Last year, PG&E auctioned its Morro Bay (1,4781,002 MW), Moss Landing (1,0021,478 MW), and Oakland (165 MW) Power Plants to affiliates of Duke Energy Power Services, Inc.

If PG&E’s current divestiture application is approved and the four plants sold, PG&E will still own 112110 hydroelectric units (3,910 MW), Hunters Point Power Plant (423 MW), Humboldt Bay Power Plant (105 MW), three mobile combustion turbines (45 MW) and the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant (2,160 MW).

These fuels may be delivered by truckbarge to the Pier 70 marine terminal, one-half mile north of the plant, and then delivered to the site via a 20-inch residual fuel oil pipeline and a 12-inch distillate fuel pipeline.

Generally speaking, steam is drawn from wells, purified, transported through insulated pipes, pressurized, and converted into electrical power.

It is noteworthy that the plants could eventually be sold without approval of the CPUC, so the physical and operational differences between restructuring with divestiture as currently proposed and without divestiture could, as a practical matter, be minimized or even eliminated, except in the period before market valuation of the plants. With restructuring and without divestiture of the four plants, the market value of the plants must by some means be established and approved by the CPUC no later than the end of 2001. Once market valuation occurs, the plants could be sold without CPUC approval. Thus, implementation of restructuring itself could result in plants being sold after their market value is established. PG&E would not be required to sell its plants, and it is not certain that the plants would be sold.

Sonoma County is urbanizing,...

Local NSCAPCD regulations limit emissions of particulate matter for each operating unit to 40 pounds per hour and hydrogen sulfide to 0.44 pounds 50 grams per gross megawatt hour.

The City of Antioch is located to the east west of the site, and the City of Oakley is located to the westeast.

The principal reason for the difference in power plant emissions estimates is the difference in Bay Area electric power generation projections from which the emissions estimates are derived. For example, the electric power generation projections developed by using a model known as UPLAN (and used for the ’97 Clean Air Plan power plant emissions estimates) predict electric power generation in 2000 from the steam turbines of 8,536 GWh. In contrast, the electric power generation modeling prepared for this report predicts Bay Area generation that is interpolated to be between 9,220 9,724 GWh (baseline) and 18,029 18,534 (A-Max) in 2000 (not including the combustion turbines and assuming that Hunters Point operates just to support reliability needs on the San Francisco peninsula).¹ Likewise, in 2003, the ’97 Clean Air Plan predicts a generation rate of 8,734 GWh whereas the modeling results for this report provides the basis for a prediction of a generation rate of between 9,948 11,964 to 16,715 18,732 GWh (not including the existing combustion turbines, but including a future 480 MW power plant assumed to replace the Hunters Point Power Plant).

The areas most impacted appear to lie within the fuel tank farm and in the part of the plant devoted to customer energy service/safety, health and claims.

Fluor Daniel GTI prepared a soil and groundwater sampling plan for the plant site; a summary of the work that was completed during the Phase II subsurface testing is provided below:.

The data collected during the Phase II subsurface testing was used to further define site characteristics, to describe the nature and extent of chemicals in soil and groundwater, and to define background concentrations for comparison to site concentrations. A summary of the soil and groundwater testing results is provided below.

As part of the Phase II study, a Baseline Health Risk Assessment was done to determine whether concentrations of chemicals detected in soil and groundwater could present an unacceptable risk to human health and the environment, given the assumptions made for the risk assessment. The acceptable level of risk established for the project was consistent with that typically allowed by state and federal environmental agencies, as follows:

Health risks were calculated for three receptor populations, including the current and future on-site workers, current and future construction workers, and current groundskeepers. The risk assessment showed there to be no unacceptable risks to the three human receptor populations. Fate and transport modeling showed there to be no chemicals that would potentially pose an unacceptable risk to ecological receptors at the San Joaquin River via groundwater flow.

In addition to the risk assessment, Fluor Daniel GTI reviewed cleanup levels established in environmental laws and regulations and in previous remediation requests made by environmental agencies having jurisdiction over the Contra Costa Power Plant. The review of clean-up levels established by regulatory agencies showed that since the shallow groundwater beneath the site has been designated as a potential future source of drinking water, the maximum contaminant levels (state and federal) for drinking water are applicable clean-up levels for the groundwater. The review also showed that a regulatory agency would likely require treatment of petroleum hydrocarbons in soil and groundwater to 300 mg/kg and 100 µg/L, respectively.

Fluor Daniel GTI compared the data collected during the Phase II investigations against the cleanup levels that were determined in the review of regulatory requirements. On that basis, the following issues were identified in the Phase II report as those in which a regulatory agency would likely require remediation:

In addition to those remedial issues, potential future environmental liabilities may be incurred by PG&E. These liabilities are different from those previously discussed in the Phase II report in that a triggering event must occur before they will be recognized. The two future potential environmental liabilities that have been identified for the Contra Costa Power Plant and their triggering events are:

The purpose and objectives of the Phase II Environmental Site Assessment for the Pittsburg Power Plant were:

A summary of the work that was completed during the Phase II subsurface testing is provided below.:

The data collected during the Phase II subsurface testing was used to further describe site characteristics, to describe the nature and extent of chemicals in soil and groundwater, and to define background concentrations for comparison to site concentrations. A summary of the soil and groundwater testing results is provided below.

A Baseline Health Risk Assessment was done to determine if concentrations of chemicals detected in soil and groundwater presented an unacceptable risk to human health and the environment, given the assumptions made for the risk assessment. The acceptable level of risk established for this project was consistent with that typically allowed by state and federal environmental agencies, as follows:

Health risks were calculated for two receptor populations, including the current and hypothetical future on-site commercial workers, and current and hypothetical future construction workers. The risk assessment showed there to be no unacceptable risks to the two human receptor populations from exposure to surface and subsurface soil. However, the report noted that an unacceptable risk might be posed to hypothetical future on-site commercial workers through potential future contact with groundwater. Therefore, VOCs, PAHs and metals in groundwater were considered in the remedial issue evaluation.

Fluor Daniel GTI reviewed cleanup levels established in environmental laws and regulations and in previous remediation requests made by environmental agencies having jurisdiction over the Pittsburg Power Plant. The review of clean-up levels established by regulatory agencies showed that since the shallow groundwater beneath the site has been designated as a potential future source of municipal, agricultural and domestic water supply, the maximum contaminant levels (state and federal) for drinking water would likely be applicable clean-up levels for the groundwater. The review also showed that a regulatory agency would likely require treatment of petroleum hydrocarbons in soil and groundwater to 400 mg/kg and 0.1 mg/L, respectively.

Data collected during Phase II investigations were compared against the cleanup levels that were determined in the risk assessment and in the review of regulatory requirements. Consequently, the following issues were identified in the Phase II report as those in which a regulatory agency would likely require remediation:

In addition to those remedial issues, several potential future environmental liabilities may be incurred by PG&E. These liabilities are different from those previously discussed in this report in that a triggering event must occur before they will be recognized. The three future potential environmental liabilities that have been identified for the Pittsburg Power Plant and their triggering events are:

The Muir Station in Martinez is the nearest station, located roughly 2515 miles to the west.

…generation and total uninterruptable load would be in balance should a separation occur during the peak of or mid-peak periods.