|
Correspondence Page |
Correspondence - Page 3 |
Hello - Jon Sears in Buckeystown here. A few thoughts after reading the PR on the Sempra's web site:
1. The proposed plant would consume significant quantities of water in its evaporation process, reducing the flow in Ballenger Creek, Monocany and Potomac, worsening an already bad situation during critical low flow periods. This in an area that has experienced serious drought conditions as recently as 2002. Although the plan is to re-use treated effluent as the cooling water source, that water is evaporated into the atmosphere and is totally removed from the Potomac system altogether. Oxygen levels would become further depleted, and the concentration of pollutants would increase due to the reduced flow. This is absolutely counter to state environmental objectives for the river and bay.
2. Air emissions - what about the additive impact on top of Eastalco, Pepco, the cement plant and others. Has this been considered? Exactly what is in these emissions?
3. There is already an over-capacity of power in Maryland. Sempra intends to sell power to Pennsylvania or New Jersey. Let them put the plant over there then! Our local rural community should not suffer additional risks, contamination and loss of quality of life for the pure economic benefit of Eastalco.
4. Sempra anticipates that the power plant will add 25 long-term jobs and $400K in taxes. Woopty-doo. Both of these are paltry and not worth the permanent damage to the community. Frederick is a growth area with many large employers and thousands of jobs coming in to the area.
5. It is important to see Sempra (based in San Diego CA) as an outside entity, despite their PR ploy of setting up a "local" subsidiary called Catoctin Power.
Keep up the good work!
Jon Sears
Sempra Go Home!
Don't Californicate Rural MD !
I'd like to piggy-back on Don's comments by simply encouraging everyone to not necessarily take at face value everything that Sempra has said.
For example, I've heard in a couple of public meetings as well as last Monday before the BoCC the following: "The structures of our power plant are similar in height to the existing structures at Eastalco". Technically, this is correct. The height of the 2 stacks will be 160' tall and the height of the tallest existing structure at Eastalco is 153'. This is a delta of only 7'. However, what they haven't said publicly is that they propose to build the power plant on a plateau next to one of Eastalco's potlines. If you go on a site visit, you will clearly see what I'm talking about. The elevation of the power plant is higher than the elevation of most other structures at Eastalco. The elevation at potline B-2 is 328 ft and the 2 stacks will be built at an elevation of 342 ft. Assuming the tallest existing structure is at a similar elevation to the potline building (which I intend to find out), then the stacks will not look 7' higher, they will look 21' higher.
Also, Sempra says that they will put hoods over the lights in order to shield it from the nearby community. What I haven't heard yet (but again, I intend to find out) is will there be beacon lights on the stacks to warn approaching aircraft -- similar to the Mirant facility at Dickerson. Obviously, these lights can't be shielded.
To reiterate what Don said, let our elected officials hear from you. It's not a "done deal".
Thanks,
Tom Mangold
Adamstown, MD
Just a reminder that the BOCC's public hearing on the Power Plant will be held tonight @ 7pm in Winchester Hall.
"Monday July 12th 7:00 PM: BOCC PUBLIC MEETING. First Floor Hearing Room, Winchester Hall * Public Hearing to Receive Public Comment on Sempra Energy Resources' Proposed Approximate 600 MW Electric Generating Plant in Frederick County - Representatives from Sempra Energy, Mike Marschner, Utilities and Solid Waste Management Division, and Richard McCain, Esquire, County Attorney's Office "
Also, Sempra has posted a list of questions and their responses from the June 24th meeting on their web site. Unfortunately, I find the document lacking. There were a number of different questions, requests at that we made at the meeting that are not addressed in the document. Like - "What is the current air quality in Adamstown" At the meeting Mark Nelson stated that they were going to work with us to investigate ways that they might be able to get us that information. In the document, Mr. Chirdon states "The modeling results demonstrate that the change in ambient air quality as a result of operating Catoctin Power will not be measurable. In other words, the project's contribution to ambient air will be so small that measuring equipment will not register the impact of plant air emissions on the community. Due to the effects of air dispersion, the further away from the power plant the lower the exposure to any emissions. " so it looks like they are not pursuing real monitoring.
We also made other requests - such as one for graphics of the model output - like a map of the area with overlays of gradient lines showing impact, rather than pages and pages of data. In addition there were questions (some to individuals after the meeting) regarding more safety information, updating traffic modeling with the new English Muffin / New Design configuration, a blast analysis, geographic limitations of the offset purchases, etc that are not addressed. Many of these questions are found in the 6/24 Meeting notes on the web site.
In a nutshell, I think that more information in formats that most people can easily interpret is still required.
From: Rolan O. Clark
Sent: Tuesday, July 06, 2004 9:54 PM
Subject: Re: [powerplant] Frederick County in
included in the EPA's PM 2.5 Non-Attainment list
Don,
Sempra probably won't be effected now because if the final designations ( whatever that is ) is at the end of 2004 then the 3 years the state and counties have to implement will probably turn into 10 years but either way it may not affect Sempra but would you please keep in touch with that idea because it is stuff like that I want to file when the rebuttals come around. It may not do much good but I want stuff like that on the record anyway.
I will print out this email so I can keep it as a reference and like Don says, if anyone has any specific knowledge that I can reference any data to for a rebuttal that is what I would like to do.
Take care,
Rolan O. Clark
From: Don James
Sent: Tuesday, July 06, 2004 6:53 PM
Subject: [powerplant] Frederick County is included in
the EPA's PM 2.5 Non-Attainment list
More details from Tom's email regarding the CNN article.
Frederick County is included in the list of counties designated as Non-Attainment for Fine Particles (PM 2.5).
Fine particles are those less than 2.5 micrometers in diameter and are also referred to as PM2.5. Non-attainment areas are those areas with air quality levels exceeding the standards, plus nearby areas contributing to such violations. By the end of 2004, EPA will finalize the designations for the PM2.5 standards. Once non-attainment designations take effect, the state and local governments have three years to develop implementation plans designed to meet the standards by reducing air pollutant emissions contributing to fine particle concentrations.
As part of this process the state of Maryland sent in their recommendations to the EPA identifying 2 different options as ways to look at the issue. One identified 4 counties and several 'Control Regions' and the other identified 13 counties as Non-Attainment. The EPA's response modifies the State's option and identifies 11 counties of which Frederick is one. These designations are to be made official by the end of the year (as required by Law). The state will then have until February 2008 to come up with a plan for attainment by February 2010.
AGAIN - We have no monitor in Frederick County -- so we really don't know what our status is.... This is yet another category of emission that should be monitored.
One last note - the EPA letter refers to a proposed rule that will reduce the emissions of NOx and SO2 by power plants. I believe this is the Interstate Air Quality Rule but I'm still looking into this one, and would love to hear from someone who really knows what this is about. It seems to say that the total amount of emission budget available to each state is going to be cut back. So - if that's the case, how can we add a new emission source when we are about to be hammered by the EPA to reduce (or I guess pestered is a better term since their record on enforcement is fairly poor)....
Anyhow .. More later - and see you all on Monday at Winchester Hall - bring your friends..
From: Rolan O. Clark
Sent: Thursday, July 01, 2004 5:10 PM
Subject: Re: [powerplant] Updated Information
Dear all,
I also called MDE and asked about any Trans-tech filing and after being routed to 3 or more people the person who was "supposed" to know was out until July 8.
If someone else would follow up that would be great. We will be in Texas visiting our daughter July 8-13.
The MDE newletter that lists applictions and issued permits is a few months behind, the last one being Feb 2004.
The Tuscora Creek is just 2 steps away from the bay, step 1, the Monocacy, step 2 the Potomac.
Take care,
Rolan Clark
From: Jodye L. Roebuck
Sent: Thursday, July 01, 2004 4:23 PM
Subject: RE: [powerplant] Updated Information
Thanks for the update.
As for Peter & Vicki intevening.... I have a comment.
If they are PERSONALLY intervening, then there should be no doubt that they should be allowed to do so, as a pro se intervenor (not having any legal counsel presenting them during the hearing process).
Because Peter's business performs economic impact studies, etc., he may be considered an 'expert' in this area. Any business/organization that intervenes HAS TO HAVE LEGAL COUNSEL as part of the hearing process requirements. Maybe this is why they are considering denying his intervention. ??
During the Duke process, Toni Lake (Sr. Wardon at St. Paul's Episcopal Church) tried to become an intervenor.. and because she was represening an organization, they wouldn't allow her to do it because she didn't have counsel.
I would LOVE to have Peter as an intervenor... but this might shed some light on the hearing examiner's position.
Who knows!
Jodye
From: Tom Mangold
Sent: Thursday, July 01, 2004 3:36 PM
Subject: [powerplant] Updated Information
To All:
I’m forwarding the email below by request. I checked the
MDE and
EPA web sites and couldn’t
find any more information on what Iona mentioned below. I’m
at work right now, so I could only spend a few minutes
researching it. Can anyone research what TransTech is trying
to do and then update our web group? I’d like to know if
this is a new/additional discharge (over and above
MD0058611) or if it is simply a continuation of a permit
that will soon expire.
Also, I noticed this
article on the CNN web site yesterday.
[article is no longer on-line - removed 10/2] The timing is
interesting.
Finally, for those of us who are intervening in the power
plant issue there was a “scheduling conference” that was
held last Friday in Winchester Hall. Many of us thought that
it was only going to be a pro-forma type meeting where they
fill out the rest of the schedule. They did add new dates
onto the schedule, as expected, however, there was a
surprise.
Many of you probably know Peter & Vicki Michael. They
were intervenors in the Duke filing a couple years ago. They
are knowledgeable in determining the economic impact of
companies trying to put in a power plant, and other unique
historic facts about Frederick County such as the
Underground Railroad. They will be a definite asset to this
case.
James Barrett, attorney for Sempra objected to the
admission of the Michaels as intervenors. I spoke up in
their defense, but it was not enough. The judge held his
decision in “abeyance” until the July 19 hearing. This means
that the judge held off on making a ruling and will decide
the matter at the next hearing date.
The moral of the story is, there’s no such thing as a
“procedural/pro-forma” type meeting. At this point, they’re
all important.
Don James also asked to intervene in this case. His
status did not come up at the conference, however, it was
referenced in the judge’s published procedural notification.
His status is also a little dicy at this point. The judge
gave Sempra until July 9th to file any objections to his
being allowed onto the case. The
PSC web site
should make for some interesting reading over the next
couple of weeks (Case #8997).
By the way, here are the key dates for this case:
July 19th (20, 21, & 22 if necessary) – Examination of applicant’s direct testimony
October 1st – Intervenors and state agencies shall file initial testimony
November 3rd (4 & 5 if necessary) – Examination of intervenor initial testimony
November 24th – Filing of all rebuttal testimony
December 14th (15 if necessary) – Examination of all
rebuttal testimony and any surrebuttal testimony
Stay tuned.
Tom Mangold
-----Original Message-----
From: NANCY BODMER
Sent: Thursday, July 01, 2004 7:12 AM
To: Tom Mangold
Subject: Fw: For Lower Monocacy WRAS stakeholders
Tom,
Read down to the info about Trans Tech in Adamstown.
There is a history of them polluting the water by dumping
into the Tuscarora Creek in Adamstown which led to public
water being brought into the town. I'm not sure when this
was or the details but it was a BIG deal.
Would you pass this on to the Adamstown Web Site or other
folks who need to be made aware. I have not called Trans
Tech and don't know any details other than just receiving
this email. I'm going out of town for several weeks so have
no time to follow up.
For all the new homeowners in Adamstown, this is really
in your backyard!!
Nancy Bodmer
----- Original Message -----
From: Schultz, Kay
To: Nancy Bodmer (E-mail) ; Rolan Clark (E-mail) ; Christine
Rodick (E-mail)
Cc: John Mullican (E-mail) ; Bryan Seipp (E-mail)
Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 2004 10:23 AM
Subject: FW: For Lower Monocacy WRAS stakeholders
Greetings to you!
Today is my first day back in the office after a month or so away traveling north (Nova Scotia) and then south (Nicaragua). I don't know if this message has been circulated to you but thought that you should be aware of the issue if you have not heard previously.
Kay
-----Original Message-----
From: Hilari Varnadore
Sent: Wednesday, June 09, 2004 10:59 AM
To: Schultz, Kay; Hunicke, Jessica; Moore, Shannon
Subject: For Lower Monocacy WRAS stakeholders
------ Forwarded Message
From: iona
Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2004 05:03:16 -0400
To: Hilari Varnadore <hilari@communitycommons.org>
Subject: PS
I meant to mention the permit for Trans-Tech in Adamstown coming up. Did you get the notice? They want to discharge an average of 8,700 gallons per day of combined process and sanitary wastewater and variable folumes of storm water from a facility that manufactures ceramic electronic components to Tuscarora Creek. What do you think, say and do about these types of things? I know you can't be confrontational but do you go and speak up on behalf of the waterways at public hearings sponsored by the Water Management Administration of the Department of the Environment?
I think I mentioned this mailing list when we first got
to know each other, but I don't remember ever following up
on it. I have more details if you want them. It looks like
the Comment deadline is July 12 and the meeting/hearing
deadline is July 1. They only hold a meeting if a request is
received. Isn't that awful? These companies just go on and
on polluting and people aren't really involved. Nobody asks
for a meeting, no
meeting!
Iona
Quoting Hilari Varnadore
> Friends,
> Just a reminder that the 4-5-6 Planning & Design Dialogue
will take place this Thursday (the 4th Thursday of the
month) from 5:00 to 6:00 pm at Tauraso's on East Street in
downtown Frederick. The group will meet regularly on the 4th
Thursday of each month from 5-6 pm for drinks and informal
discussions on planning and design issues relevant to
Frederick County, MD and the surrounding region.
> Please feel free to invite friends and colleagues; all are welcome to participate and we encourage you to forward this email to anyone interested. Community Commons has developed a list of individuals interested in planning and design through this year's Building a Greener Future for Frederick County workshop series. If you are receiving this email and are not interested in the 4-5-6 Planning & Design Dialogues, please reply to info@communitycommons.org and we will take you off of the list.
> If the weather permits, we will be on Tauraso's outdoor patio. Otherwise, we will meet around the bar to the right when coming in the front entrance.
> As the first official session, I assume we will call it
an informal mixer. Topics or themes for discussion will be
set up for next month.
>
> Thanks for your interest and we hope to see you Thursday.
>
> Hilari Varnadore
> Executive Officer
> Community Commons
------ End of Forwarded Message
From: Jodye L. Roebuck
Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2004 11:02 AM
Subject: [powerplant] Energy Information
Hello all.
I had planned on attending the meeting this evening, but I have a really bad head cold and doubt if I'll make it.
In case I don't show, and in case anyone else is interested in speaking about some of the information I found yesterday, I thought I'd pass it along. Please excuse the length - it's very detailed... but hopefully one or more of you can use it this evening (or at any time during the hearing process). I learned a long time ago, that when speaking publicly, you need to be able to backup your facts.. and so I have added links/reports, etc. where appropriate so you can print out the same information I found.
One of the biggest thorns to me about this project (aside from the obvious environmental and health hazards), is the fact that Sempra/Eastalco have :
1) Mislead everyone to believe that this power plant is going to be supplying Eastalco with it's power. AND that Eastalco needs this to happen in order to stay in business. WRONG. To my knowledge, Eastalco still has their contract with Allegheny Power, and I don't remember the expiration date. They CAN purchase their power from Sempra if/when the need arises. But that may never happen, who knows.
2) Mislead everyone to believe that there are going to be virtual extension chords from the power plant to all of the local homes - that we're going to get our own power directly from this plant, and that we NEED it. WRONG AGAIN. Any power produced by this plant would be fed into the PJM regional power grid (www.pjm.com), which happens to be where our power comes from.
3) Mislead everyone to believe that the State of MD NEEDS the energy... take a guess... WRONG AGAIN! I spoke with a gentlemen from the MD Energy Administration yesterday. When I talked to him about the information I'd found, he confirmed that the information was accurate. According to the MAAC (Mid Atlantic Area Council, of which the PJM is a member - www.maac-rc.com) "2004 Pre-Seasonal Assessment Report" MD will have a 23% reserve margin/surplus at the summertime peak. When I spoke to this guy, he mentioned they get nervous if the reserve margin gets down to around 5 or 6%. When I mentioned the 23% figure, he laughed and said, yeah, that's a pretty nice surplus. In addition to this existing reserve margin..... I also read where the MD Energy Admin. is administering projects all over the State to conserve electricity and use newer technologies, etc. MEA's energy projects have saved an estimated 1.7 QUADRILLION BTUs, which is enough to power more than 7,000 homes for an entire year (see page 6, http://www.energy.state.md.us/about/reports/Annual_Report_2003.pdf).
I personally like the folks at Eastalco.. and think they've been a good "corporate neighbor". With that said, they are 11th biggest polluter in the State of MD (Dickerson, just up the street is #7), and the TOP polluter in our immediate area. The second, Essroc is also in 'our front yard'. See Scorecard.org and put in your zip code at the right of the screen. I used 21777 (Point of Rocks).
| Your Zip Code: | 21777 |
| Your Community: | FREDERICK County |
|
|
Based
on EPA's most current data,
this county ranked among the dirtiest/worst
10% of all counties in the US in terms of
the
number of people living in areas where
cancer risk from hazardous air pollutants
exceeds 1 in 10,000.
[Information
above taken from the
www.scorecard.org website]
|
So.. hopefully you'll find this information useful. I found it to be frustrating, actually. Remember, the State/PSC hearing process does not consider the issue of "NEED" during their hearing process. It's not even a factor. But these Sempra folks are misleading everyone to believe that there is a need so there will be less opposition. It's down right insulting.
Thanks for letting me vent.....
Jodye Roebuck
| Send an email to the Webmaster | Disclaimer: This page is being developed and presented by a citizen of Adamstown, and the opinions represented here do not necessarily reflect the views of anyone beyond that individual. Information is expected to be posted here from a variety of sources and a variety of links with differing opinions. This site is intended to facilitate the free flow of information outside of those normal channels being provided by parties directly involved in any of the actions that are discussed. |