STATE OF CALIFORNIA -THE RESOURCES AGENCY ARN0L.D SCHWARZENEGGER, Governor CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION 1516 NINTH STREET SACRAMENTO, CA 95814-5512 1 DOCKET I STATE OF CALIFORNIA ENERGY RESOURCES CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION DATE % ~ECD. II-UIC -.,_ FEB 0 (j 2oos -1 In the Matter of: ) Docket No. 01 -AFC-24C ID--..--# PALOMAR ENERGY CENTER ) ) STAFF RESPONSE ) AND RECOMMENDATIONS ) ) TO RODRIGUEZ COMPLAINTS ) RE: COOLING TOWER OPERATIONS 1. SUMMARY On December 6, 2007, Mark Rodriguez, a resident of the City of Escondido, filed a document entitled "VIS-8 Non-Compliance Complaint -Palomar Energy Center (Docket No. 01 -AFC-24C)" regarding the operational status and efficiency of the cooling tower plume abatement system at the Palomar Energy Center (PEC). On December 21, 2007, Mr. Rodriguez then filed a second document concerning the operation of the cooling towers at PEC, this document entitled "Public Health and Safety Complaint -Palomar Energy Center (Docket No. 01 -AFC-24C)." Both of the documents filed by the complainant fail to comply with the informational requirements for post-certification complaints under the Energy Commission's regulations and are therefore insufficient. (See, California Code of Regulations, Title 20, 51237(a).) Nevertheless, staff initiated an investigation into the underlying allegations raised in those documents, and has concluded that PEC is now and shall remain in compliance with the Conditions of Certification concerning the operations of the cooling tower, specifically VIS-8 and PH-1. Staff recommends that the "complaints" be dismissed as being insufficient, as well as lacking merit. II. BACKGROUND Palomar Energy, LLC, a subsidiary of Sempra Energy Resources, filed an Application for Certification (AFC) on November 28, 2001, with the California Energy Commission seeking approval to construct and operate the PEC project. The project was subsequently licensed by the Energy Commission on August 6,2003. The project was approved for a natural-gas-fired combined cycle power plant with two 220 MVA combustion turbine generators equipped with dry low NOx combustors and evaporative inlet air coolers, two heat recovery steam generators equipped with duct burners, a 250 February 6,2008 Page 2 MVA steam turbine-generator and associated auxiliary systems and equipment. The electrical power net output from the plant was approved for 521 megawatts (MW) during summer conditions and a maximum 545 MW during winter conditions. The commercial operation of the plant commenced on April 1, 2006. The ownership of the plant was subsequently transferred to San Diego Gas & Electric (CEC 2003a). On October 8, 2007, Mark Rodriguez, a resident of the City of Escondido, filed a Public Records Act request with the Commission. Staff responded to his request in a timely manner, and provided Mr. Rodriguez with all public records he requested regarding PEC. On December 6 and 21, 2007, Mr. Rodriguez filed the complaints that are now the subject of this response. Upon receipt of the initial complaint regarding the operation of the cooling towers at PEC filed by Mr. Rodriguez on December 6, staff initiated its investigation in to the allegations raised therein. After receipt of the second complaint on December 21 regarding the operation of the cooling towers, staff then broadened the scope of their investigation. For purposes of its investigation and analysis, staff consolidated the "complaints" submitted by Mr. Rodriguez, since both submissions related to the same subject matter: the operation of the cooling towers at PEC. On January 4, 2007, staff filed an initial Response and Recommendations pursuant to Section 1237(b). Staff recommended that the committee grant staff an additional 30 days to complete the investigation. INVESTIGATION AND ANALYSIS The documents submitted by Mr. Rodriguez regarding the operation of the cooling towers at the PEC were analyzed by staff both on their sufficiency and on the merits of their claims. Staff concludes that the complaints are insufficient, in that they fail to meet the informational requirements of Title 20, California Code of Regulations, Section 1237(a). Further, based on its investigation into the substance of the allegations, staff concludes that the Complaints, even if found to be complete, would nevertheless be without merit. A. Sufficiencv of the Complaint Title 20, California Code of Regulations, section 1237(a), provides in relevant part: Any person must file any complaint alleging noncompliance with a commission decision.. .solely in accordance with this section. All such complaints.. .shall include the following information:. .. (3) a statement of facts upon which the complaint is based;. .. (5) the action the complainant desires the commission to take;. .. Exhibit the cooling tower plume abatement system's operation will achieve a fogging frequency meeting the stipulated design point regardless of fan speed and plant output. Staff has reviewed the project owner's revised plant control mc and the resulting expected impact on plume formation potential, and staff has determined that this modification to the cooling tower's operating system control logic would ensure that plumes be Mabated to the maximum extent possible for the stipulated design poinr as required under VIS-8. Ideclare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct to the best of my knowledge. William Walters P.E. Exhibit Exhibit 6 Staff Response to Public Health Complaint Palomar Energy Center, 01 -AFC-24C February 4,2008 A reference to public health is made in the complaint filed by Mr. Mark Rodriguez on December 21, 2007. In his complaint, Mr. Rodriguez alleges that the Palomar Energy Center cooling tower creates "adverse impacts to public health and safety", that a "Public Health issue" exists, and that the CEC should investigate impacts on the community "arising from airborne pathogens and contaminated moisture" coming from the cooling tower. Between February and May 2007, the cooling tower drift, plume, and use of biocides were thoroughly evaluated by California Energy Commission staff. Specifically, staff conducted a site visit of both the cooling tower and the rooftop of the nearby Bimbo Bakery, interviewed representatives of the bakery and the power plant, inspected the bakery, and reviewed the cooling tower biocide application program monitoring results as required by Condition of Certification PUBLIC HEALTH-I . This condition is included in Attachment 6-1for easy reference. A review of all the information available demonstrates that the biocide application program is in compliance with Condition PH-1. The biocide use and monitoring program was reviewed and approved by CEC compliance staff in 2005, well before its implementation at the power plant. Monitoring results submitted by Palomar for 2006 and 2007 showed that the residual hypochlorite (biocide) levels were within the proper range, all microbial levels were well below the required level, and the presence of Legionella bacterium were non-detect. There is no evidence that airborne pathogens in concentrations great enough to pose a risk to public health exist in the cooling tower system. Staff therefore concludes that the Palornar Energy Center cooling tower is operating in compliance with the applicable public health Condition of Certification and poses no significant risk or threat to public health. Ideclare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct to theAest of niy&owledge. Alvin J. Greenberg, P~.D~EA, QEP Risk Science Associates Consultant to the Energy Commission Exhibit Exhibit C Staff Response to Aviation Safety Complaint Palomar Energy Center, 01-AFC-24C February 1,2008 The Palomar Energy Center (PEC) is located in the Escondido Research and Technology Center (ERTC), an industrial park. PEC is several hundred feet east of the Palomar Medical Center West (Medical Center). The Medical Center plans to include a helipad on the roof for helicopters transporting trauma victims. At this time site preparation is underway for the recently approved Medical Center, expected to open in 201 I. Palomar Energy Center's Application for Certification was licensed by the California Energy Commission (Commission) on August 6, 2003 and the plant commenced operation in April 2006. During the Commission licensing process, the City of Escondido was developing the Specific Plan for the ERTC. On September 13, 2002 Commission staff submitted comments on the City of Escondido's draft environmental impact report, ensuring the City was aware of the proposed power plant's potential environmental impacts. At that time, both City and Commission staff were not aware that a medical center would be a tenant of the ERTC. CEC staff analyses for the Palomar Energy Center project did not address the potential impacts of a nearby medical center, or include conditions of certification addressing safety issues related to aviation. The City then adopted the ERTC Specific Plan on November 25, 2002, but later revised it when the hospital district requested approval to build the Medical Center in the ERTC. An Environmental Impact Report, and a December 6,2005 Addendum were prepared, updating the ERTC Specific Plan to include the Medical Center. In April 2006 the Escondido City Council unanimously approved the revised Specific Plan that incl~~ded the Medical Center. In the December 6, 2005 "Addendum to the ERTC Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report.. ." the Medical Center owner, Palomar Pomerado Health District (PPHD), addresses the power plant. The Addendum acknowledges nearby power plants, and states the transmission lines and plumes would be taken into consideration by the two agencies with authority for helipad approval. PEC owner San Diego Gas & Electric Company also provided information to PPHD specifically for the helipad planning process. The health district's helipad consultant has prepared diagrams and recommendations for flight paths, and PPHD helicopter pilots have tested various take off and approach paths that would avoid PEC plumes. The operation of the helipad is regulated by federal, state, and local laws intended to reduce risks of helicopter accidents. The Energy Commission does not have the authority to approve or deny the helipad. CalTrans Division of Aeronautics and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) have that authority. To date, neither CalTrans nor FAA has issued approval decisions on the hospital heliport. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct to the best of my knowledge. Pal~laDavid Compliance Project Manager BEFORETHE ENERGYRESOURCES AND DEVELOPMENT CONSERVA'~ION COMMISSION OF THE STATEOF CALIFORNIA INTHE MATTEROF: DOCKETNO.01-AFC-24C APPLICATION FOR 'THE FOR CERTIFICATION PROOF OF SERVICE PALOMAR ENERGY PROJECT I, Lynn Tien-Tran, declare that on February 6, 2008, 1 deposited copies of the attached Staff Response and Recommendations to Rodriguez Complaints re: Coolinq Tower Operations and Exhibits A -C in the United States mail at Sacramento, CA with first class postage thereon fully prepaid and addressed to the following: DOCKET UNIT Send the original signed document plus the required 12 copies to the address below. CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION DOCKET UNIT, MS-4 Attn: Docket No. 01 -AFC-24C 1516 Ninth Street Sacramento, CA 95814-551 2 **** Also send copies of all documents to: Mark Rodriguez 945 Chardonney Way Escondido, CA 92029 marknrodriqueza cox. net Taylor 0.Miller Senior Environmental Counsel Sempra Energy 925 L Street, Suite 650 Sacramento, CA 9581 4 TMillera Sempra.com I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct ,