Power Plant Correspondence

From: Anne Garnett
Sent: Saturday, July 24, 2004 6:21 AM
Subject: RE: [powerplant] Water quality impact & more

I think that is a great thought. What did the Chamber of Commerce say to that response????

From: Chris Joy, Buckeystown
Sent: Friday, July 23, 2004 10:36 PM
Subject: Re: [powerplant] Ballenger Creek WWTP performance

Rolan,
I am responding to your concern about the power plant being the water issue. Someone earlier brought up an excellent concern...the quarries that are being considered and the chemicals there that would be in the water flow used for Sempra and then pushed out in the air for us. Do you know if that is being considered as an issue or concern? If not I hope that someone brings that up at the meeting.
I truly believe we need to keep searching for loopholes that Sempra hasn't looked into yet....they are trying to rush this....the more they have to look up and question the longer it will take for them, and in my opinion the better our chances of keeping them out of our backyards.

From: Tom Mangold
Sent: Friday, July 23, 2004 4:43 PM
Subject: [powerplant] Two more things to add to the mix

This email contains links to 2 documents that may be of interest to everyone.

First, at the July 12th Sempra Public Hearing before the BoCC, Mike Marschner (Director, Division of Utilities and Solid Waste Management) handed out his testimony that he presented that night. Click here to access this pdf document (576kb). Mr. Marschner’s report was excellent and is titled “Report on the development of a Water Supply Concept Plan for the Sempra Energy Resources, 600MW Catoctin Power LLP power plant, proposed at the Eastalco Aluminum”. The water issue is going to be very complex and many issues have yet to be resolved. I highly recommend everyone read this document.

Second, several weeks ago, there was talk among our powerplant group that TransTech had applied to Maryland Department of the Environment for a permit to “discharge an average of 8,700 gallons per day of combined process and sanitary wastewater and variable flumes of storm water from a facility that manufactures ceramic electronic components to Tuscarora Creek.” I made a few calls with the MDE and got them to mail me their application. It looks like it is an extension of their existing permit (MD0058611), not a new request for additional dumping. To my untrained eyes, it doesn’t look like a big deal due to the fact that they are only extending an existing permit. However, I could be wrong. Therefore, I’ve converted the document I got to a pdf format and made it available to everyone on our web site. Click here [Link Removed 9/28] to access this document. At 1,934KB, it is a little beefier than the first document I attached (our dial-up friends will get a good lesson in patience). It contains 29 pages of information; most of it shows technical results of environmental testing. If you’re not into that kind of thing, don’t bother downloading it. I made it available it in case there is someone in our group that likes reading this type of information and can tell us what it means in English. One more thing, we’re past the “public input period”, so it’s pretty much a done deal.

That’s all for now…

From: Rolan O. Clark
Sent: Friday, July 23, 2004 2:45 PM
Subject: Re: [powerplant] Water quality impact & more

Marcia,

As far as I know radiation from power lines has not been scientifically shown to be a problem. Just a brief primer, electric current is the problem, that is where the electric and magnetic fields come from and that is where the question comes into play.

For several reasons, probably the electric current in our homes has more potential that high tension lines to cause long term injury but even that is not a problem becasue of the nature of our electric wires the fields have a tendency to cancel out.

I can say with a fairly high degree of certainy that I believe your concerns are not a problem but keep the ideas coming.

From: Sprey, Marcia
Sent: Friday, July 23, 2004 1:32 PM
Subject: RE: [powerplant] Water quality impact & more

All-

Has anyone researched the effects of living with exposure to the level of Megawatts discussed in this line of discussion?

From: Rolan O. Clark
Sent: Friday, July 23, 2004 12:03 PM
Subject: Re: [powerplant] Water quality impact & more

Phil,

I will reply to all your comments here. Thanks for the background on them. I heard about the CC comments but it was so out of line I didn't think too much of it because so many others had it covered.

We used to be able to see the beautiful Dickerson smoke stack but now there are so many houses in back of us that we can't. No problem here, when we moved here 26 years ago we knew it was going to develop but now that we are all here I think its time the development stopped.

EastAlco, Sempra and I all have a right to apply for a business. All I want now is to get ALL the facts presented. We have a long way to go before that is done.

As an intevenor I am really interested in all comments. The water issue will be the next and, to me, one of the most improtant issues and Sempra files their water issues on Aug 20 and on Oct 14 there will a be another hearing where we intevenors can cross examine all their filings.

From: Phil Freedman [** Consolidated 4 emails]
Sent: Friday, July 23, 2004 7:18, 7:25, 7:49 and 8:13 AM
Subject: Re: [powerplant] Water quality impact & more

I pulled up mapquest and had it calculate the trip from Adamstown to Dickerson by road and it said 7.51 miles.
The chamber of commerce sent me a email saying that they were sorry that I was offended by their press release,
but they think that if we use electricity, we should all do our part to shoulder the burden of having electricity generated.
If Dickerson will now be generating over 1000 MWs and it is in a circle a that is in a 10 mile radius that in circles
both Dickerson and Eastalco, I figure the people in that 10 mile radius have done their part to "shoulder the burden".

[7:25] Also, I feel that both these plant are in a 5 mile radius of Sugarloaf Mt. You can see the stacks of Dickerson from the
Mt and I am sure you will see Eastalco's. So what happened to our last govenor standing on Sugarloaf and making
a speach about "view shed". Sounds like we are going to ring Sugarloaf with industrial. Nice view shed? New
gov, money talks.

[7:49] If you take that 5 mile radius circle and center it bettween Dickerson and Eastalco, you will encompass the two
plants. You will also encompass part of Sugarloaf, the C&O Canal, the patomac river,Balls Bluff, White's Ferry. All
these places have important historical and recreational value. We can only assume with these two plants in
place, the argument will be made to industrialize the area bettween them because it is already blighted, and
will have good power. Now, take that 5 mile radius circle and move it around Maryland, I bet you will have trouble
finding 2 power plants within the circle, in fact you will find vast areas with no power plants at all?

[8:13] I guess it all comes down to the price of pipe. It will take more pipe to bring water and natural gas to a plant
somewhere else. So the price of pipe is more valuble than the beauty of our area. Sad

From: Rolan O. Clark
Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2004 11:10 PM
Subject: Re: [powerplant] Water quality impact & more

Phil,

I think the Dickerson Mirant Plant is about 8 air miles from EastAlco. I don't understand the "megawatts generated for a 5 mile radius" reference and I am curious as to what you are referring to.

From: Phil Freedman
Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2004 7:47 PM
Subject: Re: [powerplant] Water quality impact & more

Dickerson is only 7 miles by road, probably about 4 or 5 as the crow flies. I figure Dickerson is our share of megawatts
generated for a 5 mile radius?

From: Anne Garnett
Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 2004 10:06 PM
Subject: RE: [powerplant] Water quality impact & more

Dear all,

Since the Mirant was approved doesn’t it mean we don’t need a power plant here?????? We need more water for people not more electricity. But then my logic is not the PSC logic. We do have a republican in the governors seat does that have anything with Mirant getting approved? Or once this process is started it just moves at its own speed to help these businesses out and leaves the people in the dust. Anne Garnett

From: Tom Mangold
Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 2004 6:45 PM
Subject: RE: [powerplant] Water quality impact & more

In case your day hasn't been ruined by now...

Did everyone know that the Mirant-Dickerson CPCN was approved on June 30th? Their CPCN was filed in May, 2001 and was delayed for a number of reasons. The state's final recommendation & conditions hit the PSC web site on July 16th (just 5 days ago). That document is here.

The Dickerson power plant consists of three 182 MW coal-fired units, two 147 MW gas-and-oil fired simple cycle combustion turbines. The CPCN asked for (and received) approval to convert the existing simple cycle units to a combined cycle unit and to construct a second combined cycle unit. The primary fuel will be natural gas. The proposed changes will increase the electrical generating capacity of the facility by 740 MW (to 1020 MW).

Condition #48 gives Mirant the authority to consume 8.3 MGD (maximum) with the average being 6.6 MGD.

Mirant unit #4 & 5 will spew out 841 TPY (tons-per-year) of NOx (nitrogen oxides), <25 TPY of VOC (volatile-organic-compounds), 332 TPY of sulfur dioxide, 347 TPY of particulate matter, and 205 TPY of carbon monoxide.

Mirant's stack height is 190'. Does anybody feel lucky that our stack height is only 160'?

Again, this is something that was approved...

The attached document is an interesting read. Peter Michael likes to use the term "blight-begetting-more-blight". I'm starting to wonder if we're in that zone.

If you have the time, take a look at this case on the PSC web site (Case # 8888). They used the same cast of characters for expert witnesses -- Zwolak, Bullock, Powell, etc.

I've got to go. More later.

From: Rolan O. Clark
Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 2004 6:38 PM
Subject: Re: [powerplant] Ballenger Creek WWTP performance

Dear Jon and all,

Sempra is supposed to file their water testimony on August 20 I think it is and then we should be able to better ascertain what waters from where will be going to and from where. I have yet to see where Sempra seems to understand the water situation but I would imagine they will have it figured out by August 20.

One of my main concerns, which I voiced at the beginning of the preliminary comments on Monday was that Sempra had proposed an intake on the Potomac River 800 ft. up river from Frederick Counties intake. To me that is an absolute no no, who knows what can leak out or be subject to intentional sabotage and then be passed 800 ft. down stream for all of Frederick County to enjoy in their drinking water !

I did ask someone, not for testimony, but I did ask someone there if the trip had been made by the proper officials in Maryland to the WV proposed make up sites and the answer was yes, to one of the sites but their determination was not known. Maybe Don knows more but we should be know more August 20.

Everyone's questions and inputs are very useful. The plant site and air quality are not my main concerns because of the technology used. My main concern is the water and does Maryland really need another power plant and to the later I think the answer is no.

I have been working with the UPTT ( upper Potomac Tributaries Team ), a part of ICPRB ( Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin ) and WRAS ( Water Resources Assessment Study) here in Frederick County. Water, not power, is the important issue to me.

From: Jon Sears
Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 2004 5:47 PM
Subject: [powerplant] Ballenger Creek WWTP performance

According to the Chesapeake Bay Foundation the Ballenger Creek Waste Water Treatment Plant score is : Unacceptable--a plant discharges more than 8.1 milligrams per liter of nitrogen.

From: Anne Garnett
Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 2004 4:58 PM
Subject: RE: [powerplant] Water quality impact & more

My assumption is that there is already water in it. But you know what assuming does. And it not I will have to take it off this public forum to tell you what assuming does.

From: Donald L James
Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 2004 4:54 PM
Subject: RE: [powerplant] Water quality impact & more

FYI - Water flow analysis from an amateur. Water flow only -- nothing else.

From the CPCN application - section 2.4.3, page 2-44 the numbers they cite are an average of 6,100 MGD (Million Gallons per Day - not Miller Genuine Draft) (or 6.1 Billion to us numerically challenged). Again from the CPCN -- "The long-term monthly average and annual discharges are presented in Table 2.4-2. The lowest average flows occur from July through October with the lowest average flow of 2,262 MGD in September. The highest average flows occur between February and April with the highest average flow in March of 12,629 MGD."

Then when I looked at the table I saw that they only used data up through 1975. This concerned me, until I saw they decided to only use data from the years before the flow was regulated by reservoirs. So now I have the start of my questions for the October 14th hearing.... Why only use Potomac water data up through 1975?? Doesn't it make sense to also analyze the ability of the in-place controls as well? -- And probably a few more related questions....

Anyhow, I went to the USGS.gov site (they run the stream flow meter at Point of Rocks) and did some of my own analysis (mostly by selecting the proper options from the web site and converting from cubic feet per second to MGD - which from what I can figure is about a conversion factor of about .64893).

It surprised me to see that the monthly average for all of the data available (1895 to 7/2003) is actually closer to 6200 MGD....

Of course over the last 5 full years of available data (98-2002) the average yearly is only ~5,100 MGD, and if you look at the last 4 available years (drought) the average is only ~4,000 MGD

Anyhow, a lot more analysis will have to be done by people who know more about this than me. But basically from these numbers and looking at the peaks that naturally occur, there should be no real impact -- to the flow -- of drawing out a few hundred million gallons of water per month during January through May when the average is 9,600 MGD or 292,000 Million Gallons per Month (292 Billion). Also remember that they have potentially 2 years of construction time to initially fill the quarry after before the plant is operational. Then when they're making up for their 3.6 million gallons per day during low flow periods, they could theoretically make up for their consumption for 1,200,000,000/3,600,000 = 333 consecutive days.

Interesting factoids:

Highest flow day of the year: March 22nd at an average of 14,900 MGD

Lowest flow day of the year: September 13th at an average of just under 2,000 MGD

Lowest average flow year: 1930 @ ~ 2,400 MGD

Highest average flow year: 1996 @ ~ 14,000 MGD (flood year

Before anyone yells at me - this is looking purely at the flow portion only, not any other impacts of yanking that amount of water out, then sitting in the quarry for who knows how long, etc..

From: David Ristau
Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 2004 3:21 PM
Subject: RE: [powerplant] Water quality impact & more

So where does this 1.2 billion gallons of water come from, I can only assume the Potomac river, somehow they'll need to syphon off 1.2 BG to fill up the quarry.
this will reduce the amount of water available to downstream utilities, this might be ok after a wet season, but certaily not in summer.

I don't know the flow rate of the Potomac River is on average but if they took out a million gallons per day of water from the river to fill up the 1.2BG capacity of the quarry, it'd take 1200 days or 3.287 years to reach capacity.

From: Jon Sears
Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 2004 11:44 AM
Subject: [powerplant] Old Standard Quarry

This does not inspire confidence. Old Standard Quarry

The site, which flanks the Shenandoah River to the east, Bloomery Rd. to the west, and the community of Millville to the south, is approximately 407 acres in size and has access to Route 340 via Bloomery Rd. (County Route 27) located adjacent to the town of Millville. There are no activities at the by the present owner/operator. Previous sampling of soil and groundwater has detected areas of impact, believed to be related to approximately 200 years of stone quarrying operations. The chemicals of potential concern are volatile organic compounds, semi-volatile organic compounds, total petroleum hydrocarbons, and to a lesser degree metals and polychlorinated biphenyls.

From: Jon Sears
Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 2004 9:59 AM
Subject: RE: [powerplant] Water quality impact & more

Thanks Don. It seems to me that even if WV quarry water is used to augment the Potomac upstream, it would bypass the Monocacy, which would suffer a 4 million gallons/day reduction in flow, and the net effect is a significant loss to the Potomac watershed. Also the quality of this quarry water needs to be assessed. I guess we will have to wait to hear the water testimony.

Jon

From: Donald L James
Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 2004 6:28 AM
Subject: RE: [powerplant] Water quality impact & more

Anne and Jon,

Sempra/Catoctin has already presented a plan to the water authority (I forget it's true name - but it includes downstream folks like Fairfax) whereby they will maintain a large reservoir upstream from this area (in West Virginia) using old quarries. They are studying the potential use of two quarries at this time - one is the Old Standard Quarry and one is owned by Aggregate Industries. Studies are still being conducted but the preliminary numbers I heard estimated the capacity of the Old Standard Quarry at about 1.2 Billion gallons. Since they are only looking at a peak consumption of ~90% of 4 Million gallons per day (i.e. 3.6 million gallons), that quarry could easily be used to cover their consumptive use.

Their plan - as I understand it - is that during periods of low flow, they will use the quarry sources to augment the flow of the Potomac to make up for the water they are consuming. It also would not surprise me if their plan included the ability to put additional water into the river beyond what they are consuming to make this even more enticing to the water authority - providing a net benefit to the downstream utilities.

The final work is still being completed on these plans and their backup water source plan (draw water directly from the Potomac). That is why they have changed the schedule and they will file additional testimony related to the water issues on August 20th and a special hearing will be held on October 14th to address their testimony about the water issues.

I'll be sure to let everyone know when the supplemental water testimony is filed (should be on August 20th), so that everyone can read it and draw their own conclusions. We did not go into the water issues at these hearings due to the additional testimony and special hearing just for water issues. Sempra has also committed to bring back all of their witnesses so that they may be cross examined again on any issues in their areas of expertise that may be related to any aspect of the water plans.

Also - Yes Anne, the Corps is a party to the case as is the Fairfax Water Authority and WSSC, but since their interest is water, they were basically not involved this week. I expect they will be questioning the witnesses at the October hearing.

Don

From: Anne Garnett
Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2004 10:37 PM
Subject: RE: [powerplant] Water quality impact & more

Jon, Your points are well taken. But it the State does not say there is a problem then where are we? I keep thinking that Sempra not returning water to the Potomac will impact water down stream from us. What I don't understand is why Washington is not upset about it. I do remember that the ARMy Corp is a responder to all this or do I remember wrong????

They are not going to just listen to just us. We need facts figures and people from down stream to be talking to the state and public service board. Is that happening? Does anyone know?

Anne Garnett

From: Donald L James
Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2004 10:19 PM
Subject: [powerplant] Hearing Summary

Let me first warn you this will be a very long email...

The 12 grueling hours of hearings that were held yesterday and today were an opportunity for the State, and other intervenors to ask questions about the testimony that was submitted on June 3rd by the Sempra/Catoctin folks. Everyone was invited to attend and we hoped for community turn-out, but it was basically Rolan Clark, Vicki Michael and I from the community. I did see a couple of folks individually come and go, but no one stayed too long.

I want to say this early - for those of you who might get tired of reading
-- Thanks to Rolan Clark and Assistant County Attorney Richard McCain for their detailed questioning of all of the Sempra witnesses. Also thanks for the questioning and comments from Assistant Attorney General M Brent Hare for the Maryland Energy Administration, and Annette B. Garofalo from the PSC Office of the Staff Council.. Also thanks to the members of the press who were in attendance - some more than others - especially Sean Berry of the Frederick News Post and Angela Pfeiffer of the Gazette who both hung in there through significant portions of the proceedings.

On to highlights only .. I did not take notes as I was busy trying to come up with more questions to ask the witnesses before it was my turn to talk. That being said, I may be off a bit on a few of the details, but the main gist should be correct.

Procedural stuff ..

- Peter and Vicki Michael were denied intervenor status. The hearing examiner basically said they lived too far away to have a 'material interest' in the case. He said they can be expert witnesses that other intervenors can call, and he said he would allow them to even file a brief in the case. He also stated that if something changes then this ruling can be re-visited.

- I was accepted as an intervenor (I'm still not sure if that is good or bad).

- Sempra/Catoctin proposed (at the very last minute - Friday via FedEx) that the procedural schedule be changed to separate the water issues from the rest of the issues. Basically they needed additional time due to the delays in their ability to complete the development of their backup plan for a water source. Rolan, Mr. McCain and I basically had the same opinion, that the hearings be moved back some so that all issues could be heard together. Unfortunately, by the time we could raise that issue (each of us presented their own idea on how to do it) we were already sitting in front of the hearing examiner with all of the Sempra folks, the state folks and all interested parties in attendance. Due to the expense involved in getting everyone together, the hearing examiner did not delay the entire proceeding, but he come up with a compromise schedule that minimizes the additional hearings that will be required. That schedule has been updated in the Adamstown Calendar.

NOTE -> I really have to compliment the Sempra attorneys for the expert way they handled the notification to us that they intended to propose a change to the schedule. Had we received this notice any earlier, we could have made our requests to the hearing examiner before everyone had traveled to Winchester Hall, and could have possibly convinced the hearing examiner that a delay was in everyone's best interest. Good work folks.

-->> What did we learn from the testimony / questioning <<--

Not too much that we didn't already know, or that Sempra hadn't already shared through the community meetings. Those things that were discovered and/or interesting are listed below - these are mostly based on my questioning as my questions are the only notes I have.

1. Tom Mangold was correct - through questioning Mr. Zwolak (and later Mr. Chirdon and Mr. Latham) it was confirmed that the stacks will be 21 feet higher than the highest Eastalco structure. The stacks will be 160 feet high, which is 7 feet higher than the Eastalco structure, but the base on the Sempra plant is 14 feet higher than the Eastalco plant. Therefore, measuring from a reference point (like sea level) the stacks will be 21 feet higher than the Eastalso structure. Further questioning of Mr. Chirdon and Mr. Latham revealed that they do not plan to try to lower the stack height by lowering the entire plant, as that would require re-modeling everything and basically invalidate the entire data set that all of the application is based on.

2. They do not plan to work nights or weekends.

3. Aqueous Ammonia will be trucked into the facility about twice a week. Aqueous Ammonia is a potential hazard, but it is already trucked all over the country including on our roads, as it is frequently used in agricultural activities.

4. The ground that they will be disturbing to do the construction (20 acres) plus possible up to another 20 acres of Eastalco property that they will use for parking and laydown area was minimally tested and no major pollutants were found that would be kicked up by the construction. They will be monitoring throughout the constriction phase and tack immediate steps if they see any issues.

5. Maximum noise level increase at the elementary school should be less than 3db. A 3db change is barely discernable by the human ear.

6. The system start-up steam blows (possibly lasting a couple of hours each) at the end of construction will be a pain for possibly a couple of weeks. They will inform the community when these are going to occur - and they will not occur at night. I brought up the fact that if the schedule to go on-line is June 2007 is kept, that these steam blows will be occurring during the school day. They had no response.

7. Ambient Air monitoring / Air quality in Adamstown. Their experts stated again and again and again that they were completely convinced that the air quality in Adamstown was fine, well within the EPA's standards and that there was no reason to test it. Beyond that they stated again and again and again that the power plant project will have a negligible impact on the air quality in Adamstown. They based that on their combined 63 years (as calculated by their attorney) of experience in the field and the output from the various models they used.

MY OPINION: They should do it anyhow.

8. NOx and VOC offsets. They again confirmed that due to the ozone non-attainment status of Frederick County they would be required to purchase offsets for both of these categories. They stated their intent to purchase them in Frederick (they did not believe there were any available in
Adamstown) but when asked just where exactly they could purchase them, the answer was basically a couple of counties around Frederick. They stressed that the offset purchases must be approved by the state (might not have been the state - but they have to be approved).

9. PM 2.5 I brought this up and got the expected response. Natural gas is clean and does not produce too many fine particle emissions (PM2.5 is called fine particles by the EPA). Also, if the state puts in place the required plan to reduce PM 2.5 by 70%, they will comply with whatever requirements are levied on them by the state. They said the PM 2.5 issues are really aimed more at the coal fired facilities and 'mobile sources' (like cars, trucks).

10. They confirmed that even though there will be 1123 pounds of NOx coming out of the stacks each day (max) that this results in a maximum concentrations of .37 micrograms per cubic meter of NOx which is considered 'insignificant'. This amount is about 1/3 of the threshold set to require ambient air testing. This maximum amount was found to occur about 600 meters south of the Eastalco buildings. Also it was noted that the concentrations fell off significantly after that. I then asked them to do some reverse engineering and tell me how much NOx would have to come out of these particular stacks to end up with a concentration above the threshold. Mr. McCann stated that there was basically a linear relationship so that if the NOx emissions were 3 times higher (~3375/day) the concentration would be about 1 micrograms per cubic meter and be above the threshold.

11. They also stated that they used (as part of the normal procedure) air quality data from Dulles to make assumptions about the air quality in our area. To stress the point, I asked if he could tell me the amount of NOx in the air in Adamstown and he responded that based on the data that did exist, that he would say that we are below 1/3 of the EPA's standards, in other words - very good.

12. Mr. McCann asked a lot of questions about the air quality, the ozone non-attainment and the PM 2.5 attainment issues. They responded consistently and many times not really to the questions that Mr. McCann was asking. They agreed that Frederick County was in a non-attainment situation for ozone, but that our air quality based on our sensor data was actually getting better - and that we were in non-attainment due to our neighbors. Also, that there are 5 sub-categories to non-attainment and we are only 1 away from the worst. The worst only occurs in LA and 1 other place in California. Also, that we recently were moved from serious (middle of the road) to severe (2nd
worst) earlier this year from his recollection.

NOTE: Mr. McCain wanted to know how long When pressed about how long it takes to move from 1 category to another, it took a while to get to the answer - which it seems may be up to a year. In essence (from what I gathered from the discussions and re-phrased questions) that monitoring occurs constantly, and at the end of the ozone season a re-evaluation takes place (but then the caveat - 'if not sooner' was added for clarity ???)

COMMENT: that 'getting better' is based on data from our 1 little sensor at the Frederick airport. Not really what I would consider the pollution center of the county.

13. Sempra / Catoctin will not commit to any amount of materials being purchased in Frederick County, or to using Frederick County firms or laborers. They said that is up to their engineering, procurement and construction (EPC) contractors and they have no plans to include any 'buy local' or 'use local' provisions.

MY OPINION: This is an easy thing to do and should be done. In the even that the application gets approved I would like to have the hearing examiner add the condition that they provide incentives or other methods for the general contractor to use Frederick County labor, and purchase supplies in Frederick County -- or at least Maryland.

14. They will be performing an update to the traffic study to include things like the new traffic controls on New Design at English Muffin Way and Crestwood, the completion of New Design to 355, the exponential residential growth due to the rapid escalation of the construction of both Green Hill Manor and Wellington Trace, etc. They (hopefully) will also include the gas pipeline construction and the County water pipeline construction crew activity in this update as well.

15. When asked about which permits they would be required to get from Frederick County, they stated that had not been fully worked out yet. When asked by Mr. McCain about that in more details and their attention drawn to the fact that the CPCN application is supposed to contain a list of the local permits that they will get it got a little interesting. It seems there is a table in the application (1.2-1, page 6 of 6) that lists the 'Potential Approval and Permit Requirements'.

COMMENT: I was left wondering why there was not a list of the permits that were required, if that is what needs to be in the application.

16. They were questioned on the operational security aspects of the plant. As described in Mr. Latham's testimony they will have a fence, a guard at the gate and cameras that will be monitored 24x7. Asked if they felt this was sufficient in a post 9/11 era. Both Mr. Latham and Mr. Chirdon replied yes. They felt that there were better infrastructure targets than this plant.

17. The wet vs dry cooling issue reared its ugly head. They were asked if the application were approved, why a resident of Adamstown would want the plant to use wet cooling over dry cooling. They responded with the same sets of answers from the 6/24 meeting - most efficient method available, no power penalty on hot days, lower emissions, both EPA and EPRI have concluded it is still the best technology available, etc.

NOTE: they didn't even mention that the wet cooling is quieter than dry cooling.

18. When asked if Carroll Manor Fire Company has the proper equipment and training required to handle incidents at the plant, Mr. Chirdon replied that he thought they would, but Sempra would work with them if there were any problems to make sure they were properly prepared.

19. When asked if they would create a Citizens Advisory Board similar to the Eastalco board, to allow community participation through the construction and into the operational phases, Mr. Chirdon replied that it was already being discussed, but no final decision had been made at this time.

20. Sempra currently has 6 operational plants, 1 permitted and under construction, 4-5 permitted and not being built, and a few in the permitting process (less than 6). When asked why the plants with permits are not being built, Mr. Chirdon replied that the market conditions had changed, and that they were not ready to move forward on those at this time.

21. When asked if Mr. Chirdon had permission to build the plant once if the CPCN approval is received, he stated that he has not received the okay. Therefore Sempra may not even build the plant even if they receive the approval of this CPCN application. It seems once Catoctin gets the approval, then they have to go back to the Sempra corporate management structure and prove to them that they are ready to move forward, they have sold (or have commitments for) enough of the plant's capacity, and the local market is still ripe enough to make it worth while.

22. That being said, they confirmed that the potential benefits to us ratepayers (the 23 million that the PJM would not have to pay for the Doubs
modifications) would not be saved if the plant's construction is delayed even a few months. They need to sign the interconnection agreement with PJM before PJM can defer the modification, and they will not sign the interconnection agreement until they are given the green light to build by Sempra.

23. They confirmed my interpretation of section 6.3.6.2 of the application. Where they have been telling us for months that due to them not reaching certain thresholds in the modeling, that they were not required to do local ambient air monitoring. What I found in the application was a statement to the effect that if they did not cross those thresholds, that they were eligible to ask for an exemption from the requirement to do the local monitoring. They even requested the exemption in that section of the CPCN application.

Questions, Comments, etc - please respond to the whole list if at all possible.