Public Comment
Re: AES Power Plant
Roxanne Williams
2-27-07
I support the new high school. I support the new Colton Unified School District’s high school #3 to be built in Grand Terrace. Simply, “High school, yes. Power plant, NO!”
City Councils’ Opinions are Important to the CEC-Why come to the Grand Terrace City Council? Perhaps you’re asking why would the public come to the Grand Terrace City Council when according to the Warren Alquist Act (Pub Resources Code 25000 et seq.), the California Energy Commission (CEC) has sole permitting authority for thermal electric power generation for facilities 50 MW or more. I argue that:
a. The city council & local government DO have a weighted say based upon the following power plant sitings-
i. Nueva Azalea-The city of South Gate (Sunlaw Energy Corp. Power Plant) became involved in the siting procedures because the high level of community concern over air quality and health impacts. In addition, the South Gate City Council adopted a resolution opposing the power plant, the issue was placed on the local initiative ballot, and the measure was defeated by the citizens. As a result of the ballot measure being defeated, and the fact that the project had no local government or citizen support, Sunlaw Energy Corp. withdrew its application (2005 Env. report).
ii. Portrero Power Plant of San Francisco (Mirant Corp.)-The city adopted an ordinance based upon air quality and public health. As a result, the applicant Mirant Corp. requested suspension of the power plant project (2005 Env. report).
iii. Metcalf Energy Center (Calpine Corp.)-The mayor and the city council voted not to grant the requested entitlement based upon air quality impacts, ground water, noise impacts, adjacent land uses, visual impacts, and biological impacts.
The School District’s EIR report can’t mitigate: Air Quality and Noise- Further air quality emissions by the power will exacerbate the situation and make the air pollution worse.
The CEC can make bad decisions if city councils do nothing-If the city council remains passive or neutral and does nothing, then bad decisions can result, like:
a. The AES Highgrove Power Plant will be at an unprecedented proximity to the Colton Joint Unified School District’s high school #3, with property lines approximating less than 100 feet! This violates the Department of Education’s Title 5 laws. Even if the most conservative distance estimates (which measure from the classrooms to the power plant), “the nearest classrooms are about 1,000 feet southeast of the plant,” according to AES’ own Application For Certification (AFC) subsection 8.12:Hazardous Materials Handling. Allowing the CEC permit would be a bad decision
b. Blythe power Plant was allowed by the CEC to be built at the end of an airport runway. Don’t you think that caused airplane visibility problems?! So, that was another bad decision the CEC was allowed to make as a result of the city council doing nothing.
Violations of Laws, Ordinances, Regulations, and Standards (LORS) of California Department of Education (CDE)
a. The AES Highgrove Power Plant threatens the state funding of the high school #3 in the Colton Joint Unified School District based upon:
• Hazardous Air Emissions and Facilities within A Quarter Mile
o Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5)
o Carbon Monoxide (CO)
o Nitrogen Oxides (NOx)
o Volatile Organic Compound (VOC)
• Land Use:
o Proximity to Pressurized Gas, Gasoline, or Sewer Pipeline
o Proximity to High-Voltage Power Transmission Lines
o Presence of Toxic and Hazardous Substances
o Other Health Hazards
o Proximity to High-Pressure Water Pipelines, Reservoirs, Water Storage Tanks
o Observing California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Requirements
• Hazardous Air Emissions and Facilities within A Quarter Mile
-The CDE requires an evaluation of emissions from all facilities within a 0.25 miles radius of a proposed school site to determine the potential endangerment to public health of the students and staff (Education Code 17213(c). (See Education Code Section 17213(b) and Public Resources Code Section 21151.8(a)(2))
1. The LEA (local educational agency) shall consult with the administering agency and the local air pollution control district or air quality management district to identify facilities within a quarter mile of the proposed site that might reasonably be anticipated to emit hazardous air emissions or handle hazardous materials, substances, or wastes and shall provide written notification of those findings.
2. The LEA shall make the finding either that no such facilities were identified or that they do exist but that the health risks do not or will not constitute an actual or potential endangerment of public health at the site or that corrective measures will be taken that will result in emissions mitigation to levels that will not constitute endangerment. In the final instance the LEA should make an additional finding that emissions will have been mitigated before occupancy of the school.
3. These written findings, as adopted by the LEA governing board, must be submitted to the Department as a part of the site approval package. Often this information is included in the Phase I site assessment and in the adopted California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) document. (See CCR, Title 5, Section 14011(i))
• Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5
-PM10 and PM2.5 stand for particulate matter, less than 10 microns and 2.5 microns, respectively. These particles are made of dust, soot, and various chemicals arising from sources such as power plants, factories, and cars. Recent evidence from the Department of Environmental Quality, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the New England Journal of Medicine found that long-term exposure to fine particulates in polluted air increased a risk of cardiovascular disease among older women. These fine particles linger in the air for days or weeks, and then can enter the lungs, causing inflammation there and in blood vessels. This is a suspected heart attack trigger. Unfortunately, the South Coast Air Basin, in which the Inland Empire is contained, is designated as non-attainment area for both federal and state PM10 and PM2.5 standards.
-AES has not proposed any mitigation for PM2.5.
• Carbon Monoxide (CO)-
-The power plant will emit 256,585 pounds of CO per year.
• Nitrogen Dioxide (NOx)
- The power plant will emit 209,978 pounds of NOx per year.
• Volatile Organic Compound (VOC)
-The power plant will emit 42, 356 pounds of VOC per year.
• Land Use
-Conflict of actual distance of the proposed school from the proposed power plant. Actual distance of “property line” to “property line” is less than 100 feet.
-A proposed high school across Taylor Street from the AES power plant raises the potential for land use incompatibility issues.
-The California Department of Education (CDE) has established standards under Title 5, Article 2 California Regulations that pertain to new or proposed schools that are within 1,500 feet of above-ground water storage, fuel storage tanks, or underground pipelines that can pose a safety hazard, and 100 feet from 50-133 kV lines triggering a requirement for risk assessment and consideration of mitigation measures. CDE concerns include traffic, toxic substances, powerline location, hazardous pipeline (gas pipeline) locations, hazardous material deliveries, and air quality/public health issues.
Proximity to Pressurized Gas, Gasoline, or Sewer Pipeline
1. Education Code Section 17213 prohibits the acquisition of a school site by a school district if the site "contains one or more pipelines, situated underground or aboveground, which carries hazardous substances, acutely hazardous materials, or hazardous wastes, unless the pipeline is a natural gas line which is used only to supply natural gas to that school or neighborhood." Public Resources Code Section 21151.8 uses the same language with reference to approval of environmental impact reports or negative declarations. (See CCR, Title 5, Section 14010(h))
2. The 7 mile natural gas line violates: CDE guidelines (CCR Title 5, 14010(h)) that a school site shall not be located within 1,500 feet of the easement of an aboveground or underground pipeline that can pose a safety hazard.”
Proximity to High-Voltage Power Transmission Lines
1. The CDE requires the following limits for locating any of a part of a school site property line near the edge of easements for high-voltage power transmission lines: 100 feet for 50 to 133 kV transmission lines. The exact location route, easement, the EMF exposure, and audible noise should be stated. Each site will be evaluated according to its own potential hazards by the Department consultant (See CCR, Title5, Section 14010(c)).
Presence of Toxic and Hazardous Substances
-Storage of aqueous and/or anhydrous ammonia requires a development of risk management plans and modeling of potential release under the CCR, Title 19, Chapter 45-California Accidental Release Prevention (CalARP) Program. In addition, transport of ammonia, sulfuric acid, sodium hydroxide, sodium hypochlorite, and cyclohexamine could pose risks to students’ health; hours and routes that children will use while traveling to/from school, and transport routes of the chemicals should be stated.
-On a daily basis, AES will haul wastewater by truck (11-19 per day) to the SARI brine line, according to CEC staff estimates. Although AES has attenuated this truck figure to about 7/day, this still represents movement of toxic substances adjacent to a school, and along the same street of travel, Taylor St.
-The presence of potentially toxic or hazardous substances on or in the vicinity of a prospective school site is another concern relating to the safety of students, staff, and the public. Persons responsible for site evaluation should give special consideration to the following hazards:
1. Proximity of the site to current or former dump areas, chemical plants, oil fields, refineries, fuel storage facilities, nuclear generating plants, abandoned farms and dairies, and agricultural areas where pesticides and fertilizer have been heavily used
2. Naturally occurring hazardous materials, such as asbestos, oil, and gas (See CCR, Title 5, Section 14011(j).)
Other Health Hazards
(See Education Code Section 17213(a) and Public Resources Code Section 21151.8(a)(1); see also CCR, Title 5, Section 14011(h))
-AES Highgrove Power plant (HP) is a Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) contaminated site based on a 1994 Stipulation Order placed upon Southern California Edison (SCE). This allows the States Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) and the local Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA) RCRA authority over the site for monitoring and mandating remediation for contaminants. Contaminants arise from the old SCE’S lined retention basins which contain chemical contaminants from boiler water and cooling tower blow-down. In addition, the DTSC is in the process of an RCRA investigation at the fuel tank farm, the power generation facilities, and Cage Park. There is a DTSC Corrective Action for the site for solid waste management and the retention basins at the project site.
1. Metals were detected in soil matrix, trichloroethylene (TCE), and methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) in soil vapor samples.
2. Some liquid and volatile organic compounds (VOC) were found in soil vapor, which triggered a groundwater investigation. An investigation is being done to determine whether there was release of contaminants (metals) into the soil.
-The LEA shall include in an environmental impact report or a negative declaration the information needed to determine that the proposed site is not any of the following type:
1. The site of a current or former hazardous waste disposal site or a solid waste disposal site unless, if the site was a former solid waste disposal site, the LEA governing board concludes that the wastes have been removed.
2. A hazardous substance release site identified by the DTSC
3. The site of one or more pipelines, situated underground or aboveground, which carry hazardous substances, materials, or wastes, unless the pipeline is used only to supply natural gas to that school or neighborhood
-These written determinations, as adopted by the LEA governing board, must be submitted to the Department as a part of the site approval package. Often this information is included in the Phase I site assessment and in the adopted CEQA document.
-Other factors to consider are as follows:
• If the proposed land has been designated a border zone property by the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), then a school may not be located on the site without a specific variance in writing by DTSC. Contact DTSC, Site Mitigation, (916) 255-3745. See Health and Safety Code Section 25220.
From a nuisance standpoint the site selection committee should also consider whether a site is located near or downwind from a stockyard, fertilizer plant, soil-processing operation, auto dismantling facility, sewage treatment plant, or other potentially hazardous facility.
Proximity to Railroads
When evaluating a site near railroad tracks, a study should be conducted to answer the following questions (See CCR, Title 5, Section 14010(d)):
1. The proposed high school site represents a distance of less than 1,500 feet from a railroad track. If the proposed site is within 1,500 feet of a railroad track easement, a safety study shall be done by a competent professional trained in assessing cargo manifests, frequency, speed, and schedule of railroad traffic, grade, curves, type and condition of track, need for sound or safety barriers, need for pedestrian and vehicle safeguards at railroad crossing, presence of high pressure gas lines near the tracks that could rupture in the event of a derailment, preparation of an evacuation plan. In addition to the analysis, possible and reasonable mitigation measures must be identified.
2. Studies for AES power plant, evaluating train derailment, have not been done for best/worse case scenarios, in spite of the recent Burlington Northern Railroad derailment at the Main St./railroad line in 2006. According to the U.S. Department of Education and the Press Enterprise, San Bernadino County has more reported hazardous-materials spills (620), leaks, and other incidents from trains than any other county in the nation from 1993 through 2004. In addition, what would be the best/worst case scenario for a train derailment onto the AES Power plant and the adjoining tank #13 ammonia storage facility, or the #15 gas compressors? (see site plan general arrangement figure 2.2-1 rev. 1) What would be the case for the newly proposed natural gas line route, which approximates the power plant, Riverside Canal, and the train tracks?
3. While most railroads have detailed instructions for handling hazardous materials, no setback distance between railroad tracks and schools is defined in law. However, the California Code of Regulations, Title 5, Section 14010(d), established the following regulations pertaining to proximity to railroads:
a. The National Transportation Safety Board has called for a uniform standard separation of at least 100 feet between hazardous materials storage and production facilities and mainline railroad tracks. Hazardous materials authorities have evacuated homes within a radius of 1,500 feet to 2,500 feet of railroad accidents when toxic gas and explosives were involved.
Proximity to High-Pressure Water Pipelines, Reservoirs, Water Storage Tanks
-The toxic waste disposal via truck to SARI line violates CDE:
1. The proposed high school may fall within a distance of 1,500 feet from the proposed natural gas line, whose route begins on the northwest side of the AES power plant. In addition, the Riverside Canal is still being considered for non-potable water for the power plant, and its pressure, proximity, and impact on the high school should be considered as well.
2. Large, buried pipelines are commonly used for delivery of water. Designs of such pipelines include a wide margin of safety for the operating water pressures within the pipe, but a severe earthquake, damage by an adjacent construction activity, or highly corrosive conditions surrounding soils can contribute to leakage or even failure of the pipe. A sudden rupturing of a high-pressure pipeline can result in the release of a large volume of water at the point of failure and fragments of concrete pipe being hurled throughout the immediate area. Subsequent flooding of the immediate area and along the path of drainage to lower ground levels might occur.
3. To ensure the protection of students, faculty, and school property if the proposed school site is within 1,500 feet of the easement of an aboveground or underground pipeline that can pose a safety hazard, the school district should obtain the following information from the pipeline owner or operator:
• The pipeline alignment, size, type of pipe, depth of cover
• Operating water pressures in pipelines near the proposed school site
• Estimated volume of water that might be released from the pipeline should a rupture occur on the site
• Owner's assessment of the structural condition of the pipeline (Periodic reassessment would be appropriate as long as both the pipeline and the school remain operational.)
• School districts should determine form topographic maps and in consultation with appropriate local officials the general direction that water released from the pipeline would drain. If site selection must involve such pipelines, districts should seek to (1) avoid or minimize students use of ground surfaces above or in close proximity to the buried pipeline; (2) locate facilities safely or provide safeguards to preclude flooding in the event of a pipeline failure; and (3) prepare and implement emergency response plans for the safety of students and faculty in the event of pipeline failure and flooding.
Observing California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Requirements
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) is located in the Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.; the CEQA guidelines are found in the California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 et seq. Enacted in 1970, CEQA was primarily intended for use by public agencies in considering the potential environmental implications of their actions when approving projects. The Act establishes a duty for public agencies, including school districts, to analyze, avoid, mitigate, or where feasible, minimize foreseeable environmental damage.
Violation of Grand Terrace’s General Plan
a. Air Quality Policy 1-The current General Plan states that “the City shall promote the growth of ‘clean’ industry which does not increase air pollution”. As demonstrated in the preceeding violations of CDE LORS, the power plant would violate clean industry policies.
b. Proposed Policy 5.4.2-The proposed General Plan states that “the City shall require that all new businesses that produce, use, transportation, storage, treatment, or disposal of hazardous materials and wastes are located away from sensitive land uses such as residences, schools, and hospitals. The new power plant would violate the hazardous wastes clause.
c. Noise levels during construction. The start up phase of the project will involve construction 24 hours, 7 days a week. Although AES says that the majority of construction will be scheduled between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m., welding, piping, erection activities, electrical conduits and circuits, and maintenance on construction equipment will take place past 7 p.m. Demolition, clearing, excavation, concrete pouring, steel erection, mechanical, and cleanup) will average 55 decibels (dBA). A comparable sound to 55 dBA is the horn of a train, which is 96 dBA. That’s noisy.
Financial Conflict of Interest- The City will receive $1.98 million to $2.24 million in annual property tax revenue when construction is completed. About 80 percent (or 79.65 percent) of the property tax would go to the City of Grand Terrace Redevelopment Agency, 2.59 percent go to the County General Fund, 10.36 percent to schools, 3.09 percent goes to Special Districts, 4.06 percent goes to the city and the remaining 0.25 percent goes to County Library (Wright, 2006). Therefore, approximately $1,657,500 ($1.98 million) to $2,025,800 ($2.24 million) will be paid to the City of Grand Terrace for use by the Redevelopment Agency and the City.
Possible soil and groundwater concerns at old power plant
a. The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) needs to come and give a workshop regarding the Closure Report for the Highrove Generating Station Basins, possible basin leaks, contaminated soil, and if there is contaminated groundwater.
We would like the city to oppose the AES Highgrove Power Plant.
We would like the city to organize a Town Hall meeting at the Grand Terrace City Hall to discuss the old and new power plant, and the new high school.
From the Email InBox
At Tuesdays, Feb. 27 Council meeting, Mrs. Williams presentation, as much as she was allowed to give, was outstanding. It brought to the forefront the violation of the law that AES and the CJUSD are ignoring. Council member Miller was the only one who really displayed what I perceived to be an sincere interest in what Mrs. Williams spoke on.
Here is what I see as the reality of the AES Peaker Plant and how it will relate to the residents of Grand Terrace. First, the amount of money that is projected to come into the RDA from the Peaker Plant has pushed any health considerations for the residents of Grand Terrace or any of the students of the high school right off the table. To think that there will not be any students with Asthma or other breathing difficulties that the Peaker Plant discharges will not exacerbate is naive.
This seems to be the pattern of this Mayor and City manager. That revenue for the RDA supercedes any consideration of the residents. If the City is in sound financial condition as the City manager claimes why are we being buried under RDA projects that bring revenue to the RDA only. Revenue from RDA projects do not go to the General Fund. They go back to RDA for more projects that continually place the General fund under stress to repay RDA debt and this debt grows every year. The common sense reaction from a reasonable thinking person is to look at the projects and ask why is the City so desperate for revenue when we are told we are sound financially. I maintain that City manager and some of the Council know that they have bankrupted the City and are desperate to cover their trail. The citizens need to demand the Attorney General and the Sec. of State come in here and do audits. We already have seen evidence of illegal use of the RDA funds. Once this is done they must keep doing it to cover themselves. The analogy is the liar that has to keep telling lies to cover the one he just told. It will never end.
The high school will not produce any revenue as the Peaker Plant will. I would think the City will incur some vicarious liability for compounding any health problems by not fighting this project to protect the students that will attend the high school and the citizens of Grand Terrace. Mrs. Williams gave examples of City Councils that were successful in blocking these projects and quoted the law that states these types of powers plants cannot be built in proximity of schools. The Mayor and Council member Garcia pushed and worked for the high school over the issues that were brought before them by the citizens. Now they claim they have no say so in what transpires there.
Whatever is built there, on RDA land, would bring in revenue for the RDA. Why build or allow to be built something that places all of Grand Terrace at a health risk when there is no benefit to Grand Terrace except to bring funds to the RDA. Remember Cities that do not have RDA's do much better than those that do. RDA's are a never ending drain on the resources of a city and benefit no one except campaign contributors and developers which happen to be one and the same in Grand Terrace.
At the last Council meeting Council member Garcia swooned over Jeff McConnels gushing over Al Gores movie and she agreed with Mr. McConnel that we need to be more green. I was becoming green around the gills listening to them.Here is the opportunity for Council member Garcia to show her words not to be hollow and to actually do something without having to get permission from the City manager and to be her own woman as far as representing the citizens, which she has claimed she always does. Less we forget her promise from her last election and her boasting of being involved in the construction of the present General Plan. Her promise, according to her campaign claim at that time in the Blue Mountain Outlook is," Someday we will all be able to bike or walk down green, blossoming corridors". I feel it is safe to presume these corridors won't be near the Peaker Plant or on Barton Road.
Mayor Ferre has claimed from the Dias that she cares about the children. That is why she voted to allow the continued sales of fireworks that places everyones homes in danger. She has allowed a false report to be filed with the State saying she had read every page of it. This is her responsibility to be honest with the citizens as well as the State. Her past actions and words prove her to be otherwise.Remember the Dodson property deal when Council member Hilkey told the community about Mayor Ferre deliberately lying about the outcome of the closed
sessions.If we are to stop this health hazard from being built in Grand Terrace do not look to City Hall or the Mayor. They have already placed a price on the residents of Grand Terrace and it came from the Mayors own words over the years in newspaper articles. She has several times stated she wants to develop more than her father did and her legacy and superior attitude will come before a suffocating child.
