General -
The purpose of this testimony was to discuss the Catoctin site plan and Frederick County's position on it.
Ms. Betsy Smith (Adopting the testimony of Gary Hessong
Super Condensed Testimony Version (Click here for full testimony)
Mr. Hessong was unable to make it, so Ms. Smith adopted the testimony.
The BOCC requested that Catoctin provide a copy of the site plan to the Division of Permitting and Development Review (DPDR) for review.
Catoctin complied and DPDR reviewed the project’s proposed site plan and provided comments.
Catoctin responded with a letter dated August 9 and updated the site plan correspondingly.
The BOCC wants to make clear that proposing these conditions does not mean that they are for or against the plant.
Proposed Conditions
To make compliance with the Site Plan a condition to any CPCN that might issue in this proceeding..
Separately the testimony asks for 5 conditions:
compliance with the site plan [I thought this was condition 1?]
compliance with those site improvement plan suggestions set forth in Bruce Dell’s September 16, 2004 memo under the Site Improvement Plans section (pages 1 and 2)
obtaining general building, electrical, plumbing and fire protection permits from Frederick County,
requiring that NOX and VOC offsets be purchased from Frederick County sources, if available; if not available from Frederick County sources, then these offsets must be purchased from the geographically closest available source(s)
requiring that the project must comply with all PM 2.5 ambient air quality standards in effect today and which might be required in the future if Frederick County is designated as a non-attainment area for PM 2.5.
My Questions / Comments
The August 9 letter stated that the Maryland Historic Trust was reviewing the project, and that a response was to be sent to DPDR. I asked if this had been completed and if I could get a copy. Answer was she was unsure.
I asked about the proposed condition to require Catoctin to get all of the permits - in essence was this to make sure that Catoctin was required to meet all of the Frederick County standards - just like any other business, and that the CPCN did not circumvent any of this process. Answer was yes.
My impression - while Ms. Smith did an acceptable job, Mr. Hessong was more familiar with the entire project and would have been a better witness and I would have probably asked him more questions.
I agree with all of the proposed conditions, even the one that is stated twice.
I would have liked to have seen even more trees and screening be required along Ballenger Creek Pike, and behind the cemetary.
Gary Hessong (Betsy Smith) Testimony
BEFORE THE
PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF MARYLAND
|
IN THE MATTER OF: |
* * * *
* |
Case No. 8997 |
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
FREDERICK COUNTY’S DIRECT TESTIMONY
BY GARY HESSONG
Q. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND CURRENT POSITION.
A. My name is Gary Hessong. I am the Director of the Division of Permitting and Development Review for Frederick County, Maryland.
Q. ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THE PROPOSAL OF SEMPRA ENERGY RESOURCES’ SUBSIDIARY – CATOCTIN POWER, LLC. - TO CONSTRUCT AN ELECTRIC POWER GENERATING FACILITY ON THE EAST ALCO FACILITY IN FREDERICK COUNTY?
A. Yes. I and the Division of Permitting and Development Review (“DPDR”) have been directly involved with this proposed project through reviewing the project’s proposed site plan, including its discussion at the County’s Planning Commission on August 18, 2004, and through discussions with Sempra’s staff relating to its application for and compliance with storm water management and grading and sediment erosion plans (collectively “Plans”) and with the County’s general building, electrical, plumbing and fire protection permits.
Q. ARE THESE NORMAL AREAS OF RESPONSIBILTIY FOR DPDR?
A. Yes. DPDR was established by the Frederick County Board of County Commissioners (“BOCC”) in 2002 to attempt to streamline and centralize the development process within Frederick County, including site plan review, issuance and compliance with Plans for which authority has been delegated to the County by the State of Maryland, and project permits. This does not mean that all aspects of project development are centralized within DPDR, but where input from other County divisions is required DPDR takes responsibility for co-coordinating County review.
Q. ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THE BOCC’S CONSIDERATION OF THE PROPOSED CATOCTIN POWER PROJECT AND, IF SO, WHAT DIRECTION DID YOU RECEIVE FROM THE BOCC ON THIS PROPOSED PROJECT?
A. I am generally familiar with the history of this proposed project before the BOCC. I was also present on May 27, 2004 when Sempra presented the proposed project, including its request to purchase the County’s treated wastewater effluent, to the BOCC. At that time the BOCC scheduled a public hearing on the proposed Catoctin Power project (which was held on July 12, 2004, and at which I was present), directed staff to begin a concept study of issues relating to the sale of the County’s effluent for this proposed project (this study is currently in progress by the County’s Division of Utilities and Solid Waste Management (“DUSWM”)), and requested that Sempra voluntarily submit its proposed project site plan for review by Frederick County.
Q. WITH RESPECT TO SEMPRA’S PROPOSED SITE PLAN, WHAT HAPPENED?
A. Sempra submitted its proposed project site plan to DPDR for the County’s review, which included consideration by the Frederick County Planning Commission. This process included the review of Sempra’s proposed site plan by DPDR (for planning, engineering, life safety and forest resources issues) and other County offices including the Health Department, Division of Public Works, and Planning and Zoning, among others. DPDR coordinated this review and was responsible for summarizing DPDR and other agencies’ concerns and obtaining Planning Commission comments. Before submitting the proposed site plan to the Planning Commission, a Technical Advisory Committee meeting was held by the County with Sempra. This meeting allowed Sempra the opportunity to review the agencies’ concerns. After this meeting, Sempra’s site plan drawings were revised and Sempra responded to the County’s concerns in its August 9, 2004, letter to me. Subsequently, as mentioned, the proposed site plan was submitted to the Planning Commission for discussion and comment (please note this was not submitted to the Frederick County Planning Commission for decision as Sempra has always asserted that only the Public Service Commission (“PSC”) has the authority to site this proposed project).
Q. HOW DID SEMPRA RESPOND TO THE CONCERNS RAISED BY COUNTY STAFF WITH ITS INITIAL SITE PLAN? HAS SEMPRA COMMITED TO AN ACCEPTABLE SITE PLAN IN YOUR VIEW?
A. Sempra addressed each concern raised during the site plan review process. The result is a project site plan to which Sempra (and its wholly owned subsidiary – Catoctin Power, LLC) has committed, that addresses Frederick County Government’s concerns (except for sewer and water issues that will be addressed later in this proceeding). This proposed site plan is reflected in several documents attached to my testimony which include: (1) Sempra’s August 9, 2004 letter to me that provides Sempra’s responses to each concern raised by the County at the Technical Advisory Committee meeting, (2) an aerial photograph of the project site and four site drawings attached to Sempra’s August 9, 2004 letter, and (3) that September 16, 2004 memo from Mr. Bruce Dell of my staff to Assistant Frederick County Attorney Richard J. McCain that addresses three issues that were not reflected in the other documents (hereafter I collectively refer to items 1, 2 and 3 above as the agreed upon “Site Plan”).
Q. THE AUGUST 9, 2004 LETTER IS SELF EXPLANATORY. HOW ARE THE REFERENCED DRAWINGS IDENTIFIED AND WHAT DO THEY REPRESENT?
A. The drawings include Sheet 1 – cover sheet (this is an overview of the site location), Sheet 2 – site plan (1” = 100’) (a detailed site plan with site data, parking requirements and general and other notes, among other information), Sheet 3 – preliminary storm water management site plan (another detailed site drawing with various information including commitments that the site will comply with Frederick County’s storm water management ordinance, among others), and Sheet 4 – sediment and erosion control site plan.
Q. WHAT ASPECTS OF MR. DELL’ S SEPTEMBER 16 MEMO ARE CONSIDERED TO BE PART OF THE SITE PLAN?
A. Please refer to the recommendation section of this memo on page 1. The first subsection is entitled site plan and addresses the three additional issues I previously mentioned. First, we believe that any dead or missing trees along Manor Woods Road should be replaced and maintained with living trees. Second, we believe that the proposed project’s structures should be of earth tone colors to blend with the surrounding areas. Third, while perhaps simply restating a requirement already found in law, we believe that Sempra should work with the Maryland Department of the Environment to mitigate any wetland disturbances. These three additional items are included in the Site Plan.
Q. TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE, DOES SEMPRA (AND CATOCTIN POWER LLC) OBJECT TO ANY ASPECT OF THE SITE PLAN AS DEFINED IN YOUR TESTIMONY?
A. No. It is my understanding that Sempra (and Catoctin Power, LLC) agree with the Site Plan and the obligations imposed upon them to comply with this Site Plan.
Q. IN THE FIRST SENTENCE OF THE SEPTEMBER 16, 2004 MEMO, SITE PLAN DISCUSSION SECTION, MR. DELL STATES “STAFF WOULD REQUIRE THE SITE PLAN BE PART OF THE CPCN CERTIFICATE.” IS IT THE BOCC’S DESIRE THAT THE SITE PLAN (AND COMPLIANCE THEREWITH) BE MADE A CONDITION TO ANY CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY (“CPCN”) THAT THE MARYLAND PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION MIGHT ISSUE IN THIS PROCEEDING?
A. Yes. On September 23, 2004, the BOCC by unanimous vote of all Commissioners present (one Commissioner was absent) directed that the PSC be specifically asked to make compliance with the Site Plan a condition to any CPCN that might issue in this proceeding. The BOCC hereby makes this request through my testimony.
Q. DID THE BOCC REQUEST THAT ANYTHING ELSE BE MADE A CONDITION TO ANY CPCN THAT MIGHT ISSUE IN THIS PROCEEDING?
A. Yes. On September 23, 2004 the BOCC directed staff to request that compliance by Sempra (and Catoctin Power LLC) with five items be made conditions to any CPCN that the PSC might issue in this proceeding. These five items include: (1) the Site Plan (as described above), (2) compliance with those site improvement plan suggestions set forth in Bruce Dell’s September 16, 2004 memo under the Site Improvement Plans section (pages 1 and 2) (in this memo “SWM” refers to storm water management and this memo section discusses both storm water management and grading and sediment erosion control plans), (3) obtaining general building, electrical, plumbing and fire protection permits from Frederick County, (4) requiring that NOX and VOC offsets be purchased from Frederick County sources, if available; if not available from Frederick County sources, then these offsets must be purchased from the geographically closest available source(s); and (5) requiring that the project must comply with all PM 2.5 ambient air quality standards in effect today and which might be required in the future if Frederick County is designated as a non-attainment area for PM 2.5.
Q. HAS THE BOCC AUTHORIZED THIS TESTIMONY, INCLUDING THE REQUEST THAT THE FIVE ITEMS LISTED ABOVE BY MADE CONDITIONS TO ANY CPCN THAT THE PSC MIGHT ISSUE IN THIS PROCEEDING?
A. Yes. On September 23, 2004 Mr. Richard J. McCain, Assistant Frederick County Attorney was specifically directed by the BOCC to submit this request to the PSC. Mr. McCain advised the BOCC that its request would be submitted through my testimony.
Q. IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE THAT THE BOCC REQUESTED BE CONVEYED TO THE PSC IN THIS PROCEEDING.
A. Yes. The BOCC wishes to be clear that its acceptance of the Site Plan as agreed to between staff and Sempra and its request for the five conditions set forth above do not indicate either the BOCC’S support for or opposition to Sempra’s proposed project. In addition, the BOCC understands that water issues are being considered in a separate tract in this proceeding and the BOCC might examine Sempra on water related issues and submit its own water issue testimony at those appropriate times.
Q. DOES THIS CONCLUDE YOUR TESTIMONY?
A. Yes