SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE

Home Browse Search

SECTION 6.0:ALTERNATIVES operational phase of the project is low and would be unlikely to have a significant effect on local traffic. The sites may differ widely in the amount of traffic congestion they would cause during construction,but this is a temporary impact and should not be a strong consideration in site selection, as long as measures to mitigate this impact are feasible. The sites would not differ significantly in terms of geological hazards,though close proximity to a major fault would call for more rigorous and expensive seismic engineering. Hazardous materials handling and worker health and safety issues would be the same or nearly the same for most sites. Though the risk of a release of hazardous materials during transport might be seen as more or less likely depending on location(roadway hazards,in particular), the record of safe transport and handling of such materials is clear. Further,the sites considered here are all in or near urban areas that are served by good transportation networks and are close to the sources of supply. Project effects on paleontological and cultural resources are not often consequential in comparing alternatives. Once an initial screening for effects on highly significant sites is completed,the probabilities of encountering hidden paleontological or cultural resources during construction are difficult to calculate or compare. 6.4.1 Project Development Constraints As indicated in the introductory descriptions of each of the alternative sites,the basic needs of power plant siting for land,access to electrical transmission, gas supply, and water, are met at the LEC site. Both the East Turner site and Ripon site are not near the 230-kV transmission system accessed through the STIG plant's 230-kV switchyard and would require construction of a new transmission line. The LEC site is ideally located in this regard,because fuel gas,process water supply,electrical transmission, and wastewater discharge all have existing onsite tie-ins. The East Turner site would require a 1,900400t- long electrical transmission line, a 3,200-foot-long natural gas line,and a 12-mile-long process water line. The Ripon site would require a 500-foot electrical transmission line, a 3,000-foot-long natural gas line, and a 1,600-foot-long industrial water supply pipeline. 6.4.2 Air Quality The quantity of emissions from project operation would be the same at any of the sites. Each of the sites has similar contributions to airsheds and would,therefore,be subject to similar review,offset/mitigation, and permitting requirements. Each site is located in relatively flat terrain that will help to promote dispersion of emissions. The differences between the sites in terms of their distances from the nearest residences should not make a significant difference in air quality impacts at these residences.Since the two alternative sites would require a full operational staff of 21 or 23 employees,versus the addition of only 5 to 7 employees at the proposed site,minor increases of emissions from vehicle traffic could occur if the East Turner or Ripon site were selected. Mitigation would bring any potential impacts to a level below significance for any of the alternatives. 6.4.3 Biological Resources The LEC site has no biological resources or habitat value. The entire site is either graveled over, or disturbed. The East Turner site is paved,undeveloped land adjacent to industrial facilities and does not appear to be in use and has no biological resources or habitat value. 6-8 SAC/371322/082330003(LEC_6.0_ALTERNATIVES.DOC)