000 Foarner='� 7150 1.02 8.5 63,801 511000 1 Total Hazard Cate a B Materials Lbs, 66,172 25,104,000 Future Total Hazard Category B Materials Now(Tons) 33.1 12,552 Reduction of Hazard Catego B ton& 10.6 % Reduction of Hazard Gate o B 24% GP Gypum Hazard Score Calculations: Facility Risk, Size of Project based on change in tons of material stored on site(A) 14 "A storage volume equal to 100 feet of 65 diameter gas piping removed due to Riverview. " Storage tank size is reduced. Annual quantity of material used is reduced an estimated 5%when Riverview is providing high quality water. Higher quality water may allow the current foamer to be cost- effectively replaced by a foamer that is non-hazardous. Max. Qtya Max. Qty. On, Specific Density On-Site Annual Use Hazardous Material Site(Gal) Gravity (LbJGal) (Lbs.) (Lbs.) Current Hazard Category C Versenex 80 Chelatin A ent 900 1.3 10.84 90758 113,000 Diesel 11000 0.87 721 71214 759000 ZEP Solvent 90 0.80 6,67. 600 ..600 Total Hazard Category*C Materials Lbs.), 17,572 1131000 Current Total Hazard Category C Materials Tons 8.79 56.50 Future Hazard Cate o C Versenex 80 Chelatin' Agent 400 1.3 10.84 4 337 102,238 Diesel 1,000 0.87 7.21 7,214 75 000 Zep Solvent 90 0.80 6.67 600 600 Total Hazard Cate o C Materials .Lbs. 12,151 102,238 Future Total Hazard Category C Materials(Tons) 6.08 51.12 a Reductiono azar Category C 30-856 • Current Non-regulated Materials DISAL 471,040 Boric Acid 81,483 Potash Potassium Sulfate 117,810 Total Non-re ulated Materials Lbs. 670433 Current Total Non-Regulated Materials ('tons) 335 Future Non-regulated Materials DISAL 4710040 Boric Acid 40,742 Potash Potassium Sulfate 588955 Total Non-regulated Materials(Lbs.)l570737 Future Total of Non-Regulated Materials ons 285 Reduction o azar Category Hazard Score Calculations: Hazard Score=[(T+C+ P)' HJ+ D +A Hazard C tai _ry B Materials: Sensitive Receptor: Hazard Score= [(1.1 +7+6) 3]+ 14+ 14 Hazard Score= 70 r , GP Gypum Hazard Score Calculations: Residential Receptor. Hazard Score= [(1.1 +5+6) R 3] +24+ 14 Hazard Score= 74 Commercial Receptor: Hazard Score= [(1.1 +4+ 6) *3] +27+ 14 Hazard Score= 74 IMOO M..19�!.l� �, ' i':'_:• •:_':i•riM'':ii i':44;�.�'.}i '••'•4 r� • i'}:4'•:::i:' .�:':'•�'':i.':.ti�..�r. ,���'':ti•. •�i...a;. .,�•{err. .::`ryi.�:ri'''i i'r:�i':i•:i;ir:•i�1,i:': ':•.. •:h'. I i I i Page 4 of 4 ATTACHMENT B February 4,2003 F •G �0 SN m s d o� 40 � i. V 00 m co N "" r d • 0goo to 10-4 C itsN •� '� co. Is N � JS va cm_ ra pad s- goo) , mom: © v, . 0 _ s 3 IO cs 0 0 M A3 8 y e lvow rn � too I X ",j = G ® A p Y th Q to j � � � � a �'" •"" Q .�' W• G C1 �p Vol !. ?• v ct s � _ r r Sample Hazard Score. Documentation Form This worksheet contains calculations to estimate the hazard score for the project. _ This worksheet to for CCHS'Use. Data to be summarized from Tables 1 &2 contained on the Date Input worksheet. Hazard Score Formula(ISO Section 84-611004) [(T+C+P)'H]+D+A where, "T"refers to the point assignment for'Transportation Risk"; "C" refers to.the point assignment for"Community Risk-Type of Receptor" "P" refers to the point assignment for".Facility Risk-Size of Project-Percent Change" "H"refers to the point assignment for"Hazard Category'of Material or Waste." °D° refers to the point assignment for'Community Risk-.Distance from Receptor", and 8A1 reefers to the point assignment for"Facility Risk-Size of Project-Total Amount" t Transportation Rlsk(T): Applicable Hazard Category A 13 C Footnotes Summarize from.Data Input Worksheet: Total Planned Quantities Transported: Truck (tonW) 344 '1 Rail (tons/yr) '1 Marine (ton*r) "1 Pipeline (tons/yr) 39,281 '1 Baseline Period: Truck (tonslyr) `1 Rail. (tons/yr) '`1 Marine (tons/yr) 91 Pi aline (tons/yr) *1. Resulting Percent Increase Truck "2 Rail 02 Marine "2 ' Pi 'aline 02 lResulfing Transportation Risk Score 1 10 103, 64 I Notes: '1 -Summarize from Data Input worksheet by hazard category. '2-The shaded area indicates these values are calculated. -3-Manually select the.hazard score from the ordinance. 14-If more than one mode of transportation,must ratio the score accordingly. Facility Risk-Size of Project-Percent Change(P): Applicable Hazard Category A B C Footnotes_ Summarize from Data'Input Worksheet: Proposed fill to­mazimum Volume (tons) 0.032 57.4 '1 Baseline Inventory tons 0 01 Resulting Percent Increase -2 ffiesulting Percent Change Score P 6 6 *3 Notes: '1 -Summarize from Data Input worksheet by hazard category. '2-The shaded area indicates these values are calculated. '3-Manually select the hazard score from the ordinance. Land Use HazScoreCalc-CalpineRiv-CCHS-020403.xls Calculations Page 1 of 3 Printed on 2/4/43 V_ -.1p r Sample Hazard Score Documentation Form Facility Risk-size of Project-Total Amount(A): Applicable Hazard Category A g C Footnotes Summarize from Data Input Worksheet: Proposed fill to maximum Volume tons 0,032 57.4 *1 Resuitin Total Amount Score (AL 0 17 *3 Notes: *1 -Summarize from Data Input worksheet by hazard category. •3-Manually select the hazard score from the ordinance. Distance from Receptor(Dy: Applicable Hazard Category A B C Footnotes Summarize from Data Input Worksheet: Distance to Sensitive Receptor (feet) 3170 3170 *1 Distance to Residential Receptor (feet) 800 800 *1 Distance to Commercial Receptor feet 650 650 `1 Resulting Receptor Distance Score(D) Sensitive Receptor 19 19 *3 Residential Receptor 26 26 '3• commercial Receptor 27 27 03 Notes: *1 -Surnmarize from Data Input worksheet by hazard category. -3-Manually select the hazard score from the ordinance. Summary of Hazard Score Parameters: Applicable Hazard Category A B C Footnotes r ortation Risk T 1 10 *2 t Chane P 6 6 *2 mount A 0 17 ''2 ce from Receptor D Sbnsitive Receptor 18 19 '2 Residential Receptor 28 26 02 Commercial Receptor 27 27 *2 araj41.*alFr'IE�i FaIF Type of Receptor C IaG; �llt tallllwalaai���l,a�����!�'��."�G:�r�� I"W1 FwJ��;111 ��I�I���� .;�{��!y1 �� 'S Sensitive Reoeptor dirJl i� ItJIM ��a{Ipljlt �a1viii I'� � ill;!`��I �t���i{ 1, 14II ' itr,'1�1�p rr5 Residential Receptor �I;��l�a�� IrM� �t�����1, *jam 1 �� rl 1r�I���Pf i14�E�'l J Commercial Receptor „!. !11119111144 1111r 'w, a Hazard CategoEj of Material H ilMal'd�� li�'ill'.!aG ) I' �' '� 'i� lig µl *5 Notes: '2-The shaded area indicates these values are calculated. *5-Value set by ISO Section 84-63.1004. Hazard Score Calculations: j(T+-'C+P}*H j+ D+A Applicable Hazard Category A B C Footnotes Type of Receptor C Sensitive Receptor 61 59 *2 Residential Receptor 82 64 02 Commercial Rece for 60 64 *2 MAXIMUM SCORE 64 *2 MAXIMUM SCORE HAZARD CATEGORY Notes: *2-The shaded area Indicates these values are calculated. Land Use HazScoreCalc-Calpine Riv-CCHS-020403.xls CAiculations Page 2 of 3 Printed on 2!4/03 Sample Hazard Score Documentation Form ••1��rRRRRR!!!R!l��RRl���'�liiARlRRRRR'!!lRRI�A�iii•1►RRR!!lRRIRRAR!l��1i�711RAllRRR*'R!!RRllt��Aiii*!!R!lRIRRRRlRR��itiA• impact of changing risk values(for values close to the edge of this next range): [(T+C+P)" H]+D+A Applicable Hazard Category A B C Transportation Risk T Percent Change P Total Amount A Distance from Receptor D Sensitive Receptor Resldential Receptor Commercial Receptor P 4 :anti ,��r���������i� Type of Rece for C ��►�It,��gaLCaI�I I Jl�al''.I��'�i�''llwdlC.IIJI�JI"11��It'IIG�� P . . �JIIt4a IJI JIG;?�CIJt^�I' l II�1G IlkJlall.,I�6�II�JIka� Sensitive Receptor ail. TIN 141 dlil��IL�I�� � ii���G�ii�r.��i�a� P ,il„IG�a 'at�iG•,It IIaJI'r�ll It'aIIIIM I�alt�ll ai'al' Residential Receptor C�I,,il�i 1iIG�ap IIPII�JIII�III�JI Italt" Ian �IIII,.tla► Commerclal Receptor I,;k� JI,� Lal�IINlII�l�lll;a'�J • a ! �� i1110111"111e ital�]II'! Hazard Category of Material H i0Jl� Type of Receptor C Sensitive Receptor -Residential Receptor Cornmercial Receptor Land Use HazScoreCatc-Calpins Riv-CCHS-020403.x18 Calculations Page 3 of 3 Printed on 2l4/03 GG N � �Q Vol. co G � yc va � ,� � �o +�► �,y �, tD JS WOO C, � '� a '$- C%I ME A 0 o q 04 dig to 15 g . 5 0 0 , Me co zoo 0 too WO lot .. x 4 0 00, TO too_ C4 ".001 Vol' win 40 so -JP- Ox 4.01"-ft 0 1 0 Ott C% .., fo JZ5 0 C6. it volt Sample Hazard Score Documentation Form This worksheet contains calculations to gatimate the hazard score for the project. This worksheet is for CCHS use. Data to be summarized from Tables 1 &2 contained on the Data Input worksheet. Hazard Score Formula(ISO Section 84-63.1004) [(T+C+P} *Hj+D+A where, "T"refers to the point assignment for"Transportation Risk"; "C''refers to the point assignment for"Community Risk-Type of Receptor OPO refers to the point assignment for"Facillty Risk-Size of Project- Percent Change° "H" refers to the point assignment for"Hazard Category of Materiel or Waste." uD"refers to the point assignment for"Community Risk-Distance from Receptor'',and "A" refers to the point assignment for"Facility Risk-Size of Project-Totai Amount" I Transportation Risk(T): Applicable Hazard Category A B C Footnotes Summarize from Data Input Worksheet: Total Planned Quantities Transported: Truck (tonatyr) 10.3.86 *1 Rail. (tons/yr) 91 Marine (tonal) '1 Pipeline .(tons/yr) 1248.00 191 Basellne Period: Truck (tons/yr) 105.45 *1 Rail (tons/yr-) "1 Marine (tons/yr) 01 Pi eline (tons/r 12p448.14 91 Resulting Percent Increase Truck 98.5% *2 Rail "2 Marine !2 Pipeline 100.0% 02 ResultinTransportation Risk Score T 0 1t3,1t4 I Notes: "1 -Summarize from Data Input worksheet by hazard category. •2-The shaded area Indicates these values are calculated. 113-Manually select the hazard score from the ordinance. "4-If more than one mode of transportation, must ratio the score accordingly. Facility Risk-Size of Project-Percent Change(P): Applicable Hazard Category A B C Footnotes Summarize from Data Input Worksheet: Proposed fill to maximum Volume (tons) 32.8835 *11 Baseline Inventory tons 44 61 Resulting Percent Increase. 75.2% `2 Resulting Percent Change Score P: 6 93 Notes: "1 -Summarize from Data Input worksheet by.hazard category. "2-The shaded area indicates these values are calculated. "3- Manually select the hazard score from the ordinance. Land Use HazScoreCaic-CalpineRiv-CCHS-020403-GYGypsurn.xls Calculations Page 1 of 6 Printed on 214103 rn le Hazard Score DocumentationSs Formp _ Facility Risk-Size of Project-Total Amount(A): Applicable Hazard Category A B C Footnotes Summarize from Data Input Worksheet: Proposed fill to maximum Volume tons 10.8375 '1 Resulting1 Total Amount Scone A 14 03 Notes: �1 -Summarize from Data Input worksheet by hazard.category. Manually select the hazard score from the.ordinance. Distance from Receptor(D): Applicable Hazard Category A B C Footnotes Summarize from Data Input Worksheet: Distance to Sensitive Receptor (feet) 4400 Distance to Residential Receptor (feet) 1300 '1 Distance to Commercial Rece for feet 600 Resulting Receptor Distance Score-(D) Sensitive Receptor 14 '3 Residential Receptor 24 03 Commercial Receptor 27 '93 Notes: '1 -Summarize from Data Input worksheet by hazard category. .93- Manually select the hazard score from the ordinance. . Summary of Hazard Score Parameters: Applicable Hazard Category A B C Footnotes Fortation Risk T 0 '2 t Chane P 6 02 mountA 14 `2 e from Receptor D Sensitive Receptor 14 '2 Residential Receptor 24 `2 Commercial Receptor 27 "2 ti r !iI i Type of Receptor �i�it�I,11nl1'+'r'I a •, , •11 r. �1�����ra�Mal�• i YP p • y�,II H r I� �II,�1�4I11( ��,•�1���j������. h ������ii� Sensitive Receptor �1�h1` �I6'I�r7�7I�����I ��bf���tilf���� ' �I kl Jl l��lf 'I 1w s �I� II tNl�p�l� .5 Residential Receptor ,al�alf� t'1tiJlfi�Ilt•!iI�I �i;a�i•�i ;ll�al Commercial Receptor 4� c��il•lt• '�ir•'JW W.r J,r.,,, ��,al��I f►Jlk.It 5 Hazard Category of Materiel H NL jOi 0f'1 j�� G �ra� �����"aa "5 Notes: "2-The shaded area indicates-these values are calculated. 5-Value set by ISO Section 84-63.1004. Hazard Score Calculations: -- - Applicable Herd Category _ [tT+-C+P)� H]�D+A - App _ • A B C Footnotes Type of Receptor C Sensitive Receptor . 67 "2 Residential Receptor A. 71 '2 Commercial Receptor 71 "2 MAXIMUM SCORE 71 '2 MAXIMUM SCORE HAZARD CATEGORY B Notes: '2-The shaded area indicates these values are calculated. Land Use HazScoreCalc-CalpineRly-CCHS-420403-GYGypsum.xls C.McutFitions Page 2 of 6 Printed on 2/4/03 Sample Hazard Score Documentation Form R!!RR*fSSR����iRlil!!lfxRR!!!*RRR�!l����i�i��fA!!lRRRR'�!!RR!!'RR��ii�li�fR/RRlRRR*!!!RRlltf����R��'f*!R/*!!!lIRRRRR!!! Impact of changing risk values(for values close to the edge of the next range); [ (T+C+P)/H J+D+A Applicable Hazard Category A ® C FTransportation Risk T nt Chane P Total Amount A Distance from Receptor D SensItive Receptor Residential Receptor commercial Receptor fit �.�at Ia "ItII�I t'iI i; If��lf r'dj�"�; w Type of Receptor . C 11 L 411. 'a�r1 I al lkyal ICO tI f11('111211lli 1�a.al 01 Sensitive Receptor CJI at t ltd i hit,Jl Wil•Jll1 p I s i I ��I11 1n , n n I��1111 J I Cd4 �I�d , � � �� �. J iiaJ�d I[L4,Reeldentla! Rece for1 i��a1�ll 1�i P �, Ia,�1�J1 Jal!1lllCornrnercisl Rece for �Ji�d flfl t �I , "���MSI �N� ''II 1(f,, d I"SIL ii Hazard Category of Matehal H f 04 aidj�1► ,, ,, Type of Receptor C Sensitive Receptor Residential Receptor Commercial Receptor I Land Use HazScoreCalc-CalpineRly-CCHS-020403-GYGypsurn.xls Calculations Page 3 of 6 Printed on 214/03 a 2003 F�br>a�y United States Office of Solid Waste EPA550-8-98.003 Environmental Protection and Emergency Response July 1998 Agency (5.104) www.epa.Qov/ceppo/ �►EK G- ENERAL GUIDANCE CEPt FOR RIISK . . MANAGEMENT P,ROG -RAMS 4 OC FR PART 68) Chemirai Emergency Preparedness and Prevention Office Printed on recycledpaper /7 f f • Chapter I General Applicability 1-14 ♦ Use of regulated substances present in process water or anon-contact cooling watear as drawn from the environment or municipal sources,or use of regulated substances present in air used either as compressed air or as part of combustion. ACTIVITIES IN LABORATORIES If a regulated substance is manufactured,processed, or used in a laboratory at a stationary source under the supervision of a technically qualified individual(as def ted by§ 720.3(ee) of 40 CFR),the quantity of the substance need not be considered in determining whether a threshold quantity is present. This exclusion does not extend to: • Specialty c-bernical production; ♦ Manufacture, processing,or use of substances in pilot plant scale operations; and ♦ Activities conducted outside the laboratory. 1.6 STATIONARY SOURCE The rule applies to "stationary sources" and each stationary source with one or more covered processes must file an RMP that includes all covered processes. SIMPLE SOURCES For most facilities covered by this rule, determining what constitutes a``stationary source"is simple. If you own or lease a property,your processes are contained within the property boundary,and no other companies operate on the property,then your stationary source is defined by the property boundary and covers any process within the bouzadaraes that has more than a threshold quantity of a regulated substance. You must comply with the rule and file a single RMP for all covered processes. MULTIPLE OPERATIONS OWNED 6Y A SINGLE COMPANY If the property is owned or leased by your company,but several separate operating divisions of the company have processes at the site,the divisions' processes may be considered a single stationary source because they are controlled by a single company. Two factors will determine if the processes are to be considered a single source:Are the processes located on one or more contiguous properties? Are all of the operations in the same industrial:group? If your company does have multiple operations that are on the same property and are in the same industrial group, each operating division may develop its prevention program separately for its covered processes,but you mut file a single RMP for all covered processes at the site. You should mote that this is different from the requirements for filing under CAA,Title V,and EPCRA section 313 (the annual toxic release inventory),where each division could file separately if your company chase to do so. Cbapter 1 1-15 General Appficability OTHER SOURCES There are situations where two or more separate companies occupy the same site. The simplest of these cases is if multiple companies lease land at a site(e.g.,an industrial park). Each company that bias covered processes must file an RMP that includes information on its own covered processes at the site. You are responsible for filing an RMI' ,for any operations that you own or operate. ,Another possibility is that one company owns the land and operates there while leasing part of the site to a second company. If both companies have covered processes,each is considered a separate stationary source and must file separate RMPs P � P n Y P ` even if they have contractual relationships,such as supplying product to each other or sharing emergency response.functions. If you and another company jointly own a site,but have separate operations at the site, you each must file separate RMPs for your covered processes. Ownership of the land is not relevant; a stationary source consists of coveted processes located,on the same property and controlled by a single owner. .JOINT VENTURES You and another company may jointly own covered processes. In this case, the legal entity you have established to operate these processes should file the RMP. If you consider this entity a subsidiary,you should be listed as The parent company in the RMP. MULTIPLE LQCAnoNS If you have multiple operations in the same area,but they are not on physically connected land,you must consider them separate stationary sources and file separate PJVTs four each,even if the sites are connected by pipelines that move chemicals among the sites. Remember, the rule applies to covered processes at a single location. Exhibit 1-3 provides examples of stationary source decisions. 1.7 WHEN YOU MUST COMPLY Prior.to June 21, 1999,if you deterni ine that you have a covered process,you must comply with the requirements of part 68 no later than June 21, 1999. This means that if you have the process now or start it on June 1, 1999,you must be in compliance with-the rule on June 21, 1999. By that time you must have developed and implerne-nted all of the elements of the rule that apply to each of your covered processes,and you must subn-.t an RMI'to EPA,in a form and mariner ner that EPA will specify prior to that time. If the first time you have a covered process is after June 21, 1999, or you bring a new process on line after that date,you must comply with part 68 no later than the date on which you first have more than a threshold quantity of a regulated substance in a process. G�'r EXHIBIT Im3 STATIONARY SOURCE • Description Interpretation S Representation p Wt. ABC Chemicals ABC Chemicals Same owner Ger enal Chemicals Q1Mslon Plastics Division same stationarysource, same industrial group 1 RMP ABC ChemiciWis Agriwitural Chemicals Division . 1 •M• I I lklii;5 2 stationary sources ABC Chemicals ABC Chemicals two owners 2 RMPs 1 ABC 1 XYZ .XYZ Gases rt• 3 stationary sources two owners 1 ABC Chemicals ABC Chernic8ls ABC Refinery three Industria{ groups 1 ABC-Ref ne AL1 "Z Gases X12 Gases ABC Cherrncals two owners 2 stationary sources 2 RMPs Mn2mi wki ilk Imt vmj ABC-FANO Joint Ventum same owner 1 stationary source ABC Products same industrial group 1 RMP ABC Prod contiguous property Building owned by Brown Properties - Farm Cherniceis Inc. Bran Property offloes 2 stationary sources I UO -ABC two owners 2 RMPs Chwnk�ls 1 ABC Chemicals ' 1 Farm Chemicals 11 W till I IN I -1 ADELL Peck Supply Stu g® no regulated subraancss T r F• 68,10 40 CFR Ch.1 (7-1-99 Edition) concentrations, radiant heat, or over- Vessel means any reactor, tank, pressure, as a result of an accidental drum, barrel, cylinder, vat, kettle, release. boiler,pipe,hose, or other container. Regulated substance is any substance Worst-case release means the release � listed pursuant to section 112(r)(3) of of the largest quantity of a regulated the Clean Air Act as amended, in substance from a vessel or process line §69.130. failure that results in the.greatest dis- •Replacement In kind means a replace- tante to an endpoint delved -in meat that satiaf les the design specs- §68,22(a). f i cations. R11�f,P means the risk management FR FR 4493. Jan. 31, 1994, as emended at el plan re ul7red under subpart G of this FR 31117,June 20,1998;83 FR 644,Jan.$, 19'98: F q p 64 FR 979,Jain.G.1999) per. Srationary source means any build- §68,10 Applicability. Ings, structures, equipment, installa- tions, or substance emitting stationary .(a) An owner or operator of a sta- activities which belong to the same in- tionary.source .that has more that a dustrial group, which are located on threshold quantify of a regulated sub- one or more contiguous properties, stance in a process, as `determined which are under the control of the under 5 68.115, shall comply with the re- same person (or persons under common quirements of this part no later than control), and from which an accidental the latest of the following dates: release may occur. The tern's sta- (1) June 21, 1999; tionary source does not apply to trans- (2) Three years after the date on portation, including storage incident which a regulated substance is first to transportation, of any regulated listed under§68.130;or substance or any other extremely haz- (3) The date on which a regulated ardous substance under the provisions substance is first present above a of this part. A stationary source in- threshold quantity in,a process. cludes transportation containers used (b) program 1 eligibility regtdre- for storage not incident to transpor- meets. A covered process is eligible for tation and transportation containers Program i requirements as provided in connected to equipment at a stationary §68-12(b) if it meets all of the following source for loading or unloading. Trans- requirements: portatlon Includes, but is not limited (1) For the five years prior to the -to, transportation subject to oversight submission of an RMF, the process has or regulation under 49 CFR parts 19Z, not had an accidental release of a regu- 193, or 195, or a state natural gas or lated substance where exposure to the hazardous liquid program for which the substance, its reaction products, over- state has in effect a certification to pressure generated by an explosion in- DOT under 49 U.S.C. section 60105. A volving the substance, or radiant heat stationary source does not include nat- generated by a fire involving the sub- uially- occurring --hydrocarbon -res- stance led to any of the following off- ervoirs. Properties shall not be consid• site; eyed contiguous solely because of a (i) Death; railroad or pipeline right-of-way. (ii)I4ury; or Threshold .quantity means the quan- (til.) .Response or restoration activi- tity specified For .regulated substances ties for an exposure of an environ- pursuant to section 112(x)(5) of the mental receptor; Clean Air Act as amended, listed In (2) The distance to a toxic or flam- §68.130 and determined to be present at mable endpoint for a worst-case release a stati,onary -source as specified in assessment conducted under Subpart B , §68.115 of this part. and 5 68.25 is less than the distance to Typical meteorological condlrlons any public preceptor, as defined in means the temperature, wind speed, 168.30; and cloud cover, and Atmospheric stability (3) Emergency response procedures class, prevailing at the site based on have been coordinated between the sta- data gathered at or near the site or tionary source and local emergency from a local meteorological station. planning and response organizations. 40 my , r� 4; ••• r f •r;• i Aip, 0,qALITY October 15,2002 PO ANAG C W ENT D 1 5 i a l C T Rivervic-sv F+anergy. Center LLC P 0 Box 551 Pittsburg, CA 94:565 Robec;a Cooper Scott Haggerty Application"+L1Tnbc-r: 5412 ;V we.CNIraerso-1) Plant i-iniber; 14-312 Mate Nuey Bquipwent LOC11tinn: Shelia Yuuna 801 M i nuker Road CONTRA COVA COUNTY Antioch, Chi 94509 Mn rk DeSa u In ier Wile Rose Gayle a it kem s Dear Applicant' :MIN cocNTY This is yvtlr)tcth4ri ty!r,t 011 uct the 10110 i E1e; Karold C.Brown,jr. NAPA ecu NIN S_l Coinbustiom K� 'rurbi ne �r itli Water lei j ectio n or Dry Low I�0. eonibusters l raciwa gcii!�ne:h: G encral Ej ectric C.vi6o o o PC Sprint,aatu ral gas fired,49,6 MW uct si niplc-cycle, -SAN� ,•ac!sco Gnu I'+r 50014jM)3t ui 9j�-�naxirrium lieu#input rating;ting?ab a ted by A-1 0xid n tion Catniys t, Chris ris Daly anti A-2 Se 1c etiye C n taly tic Reduc tion System. Lolar%d Yee SAM 1AATEO couNry The c gaipnienr cies clribad ab P c is sxibj ect W conditinn no-20010. ,perry Hill Marlan-d Tcrr:nsand Notifiention (S;:Vr.IY; Please contact yotir:tssigned Permit Engine-er,listed in the correspondence seetian of this letter,by taht}nc TA CLARA COUNTYby fax,or in writing of lout flute days before thu initial operation of the equipment so that we may obs ern SAN Randy Attswey the a cl-aipinent ill operation and verify Confot7l'1�uce.with the Anchorin'to Construct. Operation inciiXICs arty ;Gh40 w!''MR s tart-Lip of the source for testi]ag or otlitr purpoS es.Operation of egidpino nr without notif is ation to the Liz Kniss DistTi ct may rosu It to enforceineiit acti oil.Do no t send Mart-up noti fteati o ns lo the Air Pollution Cont ral ,1ij lia miller Dena Mossar Officor. Z01 ANO 001,94 y V Star t-nR Period John;,:.Silva ��•1eeeipt of the start-up letter required above,this Authority to Coi�stnict authorizes operation diir gig tale . SONOMA COUNTY start-up pl)riod rrom the date of initi al operation noted in lrryur s tart-up le ttcr Luh til the Perini t to Operate.is Tim Smith issued;up to a maxinium of 90 clays.All contlitimis(specific or implied)of Clic:Atitho ily to Construct are is Pamela Tcrl:81 effect dUTilLg rite start-up period. VV'IIlam C,Morton Fees CEO I District Regidatimi 3 rcyuin:s a fee for each neve Permit to{operate. You will be firvoi ced upon r uccipt of your F—)maitive Secretary start-tip letter. No pfrmits will be is-stied until a It o urstallcl ing fees are paid. E Ilc;n Garvey Inyolied Conditions MR POLLUTION CO3NTROL OFFICER In the absence of spec permit conditions to the cnntrnry,the duotighputs; fuel and ma�cria l consumption. capacities,and hours of upe:re tion-described in your perrra t app]ie.a#iVn Will be c431sidered m aximu m nllo-1 Wn L'l1e liinits.A new permit will be rctiuired be-fore Inv increase in these parameters,or change:in saw material handtc�.may be n-mde. Earpir-' lioz1 1n accordnnce with Regulation 2-1-407,this Authority ro Construct expires Mho yoars fro.FCi the date of i3 suancc u1110ss sub stantia i tis a of the anthority bas begun. y .�,' !.. L•I ', I '1 ` r ` ;• ' !I I,•�(.�►h •. �1 1►( i ,� :,, .. �J ' �I•ip�i.,rrf�i►1���I �J�Jrr .N 1 1' .s �l _� rt IBJ + r• •. EXHIBIT I c` .L Applir,ation: 5412 October 15,2002 Confident aht Unless You have already desigmted specifically identified materi4l s in your permit applioatio,Y as confidential,under the Uif=ia Publ is Rec=&fact, a ll data in your permit applic ation,the perrMt itself and all permit conditions will be coDsidCMd a nmtter of public.record and may bc, disclosed to a third party.Please eontact your par nit reviewer iTinniudiately if yogi�16h to amend your pzn-r it application submittals or to desi mato certain permit conditions as confidential.Unless we hear from you within terk(10)calendar days of this letter,except for umterials which have been previously designated� confide'utial,yDLi shall be deemed to have waived axay claim of confidentiality%vith respect to all materials in the Distrivt`s files relating to this perxuit application, Rip-ht of Eotry The ,fir Pollution Control Officer of the Bay Area .fir Quality Maiwgeiueirt District, the Chairman of the CaJifomia Air� Rescurcea Board, the IL%gional Administrator sof the Environmental Protection Agency, nod/or their designees, Upon' . presentation of credcntia Is, shall he granters thr:right of entry to any premises Qu vyhich an air pollution source is l-roated for the purposes of: . A. Thr,inspection of the source B, The;surnpluig of materials used at the source C. The runduction sof an emissions soarce test D. 'IT1ie inspcction of auy records required by District itt10 or pomilt coudition-1 Correspondr�+ e Pleasc inc bide;you application nUalber with an Y correspondence w i rte the District.The D iscrict's regu latiDna=v be viewed online at film.If Yon have ally quEestiQu.c on this Ma ller,pleast call Dick Woc:isek,Air Qual i ty Engi neer 11 at(415)749L.49 84. S tar tup in formic tion ms)y be taxed to the Pe r mit Division at 415-?49-5034. Very truly Yonls, .,flen Garvey Air Polhitio ontr 16fl" e Je Permit Servi4 Division < r . CNO ��1 ---.....---------....-------..snow---------------- Permit Conditions Definition$ Hour: Any continuous 60-minute period Calepdar Day: Any continuous 24-hour period beginning at 12:00 AM or D000 hours. year! Any conssout i re twelve-month peri od Heat Input: All heat inputs refer to the heat input at the higher- heating value (HHV) of the fuel., in Btu tscf. Firing Hours: Period of time, during which 'fuel is flowing to a unit, measured i.n fifteen-minute incregents. MM Btu: million British thermal units Gas Tcirbine start-up Mode: the time beginning with the introduction of continuous fuel flaw to the Gas Turbine until the requirements listed in Condition 19 are met, but not to exceed 50 minutes. Gas Turbine Shutdown Mode: The time from non-compliance with any requirement listed in Condition 19 until, termination of fuel -flog to the Bas Turbine, but not to exceed 30 minutes. Co rreoted Concentration: the concentration of any pollutant (generally NOx, CO or NH3) cor~rooted to a standard stat ass oxygen conccentrati.cn. For an amrssi.on point (exhaust of a Gas Turbine) tete standard stack gas oxygen concentration is 15% 02 by volume on a dry basis Commissioning Activities: All testing, adjustment, tuning, and calibration activities recommended by the equipment manufacturers and the const ruotion contractor to insure safe and reliable steady state operation of the gas torbinss;-.-heat recovery steam _ generators, steam turbine, and associated electrical doliver'y systems. - Cornmiss iDning Period: The Period. shall oommence whets a gas turbine is first fired. The period shall terminate when the plant has completed performance testing, is available for oomme roial operation, and has initiated sales to the power exchange. The oommissloning period shah. nut exceed 164 days cinder any circumstanCes. Precursor Organic Compounds (P00s): Any compound of carbon, excluding methane, ethane, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, carbonic acid, metallic carbides or carbonates, and amdonlum carbonate EGUIPMENT DESCRIPTION: This Authority To Construct is issved and is valid for this equipment only while it is in the configuration set forth in the following destr�ption: Installation of one Simple-Cycle Gas Turbine Genenator Consisting Of 1. Simple Cycle Gas Turbine, General Eleotrio LM8000 PC, Maximum Heat Input 500 MMBtu/hr, Nominal Electrical Output 49.6 MW, Natural Gas-Pired. Selective Catalytic Reduction (SOR) NOx Control System 34 Ammonia Injection System. (including the ammonia storage tank and control system) 4. oxidation Catalyst (00) System, 5. Continuous emission monitoring system (CEMS) designed to continuously record the measured gaseous conoentrations, and calculate and continuously inontor and reoord the NOx and CO concentrations in ppmvd corrected to 16>1% oxygen on a dry basis, PERMIT CONDITXONS: Conditions for the Commissioning Period 1 . The owner lope rator shall minimize emisaions of carbon monoxide and nitrogen oxides from S-1 Gas Turbine to L the maximum extent DUsible during the commissioning period, Conditions 1 through 10 shall only apply during the commissioning period as defined above. CumulatlVe Increase) 2. At the earliest feasible opportunity in accordance with the recommendations of the equipment manufacturers and the construction contractor, the owner/operator shall tune 8-1 Gas Turbine oonbustor to vnimizs the emissions of carbon monoxide and nitrogen oxides. (Basis: cumulative In-crease) 3. At the earliest feasible opportunity in acoordanoe with the recommendations of the equipment manufacturers and the const ruction oontractor, the ownamope rator shall install., adjust, and operate the A-1 Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) System and A- 2 Ox:dation Oatalytio (OC) System to minimize the emissions of nitrogen oxides and carbon monoxide from 8.1 Gas Turbine, (Basisz Cumulative Increase) 4. Coincident with the steady-state operation of A-1 Selective Catalytic Aeduction ($OR) System and A-2 Oxidation Catalytic (OC) System, pursuant to condition 3; the owner/operator shall comply with the Gas Turbine (8-1) NOx and CO emission 11mitatione specified in oonditiDns 18.1 and 18,$. (Basis,b BACT, off setfl 511 The ownerloperator shall submit a plan to the District Permit Services Division at least two weeks prior to first firing of 6-1 Gas Turbine desoribIng the procedures to be followed during the commissloning of the tupbines. The plan must include a oescription of each commissioning activity, the anticipated duration of each aetivity in hours, and the purpose of the activity. The activities described must include, but not be limited to, the tuning of the water Injection,, the installation and operation of the required emission control systems, the installation, calibration, and testing of the CO and Nox continuous emission monitors, and any activities requiring the firing of the Gas Turbine (6-1) without abatement by their respective SCR and OG Systems. (Basis: Cumulative Increase) 61 During the commissioning period, the ownerloperator shall properly install,' operate and maintain continuous emission monitors and data r000rders to demonstrate Gomplianoe with ocnditions 8 through 10 for the following parameters; firing hours fuel flow rates stack gas nitrogen oxide emission Goncentrations stack gas oarbon monoxide emission ooncentrations stack gas oxygen concentrations. The ownerl operator shall record and monitor the above parameters at least once every 15 minutes (excluding normal calibration periods or when the monitored source is not in operation) for ;9-1 Gas Turbine. The owner-toperator sha-11- use-Distriot-approved-methods -to calculate heat input rates, nitrogen diox1de mass emission rates, carbon monoxide mass emission ranee, and NOx and 00 emission concentrations, summarized for each clock hour and each calen�dar day. The ownerloperator shall retain all recordson site for at least 5 years T rom the date of entry and shall make then available to District personnel upon request, {Basis t Cumulative lncrease} 7. The owner/operatDr shall proporly install, calibrate , and operate Di atrict-approved continuous monitors as specified in condition 6 prior to first firing of S-1 Gas Turbine. During the first firing of tho turbine, the detection range of the continuous emission monitors must be adjusted as ncessary to auburateli measure the resulting range of tO and NDx remission concentrations. (Basis: 8 AQMD 9-9-5017 SACT, . offsets) g. The ownerloperator operate shall not operate -1 Gas Turbine for more than 100 hours without the SGfl or 00 Syet ems during the oommissioning period. Suoh operation of thie S-1 bas Turbine without abatement will be ximited to discrete commissioning activities, Upon completion of these aotivities, the ownerloperator shall provide written notice to the District permit Servioes and Enforoement Divisions. (Basis: offsets) O. The total mass emissions of nitrogen oxides, oarbon monoxide, precursor organic compounds, PM10, and sulfur dioxide that will be emitted by the 8-1 Gas Turbine, inoluding the commissioning period shall aocrue towards the consecutivetwelve-month emission .imitations specified in condition 21 . (Basis:offsets) 10.0 Within sixty (60) days of first fire, the owner}operator shall conduct the first RATA test and the first source test required by condition 24. The source test shall include MOX, GO, and POG emissions during start-up and shutdown of tine gas turbines. The PQD emissions shall be analyzed for methane and ethane to account for the presence of unburned natural gas. The ownerloperator shall conduct, at a minimum, source tests during three start-up and three shutdown periods. Nc less than thirty (30) days before conducting source tests, the ownerloperator shall submit to the District � a detailed soorce test. plan designed to satisfy the requ i.rements of this condiTion. The owne riope rato r shall be notified of any necessary modificatiar$ to the plan within 20 working days of receipt of the plan; otherwise, the plan shall be deemed approved. The ownerloperator shall notify the District within ten (ID) days prior to the planned source testing dates and shall submit source test results to the District within GO days of the source testing date. (Basis: Offsets) The Equipment for Which This Authority To Construct Is Issued May Be Operated Only When In Compliance With The Following Conditions; 11. Consistency with Analyses: The ownerloperator shall operate all equipment in accordanoe with all information submitted igith the application (and supplements thereof) and the analyses under which this permit is issued Unless otherwise acted below. (Basis: BAAQMD 2-1-40S) 12. Confliots Between Undit ions: In the event that any condition herein is date rm ined to be in confl.iot with any other condition contalned heroin, tfien i if principles of Yaw do not provide to the contrary, the condjtion most protective of air quality and public health and safety shall prevail to tete Bxtent feasible. (Basis: BAAQMD 1-102) 13, Reimbursement of Costs: All reasonable -expenses, as tet forth In the District's rules or regulations, incurred by the Dist rIat for all activities that fellow tete issuance -of this permit, including but not limited to permit condition implementation, compliance* verification and emergency response, directly and necessarily related to enforcement of the permit shell be reimbursgd by the owner/cparator as required by the District's ruses or regulations. 14, Access to Records and Facilities: As to any eondit ion that requires for its effective enforcement the inspection of records or faoiliti.es by representatives of the Distri.ota the Air Resources Board (ARB), tho U.S. Environmental Protection Agenoy (U.s. EPA), or the California Energy Commission (CEC), the ownerioperator shall make such records available or provide acoess to $uch facilities upon notice from representatives Of the District, ARS, U.S. EPA, or OEC. Aocess shall mean access consistent with California Health and Safety Code Section 41 510 and Clean Air Act Section 114A. (sAAIMID: 1-440, 1-441) 1 Motkf ication of Commencement of Operation: The owner/operator sha.11 notify the District of the date of anticipated commencement of turbine operation not less than 14 days prior to such date, Temporary operations under this permit are granted consistent with the District's rules and regulations, (Basis: BAAQMD: 2-1- 302) is. OperaEtioas: The owner/operator shall properly maintain and keep the gas turbine, emission oontrQls, OEMs and associated equipment in good operating condition at all timos when the equipment is in operation. (Oasis: BAAQMD 2-1407) 17. visible Emissions; the ovine rl ope ra'tc r shall not discharge air contaminant into the atmosphere for a period or periods aggregating more than three minutes in any one hour, which is as dark or danker than Rf ngelmann I or equivalent 20% opacity, (Basis: BAACIMD 18. Emissions Limits: : 16.1 The ownerloperator of S-I Gas Turbine shall not emit more than 2.5 ppmvd oxides of nit rogan (NDx) 0 i ft 02 (3-hour rolling average) into the atmosphere, except during periods.of startup and shutdown as defined in this permit. The owned operator shall verify the NOx concentrations from the stack of 8-1 by a District-approved continuous emission monitoring system (C5MS) and during any required source test. (basis; BACT) 18,2 The owner;operator of S-1 shah. not emit more than 10.0 ppnvd ammon is p 151% -02 (1,hou r average) into the atmosphere, exoept during periods of startup and shutdown as defined in this permit. The owner/operator shall verify the ammonia eGncent ration by the continuous recording of the ratio of the ammonia injection rate to the NOx inset rate to the 6ORcontrol system (molar ratio) . The owner/operator shall establish the maXimum allowable N.H31MOx molar ratio during a district approved source test, and shall not exceed the established limits unless a now ratio has been established during another District approved source test. (basis: SACT) y 8. The owner/operator of 8-1 shall not emit sore than S.0 ppmvd carbon monoxide (CO) 0 1.5 % 02 (3-hour rolling average) into the atmosphere, except during periods of startup and shutdown as defined in this permit. The owne r t operator shall verify the c0 concentration of S-t by a District approved CEMS and during any required source test. (basis: BACT) 16,4 The ownerloperator of B-1 shall not emit more than 2.0 ppmvd precursor organic compound (POC) @ 15% 02 (1-hour average) into the, atmosphere, except during periods of startup and shutdown as defined in this permit. The owner/operator shall verify the POC concentration from the stack of S-1 during any required source test. (basis:, BACT) 18.5 The owner/operator of S-1 shall not emit more than 3.0 pounds per hour particulate matter emissions of less than ten m io ron s in diameter (PPI10) into the atmosphere, except during periods of startup and shutdGwn as defined in this permit. The ownerlope rator shall verify PM10 mass I emission rate from the stack of 6-1 during any required source test. (basis: BAOT & cumulative increase) 1 a, The owner/ape rator of s-1 shall not emit more than 1.38 pounds per hour oxides of sulfur emissions (SOx) into the atmosphere, except dU ring periods of startup and shutdown as defined in this permit. The ownerlope rator shall verify the SOx emission rate-during any required -source-test cr natural gas eartification. (basis: BAOX & cumulative inorease) 1�. Turbine Startup: The ownertoperator of S-1 skull not exceed a time period of 60 minutes per start-up, or another time period based on good engineering practice and approved in advance by the oi,st rict. The Startup clock begins with the turbine's initial firing and continues until the unit meats the emission concentration limits. t Oasis: cumulative increase) zu, Tu rbIne Shutdown; The owner/operator of S-1 shall not exceed a time period Df 30 minutes each per • shutdown, or anDt4er time period based on good engineering practice and approved in advance by the District. Shutdown begins with initiation of the torbine shutdown sequence and ends with the cessation of to0ine firing. (Basis t Cumulative increase) 21 . Mass Emission Limits: The ownerloperator of B-1 shall not exceed the mass evission limits listed in Table 1 below. Table 1 - Mass Emission Limits (Including Startups and Shutdowns) Pollutant daily Yearly (1b.) (tons) Nox (as NO2) 109 11d3 Co 159 16-05 POC 31 3.2 PM10 72 7.6 Sox (as S02) $2 3.6 The owner/operator shall demonatrate compliance cn one-hour average readings through the use of process monitors (e.g. , fuel use meters), CEMS, and source test results; and tho monitoring, recardkeeping and reporting conditions of this pe rmi t- (Basis: Cumulative increase & reiord keeping) 22. Operational Limits: In oroe r to assure compliance .with the emission limb is of this parmit, the ownerlope rator shall comply with the following operational limits: (a) The heat input to the gas turbine not to exceed: Hourly, 500 MM$tu/hr Daily: 12,000 MMDU/day Annual: 2,500,004 Watu/year The owner/operatur shall use only PUC Quality natural gas to fire the pas turbine (General Order 58-a) , The ohne rloperator shall not use natural gas with sulfur ooncentrations in excess of 1 gr.1100 sef. 28s Monitoring Requirements: The ownerioperator shall comply with the following. monitoring requirements for the gas turbine: (a) install and maintain exhaust stack platform with permanent provisions to allow collection of stack gas samPlea consistent with EPA test methods. ib) install and maintain an ammonia injection system with an operational ammonia flowmater and Injection pressure indicator accurate to plus or minus five percent at full acale and to a i be calibrated once every twelve months. (c) install and maintain a continuously recording emissions monitor(s) for NOx, co and 02. Continuous emiseions monitors must comply with the requirements of 44 CFR Part 80, Appendices 5 and F, and 40 GFR Pant 76, and be capable of monitoring ooncentrations and mass emissions during normal Gperati.ng conditions and during startups and shutdowns. (d) continuously record the fuel flow rate using District-approved fuel, flow meters along with quarterly fuel Compositional analyses for the measuring the fuel's higher heating value (Wet basis). ; (e) analyze the total sulfur content of the fuel gas on a quarterly basis. (Bas is: Monitoring & recard keeping) 24. Source Testi.ng]RATA: Within sixty days after startup of the gas turbines, and at a minimum on ars annual basis thereafter, a relative accuracy test audit (RATA) shell be conducted on the GEMS in accordance with 40 CFA Part 6a Appendix B Performance Speoif ications, and a source test shell be conducted. The ownerloperator sho.11 provide written test results of the source tests to the District within thirty days after Testing. The owner/operator shall submit' a complete tort protocol to the District Ro later than OQ days prior to testing, and notification to the District at least 'ken days prior to the actual date of testing. The ownerl ope rato r shall comply with the source test protocol for the following: measurements of N09 r CO; pact and stack gas oxygen content in accordance with ARB Test Method 100; measurements of pMi4 in acoordance with ARE Test Method � 5; and measurements of anmania in accordance with Bay Area Air Quality Management District test method ST-1B. Alternative test methods, and source testing scope, may also be Used to address the source testing requirements of the permit if approved in advance by the District. The ownerlope rator shell include initial and annual source tests parameters s peci.fiad in the approved test protocol, end at a minimum include the following: -- -� - - )- .--ppmwd at .1 S% 02and Ib I F1��Bt-u;, I�0 x a s R02. b. Ammonia - p pmv d at 15k, 02 (Exhaust) ; c. Co - ppmyd at 15% 42 and l.bJ MMBtu (EBchaust) ; d. POC - ppmvd at 15% 02 and ib/MMBtu (Exhaust); e, PMI 0 - lbfhr (Exhaust) ; f. Sox - lb/hr (Exhaust); g, Natural gas consumption, fuel. High Heating Value (HHV), and total fuel sulfur content; b, Turbine load in megawatts; i, Stack gas flow rate (SDCFM) calculated according to pro�edurec in U.S. EPA Method 19. 1 Exhaust gas temperature (°F) k, Ammonia in a ection tate (lb/hr or mules lhr) (Basis., source test requirements & monitoring) 5. The ownerloperator shall establish a written quality assurance program in accordance with 40 OFA Part 75, Appendix B and 40 CFR Part 60 Appendix F. (easis: a, continuous emission monitoring) 26. The owne rl operato r shall comply with the applioable requirements of 40 CFR Part GD Subpart GG. (Basis: NSPS) 27. The owner/operator shall notify the District in wrkitino of any breakdown condition consistent with the Dist rlcVs breakdown regulations, (Basis: Regulation 1-432) 28. The owner/operator shall include a breakdown condition description of the equipment malfunction or failure, the date and cause of the initial failure, the estimate of the emissions exoess of those allowed, and the actions taken to eestore normal operations. (Basis: Aegulation 1-431) 29. necordkeepinq; The owner/operator shall maintain the following records&. (a) hourly, daily, quarterly and yearly quantity'of fuel used and corresponding heat input rates; fb) the date and time of coach occurrence, duration, and type of any startup, shutmdcwn, or malfunction along with the resulting mass emissions during such time period; (C) emission measurements f rom all source testing, RATAs and fuel analyses; (d) daily, quarterly and yearly hours Of Dperation; (e) hourly records of NOx and GO, emis Dion conoentrations and hourly ammonila injection rates and ammonia/Wx ratio. (f) for the continuous emissions monitoring System; performance testing, evaluations, calibrations, checks, maintenance, adjustments, and any period of non.-Operation of any continuous omissions Monitor. itor. noni (Bas i:sv. record---keeping) The owner/operator shall maintain all records for at least fire years and shall make theta availaLle for District inspectiGn upon request. (Basis: record keeping) 32. Reporting; The ownerloperator shall submit to the District a written report for each calendar quarter, within 30 days of the end of the quarter. The required written report shell include: Daily and quarterly fuel use and corresponding heat input rates, (b) Daily, tenthly, and (fors each month) yearly mass em iss ion rates for all _ oriteria pollutants during normal operations and du r�ng other periods (startup/shutdown, breakdowns); (e) Time intervals, date, and magnitude of excess emissions; (d) Mature and cause of the excess emission, and corrective actions taken, e} Time and date of each period during whieh the GEN! was inoperative, except for zero and span checks, and the nature of system repaira and adjustments; M A declaration stating periods during whish no excess emissions occurred,, I (g) Results of quarterly fuel analyses for HHV and total sulfur content. (Basis: record keeping & reporting) District Operating Permit: The owned operator shall apply for and obtain ,all the necessary permits to operate its accordance with the requirements of the Q:Lstrict's rules and regulations. (Basis; Regulations 2-2 & 2-6) $4. Title IV and Title V Permits: The acid rain monitors (Title Yb) must be certified Lii.thin 9a days of first-fire. (Basis: Regulation 2-6) Application for Certification for entra a e ne ente Son Joaquin, California Submitted to: California Energy Commission Sacramento, California • ��•.-r.•,,`rii\�'•.�ri7'•r� �' '"tit ' 1{j (��L•� ,�iu+t'1.� r 7j���•�• 'r I,�..�.I r L .f+r ». » r�,,.f..pr. r.r•�✓r•r '� r• r� .ir �ql of Vl`r. "r•SS"7•"��- -`� r r+•r r r': ,�,.,��.rt7N,. '. tea.»�, •r i� ak!1 �a� a ' r�f•�T•�Cr '��.!• '_ •`.�+•r I''••rry 11� �L..r�r.•�.,u. I M;:! '00 .�,• + + •• �+ \ P._��i1�,'�'r/,�•� . ��_•�_ e iii ��+. ���r•• .! •_ •- ice. r.,�•�'•t d� L•,.rr. �.;�'r'»• ,�, r• r �?V' ATS ,r,� � ,�.�.`r« )•�'ti. C �L•.•L,•+�Il• � i jr :moi '•� _ Al .a� + � /�• �rih^ •a'�•+- r��+ti�'�!moi.• �/�...�•w•�•i •r � .�.r:-lta<r ,.r••�1 _ ��ir ��`1.-��--"'� -►' y.1� r t`11�1�' 1%���y,{�~�Yi: r ",r.�•�\f.'•+Ki,~J i�.+ ���_-% •r�f tea. r.j J«�_ -, r r '••�.. .,. 1.� 'LIQ-". + mss• �•i ." "dam,"� �. � -��K.r� e. ''� '-r��!�"hj • r �.!S� ,tet- +� . • �r.��-rti� iia ". _•� _--'•�Ky��_� r..•-'�- �� .�'+ .+�^. •f �� t +•• 115 . J .rte+_'3'���.�." ~` •� "''•.r�,�,'• :w �Al 3_ :+iii. •L �. •,r'j' �Ir .. r r r•- }1 r�� �L •' I Siler+i ►' i• r+t� 4 r10, 9NE.M, 7:141 12 Zlk l� i' r; JI , r .1 r .\ 'r a .. -• r•r _ '. •1<<� T I�-r•L Ct;f.r•�� 7l/ � r 1 v � t C I v 11 Y E rgy C r Ps October 2001 Applicant:&d - TBIT Central Valle ner Center LC J SECTION 2.0 Project Descr'ipt'ion 2.1 Introduction The following sections describe the design and operation of the proposed project,associated electric &I transrr&sion lines,natural gas supply line, and water lines. Site selection and alternative sites considered are presented in Section 9.0. Section 2.1 is the introduction, which provides a brief overview of the project. Section 2.2 contains a description of the generating facility,its design,and its proposed operation. Section 2.3 discusses the safety design of the facility. Section.2.4 discusses the expected facility reliability.Section 2.5 refers to the laws, ordinances,regulations,and standards(LORS)applicable to each engineering discipline. The Central Valley Energy Center(CVEC)will be a nominal 1,060-megawatt(MW)net combined-cycle generating facility configured us-Ing three natural-gas-fired turbines and one steam turbine. CVEC will connect to Pacific Gas and Electric's (POME)electrical transmission system via PG&E"s Panache—McCall and Panoche—Kemey 230-kV transmission lines,which are located on a parcel to the south of the project site.Natural gas for the facility will be delivered via approximately 20 miles of new 24-inch pipeline that will connect to PG&E's existing gas transmission lines(Line 2 and Line 401)located 20 miles west of the project site.Approximately 7,000 acre-feet per year(afy) of reclaimed water for cooling tower and process makeup water will be supplied by Fresno-Clovis Wastewater Treatment Facility(WW via a 21-mile pipeline.Domestic water for dfinking and sanitary uses would be provided from the City of San Joaquin municipal systern. Similarly,domestic wastewater disposal will be to the City of San Joaquin sewer system. Cooling water will be cycled in the cooling tower three to eight times(depending on water quality). The blowdown will be concentrated and the water reclaimed onsite using a zero-liquid discharge (ZLD)system(see Section 2.2.9.1.2). CVEC will be located on approximately 85 acres of land under the Applicant's control.The site is located in an industrial area of the City of San Joaquin,Fresno County-Figure 2.1-1 (all figures are located at the end of this section)shows the location of the generating facility site,electric transmission line, natural gas supply line,reclaimed water supply line,domestic water supply line and wastewater disposal line.The legal description of the project site is provided in Appendix 1A_ Property owners within 1000 feet of the C`VEC boundaries,and within 500 feet of project transmission lines,gas lines, and water lines are provided in Appendix 1B. 2.2 Generating Facility Description, Design, and Operation This section describes the facility's conceptual design and proposed operation. Ill Site Arrangement and Layout The site plan on Figure 2.2-1 and typical elevation views on Figure 2.2-2 illustrate the location and size of the proposed generating facility. Sculed areas,parks, and recreational and scenic areas near the site and the proposed transmission lines are shown in Figure 2.2-3. SAC11643W0127W01(002D0C) 2.1 rill V I Aullolzil I ALA UJ/GUI UJ IJ:Z4 rAA SECTION 2.0:PROJECT DESCRIPTION The site is located adjacent and to the west of the intersection of W. Colorado Avenue and Springfield Avenue-Access to the site will be provided via a new road built off Colusa Avenue on the west side of the parcel.This new Toad was anticipated in development plans of the City and would be an extension of Cherry Lane(see Figure 2.14).Most of the power block will be paved to provide internal access to all project facilities and onsite buildings.The areas around equipment, where not Payed,will have gravel surfacing-An existing 7o kV subtransrifission line bisecting the site will be rerouted to the eastern property boundary (see Figure 2.1-1). The proposed 230-kV transmission line interconnect from the project site, 1500 feet south to]?G&E's existing transmission lines.,is shown in Figure 2.1-1.The single-line representation of the interconnect is depicted in Figure 2.2.4. 2.2.2 Process Description The generating facilitywill consist of three combustion turbine generators(CTGs)equipped with dry, injection I low oxides of nitrogen (NON) combustors and stearn miection power augmentation capability;three heat recovery steam generators(HRSG)with duct burners; one condensing stearn turbine generator (STG);a deaerating surface condenser; 16-cell mechanical-draft cooling tower;and associated support equipment providing a total net generating capacity of 1,060 MW_The combustion turbines are expected to be Siemens Westinghouse 501FD units.one nominal 125,000-pound-per-hour auxiliary boiler will also be included to provide steam as needed for auxiliary purposes. Each CTG will generate approximately 180 MW at base load under average ambient conditions. The CTG exhaust gases will be used to generate steam in the BRSGs.The HRSGs will use reheat design with duct firing. Steam from the HRSGs will be admitted to a condensing steam turbine generator. Approximately 550 MW will be produced by the steam turbine when the CTGs are operating at base load at average ambient conditions with maximum duct firing within the HRSGs.The project is expected to have an overall annual availability of 92 to 98 percent The generating facility base load op=tion heat balance is shown on Figure 2.2-5.This balance is based on an ambient dry bulb temperature of 61*F(annualaverage)with fogging of the combustion=J 'V no steam injection for power augmentation,and no duct firing. Associated equipment will include emission control systems necessary to meet the proposed emission limits.NQ,emissions will be controlled to 2.0 parts per million by volume,dry basis(ppmvd) corrected to 15 percent oxygen(@ 15 percent 02,)on an annual average basis(2.5 ppmvd on.a short- term basis)by a combination of low NQ,combustors in the CTGs and selective catalytic reduction (SCR)systems in the HRSGs.A carbon monoxide(CO)catalyst will be installed in the HRSGs to Im' 't CO emissions from the CTGs to 6 ppmvd @ 15 percent 02-The auxiliary boiler will be limited to 9 ppmvd NO.at 3 percent oxygen and 50 ppmvd CO at 3 percent oxygen. 2.2.3 Generating Facility Cycle CTG combustion air flows through the inlet air filter and fogging section and associated air inlet ductwork,is compressed in the gas turbine compressor section,and then flows to the CTG combustor. Natural gas fuel is injected into the compressed air in the combustor and ignited.The hot combustion gases expand through the power turbine sections of the CTGs,causing thern to rotate and drive the electric generators and CTG corapressors.The hot combustion gases exit the turbine sections at approxirnat,e.ly 1,150 degrees Fahrenheit ) and enter the MSG&In the HRSGs,boiler feedwater is converted to superheated steam and delivered to the steam turbine at three pressures: high-pressure (IRDI),intermediate-pressure (P), and low-pressure(U).The use of multiple steam delivery pressures increases cycle efficiency and flexibility.Nigh-pressure steam expands through the B?section of the stearn turbine.This expanded steam referred to as cold reheat steam, is combined with the IP steam and returned to the reheater section of the HRSGs.This mixed,reheated steam(called"hot reheat")is then expanded in the IP steam turbine section. Stearn exiting the IP section of the stearn turbine is SAW 643001270001(001DOC) 2-2 SUBSECTION OUBSECTION B.IZ HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Hazardous materials will not be stored or used In the gas supply line, water supply line, or clectric, I "dors during operations. Storage locations are described transmiss*on lint corn in Table$.12-3. Table,8.12-4 presents information about these materials, including trade carnes;chemical names; Chernical Abstract SeMce(CAS)numbers-, m quantities onsite;reportable quantities(RQs); La Follette Bill threshold planning quantities (TPQs);and status as a Proposition 65 cheimcal (a chernical known to be carcinogenic or cause reproductive problems in humans).Toxicity characteristics the exposure level criteria for acutely hazardous chernicals are shown in Table 8.12-5. Health hazards and flan=ability data are sum=rized in Table 8.12.6. Table 8.12-6 also contains information on incompatible chemicals(e.g., sodium hypochlorite and arx=m^a)- Measures to mitigate the potential effects from the hazardous materials are presented in Section 8.].2.8. BAZAA Construction Phase During construction of the project and"can, acutely h,azardvus materials, as defined in California's Health and Safety Code, Section 25531, will not be used. llmrefore,no discussion of acutely hazardous materials storage or handling is included in this section. Hazardous materials to be used during construction of the project and its associated linear facilities will include gasoline, diesel ftiel,motor oil,hydraulic fluid, solvem, cleaners, sealants, welding flux, various lubricants,paint, aad paint thinner.There are Do feasible altematives to motor fuels and oils for operating construction equipment-Ilm types of paint required are dictated by the types of equipment and structures that mast be coated and by the manufactarers' requirements for coating. The quantities of hazardous materials that will be onsite during construction are small,relative to the quantities used during operation, Construction personnel will be trained to handle the materials properly.The most likely possible incidents will involve the potential for fuels,oil, grease dripping from construction equipmznt.11c snWI quantities of fuel, oil, and grease that might drip M9 from construction equipment will have relatively low toxicity and will be biodegradable. Therefore, the expected environ-mental impact is Sn-,wU of spills=y also occur during onsite refueling. Equipment refueling will be performed away from water bodies to prevent contamination of water in the event of a fuel spill.Therefore,the potential environmental effects from fueling operations are expected to be limited to s areas of co ted soil. If a fuel spill occurs on soil, the co W d soil will be placed into ban-els or trucks for offsite disposal as a hazardous waste.The worst-case scenafio for a cherdeal release from fueling operations would be a vehicle accident involving a service or refueling trucIL Handling procedures for thebs rdous materials to be used onsite during construction are presented in Section 8.12.5.1. The quantities of hazardous martfials that will be handled during construction are relatively small and Best Manage=nt Practices (EWs)will be implemented by contractor personnel.Tberefore, the potential for envirorimmWI effects is expected to be small.. 8.12.4.2 Operations Phase Several hazarckms mat=ials,including three acutely ardous materials,will be stored at the generating site during CVEC operation. Most of the hazardous materials that will be stored onsite are corrosive and are a threat to Humans,particularly workers at the site,ifed,ingested, or contacted by skin.The hazardous characteristics of materials being used at the site am - ed in Table 8,12-6. Table 8.12-6 also contains information on incompatible chemicals(e.g., sodium hypochlorite and ammonia).Mxing incompatible chemicals can generate toxic gasesl Measures to keep incornpatible chemicals separated include separate storage and co areas and/or berniiug(see Section 8.12.8). SAGf16430W01271WWt008-12-D0C) C%I .01. OD 4T � G � VrU CD -�t.-4 0 o0 ,,o C-L. 0 1�0-0 0 C. "S c n loo or 0 0 0 .0 C. 0P-M 0 I 0 Ara* tit � � � � G �, oT �n � 4 � � .� � G G �v ti •it3 G o G woo A.. rA 27 WOO ---00- °p�, � � � c � G o G o t3 -c? -� Cr m � :a �' cf � c� �, tr tr tr to 4Z OV-P, cnGG a, Swlow- 0 ► Vic' � � � - m � +�� � ;P0 '131 (n %.- 27 z 0 to- C. � � v � � — E .moo-- � � � v --0 Co- idw 9T CD cc— %oil IS Ape t1� -'' 0 m C fJ- @'tA mo c a 9, two t jE S. 0 0 c1d J::� Iola 0 q 0 �j w t;0 S Ul r �. s... ca -;--0 00, �► s �,'L' � to CP s Vx c3 0"o 7% t o tJ a U� b.. ..- Z-5 �► ce., AN NJ JL V v-S 0 V a V NJ JL LN"111WWO 11'1 id JL 03 M SO cc t7l 0 C., 0 CD CD 43)"moo a) -OW low .5 §MMll w G rJ) 0 0 0 0 0 0 a OEM U3 (n (a cc Z 0 0 qmo MINN.. Slump 0 0U) :3c o 0 w-W c cs U �t cr U C� C� C.� U C C CJ a 0 i La dho seems (D 0 to -0 Wo L- Mo- Made 0 dew Cr ur cr - ,CrCrr :3 all—tr tr t;75 tr f j j POW& 0 a ,� � ` o L- cc lb— d.-M la) Pam lblb- o 0 g duo 0 cc cc m mink. loom o E3 cr CL "MINK 9 2 a 0 C I.em. coC!3 0>, VqMMM now o goo (D .9 o E E -9 79 few 8 s .0 8 2- 1.- 1 U) - CDc etz &.0 tm on"&- 1 2..0:UNION` en s%w- MPMP C: CD C3 wool, CD M— 15 0 Meew 8 Q ANN, 0 0 z z ja 8 :3 ra 0 1 CL C slow ME OPIUM, 0 0 Am CC> Low Cr 0 0 -WORMS aft.0 son* P r WO 0 IMM Same, .2 9 — a a CD a p Im N to 8 "a .2 W low- 5-0 a. r. .0 � ii c15 ;5 r= 0 2 2 0 0 0 tm qmw 0 CD to c F OWN- ?t Now- 0 o m womis, L9 0'..... 0. val � m 12 72 9) 0 CD flo"W4. NINO 0 CD tv IMMIN 9 eems cr) CCR m 0 soft- Lij MIND SAsm E 0 0 Cv? =8 -E8 �8 08 1 m 70 qp� "MM" Z LU glow Seem. 0 :3 Wo -0 C� CDC >ft ' t C:' CD Gi z z *-^.OPP *%�w X rn cs f1,3 U7 r 4 co 03. too P-- o to C, 0 U) tft C; 0 G 0 N 00 4 t) O ��,i'• Q 0 -Alt 0 Zvi io -080 � r G c -:z:-*_ CO 4p cn � �3 C� to tr 03 '� .fir' V G � y � ✓ � w y SOP oe 0 � � � � 00;00-� . CD z' .� Q .— in % A.- IV C: 0 '"� 8080 � � � ,i.. V © w� „ • G8 -00- tg� 0 C5 e 0 CD Go 'o 0 C-- "ra- U-3 W- 0 ol Zoo 0-0�- co Cl Too r, t:;L age WOO- ol Qs- to Ova E13 CD Is % Oc- Pro- 0 got ca.fl "$ c� (j) 00 J6 IC4 1 low Q i o � woo UOJ U.- .. dD "0 13 03 A 0 a1 jq t7 p O Y-- to vow o a Q 0 J,6 V p .J p V a' to 0 0 Cl to � dy '� �, 4 tits © � .rs c 3 Go CL 0 sew CD .RT Ito, C4cr� ti r.0-Z 0 Nw ch q co 0) o 6 woo to cc co C) E3 CD r. %r _ �, AD a S ddW woo cn U, .0wo dd: -0 Z;Ilft 0 21, C) :> Y�- low 000 ,�: as o c ;; ► ICZ-A Wft 4 .60 0 -0 a V13 CD U- Ul %yLLjg&A.;j1'4 JL u j/zu/uj o. � c� o a c d 0 0 0 0 0 Z z z z z z z z z • w z (3 CL 61 0 -140 LL. sow OaCT M LLI 2 qm C13 ja atii CD LL 10 im M a) Q 0 co M r. CM CL 0 CY tD lz 0 c;r Lo tri C lu V Q a v -o v a 'v O�cr. 0 -0 M C) w CC CJ p G1 Cq 0 0 ,qr to to 0 .>VA 0 :3 7g) La ENNO CL 0—W cm c 0 I= E 0 0 C%l =IC 0 to c 0 0 o Ln co M. E 0 cm -0 W) 0 CD 0 co 0 02 w C? di IL low E cb In r 0 z 0 cc C� C� ru 4 C6 a tiC) co 4 C%l cr) Z Z C.5 I- z W ID 0 Co M C> cm CL E CD G 49 WNW �' 0 :L 0 0- WNW o&. 0 Moab � az vdm w u 0 > LU C4 (D CD CL z ICL 8 CL -0 EL 0 CD En i� V— Us m E e C3 WMA cm wCD .0..0 6 w qmmm as 0 (D 0 o z � o z ,� a JA- 0 10 U d 4 J, 9 Vol 10 C', N IA- te) 0 Tj *Z7 L"nI m 4 p! • CD CA 7 Q t-- � � C� vb d) co Cf3 w � � i "; r• 7 �, t`r C-4 SO, C-4 r- 10*1 CD CD 0 (D 7z oo OAS ;5 0 0 "CIO U? 133 C D m 3° � D-'�a t3. � co woom ;rtel -93 CD 0 tT,Q SZ 0 -ro ID 0 r- 105 § ;a A V) C. C:0 ;.0 0 0 0 L ✓ CD ;6 Z 03 C-nCta -- � �` o ,,,c„ �' ter, Q„c� o � r,�2 --e C3 11000� �,. o _' '' � �'d tea. ,�' c► � r o `�` � c � C�2 JQ— ft;;00 CID cp CD to uj EL to CD 0 16. CD ir dwr bo 0000 low UO 0 C41 CCA CD woo-* CD 0 E �` c as- SIC 9-40 J,-q Poo Ow-1 0 oop in CC 0 CD ID CA 10 40 Apof 04 woo—� 616. uj 03 C3 m go CD R -C-3 0 'IC aw CA 0 0 o s ��' � �' 'a � mat* v.- mr—O --C-3 F goal % © i r. t $L s:ZA to ul SL 0 to CD elm CD P0co . C3. 0 0 -C U-.y' it Z ,loco 0 Is 0 .1 ro a 010 0 Orb wo q wel A 0 clsom.0 % 0 cc VOE CO -co . AO brw CD -ga U)Cl) e s (0 sa.tr ' =1 cg 16 o blo X73'to 100 -S "t 5 m� b ja CD � � � v �* .�- to G Q p 15 CD 0 rt 0 Oslo (D -tat 3 ,R V) 00, CD ID Mao C%l w rj) SUBSEMON VZ HAZARDOUS MATES ALS TABLE 8,12-5 Acutely hazardous Malefials Name Taxle Effects Exposure Levels Anhydrous Toxic offsets for contact with pure liquid or vapor causes eye, Occupational Exposures Ammonia nose,and throat irritation,skin burns,and vesiculation.Ingestion PEL—35 mcVm3 OSHA or inhalation causes burning pain in mouth,throat,stomach,and TLV=1 a mg/m3 ACGIH thorax, constriction of thorax, and coughing followed by vomiting TWA=18 mg/m3 NIOSH blood,breathing difficulties,, convulsions,and shock.Other STEL=35 mg/M3 symptoms include dyspnea,bronchospasms,pulmonary edema, Hazardous Concentrations and pink frothy sputum. Contact of inhalation overMosura can IDLH=300 ppm, cause bums of the skin and mucous membranes,and headache, I-Dso=350 mgtkg-oral,rat salivation,nausea,and vomiting.Other symptoms include ingestion of 3 to 4 ml may be fatal labored breathing, bloody mucous discharge,bronchitis, Sensitive Receptors laryngitis, hernmaptysis,and pneurnonitis.Damage to eyes may ERPG-1 =25 pprn be permanent, including ulceration of conjunctiva and cornea ERPG-2=200 ppm and corneal and lenticular opaolties. ERPG-3=1,040 pprn Sulfuric Acid Irritates eyes,nose,and throat.Ingestion and inhalation may Occupational Exposures cause pulmonary edema,bronchitis, emphysema,conjunctivitis, PEL=I mg/m3 OSHA stomarls,dental erosion,and tracheobronchitis_Contact causes STEL=3 mg/m3 severe bums of the skin and ayes,and dermatitis. Hazardous Concentrations IDLH=80 mgfrnS TCLO=3 rng(m3124 weeks inhalation human LDLO= 135 mg*g—man Sensitive Raceptors ERPGs=Not Available Cyclohexylarnine Caustic/corrosive to skin, eyes, and mucous membranes. Occupational Exposures Systemic effects include nausea,vomiting,anxiety, restlessness, PEL=40 m91rn3 OSHA and drowsiness- TLV=40 mgtm3 A031 H TWA-10 Ppm STEL=None set Hazardous Concentrations LDw=779 mg/kg—oral,albino rates LDN=2,055 mg/kg—dermal,albino rabbits Sensitive Receptors ERPGs—.Not Available ACGIH American Conference of Government Indualrial Hygienists ERPG Emergency Response Planning Guideline ERP(3-1 Maximum airborne concentration below which nearly all individuals could be exposed for up to 1 hour without experiencing other than mild transient adverse health effects ERPO-2 Maximum airborne concentration below which nearly all individuals could be exposed for up to I hour without developing irreversible or serious health'effects ERPO-3 Maximum airborne conoentration below which nearly all individuals could be exposed for up to 1 hour without weriencing life-threatening health effects IDLH Immediately dangerous to Iffe and health Wao Dose lethal to 60 percent of those tested LDLO Lowest published lethal dose mgtkg Milligrams per kilogram Mg/0 Milligrams per cubic motor NIDSH National institute of Occupational Safety and Health PEL OSHA permissible exposure limit for 8-hr workday ppm parts per million STEL Short-term exposure 11mit, 15-min.exposure TCLO Lowest published toxic concentration TLV ACGIH threshold limit value for 8-hr workday TWA NIOSH time-weighted average for 8-hr workday SAC/16435VD12.71aom(W8-12D0C) 8.12-14 (D lop, C) �, Z Vb di to 0-a *V- 0 r Wt tn Q.too W to I vs th CD om = :Q C G or to - 0- _ 2 cr. c: a Vol CD 0 Cl- oz 3 � 'cam, � „G cv -cam � 1 dP-O ONOP !D Q Apo 0 tO Soo la CD 1 WOW- 160. rw C: ww- 0 0 c 00 CD - w A *rA 41 % woo cr quo.. CD ul ' -� 01= mc 0 o 0 low Ira oft rD co igr� trz ISO 0. r % 03 0 U3 Ul 00�; G tin is 0 0)UM) CP d!* o 46 03 .►-- d. � � '.J '� '.� 3z 0 ID 'OC'D* i5 00 t.0 � -_- -- _-~~-~�.~ dw CD lip- 00-1 ow ti) 001-0 00-0 W O-S to .0 too Oo-0 �0- -;j!-a e go--, v t Q % o % 0 75- CL Ila cc CP 0 .S CC-) (g e Cis rD SO Wool tD o tl JS CD id cola ::3 .d.5- 0 lai so- 75 rn 06 CD d-0 oos low JS 5 ICU CD 1001. WOW to AAA moi.l ray v va 60 slow Ct In io ZZO, -13 0 � � f Gb � � Z CD 0 00 uo JZ 0 0 d) 0 10 dooo © 0- 6ei--- - 0 CD 05 cry U:7 titsle., Go 0 !Z, (D 0 0;!iG 6 .1 T c-, 0O:wm-o .r-� S cis coo -ro�- '�GRp0 .00- W tp LAP -10 5:3 0 re co C51 1�0-0 ca dw Ja law -0 CD tp .n y tG,4 d�G --o 00 (D �"' m S� O • --c:ip�l fl "o- to 100 OPW *AO UP Gwom G • �g e a ,��, 0 Q'!..' to a v! co 0- C3 soot dw 'o wa OU) It �vl o -0 CD 00 �5 i 0to0 tg Oro. 0 'd re is 9r .5 � O ca 0000 bo -g -0 0 0 so- 00ios PO 7 Vii" � � no* icy b !D US -*"Poo, two �L I Jl too vet �G Iry �qs "PSI Iz 0 CA 0 ca 41-0 0 Oro- CD o E "ter s In GVA m g-o � � s to CZ 00 ro co 00 WC-1 va ;2 wo tits VO doo" Oroip Pt i7 ice► tR y �j -o- *. to IM io fA �, �? 3 0- c G U3 polo 11,111111111111111111illlllllllllllllllllll1111000� -vo illillillillillllllllIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIilill000 a ,� tre � y fl .% w � Q too 26 yAA 51U?J40UV6J Moft— SUNSECTION 8,12:WARDOUS MATERALS Potential environmental and/or burmn health effect,S could be caused by accidental releases., accidental mixing of'incompatible chenicals., fires, and injury to facility personnel from contact with a hazardous material The,accidental release of the acutely hazardous material auhydrous ammonia might present the most serious potential for effects on the environ=nt and/or human health. Pure ammonia(NH3)is a volatile, acutely oils chemical that is stored under pressure as a liquid and becomes a toxic gas if released. The odor threshold of ammonia is about 5 ppm,and minor irritation of the nose and throat will occur at 30 to 50 ppm Concentrations greater than 140 ppm wM cause detectable effects on lung function even for short teen exposures (0.5 to 2 hours). a At higher concentrations of 700 to 1,700 pprA ar=oma gas will cause severe effects.; death occuirs at. concentrations of 2,500 to 7,000 ppm The hazard to facility workers will be mitigated by facility safety equipment,hazardous materials training, and emergency response pl (see Section 8.7, Worker Health and Safety). In a catastrophic accident,toxic ammonia gas could migrate offsite,and affect the health of huma at locations surrounding the facility(see Section 8.12.5).Facility design will 'M* e,the potential for harm to humans located offsite(see Section 8.12.8.2). Neutralizing arnines (e-g... NALCO 356) contain cyclohexylamine.,which is classified as an acutely hazardous material. Cyclollexylarrine is corrosive to the eyes and skin and, depending on the length of exposure, can cause permanent eye damage and third degree bu=to the.s However,chis chemical is not particularly volatile, and is soluble in water.,which constitutes 50 to 7:5 percent of NALCO 356. The quantity of neutralizing amines stored onsite will be 800 gallons and the max=rn quantity of pure cyclohexylamine,will be 320 g0ons. Because of the low volatility of these chemicals and the relatively s quantities stored, the off-site dnwt is considered s Sulfuric acid, a hazardous material,is a very corrosive chemical that can cause severe harm to hmnans if ingested,inhaled,or contacted. However,sulftidc acid has a very low vapor pressure and eam will not readily volatilize upon release. Therefore,the potential for harm to humans offsite is 01 nL .LIh a=l . The rerawning materials in Table 8.12-4 are also considered to be hazardous,but they pose less threat to hum than anhydrous ammonia, cyclahexylamine,and sulfuric acid. Some materials (atntnon%um bifluoride, citric acid,sodium carbonate, and sodium nitrate}wM be used at the site only during initial startup and during periodic maintenance(once,overy 3 to 5 years).Therefore,the potential for envir0atnental or health effects will exist only durin,,g dose rare occasions when the materials are onsite. 8,12.5 Offsite Migration Modeling Because there is some human activity in the vicinity of the proposed CVEC site,-a vulnerability analysis is presented in Appendix 8.12A. The analysis assesses the risk to h lramns at various distances from the site if a spill or rupture of the anhydrous ammonia storage tank were to occur or if a SpM from the supply truck were to occur wbile,mEffling the storage It also assesses the tisks associated with trans-portation of anhydrous ammonia. Ile worst-case scenario for modeling assumes one of the anhydrous ammonia storage tacks is punctured, and the entire contents are released over a 10-minute span into a catch basin or bernoed area lorated beneath the tank that will contain the entire contents of the tank. Other paranwtrrs include an atmospheric stability classification of"F" and a wind speed of 1.0 meter/second- Concentric distdbutions of the ammonia plume are Presented at concentrations of 75 and 212 ppm (see Figure 9.12-1). Based upon the modeling results,the risk of exposure to anhydrous ammc►nia from a=I-or hose rupture would not create a significant act- SAC/16436W1271=(Q013-IZD0C) 8.12-79 os!zuiva 13:Lb r'Aa 51Utf45Uatf3 r;1VV11tU1VD1�1V1AL MA1VAl��,Dl�ly! �uiai uY� 1 APPLICATION FOR CERTIFICATION FOR TME WARNERVILLE SUBSTATION RELIABILITY GENERATION PROJECT STAN15LAUS COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Submiaed to: California Energy Commission 1516 9`6 Street Sacramento,California Submitted by: Calpine c* Power 6700 Koll Center Parkway Pleasanton,California . Prepared by: FrJ FOSTER WHEELER ENVIRONMENTAL CORPORATION Sacramento,California 95534 1 - October 2000 2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2.1 INTRODUCTION The Warnerville Substation project will be an 86-4-me'gawatt(MW)(nominal gross output)natural--, s- fired simple-cycle peaking facility.The project will tie directly to an existing 115 kilovolt(kV) transmission line at Hetch Hetcby Water and Power Company's'existing WamerviHe Substation.A new 6-inch-diameterpipeline that will connect to an existing PG&:E pipeline in Stanislaus County will deliver natural gas to the facility. Since the project is simple-cycle technology,no steam-cycle cooling water is me from an site needed.Water for injection into the turbines for emissions control willcc f m existing on-si municipal water supply.The project will have no process wastewater and no sanitary wastewater discharges. Calpine is proposing the project in response to the California ISO's Summer 2001 Generation Reliability Request for Proposal(RFP).The RFP was issued to solicit resources to rneet the states critical electricity supply needs from 2001 througb 2003.Due to the need to immediately respond to the RFP,the project is not intended to conform to the 12-year forecast of electric power demands adopted pursuant to California Public Resources Code See-25305(e)- The proposed project site will occupy approximately 1.6 acres adjacent to the fenced-off property of the existing Hetch Hetchy Warnerville Substation.The site is zoned Agriculture. 2.2 FACILITY DESCRIPTION, DESIGNS AND OPERATION This section describes the facility's conceptual design and proposed operation. 2.2,o1 Site Plan and Access The site arrangement shown in Figure 2.2-1 and the typical profile views with elevations shown in Figure 2.2-2 illustrate the location and size of the proposed power plant.Approximately 1.6 acres will be required to accommodate the generation facilities and associated equipment. Ile project will be visually compatible with existing and planned development on the propetties adjacent to the site.Figure 2.2-3 shows the project setting and Figure 2.2-4 shows the setting with a sated view of the project. Access to the project area will be from an existing substation driveway off a local road.Local roads will be used for delivering heavy equipment during construction. 22.2 Process Description The generation project will consist of two skid-mounted General Electric(GE)LM6000 simple-cycle combustion turbine generators(CT,Cis)and associated equipment.Each CrG will generate approximately 43.4 MW.Each turbine has evaporative inlet cooling,NOx.suppression water injection,and.is equipped with a selective catalytic reduction(SCR)system for NOx control and a CO catalyst for CO control. The LM6000 has a documented availability record of 97.8 percent,according to its manufacturer,GE. The project wiH have-100 percent availability during the 5-month opemdonal period. Ile project is expected to have this same availability.The project's capacity factor,the time it will actually run in relation to its maximum potential operation,however,will be relatively low on an annual basis.This is because the units will be operated at the of highest demand during the period June 1-October 31 each year- WS 2.0AX.1"/00 2-1 Power Plant Cycle Thennal energy will be produced in the two GE LM6000 CTGs by the combustion of naftu-4 gas,which will be converted into the mechanical energy required to drive the combustion turbine compressors and electric generators_ CTGcombustion air will flow through the inlet air filters and evaporative coolers and associated air inlet ductwork,be compressed,and then flow to the CTG combustion sections.Natural gas fuel will,be injected into the compressed air in the combustion sections and ignited.The hot combustion gases will expand through the turbine sections of the CTGs,causing them to rotate and drive the electric generators and CTG compressors.The hot combustion gases will exit the turbine sections and pass through the SCR system to the,atmosphere. The heat balance for power plant base load operation is shown in Figure 2.2-5.This balance is based on an ambient temperature of 600F. 2.2.4 Combustion Turbine Generators Each CTO unit will consist of a CTG with supporting systems and auxiliary equipment.Associated nits-NOx equipment will include emission control systems necessary to meet the proposed emission lir emissions will be controlled to 5 parts per million by volume,dry(ppmvd)basis conn zted to 15 pe=nt oxygen(02)by water injection and selective catalytic reduction(SCR)systems.Carbon.monoxide(CO) will be controlled to 10 ppmvd at IS percent oxygen by a CO catalyst. The CTGs will be equipped with the following required accessories to provide safe and reliable operation: • Evaporative inlet air coolers • Inlet air filters • MeW acoustical enclosure • Single lube oil cooler • Compressor wash system • Fire detection and protection system • Fuel heating system The CTGs and accessory equipment will be contained in metal trailer-mounted enclosures. Flue gas exhaust will be treated with an SCR emission control system that will use ammonia vapor in the presence of a catalyst to reduce the NOx concentration in the exhaust gases.The catalyst module will be located in the flue gas ductwork after the exhaust trailer.Diluted ammonia vapor M3)derived from aqueous ammonia will be injected into the exhaust gas stream through a grid of nozzles located Upstr=n of the catalyst module.The subsequent chemical reaction will reduce NOx to nitrogen and water, resulting in a NOx concentration of no more than 5 ppmvd at 15 percent oxygen in the exhaust gas. The CO catalyst needs no reagent to oxidize CO and volatile emissions. 22.5 Major Electrical Equipment and Systems The electric power produced by the facility will be transmitted to the PG&F.grid.Some power will be used on site to power auxiliaries such as gas compressors andcontrol system. WS 2.0-doe.10109/00 2-2 8.12 HAZAFIDOUS MATERIALS HANDLING This section presents an evaluation of potential impacts to human health and the environment from the storage and use of hazardous materials in conjunction with the Warnerville project site. A full description of the Project is presented in Sections 2,6,and 7,and closure of the Warnerville project is discussed in Section 4. Section8.12.1 describes the existing environment that the project may affect- Sections 8.12.1 through 8.12.3 identify potential impacts on the environment and human health from development of Warnerville project, and Section 8.12-2 discusses The offsite,consequence analysis protocol. Section 8.12-3 discusses fire and explosion risk,and Section 8.12.4 investigates potential cumulative impacts. Section 8.12.5 presents proposed mitigation measures as well as CEC standard conditions of certification,and Section 8.12.6 presents the LOBS applicable to hazardous materials. Section 8.12.7 describes the agencies involved and provides agency contacts,and Section 8.12.8 describes permits required. Section 8.12.9 a provides the references used to develop this section_ 8.12.1 Affected Environment The project site is located within an unincorporated area of Stanislaus County near the City of Oakdale (Figure 8.12-1). Land surrounding the property is primarily agricultural and cattle grazing with residences interspersed. Land use is discussed in detail in Sections 8.4 and 8.9. Mwre are no sensitive receptors(such as schools,hospitals,daycare facilities,convalescent centers,or emergency response facilities),within a 1-mile radius of the project site. The nearest sensitive receptor is Cloverland Elementary School located approximately 2.9 nfles northwest of the site. The nearest residence is located on the Hetch Hetchy property approximately 500 ft south of the project site-The 1-mile radius of the project site that was evaluated for sensitive receptors is shown on Figure 8.12-1. H27-ardous and acutely hazardous materials will be stored at the project site duiing operation of the Warnerville project facility. Storage locations are described in Table 8-12-1. Acutely hazardous materials as defined under California's,la Follette Bill(California Health and Safety Code 25531 et seq-) will not be used during construction at the project site or within the namral.gas line corridors. Therefore,no discussion of acutely hazardous materials storage or handling is included in this section for the project site during construction. 8.12.1.1 Construction Phase Hazardous materials used during construction will include gasoline,diesel fuel,motor oil,hydraulic fluid,certain solvents,cleaners, sealants,welding flux,various lubricants,paint,and paint thinner. No acutely h ous materials will be used or stored on-site during construction. There are no feasible alternatives to motor fuels and oils for operating construction equipment_ The types of paint required are dictated by the types of equipment and structures that must be coated and the rnanufacturer$s requirements for coating. There is only nn-m'mal potential for environmental impacts from hazardous material incidents during construction- Small volumes of hazardous materials will be temporarily stored on-site insidd fuel and lubrication service trucks. Paints and solvents wili be stored in ft le materials cabinets- WS&.2u0c'm low= vvi a.vr vv iv.%A a tass v.ivvzvvvvv JJlI V la%VlIAPAJ IIAXXL 1WX1IL&V"A1LJ AI L LtW VbV/ VYV Table 8.12-1, Locations of hazardous materials. Chemical Use Storage Location Aqueous Ammonia(19-30% Selective catalytic reduction Outdoors,in the ammonia NH3+70-5190 H20) unloading/storage facility Sodium Hydroxide(NaOH) pH neutralization Demineralizcr unit NALCO 7280 Scale Inhibitor Antiscalant for use in reverse osteosis Trailer mounted (RO)unit NALCO 7408 Oxygen scavenger for use upstream of Rte Trailer mounted unit Lubricating oil/hydraulic oil Rotating equipment Contained within a uiPmen t Mineral Insulating Oil Transformers I and generator Contained within transformers, switches and generator Maintenance and service personnel will be trained to handle these materials. Handlingprocedures for P the hazardous materials to be used during construction are presented in Section 8.12.5-1. The most likely incidents involving these hazardous materials would be associated with minor spills or drips. Impacts from such incidents will be mitigated by thoroughly cleaning up minor spills as soon as they occur. An accident involving a service or refueling truck would present the worst-case scenario for release of hazardous materials. Its the case of a large spill of hazardous material,contaminated soil will be excavated and stored in drums or roll-off bins for off-site disposal as a hazardous waste. 8.12.1.2 Operations Phase ' A number of hazardous materials,including one acutely hazardous material,will be stored at the generating site during operation of the Warnerville project facility. These materials mill be stored at.the, generating site continuously. i At the Generating Station Site The following hazardous and acutely hazardous materials will be used and/or stored at the generation station site during the operations phase: Continuously On-Site: • ,Aqueous Ammonia(acutely hazardous)--to control nitrous oxide(NO.) emissions through selective catalytic reduction(16,000 gallons,liquid) • Sodium Hydroxide(NALCO 7383) for demineralizer resin neutralization(55 gallons,liquid,50 percent solution) • NALCO 7284 Scale Inhibitor-Sodium hexarneta phosphates, organopbosphonates,and poly- acrylates;used as a scale inhibitor in RO process(250 gallons,liquid).This material would be used if water quality tests indicate an RO process is necessary in front of the demineralizer. • • NALCO 7408—sodium bisulfite-oxygen scavenger upstream of reverse osmosis unit(250 gallons, - liquid).This material would be used if water quality tests indicate an RO process is necessary in front of the der I neralizer. ws CUOMO=.iORM 8.12-2 (jell zu/u4 ij:esu rAA DIU04DUU04 rAiN V I AUIN Mnl'N ALJ WJ * Mineral Insulating Oil—contained in transformer systems(82,000 gallons,liquid) * Lubrication Oil—for gas turbine bearings(150 gallons,liquid) a Hydraulic Oil–for mechanical movement for turbine associated equipment(40 gallons, liquid) Information about these materials is presented M' Table 8.12-2 including trade and chemical names., Chemical Abstract Service(CAS)numbers,maximum quantities on-site.,hazardous characteristics, Comprehensive Environmental Response,Compensation, and Liability Act(CERA) and Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act(SARA)Title 1H reportable quantities(RQ),La Pollette Bill threshold planning quantities ("rPQ) and Propositi The one acutely hazardous material to be used on site is aqueous ammonia. Pure ammonia(NH3)is a volatile,acutely hazardous chernical that is stored under pressure as a liquid and becomes a toxic gas if released- Anunouiagas is very soluble in water. Aqueous ammonia consists of a solution of ammonia and water. The aqueous ammonia concentration proposed for Warnerville project is 1930 percent ammonia(and 70-81percent water). If the aqueous ammonia solution is leaked or spilled,the ammonia in solution will escape or evaporate as a gas into,the atmosphere. The toxic gas at concentrations greater than 140 parts per million (ppm)will cause detectable effects ODlung function even for short time exposures(0.5 to 2 hours). At higher concentrations of 700 to 1,700 ppm the gas will cause severe effects,with death at concentrations of 2,500 to 7,000 ppm. The toxic ammonia gas could migrate off- site and potentially affect the health of humans at locations surrounding the facility(see Section 8.12.2). The hazard to facility workers for the acutely hazardous material will be mitigated by facility safety equipment,hazardous materials training,and emergency response planning- A Risk Management Plan (RMP)as required under federal regulations (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR)68) and the California Health and Safety Code(Sections 25531 to 25543.3)may be developed to descnbe these and other requirements(see Section 8.12.6.4). An RMP is required for substances described in section 112(r)(5) of the Clean Air Act and listed in Appendix A of Pan 355 of Subchapter J of Chapter I of Title 40 of the CFR and that are handled or stored in quantifies m' excess of certain levels. The toxicity characteristics and exposure level criteria for the acutely hazardous material are shown M' Table 8.12-3. The rernaming materials in Table 8.12-2 are hazardous materials and pose a lesser threat to %W humans than the acutely hazardous material. The hazardous materials and their toxic and other characteristics are surnuorized in Table 8.12-4. Table 8-1214. Acutely hazardous materials. Name Toxic Effects Exposure Levels— Aqueous Contact with liquid or vapor causes eye,nose,and throat 00u A Expos_arcs._patiqnEx -. Ammonia irritation,skin burns,and vesiculation. Ingestion or PEI. = 35 mglha�OSHA 25% inhalation causes buming pain in mouth,throat, TLV 18 mglm'ACGIH. solution stomach,and thorax,constriction of thorax,and coughing followed by vomiting blood,breathing TWA = 25 mg/&NIOSH difficulties,convulsions,and shock. Other symptoms STEL = 35 mg1m3 include dyspnm bronchospasms,pulmonary edema,and Fink frothy sputum Contact or inhalation overexposure Hazardo-us Cop—ermtrations can causr,bums of the skin and mucous membranes,and JDLH -- 300 ppm headache,salivation,nausea,and vomiting. Other LD50= 350 mg/kg-oral,,rat Ingesu-6-n of symptoms include labored breathing,bloody mucous 3 to 4 mls may be fatal disclwgc,bronchitis,lafyugifis,hemmoptysis,and • 1..@ Sensitive Recemors pneumonitis. Damage to eyes may be permanent, 0 incInding,ulceration of conjunctiva and cornea,and ERPG.1 = 25 ppm corneal and lenticular opacifies. ERPG-2 = 200 ppm ERPG-3 = 1,000 ppm PEL 0SHA Permissible Exposure Limit ERPG-1 = Maximum airborne concentration below which nearly for 8-hr work-day all individuals could be exposed for up to I hour without • I experiencing other than mild ummient adverse health effects TLV = ACGIH'Threshold Limit Value for 9- ERPG-2 = Maximum airborne concentration below which nearly hr work-day all individuals could be exposed for up to 1 hour without developing Irreversible sible or serious health effects WS IS.12dacs 10WM 8.12-5 03/20/03 13:31 k'A,& 51U?540UV6-3 LjNvjXUAXr.AniAL ff1AnA"Zft1YGn1 IWA = NIOSH time-weighted average for 8- ERPG-3 = M airborne concentration below which nearly h.r work-day all individuals could be exposed for up to I hour without • experiencing life-threatening health effects STEL = Shan term exposure limit, 15-min. mg/m� = milligrams per cubic meter exposure IDLH = Immediately dangerous to life and mg1kg = milligrams per kilogram health LD50 = Dose lethal to 50 percent of those ppm = parts per million tested LDLO = Lowest published lethal dose OSHA = Occupational Safety and Health ACGIH = Am6rican Conference of Government Industrial Administration hygienists ERFG =Emergency Response Planning NIOSH = National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health Guideline TCLO=Lowest published toxic concentration Table 8,12-4. Characteristics of hazardous and acutely hazardous materials. Hazardous Physical Health Ha2ard Reactive& Flammability,- Materials Descripflon Incocn atibles Ammonia Colorless gas with Corrosive. Irritation to Acids,halogens, Combustible,,but pungent odor, permanent damage from strong oxidizers,salts difficult to bum, inhalation,ingestion,and of silver and zinc. skin contact. Sodium Hydroxide Clear yellow liquid. Corrosive. Corrosive to Water,acids, Noncombustiblq:' (NALCO 7383) tissue in presence of flammable liquids, moisture-Strong irritant to organic halogens,, tissue by ingestion. some metals. NALCO 7280 Clear to slightly Toxic. Kidney damage_ Reactive salts Non-fiauunable,, Polyacrylic acid turbid yellow Effects on bones (niftites,and sulfites), NALCO 7408 Yellow liquid Corrosive. Irritation to Strong acids and Sodium Bisulfitc eyes,skin,and lungs.May oxidizers- be hannU if digested. Mineral Oil Oily.,clear liquid. Minor. Sodium hypochlorite.. May be combustible. Lubrication Oil/ Oily,dark-liquid. Ingestion hazardous. Sodium hypochlorite. Flammable. Hydraulic Oil 8.12.1.3 Dehydration of Natural Gas PG&E has natural gas dehydration stations located throughout its gas tyms s ion d s bu n .,hout mi s an di tri tio system Typical chemicals used in dehydration include triethylene glycol and Captan 50. Captan 50 (which contains t-butyl Mercaptan and teft-abydrothiophene)is-usually added to natural gas as an odorizer. The characteristics of these chemicals are shown in Table 8.12-5. Anew.gas dehydration system will not be required as part of the Wamerville project- Ws la"AX) 8.12-6 APPLICATION FOR CERTIFICATION FOR nye RUSSELL CITY ENERGY CENTER HAYWARD, CALIFORNIA VOLUMEk SECTIONS 1 THROurjH 10 Submitted to: California Energy Commission Sacramento,California Submitted by: Calpine/Bechtel Joint Development Pleasanton,California May 2001 r 46 .� 2.0 PROJECT' DESCRIPTION 2.1 INTRODUCTION The Russell City Energy Center(RCEC)will be a 600 megawatt(nominal gross output)natural gas-fired combined-cycle electrical generating facility, with a 230--kilovolt switchyard. The RCEC will be located on 14.7 acres at the west end of Enterprise Avenue in the City of Hayward, in AJarneda County directly. south of the Hayward Water Pollution Control Facility(WPCF). A new 230-kV double-circuit transmission line will exit the RCEC switchyard eastward toward Pacific Gas and Electric Company"s, (PG&E) existing Eastshore-Grant 115-kV transmission corridor, and then follow the existing corridor,to PG&E's Eastshore Substation- The total length of this new transmission line will be 1.1 miles. A new Advanced Wastewater Treatment(AWT)Plant will be constructed immediately west of the energy center to supply tertiary treated water for makeup to the facility's cooling and process makeup water systems. A number of water and wastewater pipelines under Enterprise Avenue will connect the energy center and the AWT plant with the City of Hayward"s WPCF. The City.will also supply potable water to the RCEC site for domestic use and for fire fighting. The RCEC and the AWT'plant are discussed separately below. 2.2 RCEC PROJECT DESCRIPTION, DESIGN, AND OPERATION This section describes the design and operational characteristics of the proposed RCEC plant. 2.2.1 Site Plan and Access The site arrangement shown in Figure 2.2-1 and the typical elevation views shown in Figures 2.2-.2a and 2.2-2b illustrate the location and size of the RCEC. Approximately 12.55 fenced acres will be required to accommodate the generation facilities,control/adrninistration building,switchyard,emission control equipment, storage tanks, parking area, and storm water detention basins. The RCEC will be visually compatible with existing and planned industrial and commercial development in the adjacent properties to the west and notch of the site. An architectural screening treatment will be applied to the outside of the major project structures,including the heat recovery steam generators (HRSGs) and cooling tower,to make the facility an architectural landmark that will welcome conunuters and visitors to the Hayward community as they travel eastbound across the Hayward-San Mateo Bridge. Access to the RCEC will be from a new entrance driveway on Enterprise Avenue. Most of the surface within the fenced area will be paved to provide internal access to all project facilities and on-site buildings. The existing Union Pacific Railroad Company(UPRR)industrial rail spur located inunediately south of the site will be used for delivery of heavy equipment components during construction. 2.2.2 Process Description The energy center's power train will consist of two Siemens Westinghouse 501 FD Phase 2 combustion turbine generators (CTLs) equipped with dry,low oxides of nitrogen(NO.) combustors and steam injection power augmentation capability;two heat recovery steam generators(HRSGs)with duct burners; a single condensing steam turbine generator(STG);a deaerating surface condenser;a mechanical draft (wet/dry)plume-abated cooling tower;and associated support equipment_ RussellCity Energy Centcr AFC,Vol-1 2-1 Project Descriudon Each CTG will generate a maximum of approximately 200 MW. The CTG exhaust gases will be used to generate steam in the HRSGs. The HRSGs will employ reheat design with duct firing- Stearn from the HRSGs will be admitted to a condensing STG. A maximum of 235 MW will be produced by the steam turbine. The project is expected to have an overall annual availability in the general range of 92 to 98 percent. The heat balance for power plant baseload operation is shown in Figu'res 2-2-3a and 2.2-3b. The predicted net electrical output of this facility under these conditions is 553 MW- This balance is based on an ambient temperature of 59*F with water fog cooling of the combustion air,no augmentation steam injection, and no duct firing. Associated equipment will include emission control systems necessary to meet the proposed emission limits. NO,,emissions will be controlled to a maximum of 2.5 (3-hour average, annual average of 2-0) parts per million by volume, dry basis (ppmvd),corrected to 15 percent oxygen,by a combination of dry, low NO.,combustors in the CTGs and selective catalytic reduction(SCR)systems in the HRSGs. Carbon monoxide(CO) will be controlled to 6 ppmvd at 15 percent oxygen under all operating conditions. 2.2.3 Power Plant Cycle CTG combustion air will flow through the inlet air filters and water foggers and associated air inlet ductwork,be compressed,and then enter the combustion sections. Natural gas fuel will be injected into the compressed air in the combustion sections and ignited. The hot combustion gases will expand through the turbine sections of the CTGs,causing them to rotate and drive both the electric generators and CTGs compressors. The hot combustion gases will exit the turbine sections and enter the HRSGs,where they will heat water(feedwater)that will be pumped into the HRSGs. The feedwater will be converted to superheated steam and delivered to the stearn turbine at three pressures:high-pressure(11P),intemiediate- 't pressure(T), and low-pressure (LP). The use of multiple steam delivery pressures will perrrn an increase in cycle efficiency and flexibility. High-pressure steam,delivered to the HP section of the steam turbine,will exit the BP section as "cold reheat"steam and be combined with IP steam before passing through the repeater sections of the HRSGs- This mixed,reheated steam(called"hot reheat") will then be delivered to the IP steam turbine section. Stearn exiting the IP section of the steam turbine will be mixed with LP steam and expanded in the LP steam turbine section. Steam leaving the LP section of the steam turbine will enter the surface condenser and transfer heat to circulating cooling water,which will cause it to condense to water. The condensed water,or condensate,will be defive'red to the HRSG feedwater system. The condenser cooling water will circulate through a wet,mechanical draft cooling tower where the heat absorbed in the condenser will be rejected to the atmosphere via evaporation of cooling water. 22.4 Combustion Turbine-Generators, Heat Recovery Steam Generators, Steam Turbine-Generator, and Condenser Power will be produced by the two CTGs and the STG. The following paragraphs describe the major components of the generating facility_ 2.2.4.1 Combustion Turbine Generators Thermal energy will be produced in the CTGs through the combustion of natural gas,which will be converted into the mechanical energy required to drive the combustion turbine compressors and electric generators. F...ach CTG system will consist of a CTO with supporting systems and associated auxiliary equipment. The CTGs will have power augmentation capability by the use of steam'injection upsEream of the turbine section- Russen City Energy Center AFC,Vol.1 2.2 Project Desaiption The CTLs will be equipped with the following required accessories to provide safe and reliable operation; • Inlet air fogging system • Inlet air filters • Metal acoustical enclosure • Single lube oil cooler • Dry, low NO,,combustion system • Compressor wash system-both online and offline • Fire detection and protection system(utilizing FM200) • Fuel gas system including flow meter, strainer,duplex filter,and fuel gas heater. • Starter System • Turbine controls a Direct-air-cooled synchronous generators 0 Generator controls, protection,excitation,Power System Stabilizer,and Automatic Generation Control(AGC) The CTLs and accessory equipment will be contained in a metal acoustical enclosure. 2294.2 Heat Recovery Steam Generators The HRSGs will provide for the transfer of heat from the exhaust gases of the CTGs to the feedwater, which will become steam. The 1iRSGs will be three-pressure,natural circulation units equipped with inlet and outlet ductwork,duct burners,insulation,lagging,and separate exhaust stacks. Major beat transfer components of each HRSG will include an LP economizer,LP drum,LP evaporator, LP superheater,IP econornizer,IP evaporator,IP drum,IP superheater, HP economizer,HP evaporator, BP dmm,and HP superheaters. The LP economizer will receive condensate from the condenser hot well via the condensate pumps. The LP economizer will be the final heat transfer section to receive heat from the combustion gases before they are exhausted to the atmosphere. Condensate will be directed through the LP drums and then to the boiler feed pumps. The boiler feed pumps Wi)l provide additional pressure to serve the separate IP and HP sections of the HRSG. Similarly, as described above, the IP and HP steam will be produced for supply to the steam turbine. Feedwater from the LP drum will be sent to the HP section of the HRSG. High-pressure feedwater will flow tbrough the HP economizers to the HP steam drum,where a saturated liquid state will be maintained. Next, the saturated water will flow from the steam drum through downcomers to the inlet headers of the HP evaporator. The saturated water will flow upward through the HP evaporator tubes by natural circulation. Saturated steam will form in the tubes while energy from the combustion turbine exhaust gas is absorbed- The PIP-saturated liquid/vapor mixture will then return to the steam drum,where the two phases will be separated by the steam separators in the drum. The saturated water will return to the B?evaporator while the vapor passes to the HP superheater inlet. The saturated steam(vapor) will pass through the HP superheater to the HP steam turbine entrance. I Feedwater from the LP drum will also be sent to the IP section of the HRSG by an interstage bleed from the boiler feed pumps. This IP feedwater will flow through an EP economizer to the IP steam drum where Russell City Enorgy Center AFC,Vol.1 2-8 Project Description a saturated liquid state will be maintained. Next,the saturated water will flow from the steam drum through downcomers to the inlet headers of the IP evaporator. The saturated water will flow upward through the EP evaporator tubes by natural circulation. Saturated steam will form in the tubes as energy from the combustion turbine exhaust gas is absorbed. The IP-saturated liquid/vapor mixture will then return to the steam drum where the two phases will be separated- The saturated water will return to the 1P evaporator, while the vapor passes to the IP superheater inlet. The saturated steam(vapor) will pass through the EP superheater to the EP steam turbine entrance. Duct burners will be installed in the HRSGs. These burners,will provide the capability to increase steam generation,increase operating flexibility, and improved stem temperature control. The duct burners will burn natural gas. The duct burner for each HRSG will be sized to release up to 200 million British thermal units (MMBtu higher heating value or HHV basis)per hour per HRSG. The HRSGs will be equipped with an SCR emission control system that will use ammonia vapor in the presence of a catalyst to reduce the NO,,concentration in the exhaust gases. The catalyst module will be located in the BRSG casing. Diluted ammonia vapor(NH3) will be injected ecEed into the exhaust gas stream through a grid of nozzles located upstrearn of the catalyst module. The subsequent chernical reaction will reduce NO,,to nitrogen and water,resulting in a NO,,concentration of no more than 2.0 (annual average basis)ppmvd at 15 percent oxygen(02)in the HRSG exhaust gas- 2.2.4.3 Steam Turbine System The steam turbine system will consist of a reheat steam turbine,gland steam system,lubricating oil system,hydraulic control system, and steam admission/induction valving. The steam turbine will drive a a hydrogen-cooled synchronous generator_ Steamfrom the HRSG BP,EP, and LP superheaters will enter the associated steam turbine sections through the inlet steam system. The steam will expand through the turbine blading,driving the generator. On exiting the turbine,the remaining steam will flow into the condenser. 2.2.5 Major Electrical Equipment and Systems The electric power produced by the.facility will be transmitted to the PG&E grid. Some power will be used onsite to power auxiliaries such as pumps and fans,control systems, and general facility loads, including lighting,heating, and air conditioning. Some will also be converted from alternating current (AC)to direct current(DQ for use as backup power for control systems and for other uses. Transmission and auxiliary uses are discussed in the following subsections. 2*2.5.1 AC Power—Transmission Power will be generated by the two C'M'Gs at 15 W,and one STG at 18 kV. An overall single-fine diagram of the facility's electrical system is shown in Figure 6.2-1. The generator outputs will be connected by isolated phase bus to individual oil-filled generator step-up transformers, which will increase the voltage to 230-k-V. Surge arresters will be provided at the high-voltage bushings to protect "W the transformers from surges on the 230-kV systern caused by lightning strikes or other system disturbances. The transformers will be set on concrete pads within containments, which will contain the transformer oil in the event of a leak or spill. Fire protection systems will be provided. The high voltage side of each step-up transformer will be connected to the plant's on-site 230-kV switchyard- From the switchyard,power will be transmitted through new overhead transmission lines to PG&rE"s existing Eastshore Substation. Russell City Energy Center AFC,Vol-1 2-9 Project Description 8.5 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS HANDLING This section presents an evaluation of potential impacts to human health and the environment from the storage and use of hazardous materials in conjunction with the RCEC and the Advanced Wastewater Treatment(AWT)plant. A full description of the project i's presented in Section 2. Closure of the RCEC is discussed in Section 4. Section 8.5.1 describes the existing environment that the project may affect- Section 8.5.2 identifies potential "impacts on the environment and human health from development of the project. Section 8.5.3 investigates potential cumulative impacts. Section 8.5.4 presents proposed mitigation measures, and Section 8.5.5 presents the laws, ordinances,,regulations,and standards (LORS)applicable to hazardous materials. Section 8.5.6 describes the agencies involved and provides agency contacts,and Section 8.5.7 describes permits required. Section 8.5.8 provides the references used to develop this section. 8.5A Affected Environment The project site is located within the City of Hayward- Land use in the vicinity of the all three sites is zoned for industrial use. Industrial buildings and warehouses are located to the north,west,and cast. There are no sensitive receptors (such as schools,hospitals, daycare facilities,convalescent centers,or emergency response facilities)within a 1-mile radius of the RCEC(see Figure 8.9-2 in Section 8.9, Public Health). The nearest residences are located 0.82 miles from the site. Hazardous and acutely hazardous materials will be stored at the RCEC during operation of these facilities. Hazardous materials will also be stored at the AWT plant during operations. Storage.locations are described in Tables 8.5-1 ands 8.5-2,respectively. Acutely hazardous materials as defined under California's La Follette Bill (California Health and Safety Code 25531 et seq.)will not be used during construction of the RCEC,AWT plant, or the associated facilities or linear routes. Therefore, no discussion of acutely hazardous materials storage or handling during construction is included in Section 8.5-1.1. 8.5.1.1 Construction Phase Hazardous materiAs used during construction of the RCEC,associated linear facilities,and the AWT plant will include gasoline, diesel fuel,motor oil,hydraulic fluid,certain solvents,cleaners,sealants, welding flux,various lubricants,paint,and paint thinner. No acutely hazardous materials will be used or stored on-site during construction. There are no feasible alternatives to motor fuels and oils for operating construction equipment. The types of paint required are dictated by the types of equipment and structures that rrwst be coated and the manufacturer's requirements for coating. The most likely incidents -involving these hazardous rrmten'als would be associated with minor spills or drips. Impacts from such incidents will be mitigated by thoroughly cleaning up minor spills as soon as they occur. In the case of a large spill of hazardous material,any contaminated soil will be excavated .V and stored in drums or roll-off bins for off-site disposal as a hazardous waste. 8.5.1.2 Operation Phase A number of hazardous materials,including acutely hazardous aqueous ammonia and cyclohexylamine mixture, will be stored at the generating site during operation of the RCEC and AWT plant. Some of these materials will be stored at the generating site continuously, others will be brought on-site,used and not brought back on-site for a number of years,while still others will be on-site at for startup purposes only. Russell City Energy Center AFC,Vol.1 Hazardous Materials Handling Table 8.5-1. RCEC hazardous materials storage locations, Chemical Use Storage Location' Aqueous Ammonia(29%NH3 Selective catalytic reduction Outdoors,in the ammonia +72%H20) unloading/storage area(6) Sodium Hydroxide(NaOH) pH neutralization of cooling tower Water treaunent building/laboratory(18) Sulfilric Acid(%SO4)(93%) Cooling tower pH control Outdoors,near cooling towers (33) Disodium Phosphate HRSG drum solids control Water treatment (N231-£PO4) building/laboratory(18) Trisodium Phosphate(Na3PO4) HRSG drum solids control Water treatment building/laboratory(1 S) Sodium Hypochlorite(NaOCL) Cooling tower biological control Cooling tower circulating water pump house(33) Sodium Tolytriazole Scale control in cooling tower Cooling tower circulating water (NALCO 8306) pump house(20) Stabrex 5170 Biocide in cooling tower Near cooling tower(20) NALCO 356 or NALCO TRI- Corrosion control of condensate piping Near each HRSG(21) ACT 1800 NALCO 7280 Antiscalant for use in reverse osmosis Water treatment.building(18) (RO)unit ELD41N-OX Oxygen scavenger for use in process Near each BRSG(21), feedwater to DA NALCO 7408 Oxygen scavenger for use upstrearn of RCI Water,treatment building(18) UWE NALCO 22106 or NALCO Chelate;injected in suction of boiler feed Near each HRSG(21) 7213 pumps Hydrogen gas Steam turbine generator cooling Adjacent to steam turbine(1) Lubricating oil Rotating equipment Contained within equipment Mineral Insulating Oil Transformers Contained within transformers (415) No-2 Diesel Fuel Emergency fire pump engine Ncar emergency fro p Various cleaning chemicals Chemical cleaning of HRSG water treatment building/laboratory(18) Various lab oratory reagents Laboratory analysis Water treaunent building/laboratory(1 S) 'storage locanoris a=dopicwd with nunmfical=fm=ces on Figure 2.2-1. Russell City Energy Center AFC.Vol-1 8.5-2 Ha=dous Materials Handling U 0 r nA6 0 JL 'j V 0 a'j XW1141TIL:111 I ZIJLJ 2LZX11n%3L;1AYAJL;d1 JL u�t Gut Table 8.54,AWT plant hazardous materials storage locations, Chemical Use Storage Location' Sodiurn-Hypochlorite(NaOCL) Biofoid control in UFRO and disinfection Chemical and dewatering area in AWT Sulfuric Acid(42SO4)(93%) RO feedwater pH control,cleaning sludge Chcniical and dewatering area press,pH adjustment and RO area day tank Hypersperse MDC220 RO antiscalant Chcrnical and dewatering area (phosphonic acid) and RO area day tank Sodium Hydroxide(NaOH) NT membrane cleaning RO area Memclean C W membrane cleaning Ro area Citric Acid 1vff membrane cleaning RO area Lime RO concentrate/W backwash pH Chemical and dewatering area adjustment Ferric Chloride RO concentrate/MF backwash clarifying Chemical and dewatering area agent Sodium Sulfide RO concentrate/W backwash copper Chemical and dewate.Ting area precipitation KleenMCT103 RO membrane cleaning _R0 area KlecuMCT411 RO membrane cleaning RO area 'Storage 1=tians am depicted on FiZuTt 23-1- RCEC Plant Site The following hazardous and acutely hazardous materials will be used and/or stared at the RCEC site during the operation phase; Continuously On-Site Aqueous Ammonia(acutely hazardous)—to control nitrous oxide(NOx)emissions through selective catalytic reduction(12,000 gallons,liquid) - I NALCO 356(or NALCO TRI-ACT 1800)--cyclohexylanrine(acutely hazardous) and morpholine (hazardous)for corrosion control in condensate piping(2,000 gallons,liquid, 20 to 40 percent solution) Sulfuric Acid—for circulating water PH control(cooling tower treatment) (5,000 gallons,liquid, 93 percent solution) Sodium Hypochlorite—biocide for condenser cooling water system(5,000 gallons,liquid, 10 percent solution) Sodium Hydroxide(NALCO 7383)—for pH control of cooling tower(5,OW gallons,liquid,50 percent solution) Disodium Phosphate--for boiler water pH and scale control(500 pounds, granular solid) Trisodium Phosphates—for boiler water pH and scale control(500 pounds,granular solid) NALCO 7280 Scale Inhibi tor—S odium hexameta phosphates,organopbosphonates, and'poly- acrylates;used as a scale inhibitor in RO process(250 gallons,liquid) Scale Inhibitors (various"pical inhibitor would be NALCO 8306 Plus containing sodium tolyltriazole.*Used to reduce scale formation in circulating water system(3 100 gallons,liquid) RusscIl City Energy Center AFC,Vol.1 8.5-3 Hazardous Materials Handling • STABREX ST70--sodium hydroxide and sodium hypobromite-biocide in cooling tower water (2,000 gallons, liquid) • ELUvHN-OX-carbohydrazide---oxygen scavenger in process feedwater to deacrator(2,000 gallons, liquid) • NALCO 7409—sodium bisulfite-oxygen scavenger upstream of reverse osmosis unit(250 ga.Uons, liquid) • NALCO 22106—sodium polyacrylate and aryl sulfanate; chelate; injected in,suction of boiler feed pumps (2,000 gallons,liquid) or NALCO 7213-tetrasodiumetbylenediaminetetraacetate for boiler feedwater treatment(1,000 gallons, liquid) • Hydrogen gas used for cooling steam turbine generator(STG) (95,000 std.cubic feet [19,500 scf.in the generator caring and 75,000 scf_storage in tube trailer]) I Mineral Insulating Oil—contained in transformer systems (82,000 gallons,liquid) 9 Lubrication Oil for gas turbine and steam turbine bearings (19,500 gallons, liquid) e No.2 Diesel Fuel—for emergency fire pump engine(500 gallons,liquid) e Various Detergents--combustion turbine compressor periodic cleaning(100 gallons,liquid) a Various Laboratory Reagents—for water/wastewater analysis (10 gallons,)iquid and 100 pounds, granular solid) Periodically On-Site 9 Hydrochloric Acid—for chemical cleaning of heat recovery steam generator(HRSG)(10,000 pounds initially, and once every 10 years,liquid,30 percent solution) 9 Ammonium Bifluoride—for chemical cleaning of HRSG (200 pounds initially, and once every 10 years, solid crystals) a Citric Acid—for chemical cleaning of HRSG(100 pounds initially,and once every 10 years,solid powder) e Sodium Carbonate for chemical cleaning of HRSG and neutralisation (500 pounds initially,-and once every 10 years,solid powder) e Sodium Nitrate--for chemical cleaning of HRSG(500 pounds initially,and once every 10 years, solid crystal,.;) On-Site During Commissioning Only • Hydroxyacetic Acid—for chemical cleaning of BRSG feedwater system(1,000 pounds prior to start-up, solid crystals) • Formic Acid—for chemical cleaning of HRSG feedwater system(600 pounds prior to s=-up, liquid) Information about these materials is presented in Table 8.5-3 including trade and chemical names, Chemical Abstract Service(CAS) numbers, maximum quantities on-site,hazardous characteristics, Comprehensive Environmental Response,Compensation,and Liability Act(CERCLA)and Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act(SARA)Title M reportable quantities (RQ),La Follette Bill threshold planning quantities(TPQ) and Proposition 65 listing status. Proposition 65 chemicals are.those known to be carcinogenic or cause reproductive problems in humans. Russell City Energy Center AFC,Vol-1 8.5-4 Hazardous Materials Handling In addition to the chemicals noted in Table 8.5-3,small quantities(less than 5 gallons)of paints, oils, solvent, pesticides and cleaners, typical of those purchased at a retail hardware store, may also be used at the RCEC facility. The hazardous materials to be stored include such incompatible chemicals as sodium bypochlorite and ammonia,or sodium hydroxide,sodium hypochlorite and sulfuric acid- Mixing of these chemicals could generate toxic gases. Measures to keep incompatible chemicals separated include separate storage and containment areas and/or berming. One acutely hazardous material to be used on site is aqueous ammonia. Aqueous ammonia is a solution of ammonia and water,and is a common industrial chemical used in the Hayward Industrial Coriidor. Pure ammonia(NH3)is a volatile,acutely hazardous chemical that is stored under pressure as a liquid and becomes a toxic gas if released- aposure to amynonia vapor at concentrations greater than 140 parts per million(ppm) will cause detectable effects on lung function even for short time exposureg(0-5 to 2 hours). At higher concentrations of 700 to 1,700 ppm.,the gas will cause severe effects. Concentrations of 2,500 to 7,000 ppm can be fatal. Ammonia gas is very soluble in water. The aqueous ammonia concentration proposed for the RCEC is 28 percent ammonia(and 72 percent water). If the aqueous ammonia solution leaks or is spilled, the - i i � onia in solution will evaporate into the atmosphere. The rate of evaporation will depend on the temperature of the solution. The second acutely hazardous material to be used on site is NALCO 356, which contains both cyclohexylanfine(an acutely hazardous material)and morpholine(a hazardous material)_. Cyclohexylamine is corrosive to the eyes and skin and,depending on the length of exposure, can cause permanent eye damage and third degree bums to the skin. Morpholine is also a severe eye,skin,and mucous membrane irritant and can cause kidney damage, Neither of these chemicals is particularly volatile,however,and both are soluble in water,which constitutes 50 to 75 percent of NALCO 356. The maximum quantity of NALCO 356 stored on-site will be 2,000 gallons;the maximum quantity of pure cyclobexylanu'ne in this solution will be 800 gallons,and the nwimurn quantity of pure morpholine in this solution will be 200 gallons. Because of the low volatility of these chemicals and the relatively small quantities stored,the off-site threat is considered small. The hazard to facility workers for both of these acutely hazardous materials will be mitigated by facility safety equipment,hazardous materials training,and emergency response planning- A Risk Management Plan(RMP)as required under federal regulations(40 Code of Federal Regulations[+CFR] 68)and the California Health and Safety Code(Sections 25531 to 25543-3)may be developed to describe these and other requirements (Section 8.5.6.4). An FdVIP is required for substances described in section 112(r)(5) of the Clean Air Act and listed in Appendix A of Part 355 of Subchapter J of Chapter I of Title 40 of the CFR and that are handled or stored in quantities in excess of certain levels. The toxicity characteristics and exposure level criteria for these acutely hazardous material =shown M" Table 8.5-4. The remaining=terials in Table 8.5-3 are hazardous materials and pose a lesser threat to humans than the acutely hazardous materlal- The toxic effects and other characteristics of each hazardous material are summarized in Table 8.5-5. Russell City Energy Center AFC,Vol.1 8.5-5 Hn7ardous Materials Handling Table 8.5-3. FiCEC chemical inventory. Maximum Trade Chemical CASE' Quantity Hazardous Prop Name Name Number Onsite Characteristics RGb TPOO 65 Acutely Hazardous Materials: Aqueous Ammonium 7664-41-7 12,000-gal. Corrosive Volatile 1001b. 500 lb. No Ammonia Hydroxide (for NH3) solution. (28% 1336-21-6 35,190 lb. solution) (for NH3— NH3 H20) NALCO 356 Cyclohexyla- 108-91-8 2,000 gal. Corrosive 10,9000 1b. 10,0001b No mine (20-40clo) Morpholine (5-10%) 110-91-8 Or NALCO Cyclohexyh 108-91-8 2,000 gal. Corrosive 10.1000 lb. I O-POOO No TRI-ACT mine Ib 1800 (10-20%) Ethanolan'me (10-20%) 141-43-5 Methoxypropyl amine (10-20%) 5332-73-0 Hazardous Materials&, - Sulfuric Acid Sulfuric Acid 7664-93.0 5,OW gal. Corrosive 11,0W 1b. 1,9000 lb. No Bleach Sodium 7681-52-9 5,000 gal. Corrosive 100 lb. No Hypochlorite NALCO 7393 Sodium 1310-73-2 5,000 gaL Corrosive 1,000 1b. No Hydroxide Disodiurn Sodium 7558-79-4 500 lbs- Toxic d No Phosate Phosphate ,ph j- Trisodium Tri-Sodium 7601-54-9 500 lbs. Toxic No Pho!p!!!te Pbosphale, NALCO 9306 Sodium 64665-57- 3,00 d0 gal. Toxic No Plus Tolyltfiazole 2 Hydrochloric Hydrochloric 7647-01-0 10,000 Is. Corrosive 51000 lb. No Acid Acid d Citric Acid Hydroxy- 77-92-9 100 lbs. Corrosive No propionic- tricarboxylic Acid Hydroxyacetic Gyrolic Acid None 1000 lbs. Corrosive No Acid Formic Acid Methanoic 64-48-6 600 lbs. Corrosive 5,1000 lb. No Acid RussellCity Energy Centcr AFC,,Vol.1 8.5-6 Hazardous Materials Handling Table 8.64(continued).. Maximum Chemical CASs Quantity Hazardous Prop Trade Name Name Number Onsite Characteristics RO" TPW 65 STABREX Sodium 1310-73-2 2,000 gal- Corrosive/Toxic 30.8001b. No S770 Hydroxide (1-5%) Sodium Hypobromite 13824-96-9 (10-20%) NALCO 7290 Polyacrylic Trade Se= 250 gal. Toxic r d No Acid (20-40%) EIIMN-OX Carbohydra- 497-18-7 2,000 gal. Ikon-Hazardous No tide NALCO 7408 Sodium 7631-90-5 250 gal. Corrosive 127000 lb. No Bisuffite (40-70%) NALCO 22106 Sodium NIA 2,000 gaL Toxic No Polyacrylate Aryl Sulfonate Or NALCO Temsodium 64-02-8 2,10DO gal. Corrosive d No 7213 ethylenedia- nAneEeu-aace,- twe (10-20%) Hydrogen Gas Hydrogen 1333-74-0 scf. Flammable d No Nfineral oil None 82,000 gal. Combustible 42 gal." Yes Insulating OU Lubrication Oil Oil Nonc - 19,500 gal. Flammable 42 SaLe Yes No,.2 Diesel Oil Nonc 500 gal- Flammable 42 gal,` Yes Detergents Various None 100 gal, Toxic Lab Reagents Various None 10 gal. Toxic (liquid) Lab Reaputs Various Nonc 100 lbs. Toxic d (solid) Ammonium Ammonium 1341-19-7 2.00 lbs- Toxic,Corrosivc 100 No Bifluoridc Bifluoride Sodium Sodium 497-19-9 500 Ibs. COTTosi've d No Carbonate Carbonate Sodium Nitrate Sodium Nitrate 7631-99-4 500 Is. Corrosive d No Chernical Abstract Savice. Reportable Quantity per CERCLA- Rrlcasc,equal to or greater than RQ must be=ported. Under California law.any amcrum that has a realistic potential to adwrsely affect the crivimMmaL or hunm health or&-dery must be,reported. Tbmshold Planning Quantity. If quantities of acutely hazardous mawWs equal to or gmter than TPQ are handled or stored,they must be registered with the local Administering Agency. For hazardous materials,the TPQ is 10.000 lb. No=pomng reqUirememL Must mpon if does or will reach California state wamrs,or if quantity released is a"harmful quantity.'' Russell City Encrgy Center AFC,Vol.1 8.5-7 Hazardous Materials Handling V V/ L V/ V tJ 1 CJ•V V 1 L•�A d 1 V V It V V CO V V Lill T 11<V.L1XU4./111L36JJ lU.Z&41A&VLAUAJl1.L tJ' v v f ..r.. Table 8,54. RCEC acutely hazardous materials. Name Toxic Effects • Exposure Levels Aqueous Contact with Iiquid or vapor causes eye,nose,and throat Occunational Exposures Ammonia irritation,skin burns.and vesiculation. Ingestion or inhalation PEL = 35 m m3 OSHA 28%solution causes burning pain in mouth,throat,stomach,and thorax, constriction of thorax,and coughing followed by vomiting TLV = 18 mg/m3 ACGYH blood,breathing difficulties,convulsions,and shock Othcr TWA = 25 mglm3 NIOSH symptoms include dyspnea,bmnchospasms,pulmonary STEL = 35 m m' edema,and pink frothy sputum. Contact or inhalation overexposure.can cause burns of the s}:in and mucous Hazardous Concentrations membranes,and headache,salivation,nausea,and vomiting. IDLH = 300rn Other symptoms include labored breathing,bloody mucous PP discharge.bronchitis,laryngitis,hcmmoptysis,and iso= 350 mg/kg-oral,rat ingestion of 3 to pneumonitis. Damage to eyes may be permanent,including 4 mis may be fatal ulceration of conjunctiva and cornea,and corneal and Sensitive Reccwors lenticular opacities. £RPG-1 = 25 ppm ERPG-2 =. 200 ppm ERPG-3 = 1,000 ppm Cyclohcxyla- Caustic/cOrrosiVC[O skin,eyes,and mucous membranes. Occunabnal Exposures mine Systemic effecus include nausea,vomiting,anxiety, PEL _ 403 restlessness,and drowsiness- TLV OSHA TLV = 40 mg/m'ACGIH TWA = 40 mg/m3 NIOSH STEL = None set Ilazardous Concentrations LD50= 779 mg&g-oral,albino rats LDm= 2,055 mg/kg-dermal,albino rabbits Sensitive Receptors ERPGs not available PEL= OSHA Pcrfnissible Exposure Limit for 8-hr work- FAPG-1 = Maximum airborne concentration below which nearly all individuals day could be exposed for up to I hour without expericncing other then mild transient adverse health effects TLV = ACGIH Threshold Limit value for S hr work-day ERPG-2 = Maximum airborne concentration below which nearly all individuals could be exposed for up to 1 hour without developing irrcvemible or scrlous health effects TWA = N10SH time-weighted average for 9-hr work-day ERPG-3 = Maximum airborne concentration below which nearly all individuals could be exposed for up to 1 hour without experiencing life-threatening health effects STEL= Short term exposure limit,15-rein.exposure mg/m3 = milligmms per cubic meter MLH = 1mmedi-ately dangerous to life and health nWkg = rmd1ligtams per kilogram LDso = Dose lethal to 50 percent of those tester! ppm = pans per million LDLO = Lowest published lethal dose OSHA = Occupational Safety and Health Administration ACGIH - American Confemnce of Government Industrial Hygienists ERPt' =Emergency Response Planning Guideline NIOSH = National Institute of Occupational Safary and Health TCLO=Lawrsst published toxic eoncentmdon Russell CiEy Energy Center AFC,vol_I 5-5-8 Hazardous Materials Handling CU/UJ 10-000 rtLA U1U0'*0UV00 Table 8.5&5. Characteristics of RCEC hazardous and acute ty hazardous materials. Hazardous Physical Reactive& Materials Description Health Hazard incom atibles Flammabil Anumni"a Colorless gas with Comsive. IrTitadon to Acids,halogens,strong Combusti-ble,but pungent odor, permanent damage from oxidizers,salts of silver diff cult to burn. inhalation,ingestion,and and zinc. skin Contact_ Sulfilric Acid Colorless,dense,oily Strongly corrosive. Strong Organic materials, Not combustible. liquid. irritant to all tissue. Minor chlorates,carbides., bums to permanent damage fulminates,metals in to tissue. powdered form Reacts violently with waw. Sodium Hypochloritz, Pale green;sweet, Corrosive. Toxic by Ammonia and organic Fire risk when in disagrecable odor. ingcstion- Strong irritant to materials. contact with Usually in solution tissue- organic materials. with H2O or sodium bydroxide. Sodium Hydroxide Clear yellow liquid- Corrosive- Corrosive to Water,acids,organic Noncombustible. (NALCO 7383) tissue in presence of halogens,some metals. maisrum Strong irritant to tissue by ingestion, di-Sodium Phosphate-Wo"MaNw—White powder. Toxic. Toxic by ingestion. None. Non-flame able. tri-Sodium Phosphate Colorless crystals. Toxic. Toxic by ingest-ion. None. Non-flamrnable. Iffirant to tissue. Scale Inhibitor YcUow green liquid Slight to moderately toxic. Strong acids. Non-flanunable. (NALCO-8306 Plus) Irritation to skin and eyes. Hydrochloric Acid Colorless,pungent, lfig:hly corrosive. Toxic by Metals,hydroxides, Non-flarnmable. fuming liquid. insestion. Strong irfitant to amines,alkali.,;. eyes and skin. Citric Acid Translucent crystals. Nonc. None. Non-fh Hydroxyacesic,Acid Corrosive Toxic. Toxic by Strong bases,strong Non-flammblic. Colorless crystals. inhalation,ingestion.and reducing and oxidizing dermal contact. agents. Formic Acid Colorless.faming CotTosivc. Corrosive to skin Strong oxidizers,smug Combustible. liquid. and tissuc, caustics,concentrated sulfuric acid- STABM S170 Clear,ligbt yellow Corrosive. Corrosive to eyes Strong acids,organic Non-flammable. Sodium Hydroxide liquid. and skin. Hannful if materials,sodium (1-5%) ingested or inhaled. hypochlorite. Sodium Hypobromite, (10-20%) NALCO 356 Clear,light Corrosive. Corrosive to eyes Strong oxidizers and Flammable- Cyclohcxylarnine yellow/green liquid- and slain. Can cause Iddney acids. S02 or acidic (20-40%) damage. bisulfite products. M orpholine(5-10%) or NALCO-TM-ACT Clear,colorless to Corrosive. Corrosive to eyes Strong acids,inorganic Flammable. 1800 light yellow. and skin. Can cause liver nitrims or nitrous oxide. Cyclohexylaadne darna8e. (10-20%) Ethanolamine(10- 20%) Melboxypro- pylamine (10-20%) Russell City Energy Ccnter AFC,Vol.1 8.5-9 Hazardous Materials Handling Table 8.5-5. (continueC. Physical Reactive& Hazardous Materials Description Health Hazard Incompatibles Flammability 00=000ft-� NALCO 7280 Clear to slightly Toxic. Kidncy darrmSc. Reactive salts(nitrites Non-flammable. Polyacrylic acid turbid yellow. Effects on bones. and sulfites) ­40so"" P-LIMIN-OX Colorless liquid. Slightly toxic. Low human Mineral acids,nitrites., Non-flammable. Carbohydrazide hazard. and strong oxidizers_ NALCO7408 Yellow Uquid. Corrosive. Irritation to eyes, Strong acids and Non-flammable. Sodium Bisulfite siinp and lungs. May be oxidizers. harmful if digested. 'gob. NAL 22106 Clear to slightly Toxic. Possibly harmful if None known. Non-flammable- Sodium Polyacrylate yellow. swallowed. Aryl Sulfonate or NALCO 7213 Clear,yellow to Toxic. Moderate health Sarong acids- Combustible.Flash Tetrasodium amber. hazard. Moderate irritation point>20001P. Ethylenediaminetetra- to eyes and skin. acetate(10-20%) Hydrogen Gas Colorless,odorless Simple asphyxiant, None known. Flarnmable gas. gas flammable. minmal Oil Oily,clear liquid. Minor. Sodium bypochlorite. May bac combustible. Lubrication Oil Oily,dark liquid. Ingestion hazardous. Sodium hypochlorite- Flammable. Diesel Fuel Oily,light liquid. Maybe carcinogenic. Sodium bypochlorite- Flanunable. Ammonium Bifluoride White crystals May be fatal if swallowed or Strong acids. Non-flammable. inhaled. Affects respiratory system-4 heart,s1ndctor4 circulatory system,CNS,.and kidneys. Sodium Carbonate white powder or Harmful if swallowed or Acids. Non-fianumble. granules inhaled. Irritation to skin and respiratory tract. Sodium Nitrate White crystals Toxic and corrosive. Strong acids. Non-flanumble. Irritation to eyes,skin,and lungs. Harmful if digested. Electric Transmission Line and Eastshore Substation EXpanslon—No hazardous or acutely hazardous materials will be stored at the electric transmission line or substation facilities during operations. Natural Gas Pipeline—With the exception of the natural gas contained within the pipeline,-no bazardous or acutely hazardous materials will be stored at the pipeline facilities during operations. Wastewater Retum Pipelines—There are no separate faCilkies associated with the wastewater return pipelines;therefore,no hazardous or acutely hazardous materials will be stored at this location during op=tions. AWT plant The following hazardous and acutely hazardous materials will be used and/or stored at the AWT plant site during the operation phase: Russell City Energy Center AFC,Vol.1 8-5-10 Hazardous Materials Handling •Sodium Hypochlorite---for biofoul control in the MF/RO process and for disinfection in chlorine contact basin (7,000 gallons, 12.5%by weight solution) •Sulfuric Acid—for RO feedwater pH control,cleaning sludge press,and pH adjustment(7,000 gallons, 93 percent solution) •Hypersperse MDC220—phosphonic acid thieshold inhibitor compound used to as a scale inhibitor in the RO feedwater(500 Gallons) •Sodium Hydroxide---used for routine cleanings of the micro filtration membranes (500 gallons, 50percenE S01116011) •Memclean C—Proprietary detergent used for routine cleanings of the MF membranes (500 Gallons) •Citric Acid used occasionally for routine cleanings of the MF membranes (250 gallons, 34percent solution) •Limes--used for PH adjustment of RO concentrate and MF backwash streams,if necessary(6000 cubic feet) •Ferric Chloride—used as clarifying agent for RO concentrate and W backwash streams(10,000 gallons) •Sodium Sulfide—used to aid in copper precipitation from RO concentrate and MF backwash streams,if necessary(2,000 pounds) a KleenMCT103—nitrilotriacetic acid and phosphoric acid RO membrane cleaning solution (220gallons) •KleenMCT41 1—sodium tripolyphosphate and sodium hydroxide RO membrane cleaner(2,000 pounds) Information about these materials is presented in Table 8.5-6 including trade and chemical names, Cbernical Abstract Service(CAS)numbers,maximum quantities on-site,hazardous characteristics, Comprehensive Environmental Response,Compensation,and Liability Act(CERCLA)and Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act(SARA)Title M reportable quantities(RQ),La Follette Bill threshold planning quantities(TPQ)and Proposition 65 listing status_ Proposition 65 chemicals are those known to be carcinogenic or cause reproductive problems in humans. In addition to the chemicals noted in Table 8-5-6,small quantities (less than 5 gallons) of paints,oils, solvent,pesticides and cleaners,typical of those purchased at a retail hardware store,may also be used at the AWT plant. The hazardous materials to be stored include such incompatible chemicals as sodium hydroxide, sodium hypochlorite and sulfuric acid. Mixing of these chemicals could generate toxic gases. Measures to keep incompatible chemicals separated include separate storage and containment areas and/or berming. The toxic effects and other characteristics of each hazardous material are summarized in Table 8.5-7. Russell City Energy Center AFC.Vol.1 8-5-11 Hazard s Mataials Handling Table 8.5-6. AWT plant chemical inventory. Maximum Chemical CASE Quantity Hazardous Prop Trade Name Name Number Onsite Characteristics ROb TPQ'O 65 Sulfuric Acid Sulfuric Acid 7664-93.0 79000 gal Corrosive 1,{00 Ibs. 1,000 1b. No Bleach Sodium 7681-52-9 7.000 gal Corrosive 100 lbs. No Hypochlorite Sodium Sodium 1310-73.2 500 gal Corrosive 1,000 Ibs. No Hydroxide Hydroxide Hyperspeme Phosphonic 2809-21-4 500 gal Corrosive d No MDC220 acid Memclean C Hydroxy- 77-92-9 500 gal Corrosive No propionic- tricarboxylic Acid Citric Acid Hydroxy- 77-92-9 250 gal Corrosive No propionic- tricarboxylic Acid Lime Calcium 130 d5-62-0 6,000 cu ft Corrosive No Hydroxide Ferric Chlodde Ferric Chloride 7705-08-0 10,000 gal Corrosive 1,000 lbs. No Sodium Sulfide Sodium Sulfide 1313-82-2 2,000 lbs Corrosive d No KleenMCT103 Nitrilot ;gcetic 5064-31-3 220 gal Toxic d Yes Acid Phosphoric 7664-38-2 1,000 Ibs. No Acid KleenMCI'411 Sodium 7758-29-4 2,000 Ibs Corrosive 5,000 lbs. No Tfipoly- phosphate Sodium 1310-73-2 1,000 lbs- No Hydroxidc Chemical Abstract Service. Reportable Quantity per CERCLA. Reim c equal to or gmawr than RQ must be mportc& Under California law,any amount That has a reWistic potential to adversely affect the environment or human health or safety must be rq=wd. Threshold Plarming Quantity. If quantities of acutely hazardous twiteri-gs equal to or greater than TM are handled or stored,they roust be d registered with the local Administering Agency. For hazardous matesials,the?PQ is 10.000 1b. No mTordn,;mquirement, Russell City Energy Center AFC,Vol.1 8-5-12 Hazardous Materials Handling Table 8.5&7, Characteristics of AWT plant hazardous materials. Hazardous Physical Reactive& Materials Description Health Hazard Incompatibles Flammabill Sulfuric Acid Colorless,dense,oily Strongly corrosive. Strong Organic materials, Not combUSLIOLC. liquid- irritant to all tissue. Minor chlorates,carbides, bums to permanent damage fulminates,,metals in to tissue. powdered form.Reacts violently with water. Sodium Hypochlorite Pale green;sweet. Corrosive. To.-dc by Ammonia and organic Fire risk when in disa&r=ablc odor. ingestion. Strong irritant to materials. contact with , Usually in solution tissue. organic materials. with H2O or sodium hydroxide. Sodium Hydroxide Clear yellow liquid. Corrosive. Corrosive to Water,acids.organic Noncombustible. tissue in presence of hWogcns,some metals. moisture.. Strong irdtant to tissue by ingestion, Hyperspersc MI)C220 Light yellow to Corrosive. Mild irritant_ Strong oxiden. Combustible. (Scale Inhibitor) amber liquid. Memclean C Brown liquid,mild Mild irritant. None. Non-flammabic. (detergent) detergent odor. Citric Acid Translucent crystals. None. None. Non-floumnable. Lime White"tals,or Corrosive,. Sever irritant to Acids Non-combustible. powder- respiratory MCL Causes bums to tissue. Ferric Chloride Yellow brown Corrosive. Harmful if Metals,water, Nott-combustible. deliquescent crystals. swallowed or inhaled. Causes burns an contact. Sodium Sulfide Whitc crysta4. Corrosive. Maybe fatal if Acids'.oxidm, Combustible. swallowed or inhaled. aluminum. Kleen MC7103 Clear yellow liquid. Severe irritant. Strong oxidcrs. Combustible. Kleen MCT411 White powder- Severe irritant Strong oxide. Combustible. 8.6.2 Environmental Consequences 8.6.2.1 offsite Consequences Analysis An Off-Site Consequence Analysis(OCA) was performed,per CEC requirements,to assess the risk from a potential spill or rupture of the aqueous ammonia storage tank-at the RCEC. The anumnia,which is used in the selective catalytic reduction(SCR) system to control nitrogen oxides(NOx)emissions,will be delivered and stored on-site in the form of an aqueous solution(28 percent NH3). If a release of aqueous ammonia were to occur,the quantity of 2anmonia gas relined would be significantly less than that released by an anhydrous ammonia system failure; therefore,the potential off-sire impact is greatly reduced by selecting this option. The RCIF-C site will have one 15,000-gallon aqueous ammonia storage tank. As discussed in Section 8-5.4.2,the tank- will be enclosed within a secondary containment structure. The analysis presented below is based on a scenario in which the inner tank-fails and aqueous amrnonia is released within the secondary containment structure. Ammonia vapor then escapes to the atmosphere through a one-foot diameter vent at the top of the secondary containment structure. This analysis includes modeling of Russell City Energy Center AFC,Vol.1 8.5-13 Hazardous Materials Handling ammonia vapor release and dispersion to assess the impact to off-site receptors at various distances from the site. _ J �. a.. Methods The mass release rate of an=onia vapor was calculated assummn failure of a full, 15,000-gallon tank g g of aqueous ammonia. Specific parameters used in the calculation are lis[ed in Table 8.5-8. The aqueous solution flows into the surrounding containment enclosure until Iiquid levels within the tank and enclosure are equal. This release is assumed to occur over a tete-minute period,in accordance with the RMP Offsite Consequence Analysis Guidance(EPA 1996). Clean air is displaced and pushed out the vent in the enclosure ceiling as aqueous solution fills the bottom of the enclosure. Table 8.5-8. Ammonia mass release rate calculation parameters. Parameter Value Temp.within secondary containment enclosure 80 T N%Partial pressure above 28%solution(80°F) 11.6 psia Diffusivity of ammonia in air 2.4 EA ft2lsec Ammonia vapor concentration at liquid surface 580 grams/ml To calculate the quantity of a n moria vapor released from the spill, it was assumed that the temperature of the stored ammonia and the air within the concrete secondary containment enclosure are 80 degrees Fahrenheit(F),and remain constant throughout the event. The arnrnonia concentration in air directly above the liquid surface is calculated based on the vapor pressure of ammonia at.80'F above a 28% aqueous solution. Ammonia vapor diffuses through the air above the spill and is released through the 1- foot diameter vent. The rate of diffusion is controlled by the concentration gradient in the enclosure. A mass emission rate through the vent of 0.50 grams ammonia per second was calculated based on the rate of diffusion and the area of the opening. As the ammonia diffuses through the headspace in the secondary containment enclosure, vapor is released through the one-foot diameter opening in the top of the enclosure. worst-case downwind ammonia concentrations were determined using the FPA dispersion model TSCREEN. Model input parameters are listed in Table 8.5-9. The model assumes a wind speed of 1.0 meter per second and worst-case stability class to calculate downwind ammonia concentrations. Table 8,5-9. TSCREEN dispersion modeling input parameters. Parameter Value 1�IH3 emission rate 0.50 grams/sec. Release height 12 feet Vent diameter 1 foot Exit velocity .001 meters/sec. Exhaust and ambient temperature 80 T Receptor height 1.5 meters Terrain Urban Russell City Energy Center AFC,vol.I 8_5-14 Hazardous Materials Handling 1 Martin E. Lysons, SBN 203778 GAGEN, McCOY,McMAHON &ARMSTRONG 2 A Professional Corporation 3 279 Front Street,P.O. Box 218 Danville, CA 94526-0218 4 Telephone (925) 837-0585 5 Attorneys for Calpine Corporation 6 VERIFICATION 7 1, the undersigned, declare: 8 That I am an officer of Calpine Corporation and of Riverview Energy Center, LLC, a project company that is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Calpine Corporation; that I have reviewed 9 1 the MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING REGARDING RELATED TRANSACTIONS, 10 comprising six (6)pages and attached as Exhibit A, and I am familiar with the contents thereof; 11 and that the attached is a true and correct copy of said MEMORANDUM as executed between 12 the Riverview Energy Center, LLC and G-P Gypsum Corporation. 13 1 declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the 14 foregoing is true and correct. 15 Executed on February 14,2003 at Dublin, California. 16 CALPINE CORPORATION RIVERVIEW ENERGY CENTER,LLC 17 By: By: 18 Brian Bertacchi Brian Bertacchi Its: Vice President, Its: Vice President 19 Regional Power Executive 20 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ss 21 COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA On February 2003 before �'�.V (1(_S Brdhl 6f 6(r v PUW 22 personally appeared Brian Bertacchi, personally known to me or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) 23 to be the person whose name is subscribed to the within instrument, and acknowledged to me that he executed the same in his authorized capacity, and that by his signature on the instrument 24 the person, or the entity upon behalf of which the person acted, executed this instrument. 25 WITNESS my hand and official seal. - HYLLIS BRANLE Notary P' Slic, State of California COMMISSION 1248974 NOTARY PUBLIC-CALIFORNIJ ALAMEDA COUNTY " EDMBIT K My Commission expires.tai 9.200'4 ^Y-• vv�.. ,:tai...7Y3f:i: 1- :Zx-r••rv.-1•ta-.n..�:xNa.•s�cWSWy:a..r�,-_. r.wy.. n.a+y:.. �...A a[Tsi ^PPk� :'.P.a•-�'71".u'�-�'•t�v!r.»pl-1!e+.�...•;�w.1rcK:ina•..c R'.vs•�•A.• 'M .:lrt�tl: K. +c.. x^�,. .r r•�r_ ut._-s ,rz. •,ax..., v�Wµ- ,r.=�xY.. fi •"'?:7Y.. a¢S- >.. .�i-vh.. .in• ..'+�♦r�u-:�+r.»i.:aeaar" rz.. �•-,.. ♦G r'' moi. "' .t .s..v r.... .... ..... 'a..-..-..i-M �^•3--:--.... ..5.:�.moi.:' .0 R4r.w.- S.�l :.`_i:.ii...]2,� \r. - t�'1�..,;� 'q�. •:l.t? "111!R'_.-_,,..,_ - .., �.sib ;?! _c '�C+�"` �►at�a :. ±c ..r.. ..•..r..�aa�-a-etnt..•..•^r •e+:a�nrealr..arsnr: \:.�.w5s. .._-r.a.-...-+,-w.s.+�M>.i.r '..:_"^.•'...,.. -:. •:Via..:.-,.ca.. .: .. �`6 �?e:r��T.. :,r.. 35''.�.�.,.._... .-�_a; ,-R,-.'-�L�,' ..r'"S�•>�.t••e. w - '.,r:.. y,� ;sl•.. - ... ...:r•tar.�.nrtaral a-:t,.r ..._.�. - Yy ..:..,, ����s ����..�at ♦c ?��•s( �i �, �ai���,'r�!��+ '-!�'�.2.�� i�''� �, -fit _ J�`. v�.] F.v 1�:•`K-Fes• - -- .-•• a. cr•aI-A ZJL 7.f - `• I 'Y 1"''''444444 F i � /� i-����4a .-� t�� •, 3fiiPi '. i r +F Y`s,;7.)_•�i�Y"rix' 1 _'_"ti'k R L•f {! $ -: ' . ' :j •+mat .•' -. '! •. 't .. _ S� tt�� �" � t . ✓`� a i'.V:- '�:,yt._. ♦aa t r,�s,`J i _ 4 •---' r'r h t _ .._. yy-;.. �+.''S- 4P w y 'r _.- •r •� �j� i•-�<•a:ry<�at#�-.a'2'••%s:?i'�}iafi.: ._•..'�1'.^a1ra`•.•s y�_>4.i.•�>x ..�,�:•,. C _� - -- s� w�.i• �L ,C �r f :'^K .+•--o ]!ii „�r�} t��'�C s ��•Iai ��� ' .....:r:.....,-.':•. � •'w,.•r-`�...�� �� `;'i� 3J"tioc$1'tq.l� .lrA.l���»3r``l+�F .Y '•♦x a�y� .., y.•.• �p -[moi �.- µ .r,,, w F r LW,*� Inift Mr y '.!+_� - .WTM•'iF ."� a a t :: ] i•.:.y]t,�-' .',jr s�B{:7,.4.Y.tZ"{Y�t\W]'!f'.i S.;i i 4 t i4:- ': _ .dS��� ac, ,i3i!!! iiitt Y•� f� _.� �: $ .. »;�i � � :_ y`'° ♦:' .]l.:.a �:.i.ti,�, �ts:.t.r,�]-_-.-��•t.\�y"}'`w•i.E�L ..3i�e-K-:F r. t- '•+: r��'y'Y"t �• _ ~ .j74•., a .K '`l •....,• .Y,l.�•J, -♦+r;.:.t�i'+$.";,'a•�♦;i i•}i.i.>x '.`s:;, :< ]�(l .:;�q��-Y`': 411' F + ¢'�.•; t+ �sj,�p,5�,rp y .trt c s ,r+i:•�•i�.iTi..:z lii ''1.a�� 'i7` •a+, t4�4i}3htd, 4_•`xs..:i ',>.a..�.nr.a' .,�.t'...r.- .;:;ii.. za.•' ''�' 'i. io •1yj-. ♦tT - + .ir.: ��••r ♦a.rf. r ..,<.;''i?. \.'- .r .." 2,.•_.. I s 'iLiTa �4> �4 'lg F.t,/� �-"-t �- syi/,.:7 a.. ;. ih �.'=^•'!� el IY 'Y:�F -.F-. r �r. s.s�''�,y,,ar:�"s^.•t Z'�.';.-�,},j•=r}.r-� X_...>>�,4�ti �' rV- - - ... .. di - _�;•7}•��•��'c -4 :. s'.'�*,•;�1 !�,•�: ') Ay]r.•.1 •.-4..��j}]¢t tia^!i;;rK._ \.a,y�a._y ar..��rti= =.%}"`t >t3•Cl:.'J?.r Y4\._ a.it"t.'' c _. VU: .a t YO. '. .�J 3 6 S _ t3.. i! •1 F_� i -r•-. - _ •• .. .. 4r�.t4-. .Y�T•Y .y. •_ ..'.- _.�, .... ? s� �.T y .Sj .1Y.irc ` 1 fi Qa t♦'f;'r>\ t,♦. >. �``w'�t-•a}y\.. Srit...� 1.>r -..:r• _•. .t. . Tr ** �_t , Fu 'it T. t !X ]s i a-t �' t.2ts •'.'kc.�.;r:.i':• "r}�-�1 t:' y c�` , c S� ':!-'`.\►:.'.:.:..•..r^ki"_ •_,,..^"•.;�� ,j.iY• �Y �.rim� ;�. v,70� ^ r-.•._ > .:F\4� + g.�li�Yl.► Y. ` i~ y�:,�:c h„_\Y�. •.3� svllty>xLwLt.�• -��i.s r. Ui Mb.m -F :tom+- iT�,r- :'.i'4:t�; '�r7-' 4 `:;�. + } _'�l'l,aEi�f -}ra>at7.•-=.Lly Vot}.+•Itr .; j : aL�, �i }3s"F' Mik llrr3ft�t''�.4.- t -1 ter• .-\?•,.r..nl3fc�':Z. I ~- - w _ �•-i f�t'` 4. ]1-:a;:. ...-+. --a... { ti+"^r. ..T��.• ir 'tirp r�t'. •-],.':b.ar: . ti � -' - �•�-a } �� _, _ _ "'1�-1 2,•„ ^ c !. rte.S.” __ ...• -t;r. 46 Pm K ��g�[+� � •r .;•f�, r'` '♦~./,�.�..:i:``JT�w,l:viS•.��!'j'X..] uIrefi.� �A .•<.:. 1atia�Bafa ViS i .y fi �• 1.'cF-.•t'i i•`Tc�i.r''�.`Ci:..�i[ y moi'7s:1't�l1- �ra'V ��,� :�f iil.��ii,t'� Ltt 'r '•.�. :t.k.St_ },•��••s•o•. 41'-.. t - .7.7 tt: iii_...<s .,.�. �.1. 1- �tdfi!�+a2t.+. d'p !?il1€ t �:7�:�w1�i ' rix-�,. •' �+' .��������� ��;#�' •• ITYfi Y.? le.. t ! nV : _� Li•. -',a:s:,�. S. _ _ ^. # e �� `tea •: '-:�- .•s:.7iI a�.� 129 3 r:v -]a. �_ .:!"_" i. _ - - •.'♦'�i�a;a.�•;`..+ ��_kap.Via. z.-��'.fh r�'•�.-•.w ♦ _ _cess.. ' _ rd"m ..:hr _ •L•.' _ '_ '•s: - -1;`r ;-C:>.:—_',• --A-- _:.;",'L . to it _ - _. .: •..•�:'��?7 •• .,.. .�' ^.•i. - waw•- it•^+=z.y1i !aq _t -._ .,•.•, ^it. ..}F.-.."T+�?wv.�fi^.al.•.,,-Yr rru.3R "titC:T.TF ^^-r... .. �•'►-+NxR+l- .."!Y!M^ `F p:. TI^r',:t!%; :Yv:Y•a•z+..�:. .±f7`*ra•�?Y �.m' -1-114-n J1ay.:.LJmR t:EtV;C::"k. .>r •1C-•IF �+C"". ;r .s - .�.sl r._<✓?i�.-•.::rJ�^G i r,...:�,t+a. .'YJ� :' �'6*'e'k,. 1'T!£ Jcat? .Yi., S_.. ¢' .: • �••_._"+."..T.YS:..«r�+• -.. ....W nig-v'' � .•..,.^..�.' -. 4..a..: .'.{?r.. _x r srtaa.if,\.:t.,z� t.. �,+,� s',�+.fi 2 it`y'S �'f,,r.•< S•s ' "Cz't•. - .1 1 1' I.wrrarw4r. 'i.Y ,all s., ,..:. •, .....«'.:.._ •_; .. .....,.•. .'�.�..:❑t. ''i� ?�v,'+'^•s i'r .rj ..s .. I .�- Am.t.►. A ' '... bL [ _ �: !• of iwe :t S' �I. - .. rF, t}�y a■�t�w7{�fr�,eA�. ._ •/.. _•'^^ :.� :...:lll... -a�'ir.•" iii...//////fff Li l+ i •ai ,:'�11i�("a _•.(�}r1y [y., I��y�.s���<�I� J-''�. t.�y..`•�,� s. ' }i: .•,•1..._;,•Ilv•<„ ♦ .,r.-• ,].J(e•...._\+•_ --i'- - ;T vT�� ',':t-.��+'.Ni�-Waw•.' I(jy*���Y ,(r/��� -�.�� •� - :. C:.•C~��t i.%• ',•[\ -"a''./•• "a a•}N.. '•.-�-��5, .::" ,:t•::. .T-[ =" �. 7.. ,I I y x. �r,.. .. • t{y •« V. :. _; •' ,: ;t- �y ♦. ti.,t-. .•'L.:w.-..,T• ..s .�Z� �s •-.:;:.1._: •�t.- �j/.++••.-•�-'RAM �. •. Ali't 1.Yl.ltr � �i 3 j�•��_ _:.a: .r:`:t•:� .-1.- . cm.I-en "7'S. ,fir •�'.: :JI"•i - •'.:vt`-`,• - •y• - •4..' t.t, .. '.[-'C'y. :; ,�.3•,•�, ., � d t ;711 aW. - ;jess'` ". '�_ 4.,• ^I1 •�,''. ,w -y� :{:..,.:•�..! .nom'.\l,t .It+•`• .4.•...*.,:-,, � �r,�' ��" : c : � s ,... - _ -,--,.�y ;�-- Z,z )�, - ,. . Fir ... ,,<..t ;,il mi. N: . .. .. .. y. ,; -_ -:-{::;Y' :'.J� : �L u4 w11 MI+Yi.iY {:':` e]M.Tf. +ir'}�■ tv ■] y {,•• 'I,.1•. T,...`I 7 ;.Y:V i•�[r4 ..//!•!.,�.//.1--••„I7,�,,t •, .�. 1.G i . • pi .. -.I -.. - . I.I- -7* , .![,a"- - a ) , 4 M-41 W+P+., . :.,--6.,',, f.�= [}1�� 1t� { +� �- �] • t1. > . _ - . :tea�, ', Q�. . fi* _-.. _. i. f1�ii• 7. i -i-) ..a,,.4:{-Ck..< •%,._•.•. _ .,4!4•u7a7.,'7 .i..'".� � "f t �.IL� y. >+�i%l3 -all'{�;'"..• ,��r.. •. - ••,•'�'+ [yam= _ wr x ., ... -. . _ 1 -3�I.' r . - ..... ...r y :. i ., r ` -_ ,.. �'i� '�•.,,. -+�J�y i. _.:�,TT�,:n t }�! [I��.�� Y, +i �.'%• __'i'ir t:{ jv,'•t}:�e 1_,�:,'.- - _ ..ti.: - ; . : ? l i I. LA , �. >. ,. y _t • /�}�� i,. -. _ ���1.,.;�s ire. _ �.;. _. - . 72 tV .. ' _�-,7t-- � �v r.Y -V [. 'J y .. '- i .`• !�.� )w i 4ty iti•'w.:.' •r+l -t.T ';t' _ /// 1. �'.....; �;, - :.� 'tom � d. �° `` -•-- , { •�1, ,Z.-,-e-� :. 4 /ice •. Mlii rcf�'.ii:�• •. � ,...1 >w �:7 o. ,..iy.. _7.�-,�. .'~ < ..y. n' ,. Ifl�9! 'c ♦i+.�{;�}w::,}•a=k�, Z/-i+� qt-_l,,t. % t: 's/T .� ^ _ al ,6nti - �n _ iY' 1. rr yam} {�,.��•{�y(arw �` �Ly is•' I'-r�.. i '"*'.'•i'L ', '' ..✓jw•'• -)••h7 s'w.•J}a. 'a,":i`^': _a - lb:16 ,�j y` -Slia�f7 m _ .BIZ '- L ... _ .af>:.. ..,:.i}':s• r_eY)�..: J1�f�i{ �*i wt ul him { J. .a �� ~w'� i� {":', '1.'i�.`, ,t•...v:3� •.'n•� ,.y'_r r.: -;y t�r -.< f••a`^, \ ',.. `TT�t-R l Ji!'' �,T 1��FJ i t a tl�C ,(�{�y�y� - \_ [��y� (�•y��-- ��r,{�j •� •`T.',x i,<.,1« I•, -�+.-i,41 . t {.. i!' 4, �', �M M. ,.. -•,�F'...i�F14 T. t• •T"R!.!fIf Y. '•y�It �i�y� .y. rw\.. y, ' t �O Jl•" .;'t<] t .,?��< : �� •}` _ x '>.-.• "^•':y%i�`• '' •t.;: '-..�'-y�:�"I.�i�.b s.•a+` `�'_� - �.,,'f alga _ 7.:. If- {{,,..�� !. �q !.. + �:,, - : • Is to '.,. lil •( .-:y 1 •.S• :�' •1 - - U1. w L. �t,..:y. {,Ttii.-.'►'•, t• _- _ - _ ?'T a` =^r_•,.-" s � ; eJ►i 'i! '�''.G.. t% `+ ^. r s i -,a. _ .}''[ •- •?' yam• .r y<`. lt..> :«�, .}!:-••,� .:•r. -•„ -i7-.,,--t, ulif'•.S„ '}, ,:iJR�ii� I!•=TY , tt'••LiI.T'.'ri 'v ,• L 'rt •� .. 1 'i_ :�t•' [< y_ �.:i.: wT:-�v i �:Y<+• :�� �7.���)��M',.j4Nw•� _., ��.L } • •_ .. a'• 1): -�, �+{ C '��,+,+,i�.:j'1 t``^r y. _<iJ�.4 ii<'rS w^1,+:.5'4N�L�'h3 U:iy f�-v iT.'fti- - �+: \A Y :: .. !a''�t 1�Y �l :3 � 4.t� ..c :i .-L. i ..•,f• rr c�:•s - - ii I qtr•.•N. _.._..., y �` :. r-w.... .... ; n.... J4i���� �:kZ '.. - __ a !�[ Y7?r �llL� i .i 14r#' /1+`Y �r •a+lF� � '�e ; C. . *11 `.,• . ': 3rt fir_ ' ....... , t..� .r•-•-•.» -• ,.... ,/..-,,... 'i,C.%•'^:}., ...-.'w•'_`. ,,- 4 r,.>.).,[4. -..1. .., :-y.,� 1. .%-♦r _ ._ *:;;i:.'}� y �'!'�`• jir st _'v+�.• •?'•'. s-1 -<tiis, •�.' _ '..'.'t..tC:{:_,t•n f,* ,, e. __s :y, , 's�''. ys7a�� •!)1 ��.14 i�?�.EiT -`>L':�_•:;,, , ..'>A{ .� S 77 may{ t-bl7 1R1�rr1R7!%a:. 1 t } . T , : --67 x• ..i ' } ». -: ;I i•s•,.C`,>.�t y,l.. ` •N)♦'• tt• ♦\.,. 'Y.t a.. .., -f- - ,. `,• •(/ : . tie` I;� zrx � -- - .. .11 TIC I ,.•_. .•+fir•' ,..; f _ ,. x. -4u., .. 4 Q4,-.... P l�Z7� 11 Ilii 1 11� •[ rA ,a T-b- - >�;, ..I d1•�!w' L T..w.. •urn.•_ w _ _ y ,i�s� t: i`' c`:is+C!.Y}4-JA.e - - y-� -•-�It• w �"° - - /^'r' - �'."•�''��... ,_�,,,}+:..w-s:;./ .•� L}.mo i} .:�C ,o'• -..,.- .«�,,.. s b j'13 .'.��' ` ms's':•-ms ti'� p A. ..i.1e, :r_yn .,: :',�'�: ,i";•)yvi}"�„f...f.' 2 .T.'.+.�.�� ':�t '.a ♦\ .J,..:->ira:: „54.) ;�_..,�:r,4 - •: :: •4� ,ti(•:.i1Frt2.LRV- 'i••' •yrc�T.ltL^:. tL'. r t -�.'•ti••I _.._..a ,T, _��.... s 4s +�1_ •� ... r l .tom. �G `T3 - - +5 �{�s�y�� ...�y� ffi r 'ti.+ , _ .>ti, +1. IY-! '-{:,;�•�' •`.`;iaG ?�.+?Ii: .. . �+.:.•.+..':,_; ..r <. �i1- J++J+�t�t�► i�.tiltiF.�Ja"i�' O, Y � ,^,i.F!r�':, q.:. ii�N d&VWVA-":6 -i��. P, I On •4. ..Yr Mf.:C `\�• t;^: .y,,,..••r f'✓. ,}ti.i'-'•` r'".moi•' ,• L'_..f:.[:t .,4,j F „-, {.t::.J ..� . iw - % `'�!J''••- .t: •\h:• :V�4',^tr1<S.y`t••drw:�'y 4:. ,.�.t.. -•., A✓ ', ''?t''L�-_ys -.T3n•• _ .<x.,.. .- . ,- {�.~`Qyt rill iZ'` _s :z ti L<` - _ r::. K . ..J�-......A. N I. ..t .i..... :,*. ,��%l tt }Z.� ••�•7rw 7 :Y. 1� •-,h/ •' L•_}\ \ 1 Y ,,�4^r, �IIIZ.L.� 1 :iiiM �•i1.ii ' ' vo _`., .{.��.. .;-t< ,.. 2,-;.: - g'a�+')� "r.'_:c ''�i�tS. h„a /•.::•<@• '.yYi,.iL�.r..}-�r;.. if3j:f 'f_t i.R,'� i ,'.q 'wi .�il'11.Riia�i� .+, 'Ll y}' ::�_ 'rct. •': it►.[�►Oax t is R� .. .,•-- r,' r.- -�- r- _ ,r:..s y .. :r:'''•�^A•.,. _ _ - a' .,.• -.�ti .�::. ■ h 'iii �1.\ "�ti , ..i t•i .i - -r c �`,r-.:.;#)s> - - r.. �_. ,-.M. ,�� t_ --v. r C. ;--, t'�L . '-.- -,4z---. _-a` -' I =� t3.: - iq .' #x'f . - " --> __ .raw^ >r< :: ]'. --_ ••:�•s _ •i ,.},�,i:J!''4•'.-;s♦ :�;:1. -Huta,. `_•,'. rr ":•.:T�' iiYiif"dti;•. +n ' j.4 �r:///t��� +��,. +,`.,.t. =xs+:}�",U:.r!ry�. �}�.Ca`:-i��:�a��{Xi: *4.ii' _'r,•;' .a�:-tx-.`�•,-t .-I . .,- - ,�+ttl+ Fe ,I �.Fnrj'j���^:l/ r- - _ - }� at:- rj'�i�'y�n "4 -I ill _�< rN.s,s,, :�•t - 1 _ f tcil./s#?tldL��iti y�� fidI. {M i e:> G�i t`.-C.' -i- .-y..• ,�:✓t i•t A - .t �.1•,•��..••'y.:•<� ,E �,.. ..r.<.�`\.i•... ,.+`ti•-• ,?..t• - �. ;•,:_ �-�/�'��"j�.jj��]Ii-��� tC��y�' t w•Stg �Q�y�•[ ::`ih•': ♦- _,.,t Y`i Y�q�yt�l�i`y♦{i� Ar/=x• .thyyf(�� "F�:�a}rt�Tsmw.ft�,w7�tC r.q ,K-._. _ t. .'r!IOIlt 1.� W r lE I.��eT, r a .S?fof.(a f, _•.-} .li r _•T- �t +.« ' t.'L'•Y_ Ysf _Trr�,',•ter<`Y'.y..,sr..�Ci-•-F-�•?tel.•.r•y:•'=',o.�w ?,.;-a..:lw�•; ^t'.'...<r• a - r '`. 1 e,.. L •t. _ fL�.i...y] y, �-y.. f'r �•_-... •,FlYt ..,.<}a.¢t«a•,;•�:�?t,••.} }� .• - - ' . •lt� ili.C•ii�i.I• •7 •.� 7i1 I T.,i. - •.t.,_:y•-,:'a.:'_ �'r t _(. }' - . C: .k;t i , •.:-_;.�4:.:••_,-z i_.-.•"+�.._e.•,•...• ^�._a_- - '. Vit. , RiE in -. % dF.:•..,_,f,t `_- S'•:.:-` •�.-.� -�,-2-'!X�M-�t r •:a-;e;,` w � ;�V7 ttiy i.� :' - jig.:� f ) 401A }�:!.. } s. - . •C.' '4r.• .:- ..t ,';,:::: :1w..'. _ t.. .. • .. .._r`1 R..Tei J[__.,.... ... .,..','j :1 ,,",,*,-\--,... R 1 ♦{ I _�+• / ..�-' --- ga...•.+�.•.:,�:....:.x.-: ...sr- r,•r.....x+,^«+•'rtrt+a�� -�+ar.'as_-:n:a •zt,,r,.�...r•+•a�e.+., •r+rnc`"M'r• aX�!'T+ a*h. '_r +erwaY+wsv_�c?.s+y+r�y:*.--,rw«r,.=:'Sa• _"F?�Nc;wnLs''_•q "T>""�^'`,c Kiwalri�wu ',. ... -��t,e���.i!...i•�..�-i...:r�f,'e, ��� its._s.. sr.`w.T.et iRc;,. Yrth_'.'.�r+, :?" T:. �i�t,iRf�e"e'�f '1'�4�}_r -�=�'re'd C7 t'�''i t ...._. �+ara�wi..+.i.-w'iQw-,YLVLt7lt}L aria. '"r'•' ,T 1 . - ; + -) '�•/i�, .wcfy�7-�- _;::t="•-. r•..'.!. b:}j.• y::X .'�t.�•r sYa . _as'°� '_'+3�ffi•• � Ot "a ^�. y-,'• 'xK \•�:v:�c«:;k••.f'y..,v_}'� .�.i ,rT' 71r: �l.'-'} •a' .}�'{ }�• i ",���:��l�,x• Q..!�!_s� � ,.a,•'���•l,��•• _ �j�1 • c _ aa`._�,as,���5,,, - ^.r• _ ;.,i':-.,��• 'Y��_ .ter ?a,fir. a"•+t_ nt. } r w;fVM�t � �E•� i t y �'.•'� - �+ a - r _•r" e �`"+�•^,i' <��:''_ia_'�_ir •f:•'ryy:a• i ! a" f•fr- Y� .e >.r r4 >'t#:5 � f=tif•tillia]" ..• istlj�7� ,yA7�.yi7 ,��`��T r} _•�� '.'rr:�.: 'a� <'••tr:;V '"►.!G^=4-t- ..;f. - ,.i` ' �„7 .� { ��,,�yy���}}�;>, .i t � .:<" .'i �• a�ts••'..• x.•MS f�s..:`,�'Jkk':;-„'•~��±,5�,.. �.r..v...a ,t a ; _•_�. ••}�••, .�:'T :. :� .;,. c r t;Y�..i� =moi ,Jt_ !•'w.-`,_.:"• r,-,. "'.�a �� •.t i}•'a'^.i.,�. •�.ti.1K.. �-•..':t._♦;i}R`.. `.:y,!:•fl.r �. .w• .:• -r�� 'FyY'l.R;:.��r'�:i!����- ��. r:.:"t.a.<' .•:�,:. +i�t - : ''•'�,d!rs4f�!)a�.f;v;+/f•�a.'�u"`.:`i-1M7;G.�1,<rij`s•"•.`yk,,'._y,'.'�•s(ac.�_�y:..<}_-<"d,_Y3�•r'l+:,;S.h,_>�._1��. �{T,v'.�<rj.'.:i'f.+?Vi�lSi2 iiii-a•ita,`.�r)�-ti y tr}t'fr.`:1,..:.'!�3h•-...._. ya-.�.y�}t�._.w.1p■+•.i"=.K"•.st.om.::!'T;`�:fat•a.Y...i#,{;'�".c.S<t...Yi�^'.�e-f.,r`.S da-t C�y♦t'Tmo'r'.r{li.'Y�,�.;._s��_.w+ st sa-:r rN : • c} girt r! ;t- ' d✓-• t.•';: ,a`.�'r;- ..,R• ` K7- ; i :!'t `� :.♦. T .t!E w�.., -r.�"..�� :•4�•i t.•7(. � {_�.� Mm sC`7 "lL��� t�ylr*i %�}�'•iv�s - ,�.^}r .t:r:< - «--_ :<• ..ra 1�N`yL-'•�••.�t?� �� : .�•,•<. �.f-•:'^ •i. - •� �.��.�1��� .: 1r Q�S��t.,,•1 }..�;-'�Y{'lt' �.e t• �t-'}- 774w:, i•� SY :t •i: _ S ,:`.{<., ca":-. ° •.`i-,ai.c•:.;��•!-•.� ..r. `u•�5���.�'�hi�ilr�+.��.�'• �� rr.♦., � �+�•��•--'•"�[��`. wl - ,,.A•�•%•�' :;:tia!•. •�� .•.v .': ,: .rl 'e.'i�.F.:`.�..:-�=;�:K- i►,,t].�/t� ::=s•'�'i'"L•:i%::�:*c-,.i±: r jr,.... t,,,.....;;\.. -'- .::r:!•; `:�: ,..�. `:f.•..}e:•k':. F_".`{?• [- u. •c. ;' ..����+_.a_.• .1T" ,iM1M.ltfGiL��� ji.. �•�� _ F_`,= =• 'jTj, r„}-y - a ?. -) zct .a.r.,,.a�»'r`-_':-Y•'�•�R- =.�b�4 a� '�-,�•� �:��.iii• �'.� 7�#..�:� Sv' '.tf�' •...:;t,�a i�. ♦.•';K';,rt4�v• •"r.L', •k,»i_,��k»�.r;�,�..'t=%- '� xr:• t•t•' .:y.:•< :+,%'�Y"<q=-''S•.-.' :y.,...♦tt<.;at�r� 01 4A r- �•� '31.�L:��..�y,•.a� �,�y�yy,,f�,:. .ti:% .�.•_� -S ;� '�� .e•►.,S.rJ,>}�.r-1�? i'�•_a;i l`-♦{ .lit t k; ;}.f. _ a •�T�� :. �`�`ir.�Oj�r.{/..t �Y�E [__'r - t ,?a• ��♦�, .1u yam_'`< _ ;�r_ r�'._:�Ff:-,±,_4 'iry�':i�V~'r y r CSR<}.i!� -..r?a i' 4. T�-a.`^'�."�.� `��,�'� t �♦ j� �r�c •S'��ri: gip,�� �� .�a`:,L� .� p �� : :�- '�•��+ '��+�-. Tja'��� ��:�• . h . •`^:: ,:.�:•: ♦ -'.f��;♦...'•::..�.♦..!..t"c t.rr .,2:t<yr:._•-a. a.,.• osu 44:_ ,.a.,• .1-.:y»R".} t t�s. �_'"�^K.. a••:t. _ �. '"III'li•. _ �J.i,i�•Yiit�� •' �1.•{ -r 'i• 1 5,,. :hSC�1w\ }L•r•__ t'.: r.a Vit' 1- •I 'a r:i.T."^•^ SlPlilr: � +� 'V.1vo-� S-'y/ h - •": -r<�_f.w►n�:a "r, ;it`x 7!/'- 7rti: .`-F:.' -',`r`. S' wr} ;•tit:`:rF�.'+:%... ,....3'�-,:�,�«.1..F.:.t�L.••'`�w-��i.0�C��'�:+ .... T-�_,•�R.\:: •'N`4 wig , #•.: :.t s_>.oaly<<;ru fi�K� :R...r .t.::..::f�ra�)?-tr ,`i. ..,,.�..... .,k C.a .roar"'' ;` >'T :�.,k: s`ar.`�v�4.T S ,t'L .r.e,:t.; �AW t) } .ry •+E y#{:sy�2 �+}�� ,r� ' � F 1-::-.a'- .,♦^•M�:M a'�T�•.��af.!' •a:i T�kat lw,�"Sr• �.Y. \.�Tv _ 4 :J -66,' rr�yl7.t,4`ts:'t„ "sL.�.:.t.•,�a:-r:-...} ,d''_a -.�: ?... ••-�C„,�, .••;�-..r: a.f s. ,.v 7 .r Oji�_• 77���ff� m0:W. Ak .ts{ .: rh:. i+TTFryi).��'} <. ' ••..t.. y't�a iT� •1• ..Sir.=T.r.,\. rr__ Tom• ? i+.' �:• :aV. 1V, ' .i'.� ..�� � 'i !' • +'.../��: 'W7 [ . * .. •:z ''f;t _'y^ :';;,�' - .�_+ `f-�' '.,.t'_•_-.♦;'_r•. - :;r*y t. r _•,.ttr»diK•C .r�r'GG,FIt�:?"--�.�♦,•.-.•�..•••ti..-��.., ��•�,.,' ���;f ����,u*p�c.- .r ^>a'`.:a�,r4..CW0- C i' �t>"'•;}~` :y,L._;'•a.-' :;Y* �` k. �,, ..a.:... `.•,ji.'��t'r.<Tv.ek�'t }:p i}v.}'�`a .•+': � • au , ur , llAli !!'' '^ y_ t !+ . ::x c - -a.{-"�" rr:f;••.? ya,f. ..•i'r :.:. } _��. •�_'lF-:. � �` ' a 3 • At k .A. \-',2.'_ Y.::: :.i1.. .�, �:`: ► JT. YV► "131JkIL.�':1�i3. r .. .. •�=gar: ���.�:��.:• =4� tbtl ... t�. Vit£ '- - > ))[[1 hi - SO si ?w _s..a..t.Ltt ".t • .i;y- -t.:< <.:-',• _.,f.s- -ri. y .<.. _ iii '•d 0 Ana In �,e,}�.�_.r;}.[s �� ;t:R .' .. .. — �.\,.� :s: •v.�.a,..��'�.�L+ 4. F, ::hz .6�. i3 3:, _ S .. .,_ .i..r-..,.�..,•i'.j_ _ _^:•n'+t/:-''`:i- -•.Y' '�'S -.T'-•6,. _ L �'' :+ it} ti�y, tit.} _:.•s. }- .i tis S � 3T _ '• r Or iitiii►�i`�3.ZT yi ? +I .i.�.yJ t y "`..�+ :.•�- ... 1♦♦ < i F�:r•. !•y_ O• < �Y�W'��r i. - ,:r.. ....;, ..,. z. a : � riM.; .NVI. 'i _M ,<• 't ', t a ..r{ ,,��.'�.t _E� �'"t �,{�y; ••y: s.`a`. � _- ♦ 1•�'` t' r.�I:..j, .},�� .♦};_•}: .:t[,T:yr. - •<=sem.-._..�.;N,.. .,a,_.�_. _. ; •, iu. ! •-- - .�:. r t' - i:J"♦ .rti..1-Y _ - .r r ,:P'<' .-"`ti: L6Jie•, )►i'1.i.Ji-:an fir#: `.. I �'�'� �.r T : 4.0 iT4 _ Yur -S t iT�i-. L 1',.NI •.�'L�i•�✓ti<�T:Y.�R_ __Y•`i'- •'�-r' S �. ` L � r i 1: 1 /"r. I Ln P i +.-..,�� - l•'^ '^:H' 't•'..f t..'_'1P;S r-�7'^,Nly+y.- _ "•F T .=Ps'w' _ _ v+.+,._rte.' .. ,,,,.,,,,, ,,._ .-.•.r-.••-•-:: .-.•.�.--... .--.._.-.-.'.. -.s-., .q.:+..:. 'V':.. »."fir ��sr:� c�w.•v: c. .r,... f_ w"s' :fr"� ,tea.. gar, Z=•;:.•'_Y. �'` .-_... ... '^'`�:s.`fif• - n,:•,.- ,..+,•-. .}. '�.ro., e)•r ter:• ,.jii�"'"�BTF', k�.1 ,a,, 'Sr��Jf? �1,�y��.:' •a�•�. _ i`�a�S''��-� ^o., y f 4. r_'::' w - kit �l�F?.7 r. >: �t _i x.3yr )i aJv rid a 7w'+ t 5 i• s,•ttir2tlx4� � 4 • J .. ''��� J���l'1V��:.��_fr�,•{y,,.N ,� y` �• a'� ,, yy��•�.•-•fir/ _f:•S.� _- `' .7'•_- - If:'4.. _t s•-i•- r_lr' .:?, - :..-\"' .. _v ;•,t- �` ��y,y�fI�A Y- "•q -.r>�L '•��,�:`: � '�.r� � � r# �. - y. CM[• -Y' =wyi -•�hr•,� ..•s rj -.'jF,'*`'%•k 'J _ •` obol I t6,•.t .amu�.�w��_ ..►::..:`^ .F.;� t...� � :.�,-• .v.<�,r.�;�:r`t�yn..;..L;. ;�:`�:�.<a.'V•.y,_ y�,._.. �I�.��.��� 46 1 r. ti JkL IENI JR; t v 3 a '2-1 t ...{� •i;.-� ./� ;.:S,,`._.:i�..a.-•.`..'-;.+•\...j`J.^, •a.;E') -��•�h L„tt�',.•r ,}e^•-L MY\Amr .�•.r.•••` •`.\y.'�:[ [» .+:' %!�°rf :'�, .;A) -_.�• •:l r..>\. .r.:.'!�.• `r[r.•.r(r-'�v•r ..�,v,.\•sem'}=� >,• sx-��� ��.�r9�F 'ter � •�`r��r� ' j yy t• ...�_ '{ ..f. Rat\:x .y,Lr. •.C- t;:har.•.vtiS'��l�::a'�<'"Y[t�}r-L j,j,1t.:• .:.r .:`��',�.�.•'r:e�. � ir�. •13ii � .Y' � 7f f •+1;.•�,}} P:•..Y�■ivy+]}.t■1�[1'y�.l.(�ih�[''r��i-� d�l �r••J rSt�t-!.�^[ ;'�+[i«- wy� JC We ~•<TT�:� 7Yr'�`.�.�ryry� \i)L:Yii ' ♦yyj <' ��r .`i'TR�R_'I�'PPP t` ``:fit _ C'.• �f { .)S�" ,:.' �,•tl. mc ,�::t' -•.t � Zai:[-^nr t�s:4,..� '""srvc. \.t- _�. t,a_`T P - yrs.` --'►`�..,. •[ ` r- .�ti r-:,�r.:>rY t:.:-rs?" res'`d,_• •i,�:-`�'x�i•:•"• r= ��.a::- ,�2'��': J .. .i•.f: _ � 'l.I'tif ; _y *._• '■t.._yjr,, d' _ ...J° �-n- -11 -X'm nt ons M El N4 a'j.- : � -S I.. 1ywf D• ' I i- J� 1! 4 F ..-•.,..+n.e.SYF'T4•_'.riL__..-..�..^.�.��,q..• •�rFT�'Y ,a•q +�-S!ywa.Vis.. .fit:�+.a •�A'-:sr.3::.41�r2t•.;ir. •s- :ij .rx s`�t"Y.zr• ga•�r:�s r Irl-:'>y-. xwK�;-,�.' .•.s •.:•...-.. <.r-.-...-,«t _.............::1..:.rq;.t!.,, .-.:�.•.:.. ..........� ."rs.-�w%.]!;a'II7".:'.'.S�`5;, .T'�k'�:'+�'"'�:f`t�'. .e «s.�..�Lf...i�...:..-..�:r -.i.. ':w :!+::r.��� .k'.s:-r.f" awwetr m iLx4l.�.�'i"S r�•a •--.••c r-'� < �• � C>•.�., ., r s--m u +..�...,.....�... '. �. • ,r:.::::.::aa- xf N'� --�-'-�` �� ,. e".�Id�..Yascvtet.6..x :.'....:....ia::oi..�-� .5::3_ .+_.�•ase:i.�s`missotisc..� „S., .fir.. ._.r-=w�-.. �, _ ...�-- s " cot .. x _" _ !�'Y':`n�"�•.��T' A"t:— "� F e•1..y`... f;r� '.'tT2`. ;y �.'f ' jj} /�. ..Y! '<•• 1�I y �-..�.' �;1.i _' .'b a`;.[....;•��Y��til.}�.� � r Ji:•-:: .��: tit e. �. _ Of i. \J . 7ROWf irk _ 'w-•; :Y• t- :•s•.,� :r.�' 1 �MO. ^: v'•��.r.- '•irr_ f~'��-.�-..:_An,.a`:. Y'•.''�R: ...y':_. - ``y:� - - "� 170,C., � sTl�7d: ;1Lw,f�1 7jkMw�■ .�([ 7[t7jy: . __.�-'��• \w _.___lj�r� �<. - �•:�rd;: ,.•L•-�.__.i,:1t!'yr2.J.�,.2. •�S_.,;:ilY�R ��..i;7+�A•�T. .+- � -• •`: + •y.- ri•- F f:� ,K,;. ::�i.�`?}••�� '.'f• _,`�.a+.:.` •.�•oda^„•:.y t'`:� }::�/�• .{:-t7_ .r _ •F_ �' .-W 4Ar.� `` ter a.c' ..i. r.. QJ.. ,'i)'.:>' '• r3..moi`, :._,%ti' ..`a'`'-'?`"r`-i ',r 'i•K°LS• .•t.r-.2i`k: �.f •yam c,-). w >. ♦{!��, -,�i�?♦T/{� h 'Sr•�•`�^•;[:.'•` .f;. �1(.=�..}�.'y7•�r .i ..\'�j� �•V?:M. x•�n'• •. ...i 4.�s, t :w'X�.i. %�{ t.!" _ WSJ.j� TMI {+ s -- .. -{,:..♦q ." ;�Mr -r :T{,/.� rit - .'lF• 'J .Y�•i..te�._ ::t� T- .:.I,?l.'•:. l�e" ,... ;,� ����..{`{`{{►►���)) •� yy``•�'��a ���'�.y�•,[irC� !a: !•.• t rf'.•-''v�.. ::r• •.aL1.�.T rt 3j.t•r1•. r i_ .p: •,t:�. g lad •'YJi .7F`v '�•,'"fi+•�5 ,- '<i ,^-••T'i' '` i .`•�-' Ri -r` �;j�'� }"_ +Ii-, .� ,3: •'� 27r71 7 :i ••te ,,i. w� .,�,� --�,,�,•�•, r....•• r.� Y t�Tz�-n'�,.� l �i, � }: .. r i• Yf i t l r�� r�.•{{'�/��a ... -t.: , r �s J Y F; 6 i Y. w Z t' :j a 3 .......... ..�:_.«..,♦.,._.,:--�;...'... _.... �:... ... t 4 "'�.�5. ..�;.y? •,.:"Y,Y.oC.:`+r,�....xxCs n ,a..ta::lF r ix;v,;... �""c'4'-:r*t:C.'".Yi_ :s^c+r v-cr...-^.:r.:..,P1vt,. .......-.,:..-..g,,,a .��.,.,f,_i_ .:.._��..�•� z 3r w -..:< .nm..•.+... ss, r...� 2s...:?�`•^u:♦�._,.T,.,1F .,.p :ti:-�.'... ..} i. yy..,yv... ....lefnm:T.:�l^+Ir�9WR.A +ate_...__,. ... �+•%�YiiSii.• $'�'r ..;_... .. .. .. ; 'TJti!"�.' ��`Y. "'�• .«w!'-'�.. .7+r ..2�..`a '�,Y.�L'.::.o'v..:1�•w u�i•� .y '*�s�.rf"iT."`��. �.r.................. -^-_. ' - r-�iliAMri�Yr..)L..rtintiw.�.�.� ..... ...._ �• .. ,-l:�y..L.s k•.-s� � J•��-� ' 3 Nc ;,.T., • �♦ a F.. Y.F..�,�•• - .;� -� M- yult and J10Jque: (Mi ��{ �I�3 `+�, 4113 .�= 1. .�. •.•�! •t♦I'r'r:.a �.r75. .. - .. : r a •. eA,' i�^f 1 .C�•� � ����'VR�����1' 'jj�,).;/,,�):yc�� �y/.yj�.� .. `/�•7 •.`.. a .ry. \L -♦M 1 .6:.... �v,..,��'a,-ir_r•:••r .�)'�. .. _1��W�1��V... ... .. .. .. F.�����i1.1i.Gi•'t�lilt� .��}�V������a 4 M.. .. ... .. .. $. Y.�..�. UE ilii---- _ .,. ..♦w.._ -� Lrt'� •f:fit oc '7 �l7J�( `77�► �r..a fey : N�'a.:.a• .. .;��• .�t .. .: 'ti •4�33 fci�y7 �ii '••�••!♦ f:-• .- } yy^F.•x. :-.j� �' F(Y�yY �.��,�k.��'F'i iJ'7�+;J`����+�1:�.�^•?` ��Lyi '•'�,•d�Lf���'j.�. .:�rir.�•' i+�1.7 �+F.�}.�iti�T�?• � -,• yr{=�'.�ta:-- �M c 1 ya.�.va- wl a. .0 tli Itrtib 4 0V _ 1% _ UP1117 IFMIP on 5 insu ted : ..a �r1.1.f.LV4llsi�le ': T. ~ } ... '. s. . of . �a +. -�fat ::; ' i a �Q.- M. InStrUM 41. r♦ i_ y. �S �f f r F:- F: F e CAR._3.2003,410;34AM LCgMMI' 'T TY DEVELOPMENT �9��� g��.N0;727 P.10 PW Z U^w arriCr.5 or GAGEN, 1►�C COYI XCMA" & .A IRKS TRONG WILLiAiM C. DAOCN. JR. A PROPe55IONAL. CORPORATION DANVJ�Z QFrlc% GRILOCRY Le MgCOV 270 rRONT STfI:r=r-T _ PATRICK J. Mr-M^MoN P. O. 1504 ate M+►PK 1-, ARMszt'oW© DAroVILLM. C^14PORNIA 04626-OZIa 1-INN K• COPMPS T'CLLPHONE'. MaGl IM37-0585 GTI•PHCM w. THOMAS FAX: 1095) &3&-SQ&S C M A R LM S A. Ke 66 ••e••� MICMAC.J. MoLRKOWITZ NAPA V^6t xy efFrcc RIGHARP 04 RAIN96 TNe pMC&ex AT !QOIjTIypIQIDGE VICTOR J. CCINTI 10MC MAIN 9TRCXT,, SWITi 212 vARRAIRA DUVAL Jr:WCLI. ROo�AT M. �'�►Nr.ICCI 37. MGLCNA, CatI lroPN l�► 9A57•& �►I.uLN C. Moo1�C TCL.EPHo1��: 1707 x,183-000>a ,�'iYEPINCN T, eu�M� FAx: 17071 oc3,ccaT AMAN Di4 Q CVI NS PLEAS g q epLY TO: M 0RTIx 1I++ LyeoH3 N Dr_. s c M M i p MrTELECOPIER TRANSMITTAL LETTER �9 CKLI*% M, KIM JANICC }. IPITZSIMHO145 DATE:,Febmary6.,2003 T : TIAN VMLR, FROM: Mardn Lyaons OUR REF: 7 8 im3 4 871 TO: Bob Drake YOUR REF: R.ivemi ,•---,. ,� ---,.. r r F e PIAR. 3.20031410:34AM CCOMP '.TY DEVELOPMENT t 9 2 c' 8 3$-NO.727 P.11 P, •.♦ "bill 's I • r ti Facility Analysis Re: Riverview Energy Center: Compliance with Section 8443.1004(d)(1) This memorandum analyses in detail why Calpine's proposal to Share common and functionally- identical`structures or units"with Gr--P(allowing G-P to reduce its use of hazardous materials) means that"the project to br.reduced Zs in the same facility as the proposed development project" under Section 84-63.1004(d)(1) ("subsection (d)(1)") of Chapter 54%-63, The proposed co-location of the peaker plant an the existing G,P sim meets both the overall intent of the ordinance and the letter of subsection (d)(1) giving"credit for reductions or projects to be closed." . The first pati of this memorandum contains an interpretation of the meaning of subsection (d)(1) within the context of the ordinance as a whole and with respect to the specific language used in that subsection. Since the interpretation of an ordinance is essentially a question of taw, Calpine has developed its interpretation (and this oxplanation) in eonsultad= with its legal counsel. The second pari of the,rnemorandurn describes the components of the proposed common water treatments energy production and fire protection units on Calpine's sand G-P's contiguous sites, how these units will be Shared, and how the will serve the same ose. This portion of the 5' P�'P memorandum demonstrates that Calpine's proposal technically meets the criterion that``the project to be closed or reduced[must be] located in the same facility in which The development project is propo sed.'' Whether a land use permit can be required in this situation is a names question, If a land use permit is not required by the plain terms of Chapter 84-63, the County may not require one because project opponents demand one, or because projects of similar size or mature have required one in other zoning districts. Chapter 84-63 is a specialized hazardous materials ordinance,not a generalized land use ordinance, Through its adoption of its general plan and zoning ordinances,the County has already considered and disclosed the land use impacts of siting a use such as a peaker plant in this location and Inas determined that such uses are to be Permitted"by right'" in the 1-1-1 zoning distil ,i.e.without a separate discretionary land use permit, That cornpreh m si ire planning propess was subject to CEQA. 'thus, unless the project's use of hazardous materials exceeds the specific thresholds and criteria set forth in the hazardous materials ordinance,no land use permit can be required. Here, Calpine has demonstrated that those thresholds have not been exceeded and that its proposal to reduce the use of hazardous materials at G-P's contiguous and interrelated-operation meets the criteria under Sections 84- 611004(d)(1). Detem-lining non^coverage here sets no general precedent. The County must make a case-by. case determination of exemption, non-coverage or coverage for each project it reviews. In this case, Calpine has proposed technical solutions that reduce the risks associated with the use of hazardous material$ to fall below the thresholds of significance set forth in the ordinance. Other projects must make than case for themselves., 1 $20hn-1364=1 0092OB4-Op 106 F e LIAR. 3.20031 410,:,34AM LCOMMUN I TY DEVELOPMENT [9;v=-1 8 3 9.NO_727 P.12 , 3 . .r•,err.' � r'M rr r w • r , IR Principles of Statutory Interpretation, The ipterpretadon of a municipal ordinance is an issue of law. An ordinance must be interprated according to the gencral I y-accepted rules of statutory construction. The rules applicable to statutes apply also to the interpretatian of local ordinances. A summwy of the rules of Statutory interpretation are to: (1)Promote and not defeat the intent of the ordinance and interests of justice. (2)Apply the ordinary and usual meaning of the Janguagc used unlcss the content otherwise requires, (3)Give affoet to each word used. II. The Intent of Chapter 84,63. Chapter 94-63 contains its owrl statement of purpose; "The purpose of this chapter is to promote the health, safety and general welfare of residents and persons in the county by encouraging businesses and other entities,in planning and developing projects involving Hazardous material or hazardous waste, to consider factors which involve potential health and safety risks to the surroundina coz munity,and by requiring land use permits for development projects which could P P significantly and adversely affect public health,safety and the environment," (Section 84-63,202.) Chapter 8463 accomplishes this purpose by distinguishing between three categoiies of development projects that manage hazardous materials: (1) exempt projects,(2)none-covered projects and (3) covered projects. Eyernpt projects nerd not apply for a hazard scorn determinadon. Nonsoxrompt projects must apply for a determination of coverage based on its hazard score. If the hazard score is less than 80,no permit is required, An exception to this general rule exists for projects that result in a neer`iprocoss unit," A new process unit mqulres a land use parmit,unless it cornplies with the provisions of Section 84-63-1004(d)(1) through (d)(6). Ile The Language of Criterion(d)(1) under Section 84-63. 10044 County Staff has asked Calpine for further support that tho new process unit complies with the reduction/closure credit criteria of section 84-63.1004(d)(1) and therefore requires no land use penTAt. A. "The Project To Be Closed or Reduced Must Be In The Satire Facility In Which the Development Project is Proposed." Z sn ri F@n•136400.1 0092-M .00109 F •ORR. 3.200314 10:35RM GCOV qITY DEVELOPMENT (S?r'*) 83B-ND,727 P.13 p. 4 to To quality for the credit/re-duction Criteria under subsection.(d)(1). "the proged to be closed or reduced[must be in the same f4cility in which the development project is proposed. " it "The project to be closed or reduce&ll The phmsa"the project to be closed or reduced"i�not defined in the ordinance. GriYtn the language of the subsection and the purpope of the ordinance, Calpine believes a"pro)'cot to be reduced"means a unit or operation whose use,storage or transportation of hazardous materials will be reduced or eliminated. This interpretatioin is supported by the language of the first pail of sabsee0on (d)which says "reduction credit shall be iven if the,community development director determincs that the applicant will concurrently close another project or reduce its oP eralions, (Emphasis added. 2. "In the Same Facility-In Whieb the Development Fro ject is Proposed$" 'The ordinance defines "facility"as"a group of buildings, strict=, or units with the same purpose on contiguous ps=als under common ownership or control." (Section 84-63-416-) "Defining whether tho paaker plant onthe existing 01-P site am togethar paA of the same facibly mqukqs detentiniing whether the contiguous parcels at issue b=contain fisa group of buildings, structures or units with the same purpose,!' Chapter 8463 itself does not define"building," C.Imucturt,91 91uniIIIII,or"'purpose, " Other provisions of Title 9 of the County Zom'ng Code darint "buildinir' and"structure"broadly as follows: a. CiBuIlding means any structure with a roof supported by columns or wells and intended for the shelter,, homing,or enclosure of persons, animals, or chattels." (Section 82-4.210) b* "Structure moans anything constructed or erected on and permanontly attached to land, except: (1)buildings defined in Section 82- 4.210, (2)fences with a maximum height-of six feet Qr retaining walls with a maximum height of three fm or any combinston thereof not over six feet high, (3) sidewalks, gateways,pipes,rnetors, meter boxes, manholes, and mailboyes, and(4) poles,Wim,pipes and other devices,and their appurtenant pam, for the transmission or transportation of electricity and ;gas for Ught,heat or power, or of telephone and telegraphic messages, or of water,"? (Section 824.270,) A "structure' therefore includes individual compopents of an industn'41 process and includes pipes and other means of transmission. C-4 Unit is defined by Black's Law Dictionary as " a single thing of any kinds' and by Webster's New Col I agi ate Dictionary G as $sa piece or complex of apparatus serving to pgrfonn one particular funclion," The definition of unit 3 Sunr-mr-064004 DMZO14-00109 F e LIAR. 3.20031410:35AM LCOMMUN I TY DEVELOPMENT t 9 P-m 8 9 8-NO.727 P.14 P. E 7P. %.o • is thus broad and would include a device that is not"pennalnently attached to land," ,A as � unit" is not defined by the County Code, do purpose is defin ed by B 2 ack's law Diction ark►as "an end, intention, aim, object.Flan or project" and by Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary (1981)asfig sornething set up as an object or end to be attained," "Purpose"is not defined by the County Code, ' 3. "Structures or Units With The Same Purpose' Is Not Limited Solely to the Same End-Product. To be "in the same facility" as the proposed project, ``the project to be closed or reduced" must contain a group of , , ,structures or units with the same purpose"as the proposed development. To meet this definition,Celpine belioves there need only be a similar func�on among the "structures" or"units."Thefinal end product of the manufacturing processes need not be same. As described below,the many Bay.Asea mfsneries operate on this model. 4. This Interpretation Follows Accepted Rules of Construction. ,Accepted rules of statutory construction require an interpretation of an based on i ts plain terms using the ordinary and usual meaning of the words used. Each word trust beg iven effect. Dere,the definition '`facilitye`is defined as confi nous arcels containin "buildings, g P g g structures or units with the same purpose." The definition does not require "a group of buildings,structures and units" With the Same purpose." If the word"and" had beers used it might be reasonable to require th4t the overall output,end or function of all the buildings, structs and units together to be the same. By using"or,"in contrast, the definition allows, and even invites, i`puTpose'to be viewed at the "structure' or"unit' level, although it does not vexclude consideration of u ose at the final oduct level. This interpretation ac effect to each word in the subsection and does not reader any word surplusage' s• The Interpretation Comports With the Intent of the Ordinance. This interpretation promotes the purpose of the ordinance,which is to encourage the reduction or elimination of the use of hazardous materials. Recognizing co-located and shared natment units or energy genoradon structures that reduce the overall use of hazardous materials as being i`in the same facility"promotes the health, safety and welfare of the community. An interpremdon of"facility"that excludes co-located industrial operations with similar processes but different end-products would not further this objective and would therefore unnecessarily restrict,if not defeat a purpose of the ordinance. "Process unit''is defined b Chapter 84P.63. However, "facility"is defined b }' P � y reference to"'building,sa•uctures and units,"not"Process units"and it must be assumed the legislative body}chew how to use tens"process unit'' when it meant to, This conclusion is svppotted by section 84-634107 which refers to a"Im-nsportable treatment unit" as a device distinct from a'process Unit." 4 3�nF1'�in.I,�G4.pU.� o��apga-oo�o� F e MAR. 3.20031410:35AM CCOMML _TY DEVELOPMENT, (9 Z r 8 3 9-NO.727 P.15 , % ti.. y Interpreting`'faeility'to include contiguous parcels under common ownership or control with similar units or structures docs not renter the def m"tion of 44facilit '' maanin leSsl or Y g y impractically broad. The `group of buildings, structures or units with the same purpose" must still be located on contiguous parcels under common ownership or control, 6. This Interpretation is ConsiWent With Refinery Operations. County Staff indicated in a meeting to preliminarily discuss this issue on January 23,, 2003 that it believed this subsection was drafted with refineries in mind, Ibis interpretation, which focuses on the common purpose of shared units or structures,rather than on the common purpose of final end products, also fits the model of most of Today's multi-product ref neves. For exam le,most refineries use steam or heat-generating"structures" or"units"to produce different end products on contiguous parcels. These end products include gasoline,propane,jot fuel, ammonia, ferdlizer,hydrogen, sulphur,plastics,coke and wax. If a refinery appliod for a determination of'noncoverage �u der this subscotion we believe it would entitled to the credit for closure or reduction under the subsection (d)(1)if it could show the installation of the neer unit would result in the reduction (or closure) of steam or heat geneming units on a contiguous panel regardless of whether the finaleis product were the same as long as the operations took place on contiguous pameas under conn an ownership or control. ,Again,the comparison is unit to unit,-tot end-,product to end-product. SIIe Application of Deftition of Vacility"to the Posher Plant and the GP Sites f i As explained in detail below, Calpine proposes to share water treatment,fire protection and hGat- producing structures and units with the existing G,P operation. These Shared units will allow G. P to reduce its use of hazardous riaatoriaJs as a direct.reskilt of the co-location of theea�ex plant P on its continuous parcel. Calpine and Cr•P have purposefully proposed co4ocation of their open tions in order to share industrial processes, Co4ocation of the operations incroases both operations' efficiencies, decreases use of hazardous materials,reduces costs and increases profitability and long toren econamic longevity of G-P. lust September,the County granted G-. P's request to reconfigure its two parcels so that Calpine could lease one for the construction of the peaker plant. In December, G-P entered into a lease with Calpine for a portion of its site. The lease followed years of attempts by G-P to attract an energy prodacing o oration to the unused portion of its site to reduce Its highly volatile natural gas costs and increase G-P's annual plant profitability►, The parcels remain in common ownership y b G•P. a Shared and common structures will include, but not be limited to, ,ipelinespumps,treatment P P P units, ducts, tanks,vessels and turbines. These units will have connnonP urposes; co treat water, J produce heat and fight fire as desenbed below, Although the G-P plant and the Calpine plant will produce different end-products,there will be"structures or units with the same purpose" on each contiguous parcel, A. Water Treatment Unit 5 San Pt,n-136400,1 0092094.OD I OS AR. 3.2003 4 oil 0:35AM OCOM"I TY DEVELOPMENT t 9 2 P" 8 319—NO.727 P.16 p- G-P and Calpine both require water for their opearations, G-P current]y uses water for dust control, cooling of slurry,rehydration of gypsum,periodic equipment wash down, toilets, sinks and landscaping. The pc-aker plant requires water for similar purposes; cooling,emissions control, periodic equipment gash down, and landscaping, among others. The water that G-P obtains from the City of Antioch contains high levels of dissolved solids, which is unsuitable for Cp.P's industrial purposes without the addition of ehenn eals, With high quality waxer,Q-P can reduce its chemical use, including the use of foaming agent, a Lazard Category B matcrial under the ordinance and the use of other hazardous materials,such 49 corrosive chelating agents. As the foaming agent i s a soap that pelf om s better with softer water, a higher quality water source will raduce the amount of foaming agent used in the process, TheCalpine peakex plant requires high-duality water for its use in cooking and remissions control. ' If the pecker plant is constructed, Calpine will serve itself and G,P with treated water for industrial (non-potable)purposes from a well on the Calpine Ieased parcel, The waxer will be pumped from the well,treated in a water treatment unit(a treatment unix that removes dissolved Solids out of the water)and then transmitted by a pipeline,located partially on Calpine's parcel and paxtiatl y on G-P's parcel. The pumps,water treatment unit, and pipelines used to treat and transmit the water constitute"a group of structures or units with the Same purpose" (to providr higher quality water)on contiguous parcels under common interest or cor►tsal. Themfore the 0%project to be reduced"is in the same "facility"in which the Calpine project is proposed. B. Co-geaem ion Unit Gb.P requims a source of intense heat to produce its wallboard. At present, it uses nawr4l-gas fired burners to provide hot air into dryers (oven-like, structures) to bake rnoisture ouir of its wallboard. If the peaker plant is constructed,Calpine proposes to install a duct from its exhaust stack to GrVs dryer to supply an alternative sourpe of hot air(exhaust gas), While the peaker plant is in operation,GP would operate its burners at rninimurn fire and thus significantly reduce its use of natural gas,a ard Category B material under the ordinance, G--P and Calpine have executed n MOTJ for�is business arrangement. The esker plant's connection to the G-P plant would cause the two plants to constitute OL single P P . , . . • "cogcnema on facility,"which would meet the definition of``tho same facility under section (d)(1), A cogeneration facility by definition is a combbwtion of usually contiguous industrial operations in which energy is used consecutively to increase efficiency, Heat-producing structures or units on Calpine's parcel would serve industrial operations on 01-FS parcel and would allow G-P to reduce its use of its separate heat-producing units. These heat-producing units meat the definition of"groups of . . .structures or units with the same purpose" on contiguous parcels under common ownership or control. ,As above,the"Project to be reduced" would be in the same `facility" in which the Calpine project is proposed. C. Fire Protection Unit. • G-RP and Calpine both require a source of water for fire protection. Calpine and o-P propose an integrated system to jointly serve both parcels. The components of the system are groups of 6 SP=Rmn-1216400,10092084-00108 F e f 1AR. 3.20031410:35AM GCOMMI'N I TY DEVELOPMENT t 9 e s l e 3 e pN0.?27 P.17 P, 4 "structures or units for the same purpose'' including a 1,5DO gallon/minute pumping unit on G, P g Pis current dock extending in the river, a jockey(booster)pump,a 100,000 gallon water tower on the GP-P tower for back-up fire protection and a shared pipeline that spans both parcels to serve hydrants and sprinkler Systems for both parcels, The sharing of fire protection systems with G-P allows Calpine to avoid having to install a diesel-even pump on its Site, which would require additional use of hazardouis m4tesials, IV. concludori. Under the rules of statutory construction explained above,the definition of "facility' does pot require a common endp-product;it only requires"groups , of structures or units with the same purpose." This would include common structures or units for the treatment of water, geriemd on of energy and prevention of firs, Calpine believes This interpretation is well within the plain terms of the ordinance and also comports with the fundamental purpose of the ordinance. By sharing these units, Calpine w*11 allow G-P to achieve a greater reduction in the use of hazardous matetials than will be introduced onto the site by the peaker project. i M 7 San Fran-vm4ou.i Oo93oSAoo I o& .-�., a VERIFICA170N IJO Theodore Franklin declare: lam counsel to Tom Butterfield , I have read the letter of Appeal from Contra Costa County's Determination of Noncoverage of Riverview Energy Center Peaker Energy Plant from Land Use Permit Provisions under the Industrial Safetv Ordinance Chapter 84-63, and know the contents thereof and the same is true of my own knowledge except for matters therein stated on information and belief, and as to those matters, I believe them to be true. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 9th day of April � 2003 in_ oaxiarra , California. (signature) BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING IN THE MATTER OF ) Appeal by Van Bourge,etc. ) Of Riverview Energy Center ) Antioch Area ) CDD File#Z1029471 ) I declare under penalty of perjury that I am now,and at all times herein mentioned have been,a citizen of the United States,over age 18;and that today I deposited with Contra Costa County Central Service for Certified mailing,a copy of the hearing notice and code section,in the above matter to the following: Van Bourge,Weinberg,Roger&Rosenfeld 180 Grand Avenue,Suite 1400 Oakland,Ca 94612 I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.,Martinez,CA. Date: April 9,2003 Danielle Kelly,Deputy Clerk U.S. Postal Service cc CERTIFIED MAIL RECEIPT Ln I• No Insurance Coverage • •-• 0— ru J7 J] a 1LT' stage $ Certi ed Fee © Postmark C7 Return Rec ipt Fee Here C7 (Endorsement Required) C7 Restricted Delivery Fee C7 (Endorsement Required) C7 r-9 Tom.-'^ `_-_o r---- ,-L, Se Van Bourg, Weinberg, Roger & C3 st; Rosenfeld -------------- or �- f ;; 180 Grand Avenue, Suite 1400 --------------- Oakland, Ca 94612A ----IN The Board of Supervk.,,..ars- John Sweetenon ra Clerk of the Board and County Administration Building Costa County Administrator 651 Pine Street,Room 106 (925)335-1900 Martinez,California 94553-1293 ra i.....ounty John Gioia,1st District Gayle B.Uilkerna,2nd District -s E�-L Donna Gerber,3rd District ` Mark DeSaulnier,4th District • Federal Glover,5th District �- April 9,2003 Van Bourg,Weinberg,Roger&Rosenfeld A Professional Corporation 180 Grand Avenue,Suite 1400 Oakland,California 94612 Attn:Theodore Franklin Nicole Phillips RE:Appeal from Determination of Noncoverage of Peaker Energy Plan From Land Use Permit Provisions under the Industrial Safety Ordinance Chapter 84-63 Riverview Energy Center 795 Minaker Court,Antioch area CDD File#Z1029471 Pursuant to Section 14-4.006 of the County Ordinance Code,notice is given that April 15,at 2:00 p.m.at 651 Pine Street,Room 107,Martinez,California has been set as the time and place for hearing by the Board of Supervisors of your appeal on behalf of Tom Butterfield,from the administrative decision by the Community Development Department determining noncoverage of the Calpine Riverview Energy Center from the Land Use Permit provisions of the Industrial Safety Ordinance(Chapter 84-63),located at#795 Minaker Court,in the Antioch area. If you challenge this matter in Court,you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice,or in written correspondence delivered to the County,at or prior to,the public hearing. Sincerely, John Sweeten,Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and County Administrator r By -.� ;. Danielle Kelly,Deputy Clerk cc: County Counsel County Administrator Carlos Baltodano,Building Inspection Dennis Barry,Community Development Catherine Kutsuris,Community Development John Oborne,Planner HEARING ON THE APPEAL FILED BY TOM BUTTERFIELD OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S DETERMINATION OF NON COVERAGE OF A PROPOSED 45 MEGAWATT RIVERVIEW PEAKER ENERGY PLANT FROM LAND USE PERMIT PROVISIONS UNDER THE INDUSTRIAL SAFETY ORDINANCE (ISO), CHAPTER 84-63. THE SITE IS . LOCATED AT #795 MINAKER COURT, IN THE ANTIOCH AREA., COUNTY FILE # Z1029471 (APPLICANT-CALPINE) (SUP.DIST. V) DATE OF HEARING 4/15/03 MAILING ADDRESS OF INTERESTED PARTIES; VAN BOURG, WEINBERG, ROGER & ROSENFELD ATTN: THEODORE FRANKLIN, NICOLE PHILLIPS, TOM BUTTERFIELD 180 GRAND AVE., SUITE 1400 OAKLAND, CA 94612 GAGEN, MC COY, MC MAHON & ARMSTRONG ATTN: MARTIN LYSONS P.O. BOX 218 DANVI LLE, CA 94526 CALPINE ATTN: MARTHA WATSON 4100 DUBLIN BLVD. DUBLIN, CA 94568 Contra Costa County HEALTH SERVICES DEPARTMENT ATTN: RANDY SAWYER Contra Costa County BUILDING INSPECTION DEPARTMENT ATTN:CARLOS BALTODANO EMILY P.RICH VICTOR J.VAN BOURG(1931-1999) LISA W.PAU VAN b JURG,WEINBERG, ROGER & RG.- JNFELD STEWART WEINBERG ALAN G.CROWLEY MICHAEL B.ROGER DAVID A.ROSENFELD A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION EZEKIEL D.CARDER WILLIAM A.SOKOL LORI K.AOUINO.. VINCENT A.HARRINGTON,JR. ANNE 1.YEN W.DANIEL BOONE 180 GRAND AVENUE, SUITE 1400 PAUL D.SUPTON NICOLE M.PHILLIPS BLYTHEMICKELSON OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA 94612 J•FELIXDL.ELITORRE BARRY E.HINKLE ANDREA NDR NAA HILLMAN... JAMES RUTKOWSKI. TELEPHONE(5,10)839-6600 MONICAAT.GUIZAA SANDRA RAE BENSON S.TATIT.GAZAR JAMES VARGA S.TATIANA DAZA CHRISTIAN G RAISNER FAX (510)891—0400 BROOKE D.PIERMAN L. SUZANNE MURPHY JAMES J.WESSER THEODORE FRANKLIN ••Admitted in Hawaii ANTONIO RUIZ •••Also admitted in Nevada ELLYN MOSCOWITZ MATTHEW J.GAUGER ASHLEY K.IKEDA-• PATRICIA M.GATES,Of Counsel LINDA BALDWIN JONES CATHLEEN A.WILLIAMS,Of Counsel PATRICIA A.DAVIS JOHN PLOTZ,Of Counsel ALBERTO TORRICO,Of Counsel •Also adinitted in Arizona .•Admitted in Hawaii GEORGE ALLEN(1924-1984) March 20, 2003 STANFORD L.GELBMAN(1932-1992) Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors County Administration Building 651 Pine Street 2"d Floor,North Wing Martinez, CA 94553-0095 ice} Re: Appeal from Determination of Noncoverage of Peaker Energy Plant pp From Land Use Permit Provisions under the : Industrial Safety Ordinance Chapter 84-63 Riverview Energy Center t 795 Minaker Court, Antioch area CDD File #Z 1029471 Dear Board of Supervisors: I With this letter, we appeal the County's Determination of Noncoverage of the Riverview Peaker Plant on behalf of Tom Butterfield, a resident of the City of Antioch, and on behalf of other residents and workers in Antioch. This appeal is made pursuant to Industrial Safety Ordinance Code Section 26-2.2404(c)(3) on grounds that the County's Determination of Noncoverage exempting the Riverview Peaker Plant ("Riverview Project" or"the Project") from the requirement of a land use permit is not supported by the evidence in the County's record. The Determination of Noncoverage, dated February 24, 2003, was placed on the March 10, 2003 Zoning Administrator agenda and is therefore ripe for appeal. In preparing this appeal, we consulted with Dr. Phyllis Fox, a well-respected environmental scientist, who reviewed the County's entire file on this project. A copy of Dr. Fox's resume is attached to this letter as Exhibit A . The Riverview Project Requires a Land Use Permit In its rush to build the new power facility in Antioch, Calpine seriously misled the County with documentation it submitted in May 2002 to show that it was exempt from the land use permit requirements of Industrial Safety Ordinance ("ISO"). Based on Calpine's documentation, the Building Inspection Department cleared building and grading permits. LOS ANGELES OFFICE SACRAMENTO OFFICE HONOLULU OFFICE 1605 West Olympic Boulevard,Suite 1023 1006 4th Street,Suite 1050 1099 Alakea Street,Suite 1602 Los Angeles,CA 90015 Sacramento,CA 95814 Honolulu,HI 96813 TEL (213)487-8232 FAX (213)487-8786 TEL(916)443-6600 FAX(916)442-0244 TEL(808)528-8880 FAX(808)528-8881 March 205 2003 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Page 2 In January 2003, after the County had discovered serious errors in Calpine's initial submissions regarding the extent of hazardous materials that would be used on the site, the County Building Official suspended Calpine's building and grading permits for the new plant. Calpine has since then provided the County with additional documentation that"reconfigures"the project. While admitting that the reconfigured project is covered by the ISO, Calpine contends the project is still exempt from the land use permit provisions of the ISO due to ordinance provisions for credit associated with the reduction in the use of hazardous materials for an existing facility. As we will show in detail below, this contention is false, and the County's Determination of Noncoverage does not represent faithful application of the County's own governing ordinance. The Determination of Noncoverage should not have been granted. First, the Riverview Project will use Class A and B hazardous materials not disclosed by Calpine, resulting in a hazard score of greater than 80. With a hazard score greater than 80, Calpine is required under the County's Industrial Safety Ordinance to apply for a land use permit. Second, Calpine improperly declared a"reduction credit" to reduce its hazard score below 80. The project to be reduced (G-P Gypsum) is not in the same facility as the Riverside Project, and, therefore, does not qualify for a reduction credit. The result is that Calpine must apply for the land use permit. Calpine pressed the County to issue a quick Determination of Noncoverage and lift the suspension of its building and grading permits, which it did on February 24. Calpine has important financial goals it can more easily achieve by escaping the land use permitting process and attendant environmental review. As a lawyer for Calpine summed up Calpine's concerns, "Calpine stands to lose tens of millions of dollars if this peaker plant is not timely completed and available for use."1 Mr. Butterfield understands Calpine's economic imperatives,recognizes the State of California's need.for expanded energy production, and values the potential benefits of a new peaker power plant in Antioch. However, the long-term safety and health of the community should not be sacrificed to the short-term economic needs of Calpine. Mr. Butterfield urges the Board to apply with great care the health and safety laws that protect him and his neighbors, the citizens and working people of Contra Costa County. If the Board of Supervisors grants the appeal, Calpine will be required to comply with routine procedures to assess the safety and environmental risks of the Riverview Project. This result is mandated by the County's Industrial Safety Ordinance and will ensure that the best interests of the County and its citizens are fulfilled. Background In May 2002, Calpine proposed to build a power plant in Antioch, consisting of one 49.4-MW GE LM6000 PC Sprint simple-cycle combustion turbine/generator and associated equipment that would operate for up to 4,000 hours per year as a peaker plant. Calpine evaluated the Project ' February 10,2003 letter from Mark L.Armstrong to Silvano Marchesi,County Counsel for Contra Costa County, p.3,attached to this letter as Exhibit B. March 20, 2003 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Page 3 under the Contra Costa County("County") Ordinance Code, Chapter 84-63, Land Use Permits for Development Projects Involving Hazardous Waste or Hazardous Material, to determine if a land use permit was required.2 The County's Contra Costa Health Services concluded, based on Calpine's Application, that the Project was exempt from land use permit requirements because the quantities of hazardous materials that would be handled were well below minimum quantities in Section 84-63.604(c).3 The County issued building and grading permits based on the exemption, and construction commenced. The County subsequently discovered that Calpine had"failed to disclose all relevant information I to the County" and thus had "misled"the County. Calpine failed to disclose that the Project would use 3,273 tons per month of natural gas, a Class B material. This exceeds the minimum quantities in Section 84-63.604(c)(2),thus requiring a land use permit, unless otherwise exempted. As a result,the County suspended all building and grading permits.4 Calpine modified the Project and proposed (1) the reduction of the use and storage of hazardous materials at the G-P Gypsum plant, and (2)to allow the Riverview Project and G-P Gypsum plant to be considered the same facility. With these changes, Calpine reapplied to the County for a determination that a land use permit is no longer required under Section 84-63.1002. The Determination of Noncoverage of a Land Use Permit under Section 84-62.1002 Section 84-63.1002 requires approval of a land use permit for projects involving the use or transport of hazardous materials unless they are either exempt or not covered by that ordinance procedure.5 There are four types of projects that require approval of a land use permit application, Section 84-63.1002(a)-(d): 1. Any development project that obtains a hazard score of eighty or more points under a formula set out in the Ordinance. 2. Any development project that stores twice the threshold quantity of any materials on the Class A extremely hazardous materials list. 3. For hazard Class A or B materials, any development project that will result in a new process unit unless it complies with six criteria set forth in Section 84-63.1004(d)(1)through(d)(6), the most significant of which, Relevant excerpts from Calpine Corporation,Project Information for the 520001 Energy Center,Antioch, CA, May 2002,are attached to this letter as Exhibit C. Memorandum from Habib Amin to John Osborne,Contra Costa Health Services,Re: Calpine's Proposed Peaker Plant at G-P Gypsum Corporation's Antioch Wallboard Facility,Contra Costa County, June 4,2002, attached to this letter as Exhibit D. 4 Letter from Carlos Baltodano,Building Inspection Director and County Building Official,to Nick Gaglia,Calpine Construction Management Company,Inc.,Re:Notice of Violation of Chapter 84-63, Suspension of Building and Grading Permits,January 27, 2003,attached to this letter as Exhibit E. 5 Relevant excerpts of the Industrial Safety Ordinance Code Chapter 84-63, including Sections 84-63.2 to 84- 63.1016 are attached to this letter as Exhibit F. March 20, 2003 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Page 4 from the perspective of the present appeal, is the requirement that any claim for a reduction credit must be based on reductions in the use of hazardous materials at the same facility. 4. For hazard Class B materials, any development that has a fill to the maximum capacity of forty thousand tons. In its application, Calpine contends that the two modifications reconfigured the Project so that it does not meet any of the four criteria listed in Section 84-63.1002, and that no permit application is required. Calpine continues to mislead the County by failing todisclose all relevant information. As we will show below, the reconfigured Project does meets subparts (a) and (c) of the criteria listed in Section 84-63.1002, and thus requires approval of a land use permit application. The Project will use Class A and B materials not disclosed by Calpine, resulting in a hazard score of greater than 80, and requiring a land use permit under Section 84-63.1002(a). The project to be reduced (G-P Gypsum) is not in the same facility as the Riverside Project, disqualifying it for reduction credit and triggering a land use permit under Sections 84-63.1002(c) and 84-63.1004(d). I. THE PROJECT'S HAZARD SCORE EXCEEDS 80 Section 84-63.1002(a) requires a land use permit for a development project if it obtains a hazard score of 80 or more, pursuant to a formula set out in Section 84-63.1004. Calpine estimated that the reconfigured Project had a hazard score of 64, and that land use permit approval under Section 84-63.1002(a)would not be required. The County conducted an independent evaluation and concluded that the reconfigured Proj ect would have a maximum hazard score of 63. s However, both Calpine's and the County's calculations are based only on the hazardous materials disclosed by Calpine, which are listed in Attachment A to the Revised Application. Calpine's Revised Application did not include the several Class A and Class B materials that raise the hazard score above 80. A. Hazardous Materials Omitted The Revised Application identifies the classes of hazardous materials that would be used in the reconfigured Proj ect on the Plant Water Use diagram and in Attachment A to the Revised Application. These sources indicate that no Class A materials would be used. The sources also claimed that the only Class B material is natural gas that would arrive by pipeline, thus substantially reducing the hazard score compared to the original Application. We believe the G Letter from B.N. Gaglia,Director of Projects,Calpine,to Bob Draft,Deputy Director,Community Development Project,Re:Riverview Energy Center: Compliance with Chapter 84-63,January 27,2003, is attached to this letter as Exhibit G. 7 See,Exhibit G. 8 Memorandum fi-om Habib Arvin to Robert Draft,Contra Costa Health Services,Re: Calpine's Proposed Peaker Plant at G-P Gypsum Corporation's Antioch Wallboard Facility,Contra Costa County,February 4,2003, attached to this letter as Exhibit H. March 20, 2003 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Page 5 Project will use one Class A material and other Class B materials that will arrive by truck, either of which would increase the hazard score above 80. 1. Class A Materials Calpine's Revised Application states that no Class A materials would be used, and based its hazardous score below 80 on this ground. This is false. Calpine did not disclose that the Project will use a selective catalytic reduction ("SCR") system to control Nitrogen Oxide, or NOx, emissions. 9 An SCR system uses a metal-based catalyst10 to convert NOx to nitrogen gas and water. During use, the active metals are deactivated, and the spent catalyst is changed out and replaced with a fresh catalyst. Vendors typically guarantee SCR catalysts for 3 years. Both the fresh and spent catalysts arrive at the site by truck. A metal-based catalyst is a Class A hazardous material, which increases the hazard score for the Project from 63 to 134. The SCR catalyst is not exempt under Section 84-63.604(c)(3) because the quantity of material present exceeds the minimum thresholds required for exemption. Section 84-63.1016 sets out the procedure for determining the hazard class of a material or waste. The hazard class is determined by: (1) looking up a substance in 49 CFR 172.101 to determine its division and packing group; (2) using this information to determine the name of its class or division in 49 CFR 173.2; and (3) using the name to determine its class based on the classification system in Ordinance Section 84-63.1016(c). An SCR catalyst is not specifically I isted by naive in 49 CFR 172.101. However, its active ingredient is a hazardous material, and the spent catalyst is also a hazardous waste. a. Vanadium Pentoxide Is A Class A Material An SCR catalyst will use the active ingredient vanadium pentoxide, or V205,to control NOx from an LM6000 turbine. An SCR catalyst usually consists of a ceramic monolith catalyst support, coated with a carrier, a high-surface-area inorganic material containing a complex pore structure. An active metal, typically V205, is dispersed into the pores of the substrate, where it coats the surface. 1 9 Letter from Ellen Garvey,Air Pollution Control Officer,Bay Area Air Quality Management District,Authority to Construct,Combustion Gas Turbine with Water Injection or Dry Low NOx Combusters General Electric LM6000 PC Sprint,Natural Gas Fired,49-6 MW Net Simple-Cycle, 500 MMBtu/hr Maximum Heat Input Rating;Abated by A-21 Oxidation Catalyst, and A-2 Selective Catalytic Reduction System, October 15,2002, attached to this letter as Exhibit I. 10 A zeolite catalyst could also be used to control NOx from this Project's LM6000 turbine. However,zeolite catalysts are rarely used to control NOx from LM6000 turbines,which have exhaust gas temperatures at the lower end of the zeolite temperature range. Instead,NOx from LM6000 turbines is generally controlled using an air dilution system to reduce the exhaust gas temperature and a metal-based catalyst to control NOx. The air dilution system is almost one-half the cost of using a zeolite catalyst. 11 See, Ronald M. Heck and Robert J.Farrauto,Catalvtic Air Pollution Control. Commercial Technology,Wiley- Interscience,2nd Ed.,2002. March 20, 2003 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Page 6 Generic vanadium compounds and vanadium pentoxide are both specifically listed in 49 CFR 172.101 as division 6.1 materials, which are poisonous materials under 49 CFR 173.2. Ordinance Section 84-63.1016(c) classifies all division 6.1 materials, as defined in 49 CFR 173.132, as hazard class A materials. Thus, the SCR catalyst is a class A material. Ordinance Section 84-63.604(c)(3) exempts hazard category A material if the threshold planning quantity is less than the smaller of the extremely hazardous materials list in Appendix A to 40 CFR Chapter I, Subpart J. Part 355 or 500 pounds. Up to about 15,000 pounds of SCR catalyst would be required to reduce 90% of the NOx from a 49.4-MW LM6000, depending upon the specific catalyst that is selected. Information from three vendors indicates that the V205 content of SCR catalysts ranges up to about 5%by weight. The amount of V205 present in the catalyst will range up to 750 lb. Thus, the amount of V205 would exceed both the 500 lb threshold as well as the 100 lb threshold planning quantity for V205. and would not qualify for an exemption. b. Revised Hazard Score, Assuminiz A Class A Material The hazard score calculated by Calpine and the County assumed that the Project would not use any Class A materials. However, as discussed above, the Project would use an SCR Catalyst, -\N71-iich is Class A material. The hazard score must be revised to recognize the Class A material. The following is a revision of the County's calculation, changing only for the presence of Class A material (C) and the transportation anode (T): [(T + C+ P)*H] + D +A T= Transportation Risk C = Community Risk, type of receptor P = Facility Risk H = Hazard Category D = Community Risk, distance from receptor A= Facility Risk, size of project and total amount For the residential receptor, which is the worst-case, the County determined that C = 7, P =6, D=26, and A=0. The fresh catalyst would arrive and the spent catalyst would depart by truck, which would pass through residential areas. Thus, T= 10. The hazard category is A. Thus, H= 5. [(10 + 5 + 6)*5] + 26 + 0 = 131. The revised hazard score is 131. Because the hazard score exceeds 803 the Project requires a land use permit under Section 84-63.1002(a). Moreover, in order to qualify for an exemption, Section 84-63.1004(d)(4) requires that the project to be reduced (the G-P Gypsum plant) has a higher hazard score than the proposed March 20, 2003 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Page 7 development project (the Riverview Project). The hazard score of the Riverview Project is larger than the hazard score of the G-P Gypsum plant (71), disqualifying the reconfigured Project for reduction credits under. Under Section 84-63.1002(c), a project that uses hazard category A or B material and includes a new process unit, as this one does, does not qualify for reduction or shutdown credits. In sum, the Project does not meet the conditions for an exemption, and must apply for a land use permit. 2. Class B Materials The Revised Application indicates that the only Class B material that would be used is natural gas, which would arrive at the Project site by pipeline. However, pH adjustment is typically required for the reverse osmosis unit, a demineralizer, and the cooling tower. Sulfuric acid and sodium hydroxide (NALCO 7383) are commonly used for circulating water pH control in the cooling tower and other pH adjustment steps. Sodium hydroxide is also used for demineralizer resin neutralization. 12 Sodium hydroxide and sulfuric acid are both Class B materials that would be transported to the site by truck. (Application 5/02.) The revised hazard score, assuming that T = 10 (truck transportation) for hazard category B material at the residential receptor would be: [(10 + 5 + 6)*3] + 26 + 0 = 89. Because the hazard score exceeds 80, the Project requires a'land use permit under Section 84- 63.1002(a). As explained above, in order to qualify for an exemption, Section 84-63.1004(d)(4) requires that the project to be reduced (the G-P Gypsum plant) has a higher hazard score than the proposed development project (the Riverview Project). The hazard score of the Riverview Project is larger than the hazard score of the G-P Gypsum plant (71), disqualifying the reconfigured Project for reduction credits under. Under Section 84-63.1002(c), a project that uses hazard category A or B material and includes a new process unit, as this one does, does not qualify for reduction or shutdown credits. In sum,the Project does not meet the conditions for an exemption, and must apply for a land use permit. 3. Other Materials The Project will use a number of trade name products. The hazard score calculations assume specific trade name products, such as Nalco 7385 as a representative phosphonate scale inhibitor/dispersant, Chemlogis Aqua Mate 2261 as a representative polyacrylate dispersant/scale inhibitor, and Nalco 71 D5 Plus as a representative antifoaming agent. 13 However, there are numerous competing products that could be used that may have a higher hazard category. The Project should be conditioned to use only hazard category C materials, and the County should verify the use of category C materials in annual reports and periodic site visits. 12 See, e.g.,Application for Certification for Central Valley Energy Center,October 2001 and Application for Warnerville Substation Reliability Generation Project, October 2000,both attached to this letter as Exhibit J. Exhibit G,Attachment A,P. 3. March 20, 2003 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Page 8 II. THE REDUCED PROJECT IS NOT IN THE SAME FACILITY In order to qualify for an exception to the requirement of land use permit approval, Calpine proposed a reduction in the use and storage of hazardous materials at a neighboring G-P Gypsum plant. Such a reduction credit is permitted only if the Riverview Energy Center and the G-P Gypsum Plant are the "same facility." The Riverside Project and the Gypsum plant are different facilities. Section 84-63.1002(c) waives the requirement of a land use permit approval for a project with a hazard score greater than 80 if the project qualifies for a "credit for reduction." Section 84- 63.1004(d) provides a list of 6 criteria that all must be met to qualify for a reduction credit. One of the criteria, Section 84-63.1004(d)(1), provides that the project to be reduced must be in the "same facility" in which the development project is proposed. To meet this criterion, Calpine entered into an agreement with the adjacent G-P Gypsum wallboard plant. Under this agreement, the Riverside Project would supply the following services and goods to G-P Gypsum:14 0 An unspecified amount of high quality treated water, which would reduce the hardness and metals in G-P Gypsum's water by 50%and GP-Gypsum's use of a chelating agent by 3 0%. • Shared fire protection system. • G-P shall purchase up to 700,000 pounds per hour of process gas from Riverside to supply process heat to manufacture wallboard. • G-P shall purchase electricity"as available and excess" generation above 45 net MSV from Riverside. To qualify, Section 84-63.1004(d)(1) requires that "[t]he project to be closed or reduced is in the same facility in which the development project is proposed." (Emphasis added.) A "facility" is defined under Section 84-63.416 as "a group of buildings, structures, or units with the same purpose on contiguous parcels...under common ownership or control." The G-P Gypsum facility and the Riverside Project do not share the same purpose, and are not under common control or ownership. a. The G-P Gypsum and the Riverview Energy Center do not share the same purpose. G-P Gypsum operates a gypsum wallboard plant, and the Riverview Energy Center would operate an energy peaker plant. The operations of a wallboard plant and an energy plant plainly do not share any of the same functions or purposes. They generate completely different product for completely different markets. G-P Gypsum's plant makes wallboard for use by the construction industry. The Riverview Energy Center will generate power for sale to consumers 14 Memorandum of Understanding Regarding Related Transactions, G-P Gypsum-Riverview Energy Center LLC Peaking Project,Antioch, CA, Executed February 14,2003,attached to this letter as Exhibit K. March 20, 2003 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Page 9 of electricity. The Determination of Noncompliance did not mention the Ordinance's "same purpose"requirement. It is therefore unknown whether the County concluded that the facilities shared the "same purpose,"and if so,the criteria they used. Calpine also had difficulty explaining how a wallboard plant had the same purpose as an energy plant. 15 After several pages explaining how statutes should be interpreted, Calpine concluded that it "believe[d] there need only be a similar function among the structures or units." Calpine's interpretation is incorrect. The Ordinance does not require "a similar function," it requires "the same purpose." Under Calpine's broad analysis, any two businesses could be considered the salve facility, as long as they have one broadly-defined purpose in common. This violates common sense. The mere existence of an ordinary commercial contract for Calpine to provide i certain services to its neighbor does not bestow identical purposes on their separate buildings, structures, and units. b. G-P Gypsum's plant and the Riverview Energy Center are not under common ownership or control. G-P Gypsum and the Riverview Project are not owned by or controlled by the same person or entity. Calpine has identified no such person or entity. It appears that G-P Gypsum owns the land on which it operates the gypsum plant, and the land on which Calpine will operate the peaker plant. 16 G-P Gypsum apparently leased that land to Calpine by written agreement in December 2002. Even though G-P Gypsum may own both parcels of land, Calpine clearly owns the Riverview Project facility and all the structures and units on the land. A "facility" is defined in the statute as a "group of buildings, structures, or units"with commons ownership or control. The Ordinance does not mention common ownership of the land as a criteria. G-P Gypsum's lease to Calpine of the parcel of land upon which it operates is not enough under Sections 84- 63.416 and 84-63.1004(d)(1)to make it the same facility. c. County Health Services raised the same questions which remain unanswered The Health Services Hazardous Materials Program doubted that these two projects were part of the same facility. Habib Amin, who reviewed Calpine's Revised Application, commented, "The two plants could be considered to be part of the same facility although we believe that this could be argued other wise." He identified this as a"key concern." Alvin also noted that, for submittal of a federal Risk Management Plan("RMP"), facilities with different owners are considered to be separate and are required to submit independent RMPs if each has more than the threshold quantity of regulated materials. (Amin 2/4/03.) The County's files also contain notes by Randy Sawyer that suggest the two projects are not in the same facility,based on the fact that federal guidance for the Risk Management Program contains the '' Facility Analysis Transmittal from Martin Lysons to Bob Drake,March 13,2003,p.4,attached to this letter as Exhibit L. 16 Exhibit L,p. 5. March 20, 2003 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Page 10 same definition for facility and would require separate RMPs because two separate companies occupy the same site, even if the land is jointly owned. 17 It is appropriate to look to the federal guidance became the County's ISO is closely related in purpose to the federal regulations. The RPM was promulgated by the Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA")to regulate hazardous materials handled on an industrial facility. The RMP has been codified into the Code of Federal Regulations, see, 40 CFR part 68. In facilities where two or more separate companies occupy the same site, each company must file its own RMP and include information on its own operations at the site. Accordingly, one company may not combine with any other's mitigation or remedial efforts by preparing a common RMP. Under the federal rules, even if one company owns the land and operates there while leasing part of the site to a second company, as is the case with G-P Gypsum and Calpine, each company is considered a separate facility and must file a separate RPM. This is required even if the two companies have a contractual relationship, such as supplying products to each other or sharing emergency response functions. (See the EPA's guidelines in 40 CFR part 68, section 1.6,pages 1-16 to 1-17.) Finally, the regulations make it clear that ownership of the land is not relevant. The facility consists of the covered operation located on the property and controlled by a single owner. Such regulations apply to any owner or operator of a covered operation if it has more than a threshold quantity of regulated materials. In this case, by Calpine's admission, the Riverside project handles more than the County Ordinance's threshold quantity of hazardous materials without the modification with the GP Gypsum plant. The Determination of Noncoverage does not discuss the Health Service's doubts that G-P Gypsum and the Riverview Project are the same facility. The Determination of Noncoverage also omitted any discussion of the RMP's interpretation of a facility. 17 Exhibit H. March 20, 2003 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Page 11 Conclusion Based on the foregoing considerations, including the technical arguments regarding the hazard score developed by Dr. Fox and the legal arguments concerning the County's erroneous conclusion that G-P Gypsum and Riverview Energy Center's plants are a"common facility,"the Board of Supervisors should grant this appeal and require Calpine to obtain a land use permit for its new peaker plant in Antioch, California. Enclosed with this appeal is a check for the $125 filing fee. S incerel Theodore Franklin Nicole M. Phillips NMP/nmp Enclosure cc: Tom Butterfield Community Development Department Dennis Barry Bob Drake 101839/298591 { 1