Loading...
1981-397RESOLUTION NO. 81R-397 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM CERTIFYING THAT IT HAS REVIEWED AND CONSIDERED THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION PREPARED BY THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA PUBLIC POWER AUTHORITY WITH RESPECT TO THE PURCHASE OF A 5.91 PERCENT INTEREST IN THE PALO VERDE NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION, UNITS 1, 2 AND 3. WHEREAS, the Southern California Public Power Authority (SCPPA) in which the City of Anaheim is a member, proposes to purchase a 5.91% undivided interest in the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1, 2 and 3 ( PVNGS) ; and WHEREAS, SCPPA, as Lead Agency, has prepared a Negative Declaration in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act with respect to such purchase; and WHEREAS, this City Council is obligated by law to review and consider said Negative Declaration. NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved that this City Council has reviewed and considered the information contained in said Negative Declaration prior to acting upon said PVNGS Project and finds said Negative Declaration to be satisfactory. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS August , 19 81. ATTEST: 25th day of City C e STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss. CITY OF ANAHEIM ) I, LINDA D. ROBERTS, City Clerk of the City of Anaheim, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 81R-397 was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting provided by law, of the City Council of the City of Anaheim held on the 25th day of August, 1981, by the following vote of the members thereof: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCIL P~MBERS: None AND I FURTHER certify that the Mayor of the City of Anaheim signed said Resolution No. 81R-397 on the 25th day of August, 1981. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the City of Anaheim this 25th day of August, 1981. CITY ERK OF THE CIT OF ANAHEIM (SEAL) I, LINDA D. ROBERTS, City Clerk of the City of Anaheim, do hereby certify that the foregoing is the original of Resolution No. 81R-397 duly passed and adopted by the Anaheim City Council on August 25, 1981. ~~ CITY CLERK ~' ~.. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT NEGATIVE DECLARATION LEAD AGENCY Southern California Public Power Authority (SCPPA) PROJECT TITLE Purchase of capacity entitlement from the Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement and Power District. PROJECT LOCATION The Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station is located approximately 50 miles west of Phoenix, Arizona. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The purchase of approximately 225 megawatts of capacity from the Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement's entitlement in the Palo Verde Nuclear generating Station. FINDING SCPPA has determined that this project will not have a significant effect on the environment for the following reasons: See attached Initial Study ADDRESS 111 North Hope Street, Room 1149 Los Angeles, California 90012 ~: ' ~• i S r~c2~,~,~,r, i_. ;vC;~i.~L NOR'KAN E. NI('HOLS Executive Director SCPPA .. (:.. OUTLINE OF INITIAL STUDY I. Definition of the Project II. The Palo Verde Project III. Environmental Effects of the Project A. Effect of the Authority's Participation or Nonparticipation in Palo Verde - B. Other Environmental Effects IV. Attachments Appendix H Appendix I - 1 - ~. INITIAL STt'DY r: Purchase of Capacity Entitlement from SRP by Southern California Public Power Authority (Authority) I. DEFINITION OF THE PROJECT: The Project assessed is the purchase of approximately 225 megawatts of capacity and associated energy (Capacity Entitlement) from Salt River Project's (SRP's) ownership interest in the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station (PVNGS) by the Authority. The members of the Authority will purchase-the capacity and energy from SRP as follows: Percentage Participant Entitlement Banning 1 Colton 1 Azusa 1 Glendale d Pasadena 4 Burbank 4 Vernon e,5 Riverside 5.0 IID 6.0 Anaheim 7.5 Los Angeles 62 The purchase, as contemplated by SRP anc~ the Authority, provides for SRP to assign the Authority a 5.9] percent interest in the PVrIGS, a 5.91 percent ownership interPSt in ANPP high voltage switchyard and a 5.9] percent partnership interest in the Palo Verde Uranium Venture {PVW). This will amount to approximately 225 megawatts in the PVNGS. II. THE PALO VERDE PROJECT: The Palo Verde Project when complete wil] consist ~f three nuclear-powered units located at a site approximately 5f- miles west of Phoenix, Arizona near Wintersrurg, Arizona. Each of the three units will have a nomin'a]. electrical output of approximately 1270 megawatts net. The Nuclear Regulatory Commision issued a construction permit on N'ay ?.5, 1976, for Palo Verde and construction of unit 1 is approximately R2~ complete, Unit 2 is approximately 53$ complete, and Unit 3 is approximately 18~ complete. - 2 - ~ ~:. The Transmission system for Palo Verde will consist of four 500 kV lines leaving the nuclear plant with three lines terminating in Arizona at Westwing, Saguaro, and Kyrene Substations, one line terminating in California at Dever.s Substation, and a 345 kV line between Reactor Station South near Greenlee, Arizona, and the Newman Substation located in New Mexico. The participants collectively 'are planning and coordinating transmission and interconnection arrangements providing for delivery to the participants of the capacity and associated energy generated by the Palo Verde units. SRP will deliver the Authority's capacity and energy entitlement at various points of delivery as appropriate. All such delivery points provide direct access to the existing transmission system of the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power. Palo Verde is a jointly owned facility with present participants as follows: Undivided Interest ($) Arizona Public Service Company (APS) 29..1 Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement and Power District (SRP) * 29.1 Southern California Edison Company (SCE) 15.8 E1 Paso Electric Company (EPE) 15.8 Public Service Company of New Mexico (PNM) 10.2 * 5.7$ to be transferred to Los Angeles on date of commercial operation of Unit 1. APS, as Project Mana is the applicant for operate and maintain current schedule for commercial operation and Unit 3 by riay 1, der and Operating Agent permits and licenses t~ Palo Verde Units 1, 2, the project is to have by May 1, 1983; Unit 2 1986. of Palo Verde, ~ construct, and 3. The Unit 1 in by May 1, 1QRa; - 3 - (_ ~_ III. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THF: PROJF'CT: A. Effect of the Authority's Participation or Nonparticipation in Palo Verde The main purpose of the Authority's acquisition of a generating entitlement in Palo Verde Generation Station is to reduce dependence upon oil and natural gas fuel. One of the principal lessons learned during the recent past is that a continuation of dependence on oil fuel tends to make the members of the Authority hostage to the demands of the OPEC oil cartel. The purchase of a capacity entitlement in PVr1GS is not an action to meet load growth requirements. The members of the Authority currently meet existing needs through contract or by their own generating facilities. However, the majority of those present needs are met by oil or natural gas fueled generation. The members of the Authority are planning future projects to lessen dependence on energy produced from oil and gas fuel and to meet future needs. ThP White Pine Power Project, the Intermountain Po~~er Project, the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, and others now in planning wi-11 meet-such future-requirements. However, there is a continuing present need to reduce oil and gas fuel use and participation in Palo Verde will aid such reduction. Participation in Palo Verde will lessen the oil and gas requirements to supply members' needs by over ?. million equivalent barrels annually. If the Authority does not participate in Palo Verde on behalf of its members: 1. The fuel oil that would be displaced by the Project (up to 2 million barrels per year) will continue with the attendant risks of loss of supply, high costs, and risk of oil. spillage which accompany handling and storage of fuel oil. Much of this fuel is refined from imported cruse oil. 2. Necessarily, older, oil and gas fired, pollution- emitting generation units located in the-Southern California Area will continue to be used to a greater extent. ,..--- 3. The requirement that oil he burned to meet needs places the members of the Authority hostage to the activities of OPEC members and to their ability to manipulate prices and to restrict distribution of oil. - 4 - CC ,_. 4. Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station will be designed, constructed and operated whether or not the Authority purchases the above entitlement. SRP's share would be sold either to other entities in California or retained for its own use. The members of the Authority would not enjoy the benefits accruing from reduced oil or natural gas fuel use. B. Other Environmental Effects No additional generating, transmission, or distributing facilities will be required to be constructed to accommodate the generation and distribution of the power obtained by the Authority from SRP's share from Palo Verde in either California, Nevada, or Arizona. Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station is being constructed in accordance with federal and state laws and will comply with such laws. An Environmental Impact Statement for Palo Verde is available and discusses the environmental setting of the nuclear plant. Unit 1 of the plant is substantially complete, and the others are replications of that unit. Therefore, the Authority will not have a significant influence on the technical and environmental factors involved in the design and construction of the plant. It should be noted that the opportunity given the Authority to participate in the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station to the .extent of .approximately 225 megawatts results from SRP's load growth being less then expected at the time the project was planned. SRP's present Palo Verde entitlement would not be fully utilized for a significant period of time. SRP will, of course, retain a substantial interest in Palo Verde, which will be needed to meet SRP's load requirements. - 5 - _ ( ~,.,. ' INITIAL STUDY This Initial Study is based on Appendices H and I of the State EIR Guidelines APPENDIX H Note: 1. "*" indicates response appears on attached sheets GENERAL INFORMATION 1. Name and address of developer of project sponsor: Southern California Public Power Authority (SCPPA). 2. Address of project: 50 miles west of Phoenix, Arizona. Assessor's Block and Lot Number Not applicable 3. Name, address, and telephone number of person to be contacted concerning this project: (For information refer to Aunendix I, IC2)). Norman E. t?ichols Executive Director SCPPA 213 48-5651. 4. Indicate number of the permit application for the project to which this form pertains: Not ap~licab le 5. List and describe any other related permits and other public approvals required for this project, including those required by city, regional, state and federal agencies: Approval by members of the Authority and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 6. Existing zoning district: Not applicable 7. Proposed use of site (Project for which this form is filed): Not applicable 8. Site size. 9. Square footage. 10. Number of floors of construction. 11. Amount of off-street parking provided. 12. Attach plans. .~ 13. Proposed scheduling. 14. Associated projects. None 15. Anticipated incremental development. ;i Not applicable ~~ ~r n n ,~ ~, rt n n n None r ,~. . lb. If residentia include the number of ur. ~s, schedule of unit sizes, range of sale price or rents, and type of household size expected. Not applicable 17. If commercial, indicate the type, whether neighborhood, city or regionally oriented, square footage of sales area, and loading facilities. Not applicable 18. If industrial, indicate type, estimated employment per shift, and loading facilities. Not applicable 19. If institutional, indicate the major function, estimated employment per shift, estimated occupancy, loading facilities, and community benefits.to be derived from the project. Not applicable 20. If the project involves a variance, conditional u.:e or rezoning application, state this and indicate clearly why the application is required. Not applicable Are the following items applicable to the project or its effects? Discuss below all items checked yes (attach additional sheets as necessary). YES NO X 21. Change in existing features of any bays, tidelands, beaches, lakes or hills, or substantial alteration of ground contours. X 22. Change in scenic views or vistas from existing residential areas or public lands or~roads. X 23. Change in pattern, scale or character of general area of project. X 24. Significant amounts of solid waste or litter. X 25. Change in dust, ash, smoke, fumes or odors in vicinity. X 26. Change in ocean, bay, lake, stream or ground water quality or quantity, or alteration of existing drainage patterns. X 27. Substantial change in existing noise or vibration levels in. the vicinity. X 28. Site on filled land or on slope of 10 percent or ,...._ more. X 29. Use of disposal of potentially hazardous materials, such as toxic substances, flammables or explosives. ~~ ' ~. • ~ YES NO ~~, ~ 1 , X 30. Substantial change in demand for municipal services (police, fire, water, sewage, etc.). X 31. Substantially increase fossil fuel consumption (electricity, oil, natural gas, etc.).. X 32. Relationship to a larger project or series of `~"' projects. ENVIR0:IMENTAL SETTING 33. Describe the project site as it exists before the project, including information on topography, soil stability, plants and animals, and any cultural, historical or scenic aspects. Describe any existing structures on the site, and the use of the structures. Attach photographs of the site. Snapshots or polaroid photos will be accepted. Not applicable 34. Describe the surrounding properties, including information on plants and animals and any cultural, historical or scenic aspects. Indicate the type of land use (residential, commercial, etc.), intensity of land use (one-family, apartment houses, shops, department stores, etc.), and scale of development (height, frontage, set-back, rear yard, etc.). Attach photographs of the vicinity. Snapshots or polaroid photos will be accepted. Not applicable a. ~_ ~-. ' ~ Appendix H Additional Responses 13. Proposed Schedulin The Authority indends to conclude negotiations with SRP for participation during the Summer of 1981. Authority approval by the parties and execution of the contract documents is anticipated during the Fall of 1981. 32. Relationship to a Larger Pro'ect or Series o Projects This project is for the purchase of capacity entitlement in the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station (see Initial Study attached) . •- ~.: ~~ • - " APPENDIX I Notes: • 1, "*" indicates response appears on attached sheets 2. "T" indicates a trivial affirmative response 3. Additional descriptive data is _ available; refer to Question 2. I. BACKGROUND 1. Name of Proponent Southern California Public Power Authorit 2. Address and Phone Number of Proponent: For information contact: Mr. Norman E. Nichols, Executive Director Southern California Public Power Authority (SCPPA) (213). 481-5651. 3. Date of Checklist Submitted Not applicable 4. Agency Requiring Checklist Not applicab e 5. Name of Proposal, if applicable Purchase of Capacity Entitlement in PVNGS from S.~cP by SCPPA II. ENVIROr::-~NTAL IP4PACTS (Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required on attached sheets.) YES MAYBE NO 1. -Earth. Will the proposal result in: a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? X • - b. Disruptions, displacements, com- paction or overcovering of the soil? X c. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? X d. The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? - X e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? }{ f. Changes in deposition or erosion of peach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a • river or stream or the bed of the ,' ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? X 2. 3. C - Y~5 r.AYBE NO g. F osure of people or prope• ~ to geolo~_c hazards such as earthgL_,ces, landslides, mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards? X Air. Will the proposal result in: a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? X. b. The creation of objectionable odors? X c. Alteration of air movement, moisture or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? X Water. Will the proposal result in: a. Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? X b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the ra~e and amount of surface water runoff? X c. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? }{ d. Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? X e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, including but not limited to temperature dissolved oxygen or turbidity? .. X f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? X g. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception _ of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? X h. Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? X i. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? X ~.~~ ~ • ' . YES MAYBE NO 4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or number of any species °~ of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, microflora and aquatic plants) ? X b. Reduction of the numbers of • any unique, rare or endangered ~= species of plants? X c. Intr~~duction of new species of plants into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? _X._ d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? X 5. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms, insects or microfauna)? X b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered ~ • species of animals? X c. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? X d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? X 6. Noise. Will the proposal result in: - ~~ a. Increases in existing noise "`"" levels? X b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? X 7. Light and Glare.. Will the proposal produce new light or glare? 8. Land Use. Will the proposal result in a substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an' area? 9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? b. Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable natural resource? 10. Risk of Upset. Does the proposal involve a risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? 11. Population. Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human popu- lation of an area? 12. Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? 13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in: a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? c. Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems? d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? y ~.~ YES MAYBE NO X X X X X X X X X X X l ~ u. YES MAYBE NO e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? 14. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered govern- mental services in any of the following areas: a. Fire protection? b. Police protection? c. Schools? d. Parks or other recreational facilities? e. .Maintenance of public facili- ties, including roads? - f. Other governmental services? 15. Energy. 6Ji11 the proposal result in: a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? 16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for_ new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a. Power or natural gas? b. Communications systems? c. Water? d. Sewer or septic tanks? e.~ Storm water drainage? f. Solid waste and disposal? ,_. X X X X X X X X X X X s ... ~ _. .~ YES MAYBE NO 17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in: a. Creation of anv health hazards or potential health hazard (exclud- ing mental health)? X b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? ~ X 18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result _ _ in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? X 19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or ` quantity of existing recreational opportunities? .X 20. Archeological/Historical. Will the proposal result in an alteration of a significant archeological or historical site, structure, object or building? X 21. Mandatory Findings of Significance. a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish-or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? X b. Does the project have the poten- ' tial to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environ- mental goals? (A short-term impact on ,,,,... ~ the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long-term impacts will . endure well into the future.) X .. • c. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant.) d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? `, YES MAYBE NO X X .'