From: Rolan O. Clark
Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2004 7:44 AM
Subject: [powerplant] comments on Don's comments

Dear all and Don,

Here is where I am coming from. I have lived here on Adamstown Road since 1978. 22 years ago I worked with local groups fighting a proposed power plant in the Doubs area, 2-3 years ago we fought Duke energy because they proposed putting a power plant on land zoned ag, for one reason.

I an a citizen intervener in this issue and I have been to every hearing and filed 8 or 9 data requests and have attended the PPRP quarterly meeting the last year or so.

Catoctin Power is proposing a power plant on land zoned industrial, no zoning problems as far as I know.

Answer to Don's number 1:

The same amount of water will be used regardless if it comes from the Frederick County waste water or the river. I have questions about whether Frederick County should be the sole source of Catoctin's water for the next 30-40 years. Too many legal problems if for some reason the Frederick County waste water supply is interrupted, just one of many reasons. Another is there may be other businesses in the county that need the waste water. It's not cut an dried.

Number 2.

I don't know the reasoning behind the county's request for land preservation, you will have to ask them, and by the way, if you do send an email to the BOCC requesting some information you will get a response which is much better than filling emails with suppositions you know nothing about. I don't know, but I assume that because the plant will be a long term commitment to the county and Catoctin is working with Eastaco it would be fair to ask Eastalco for help in limiting future industrial building but that is just one of the reasons I can think of. Ask the BOCC.

I am a member of the Board of Directors for Carrollton Manor Land Trust and since we are the only land trust in the area we would be the logical choice to know of persons that would like to preserve land. This may sound too logical but it works. Land trusts are nothing but go betweens for persons that want to put land in preservation and those that have the money to buy the easements or whatever term is used.

Number 3.

I don't know why the BOCC hasn't taken a position but if you were to apply for an auto repair shop and met all the conditions why would the BOCC jump in? The BOCC is probably only interested in those aspects that would affect the county directly, thus the five or so conditions they have asked to be considered. Again, write a nice email inquiry to the BOCC stating your concerns and I am sure they will respond. Instead of assuming that you have everything figured out, why not ask questions and since most of the BOCC have lived here all their life they have a pretty good feel for the procedures the county uses.

Don, I think your emails contain a lot of suppositions of things that just don't exist. You ask respondents to make comments constructive but you accuse in your emails instead of being constructive. Constructive in this case, to me, is to ask the appropriate people to explain the situation and possibly accept their answers as honest replies.

I just don't want to see this community email service go off in a direction that isn't based on understanding and not getting the appropriate responses from the appropriate persons before posting some suppositions that I feel are way off base.

The questions you ask, Don, are valid questions to a degree but I think you don't want a logical answer and I think one reason is because you don't understand the process, land trusts and how government works. Each government has its own flavor and Frederick County and the State of Maryland have their procedures and policies that are fairly well documented.

I have all the data requests and replies from all the persons and organizations involved in this issue and I will be glad to meet with anyone and go over what I have as long as it in the vein of understanding the process and not looking for conspiracies or something sinister or that someone is trying the put something over somebody and Don, I think that is what you are implying.

I have never had Cactoctin or Eastalco give me what I thought was an evasive or dishonest answer to any of my questions nor have I heard that at any of the hearings. Remember, this process is not a confession booth, it is an evidentiary hearing and we are dealing with facts.

Take care,

Rolan O. Clark
5807 Adamstown Road
Adamstown, Md 21710-9614
301-831-1357

---

From: Don
Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2004 6:16 AM
Subject: RE: [powerplant] Site Update from the 12/9 Hearing - Number 2

Phil,

Please remember that I am opposed to this plant being built here, but I am trying to be realistic. Placing the plant on an industrial site has removed most of the problems that Duke ran into when they attempted to place the plant near Point of Rocks. I am trying at this point to make sure that there are conditions in place -- if the application is approved -- that we are protected as much as possible.

You bring up a couple of different points

• first the Dickerson plant. The State agencies addressed and in their Environmental Report, section 7 do in fact do a basic analysis of the impacts of the Dickerson plant, a plant with the characteristics of the once proposed Duke plant near the Doubs substation and a similar plant on the Eastalco site. This work was originally done in June of 2003 and was updated based on the actual characteristics of the Catoctin plant. Their conclusion was that there is no problem. Please take a look at that section if you get a chance.

On a separate note, I agree with you - we have done our part. Unfortunately the PSC is not required to look at that as part of their evaluation of the CPCN application. This community as a whole has not been involved in vocal opposition to the plant. Only a few people showed up at the July 12th BOCC work session and some of them even spoke in favor of the plant. The hearing examiner has not seen any community members with the exception of myself and Mr. Clark, and he's pretty much the one making the decision based on what goes into the record. Heck, even the press didn't bother to come to the last hearing. That should tell you something about the community as a whole.

• second the parts of Adamstown and Buckeystown that are South and East of the plant are already being buffered by the Eastalco plant. Those to the West (the businesses on Agro Road) are already buffered by a wooded area. That leaves just the Eastalco farmland to the North and the church and the homes to the Northeast. In my opinion - this is the area that we need to be concerned with.

• third - my position on Eastalco. Since I have already been accused of working for Eastalco, and chose not to dignify that particular email with a response, I will clarify my position here. Eastalco is a part of the Adamstown community. 600 people, a significant portion of which live in the Adamstown area and Frederick County, need that plant to support their families. Eastalco has worked with the community in the past and hopefully will continue to do so in the future. They have made great strides in cleaning up their own emissions at the same time remaining in business in the face of significant overseas competition. If people don't like the fact that the plant is here and want to try to shut them down, they are welcome to go for it. Yet they will not have my support. Also - think about what can be placed on a plot of land that large that is zoned General Industrial. If it's not a power plant - we will have basically no input and be stuck with whatever the new property owner wants to put there.

Eastalco is also working on a comprehensive land use plan for their entire property. This is being done with the input of a coalition of local community groups. They are in the very preliminary stages of this process. This may (and I hope it does) include hiking trails, park areas - like near Carrollton Manor - and keeping areas wooded even when they are currently zoned industrial (like the area to the East of New Design Road). I am 100% sure that the idea of adding a treed area between the plant (power and smelter) and the church and homes along Ballenger Creek Pike will be recommended by the community groups.

On a more philosophical note - I am against requiring someone who is not a party to this action to do anything. That includes Eastalco or the County. The county has expressed concerns that the CPCN order may require them to provide effluent to Catoctin. While I favor the use of effluent, I am against the order requiring it.

• fourth the BOCC's position is to be factored in by the hearing examiner and usually carries significant weight. All that the BOCC does by dragging it's feet on the effluent issue is lose the potential for a new source of income, lose the ability to make up for a source to make up for future consumptive water uses, and force yet another intake and outfall to be constructed on the Potomac River along with the conveyance system (pipeline) through Point of Rocks and up to the plant.

Sorry this is so long, but I hope that helps clarify some.

---

From: Phil Freedman
Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 2004 11:48 PM
Subject: Re: [powerplant] Site Update from the 12/9 Hearing - Number 2

Don, thanks for attending these things and putting in your two cents. I am a little confused about your comments, can you clarify them. I cut and pasted your comments from the web site below.

Here are some of your comments-

I would have rather seen a condition like "Sempra must find and place 250 acres of land located in preferably the Adamstown region, but definitely in Frederick County into a qualified preservation program within 3 years of the receipt of CPCN approval, even if plant construction is not begun. Frederick County would prefer that the land selected could be used as a buffer between the community and the plant.".

Question? Why not force Sempra to buy more acreage from Eastalco around the plant and forest it (as you commented)? To make a buffer around the plant to help the residents of Adamstown be protected from the noise from this plant as well as lessen the industrial development near Adamstown that we know this power plant will bring. Why is this not in the best interest of the people of Frederick county. Personally I think we have another power plant just 7.5 miles from this proposed plant in Dickerson, the Dickerson plant has already been approved to expand by 650 MW? So this region is already "doing its part" to supply electicity for maryland. If we are going to have another power plant in the same 10 mile radius ( this is against the recomendations of our last govenor's panel on power plants), then the community should get something to "mitigate" its losses. Not a little 250 acre park somewhere in Frederick County, but a buffer bettween Adamstown and this plant. I do not see how this hurts Eastalco, Sempra will have to buy this land from Eastalco and market prices. Sounds like a good deal forEastalco? The Eastalco plant isnt exactly expanding?

• The impression I get is that the County is deliberately dragging its feet and delaying the study. This study should be completed ASAP. What remains are technical and permitting issues, these can be overcome with some work, yet there is no real urgency to get it done. In the same amount of time that it took the county to get to a rough draft, Catoctin planned a whole new supply system, talked with all of the right players, put in place the Settlement Agreement and have made significant progress on the easements and the permits. And, Sempra had to pay $10,000 to the County to assist with funding the study so it could be completed more quickly. Wonder how long it would have taken had Sempra not forked over $10,000??

• I believe the BOCC should be taking a position on the plant, even if does not agree with mine, at least I would think that they have carefully weighed the options, and the costs and benefits to the county and made a decision, rather than just ignoring it.

• I believe that the BOCC should remove or re-work the undue restrictions on Catoctin, and the burden that they are placing on Eastalco in regard to the donation of land.

Not sure about the politics of all this, but could the BOCC be dragging it's feet because it doesnt want the power plant in Frederick County and has not power to do anything but drag it's feet?

Just a question?

---

From: Reza Salmasi
Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 2004 1:48 PM
Subject: RE: [powerplant] Site Update from the 12/9 Hearing - Number 2

Dear don, i am really confused about who you are representing, Eastalco or adamstown residents

Thanks for your hard work in behalf of Eastalco.

---

From: Don
Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 2004 1:16 PM
Subject: [powerplant] Site Update from the 12/9 Hearing - Number 2

Ok - I have completed my two pages discussing my impressions of the Frederick County testimony. Here is where I have discussed in depth my main issues with the County's testimony and positions.

- Note - This is the email that will upset some people. You may or may not agree with what I have said, but this is my opinion. If you don't agree, please feel free to respond to the entire mailing list. I just ask that you read everything and make the comments constructive.

While I have a lengthy discussion of both sets of Frederick County testimony on the web site, I am going to limit this to the 3 main points:

1. Frederick County should be jumping at the chance to provide effluent to the Power Plant - if approval is granted. It would have the least impact to the environment and the area, and also provide a new source of revenue and a safeguard against consumptive use issues that the County may run into in the near future. Without this safeguard, the ability to provide effluent to anyone (Farms, Eastalco) could be significantly curtailed.

2. The proposed condition to require Catoctin to get land placed into preservation as a buffer to the community. While I can support the concept of requiring land be placed into preservation, I believe the County has gone way beyond an acceptable requirement and dragged Eastalco into the equation.- Not to mention that no one at the hearing was able to answer any of the questions about this land donation.

- The first choice of the County are 2 parcels of land totaling 313 acres that belong to Eastaclo. Okay - Why is Eastalco being dragged into this and why is one of the plots is on the other side of Ballenger Creek Pike? How is that a buffer?

- The second choice is to have Catoctin work with Eastalco to have ~250 acres of their land placed into preservation. Same question, why is Eastalco being dragged into this. Does the BOCC have some axe to grind with Eastalco?

- The third choice is to have Catoctin work with the Carrollton Manor Land Trust to place land into preservation. So far this is the most palatable, yet why specify CMLT? While I support the overall goals of the organization, I think that is Sempra has a relationship with another land preservation group that could facilitate the process, why are they bound to this group?

On the site I propose a different version of the condition that addresses my concerns.

3. Why hasn't the BOCC taken a position on the plant? Have they decided not to take a position, or are they delaying their decision. If they delay much longer (past the 23rd) it will be too late to get it onto the record for the hearing examiner to consider. I believe they should have considered all of the pros and cons and selected a position - even if it did not agree with mine - rather than just sitting on the sidelines and not stating a position that they feel is in the best interests of Frederick County.

---

From: Don
Sent: Sunday, December 12, 2004 8:06 PM
Subject: [powerplant] Site Update from the 12/9 Hearing - Number 1

Ok - First the site has been updated with some reference info - both of which are available from the PSC Site - please try to get them from there to save me bandwidth... Go here http://webapp.psc.state.md.us/Intranet/Casenum/caseform.cfm and enter case # 8997.

First - the Settlement Agreement between the Water Suppliers and Catoctin regarding their low flow augmentation strategy. This is item 57 - and is about a 1.5 MB .PDF file.

Second - the Maryland Power Plant Research Program's Environmental Review. This is item 58. Click the see more button, then select the PPRPrept.pdf. Warning - this is a 14 MB .PDF file.

Testimony and Comments

I added a copy of my testimony - I didn't have any comments on it.. as I think I understand it pretty well. You might find it interesting reading though.

I added the testimony of the 2 water supplier experts, and my comments on their testimony. Basically, their testimony was straight forward. The suppliers have an agreement with Catoctin to provide low flow augmentation and they believe it will adequately protect the downstream water users.

Finally (so far) I added the testimony of the PSC Staff expert. PSC staff evaluates the CPCN and makes recommendations that the PSC itself may or may not accept. They are basically a separate entity for the purposes of this proceeding.

That's it for now. Next -- Frederick County.

---

From: Don
Sent: Friday, December 10, 2004 4:31 PM
Subject: [powerplant] Another round of hearings was held yesterday.

All,

The hearing held yesterday at Winchester Hall was very interesting. It was for the examination of the testimony by the various Intervenors and State agencies.

A number of very interesting things emerged from the discussions - at least from my point of view.

Since none of our friends from the press were there and taking notes, I will have to try to reconstruct as much of it as possible this weekend.

I plan to send out a number of emails with portions of this info - I want to keep them short enough to keep you from falling asleep while you read them. I will also be updating the web site with what I saw and heard, and the conclusions I have drawn from the testimony, examinations and other information.

Suffice it to say, for now, that I am disappointed and surprised by a number of things I saw and heard. I will explain more in the individual emails.

---

From: Don
Sent: Friday, December 03, 2004 2:54 PM
Subject: [powerplant] Testimony posted

All,

All of the testimony from the state agencies and intervenors has now been posted to the PSC web site. Some of it makes for entertaining reading. I highly recommend downloading it and taking a look for yourselves. As I work through the testimony I hope to send out some comments and I hope you do too.

You can get to the PSC web site from a link on the left of the Power Plant page on the web site, or you can just go here and enter case number 8997:

This is the testimony that will be examined starting on Thursday December 9th and continuing on the 10th if necessary.

---

From: Don
Sent: Friday, December 03, 2004 2:50 PM
Subject: [powerplant] Evening Hearing finalized

The hearing examiner has confirmed the evening hearing on Wednesday, January 12, 2005 at Tuscarora High School, 5312 Ballenger Creek Pike, Frederick, Md. , commencing at 7:00 pm.

Directly from his email "A formal notice of the evening hearing, which is for the purpose of receiving public comment on the Catoctin Power LLC application, will be issued in the near future. The notice will require the applicant, Catoctin Power LLC, to publish a public notice of the evening hearing in a newspaper of general circulation in the affected county at least one time 30 days prior, and at least one time in the week prior to the hearing date. The notice should inform the public of the opportunity to comment at the evening hearing (noting time, date, place and purpose of the hearing), or to submit written comment prior to that date to the Public Service Commission, William Donald Schaefer Tower, 16th Floor, 6 St. Paul Street, Baltimore, Md. 21202 (reference Case No. 8997, Application of Catoctin Power, LLC).

Also, as a reminder, the next hearings are scheduled for December 9. 2004 in the Second Floor Hearing Room, Winchester Hall, Frederick Md. at 10:00 am, and the final evidentiary hearings are scheduled for January 12, 2005 in Winchester Hall at 10:00 am"

So - plan to be there if you are still interested.

Also note - you have the option to put in written comments before that time....

---

From: Cooling Springs Farm
Sent: Friday, October 08, 2004 9:26 AM
Subject: Re: [power plant] More interesting info - Mirant this time

Energy companies gladly pay the emissions fines since in many cases they are less expensive than meeting air quality standards.

---

From: Don
Sent: Friday, October 08, 2004 7:55 AM
Subject: [powerplant] More interesting info - Mirant this time

Related news story about Maryland and Virginia reaching a settlement with Mirant Mid-Atlantic about violations of emissions levels. This specifically deals with an issue at a coal-fired facility - not a natural gas fired facility, but it again brings into question the real quality of air in Adamstown.

Interesting how we are on the verge of adding another pollution source, yet current sources continue to have issues...

This settlement specifically requires Mirant to do a study of the Alexandria plant to see what it is really doing to the air and make changes depending on the outcome. I would think that the addition of any new source should be very seriously examined in light of this settlement.

It is also interesting to note that they are required to reduce emissions, not purchase emissions credits elsewhere at the Alexandria plant - but there have been no similar stipulations for the Maryland plants.

* I would hope that any reductions they make would not be available as emissions credits for other new sources -- like Catoctin.......

Some sites that discuss the settlement:

• NBC 4

• Environmental News Link

• Enviro.BLR.com

• VA Dept of Environmental Quality Control

• Washington Post

• EPA

Also - according to the EPA this consent decree is open to a 30 day comment period...

And you will note that Mirant is currently in Chapter 11 and has not yet filed a reorganization plan.

---

From: Don
Sent: Thursday, October 07, 2004 6:07 PM
Subject: Re: [powerplant] Questions

If you would like to read through all of the correspondence there has been on the issue so far so you can see what has been asked and what if any answers there were you can check out the correspondence page on the web site: Correspondence

As far your specific question about monitoring, yes, they are required by various regulation to monitor their stack emissions and report on them to the EPA (I believe). There also will receive permit limits as to how much they can emit each year. They will also be required to purchase offsets for the NOx emissions they generate. Details of all of this is in their CPCN application, which you can go through on their web site (with a clickable index) at: CPCN

Unfortunately they are not required to do any monitoring in our area to make sure that the populate areas around them are receiving a disproportionate amount of the emissions. According to their models (with algorithms endorsed by the EPA) there should be almost no impact on our air quality, but we do not know what our air quality is.

To all of the folks who may be new to this issue (and I know there are some) - you might want to poke around the power plant pages on the web site and click on some of the links on the left side for a lot of the background information. There is some interesting reading on the PJM grid, the community meeting from 6/24, the BOCC meetings, the water issues and water testimony, the pipeline route, the Potomac river low flow augmentation report and many others.

Don

---

From: btumy
Sent: Thursday, October 07, 2004 5:46 PM
Subject: Re: [powerplant] Not-so-favorable PR from Sempra elsewhere:

I am new to the neighborhood and have just started following the issue, so please excuse me if I ask questions that have already been addressed. Has there been any mention by Sempra, Frederick Ctny, or the state of Maryland as to what kind of monitoring will be done to ensure that the facility is not expelling these toxins into our air and water?

---

From: Jon Sears
Sent: Thursday, October 07, 2004 3:18 PM
Subject: [powerplant] Not-so-favorable PR from Sempra elsewhere:

From http://www.beverlyunderground.com/issue3/topstories.htm : ... AQMD reports show that the facility gives off toxins including formaldehyde (a know carcinogen found in cigarette smoke), benzene, which is also a cancer-causing toxin, and acrolene which is a toxin that children are especially susceptible to.

The amount of toxins released into the air by the complex is so great that the Southern California Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) has fined Sempra Energy (the large oil company that owns and operates the District Cooling Complex) on several occasions. ...

---

From: Don
Sent: Thursday, October 07, 2004 1:16 PM
Subject: [powerplant] New Catoctin Power Web Site

All,

Catoctin Power now has their own web site. It is much easier to use than what was previously available.

On this site they have consolidated information that was previously available, but sometimes hard to find. They have also provided their water testimony broken up into smaller chunks, with a clickable index.

I have updated the links on our Power Plant and Water pages to point to this new site.

Please check out the site and feel free to send issues, comments, concerns, etc to the entire mailing list, or just to me if you prefer.

The Catoctin Power web site

---

From: Don
Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2004 5:56 PM
Subject: [powerplant] Water Page Now Available

All,

I have put up a page that has some of the information contained in the massive Sempra filing. Although the issues, comments, etc side of the page is still lacking, the contents include:

- the testimony of the 4 Sempra principals
- the text of the Secondary Water Supply Environmental Report
- a 2 MB file containing the majority of the Low Flow Augmentation Report
- a picture of the path of all of the potential pipeline segments that may be used
- a ranking of the pipeline alternatives.

NOTE: There are a bunch of different pipeline options that might be used. Each option would use different pipeline segments. These groupings are defined in the text, and also at the bottom of the picture. For example - Alternative A uses segments 1, 2 and 3. Stuck together they make a continuous pipeline from the river to the plant. Alternative B uses the same segments 1 and 2, but instead of 3 uses 4 and 5 to get to the river...

This is a very convoluted mess to initially grasp. On the other hand, it is a very flexible approach that will allow them to relatively easily discard a portion of the pipeline if obstacles to that particular section are raised.

Feel free to check it out and send your thoughts and comments to me or the entire mailing list.

---

From: Donald L James
Sent: Monday, September 06, 2004 4:08 PM
Subject: [powerplant] This mailing list has been quiet for way too long..

All,

Sempra filed their water testimony as required on August 20th. I am trying to find out why the actual testimony files have not been posted to the PSC web site.

On August 26th they filed some more information and some corrections to the testimony - this is available for download from the psc web site, but let me warn you - if you do not have a high-speed connection do not try it. It is a single 186MB .pdf file. Your guess is as good as mine as to why it was provided as a single, unwieldy file. Maybe they don't want everyone to go over it in detail....

Anyhow, I hope to be updating the web site with some of this information in the near future.

I also hope that Sempra provides this water testimony / supplemental information on their web site in smaller chunks the same way they did with the CPCN application so we all could evaluate the information. Hint .. Hint ..

More later.