3-1 The misspelling indicated by the commenter could not be found anywhere within the entire Section 4.14. Thus, no change to the EIR appears necessary.

3-2 The commenter appears to be referring to statements made in DEIR text describing impact 4.14-1 and mitigation measure 4.14-1. Any construction activities required to separate properties as a result of the project could require a construction trailer on-site; however, the construction mentioned in Impact 4.14-1 is listed as minor construction. Regardless of whether such a construction trailer is needed, the few phone lines required to serve to such a trailer and/or to serve the separated parcels would not create any significant utilities impacts.

3-3 Mitigation Measure 4.9-3 on page 4.9-21 of the DEIR specifies that PG&E shall provide the new owners with copies of all safety-related documentation. This provision includes all documentation in possession of PG&E that is related to CAL OSHA requirements. The new owners, of course, are responsible for complying with the laws and regulations of the State of California, including those regarding worker health and safety.

Divestiture would not affect existing good relationships that the plants have with local agencies. PG&E will continue to operate the plants under new ownership for at least two years after divestiture. This period will give the new owners ample time to become familiar with, and get first-hand experience with, all working relationships that PG&E has with local agencies, such as the relationship the Potrero plant has with the San Francisco Fire Department and the San Francisco Department of Public Health.

3-4 Mitigation Measure 4.9-1 on page 4.9-17 in the DEIR called for preparation of a Risk Assessment for each plant to be divested. Please see the response to Comment F40. A Risk Assessment is not an EIR. A Risk Assessment is not subject to the same type of public review as an EIR.

PG&E’s Risk Assessments were done by a private contractor selected by PG&E. While not subject to formal review and comment, the Risk Assessments are available for public inspection and have been provided to concerned agencies for their information.

3-5 The commenter appears to have misunderstood the intent of Mitigation Measure 4.7-2, which states that the new owner of the Pittsburg and Contra Costa Power Plants will commit to the obligations described in PG&E’s Endangered Species Act (ESA) Section 10(a) permit or permit application. The new owner will not be able to "operate without any provisions of permission," as the commenter suspects, without violating the Endangered Species Act and being subject to ESA fines and other penalties.