Index to the web page below:
January 13, 2002 Jay O'Brien to FPL: response
to FPL letter received January 2, 2002
Jul 19,2001 Jay O'Brien toCEC: original data
requests
Sep 4, 2001 Jay O'Brien to CEC: with data request
follow-ups
Dec 10, 2001 Jay O'Brien to Tim Rossknecht:
substituting data request 11a.
Jan 2, 2002 Tim Rossknecht to Jay O'Brien transmitting
main letter (as DOC file)
FPL's second response (date-variable) to Jay O'Brien
received by email 1/2/02
Related links:
FPL's first response (undated), delivered
August 21, 2001 to Jay O'Brien
Nov 15, 2001 FPL to CPAC responses to data
requests
Reader's Caution: This letter does not stand alone. See details below.
Tim,
I have received your email sent January 2, 2002, responding to my questions of September 4, 2001, which I wrote four months before you sent your response. I had my specific responses ready to send to you a week ago, but it has taken more time to determine HOW to respond. I will explain.
The second paragraph of your response I received on January 2, 2002 states, “While we did not reprint all of your questions word for word below, we hope that we captured the intent of the data request and provided responses that would be helpful to you.” Tim, your restatements of my questions do not capture my intent; instead they are taken out of context and in one case you opted to repeat no part of my request, merely providing your out-of-context, standalone response. This is a distinct change from your first (undated) response delivered to me by courier on August 21, 2001 which, unlike your newest response, quoted my entire questions so that the questions and answers could be read in context. It is unfortunate that your correspondence process lacks consistency. This has made it difficult for me to respond appropriately to you.
I will recount the history of written communications between FPL and me up to this point.
As you have chosen to send your latest response to the POS list, your responses will have a much larger distribution than did my original questions. The readers of your response will not have the opportunity to read the questions as stated, followed by your answer. Instead, they will have YOUR interpretation (or avoidance) of my questions, followed by your answer. This puts me in a very difficult situation, as I do not wish my replies in this letter to you to be out of context when read by the members of the POS list, in the manner of your letter to me.
To present the questions and answers in context, it is necessary for the reader to review all of the prior referenced correspondence, as referenced by this letter. I will not attempt to paraphrase your responses to me, as that would be futile without repeating the original questions.
I will forward this letter to the CEC and ask them to provide the same distribution for this letter, including all referenced questions, your answers, all follow up questions plus your (date-variable) response letter I received by email on January 2, 2002. In this way the readers may avail themselves of the entire correspondence threads. The original copy of this letter is posted on the web, along with links to all of the references, for easy access by all who may be interested. See below for the link.
Replies by Jay O’Brien:
Data Request No. 5 – follow-up:
My question was based on FPL’s Counsel Jocelyn Thompson’s statement
made to the public on July 17, 2001. My question was relevant when asked.
You have changed your water plan several times, making my original question
moot, until you make yet another change to your plan.
Data Request No. 6- follow-up:
Thank you for correcting your typographical error in the link to the
Government web site concerning the McClellan groundwater treatment. Your
typographical error was contained in your first (undated) response to me
that I received on August 21, 2001. Now that I can review your reference,
I find it to be hopelessly out of date. It has not been updated since 1994.
Your original and follow-up responses to my question do not explain FPL’s
Counsel Jocelyn Thompson’s statement made to the public on July 17, 2001.
Data Request No. 8 follow-up:
This is the question that you opted to not quote any portion of my
request. I assume this is yet another typographical error, not an attempt
at obfuscation.
Stress is not the issue. At the time of FPL’s Counsel Jocelyn Thompson’s statement made to the public on July 17, 2001, there was a recall effort underway to remove me from public office. Thompson’s unprofessional statement embarrassed me in front of my constituents, making it appear that I did not know about a document Thompson, in error, asserted I had approved. Once I made my disclaimer statement relative to speaking for myself and not as a Board member, prior to Thompson's statement on this issue, she should have respected my disclaimer. Your original response was evasive, and now you “apologize.” Your apology is NOT accepted. The recall, against three Board members, did not succeed. Several of the failed recall proponents now are your supporters, perhaps because I oppose the proposed power plant.
Data Request No. 10 follow-up:
FPL’s Counsel Jocelyn Thompson’s statement made to the public on July
17, 2001 spoke authoritatively, albeit in error, about a non-existent Environmental
Impact Report. You are again evading the issue by invoking the Water Forum.
Thompson should have identified the correct body initially.
Data Request No 11:
You have confirmed again that your estimate of sludge to be trucked
away each day changed from one ton to two tons to over six tons in just
over a year of your scientific analysis of the process. I trust this is
now accurate and will not continue to grow. I await your identification
of the landfill(s) and confirmation that 6 tons per day of sludge can be
accepted by the landfill operators every day for the life of the plant.
I believe that others will be interested in the route to be traversed by
the sludge trucks and the timing of the sludge truck trips.
Data Request No. 12:
Thank you for confirming that the trees will not screen the stacks
for at least twenty years. The geometry of your picture does not appear
to track with your answer. Please identify, on a scaled plot plan, the
exact locations of the trees, the observer and the stacks, all as depicted
in your handout at the August 14, 2001 CPAC meeting (Attachment #8)
and projected to the Board of Supervisors at their August 29, 2001 meeting.
Please also identify the locations of the visible power transmission towers,
including the ones clearly depicted to be between the observer and the
stacks.
Your letter:
I have three comments on your letter itself.
Sincerely,
Jay O’Brien
Attachments to and part of this letter:
1. My letter to CEC 7/19/01: original data requests
(was also included with my 9/2/01 letter)
2. FPL's first, undated, response to me
received 8/21/01
3. My letter to CEC 9/4/01 with data request
follow-ups
4. My letter to Tim Rossknecht 12/10/01 substituting
data request 11a
5. FPL Response to CPAC: November 15, 2001
6. Tim Rossknecht letter 1/2/02 transmitting
response letter (as DOC file)
7. FPL's date-variable letter received 1/2/02
in response to my 9/4/01 letter
8. FPL Pictures: August 14, 2001 CPAC
This letter, and links to all attachments, may be viewed by visiting http://obri.net/fpl .
To: California Energy Commission
Lance Shaw, Project Manager
The following data requests are based on statements made at the Data Response & Issues Workshop, held in Rio Linda on July 17, 2001 from 5 PM to 10 PM.
In the interest of disclosure, I serve as an elected Director on the Rio Linda/Elverta Community Water District Board of Directors. These data requests are my data requests, and my data requests alone. I am not, in any way, speaking for or representing the Water District.
The FPL power plant siting is based on the previously licensed SEPCO plant that was not constructed. As early as October, 2000, I asked FPL representatives for certain comparisons of the proposed plant to the SEPCO plant. FPL agreed my questions were reasonable and answerable, and FPL agreed to answer. As I stated July 17, FPL has not been forthcoming with answers, even though I reminded FPL on numerous occasions. My testimony which describes my efforts to obtain such answers is included below as part of this letter.
The specific questions for which I was promised answers follow, as my requests 1-4. These ask for the comparison of a fully operational SEPCO plant to a fully operational FPL plant; the actual amount of electrical energy produced is of no concern in these comparisons. These requests ask for a comparison between the plants in total and as applied specifically to my property.
Following those are requests 5 - 10 that are based on statements made at the July 17, 2001 workshop by FPL, represented by Jocelyn Thompson.
Based on the data responses I have seen from FPL, my questions articulated below are far more specific than stated in my testimony given at the workshop (copy below). In verbally outlining my questions to FPL, at that time I understood that they, also, understood my questions. However, after observing FPL's responses to other requests, I have now provided much more detail in my questions below to attempt to avoid future misunderstandings.
As some of the requests below concern my property, this information
is provided about my property. My property is 10 acres in size, at 6851
Second Street in Rio Linda, APN 206-0142-005-0000. My property is less
than 5000 feet from the FPL property, in a southeasterly direction.
My data requests:
1. For FPL vs. SEPCO, compare the types and quantities of air pollutants per hour, day, month, and over the life of the power plants.
2. For FPL vs. SEPCO, compare the types and amounts of expected deposits on my property per day, each month, year, and over the life of the power plants, of particulates and other materials originating at the power plants. Take into consideration moisture and temperature inversion conditions, and the effects of the plume from the power plant.
3. For FPL vs. SEPCO, compare the expected sound levels at a height of 14 feet above ground level (second floor deck) at my property, showing average, peak, and minimum, with explanatory information identifying the conditions which produce these levels. Take into consideration moisture and temperature inversion conditions, and the effects of the plume from the power plant.
4. For FPL vs. SEPCO, compare the usage of natural gas per year as expressed in the number of average residences that would use the same amount of natural gas.
5. FPL Spokesperson Jocelyn Thompson, on July 17, 2001, at 9:07 PM, stated that all siting for the wells to provide water to FPL is based on specific locations as shown in the Rio Linda/Elverta Community Water District (RLECWD) Master Plan. Please identify these locations, by assessors parcel number or more specific location, that were identified by FPL as those that would provide the water for FPL.
6. FPL Spokesperson Jocelyn Thompson, on July 17, 2001, at 9:10 PM, stated "literally hundreds of monitoring wells" are in place to track the McClellan contaminant plume and assure that it does not migrate toward Rio Linda. Please identify the monitoring wells, who obtains and processes the data, and describe how they are used to contain the plume.
7. FPL Spokesperson Jocelyn Thompson, on July 17, 2001, at 9:14 PM, stated that an EIR was submitted to CEC that was prepared by RLECWD. FPL stated the subject EIR said there would be no significant environmental effects from the FPL demand. Please identify that EIR document and provide citation(s) from that EIR substantiating FPL's statement.
8. With respect to the EIR document referenced in item 7 above, FPL Spokesperson Thompson identified me specifically and individually as having knowledge and responsibility, as a RLECWD Board member, for that Environmental document. Please provide substantiation for that FPL contention as it refers to me.
9. FPL Spokesperson Jocelyn Thompson, on July 17, 2001, at 9:34 PM, stated that an EIR was prepared by the Sacramento Water Forum that somehow involves this project. Please identify that EIR document and provide citation(s) from that EIR substantiating FPL's statement.
10. FPL Spokesperson Jocelyn Thompson, on July 17, 2001, at 9:34 PM, stated that an EIR was prepared by the Sacramento North Area Groundwater Management Authority (SNAGMA) that somehow involves this project. Please identify that EIR document and provide citation(s) from that EIR substantiating FPL's statement.
I look forward to receiving FPL's responses to my requests for information.
Thank you,
Jay O'Brien
Statement made to Data Response & Issues workshop, July 17, 2001:
I am Jay O'Brien. I reside at 6851 Second Street in Rio Linda. My property is ten acres in size. I am one mile from the proposed power plant.
I was an intervenor for the SEPCO project; I fought it based on what it would do to the air I breathe, because of what it would deposit on my property and the effect on my livestock; I also objected to what it would do to the ambient noise; with SEPCO I would no longer be able to "hear the quiet." I lost that battle, as the SEPCO license was granted.
In the interest of disclosure, I serve as an elected Director on the Rio Linda/Elverta Community Water District Board of Directors. What I have to say here are my own words and conclusions and in no way should be interpreted as representing the Water District.
FPL is not credible and is not dealing with us in good faith. Here's my reasons for making that statement.
My first meeting with FPL was on October 31, 2000.
As President of the Water Board, I met with FPL representatives at the Water District office. FPL representatives present were Carol Clawson, FPL's Manager of Corporate Communications; Duane McCloud, FPL's Power Generation Project Manager; Tim O'Laughlin, FPL's water attorney; and Renee Taylor, FPL's local public relations person.
After the discussions related to provision of water, I asked for a comparison of the proposed plant to the previously licensed SEPCO plant that was never built, so I could assess the impact the power plant would have on me, my family, my livestock and my property. I asked for a direct comparison of the types and quantities of air pollutants; a comparison of the deposits that would fall on my property; and a comparison of the sound levels at my property. I also asked how much natural gas would be used, measured in the number of homes that much gas would otherwise supply for normal residential use. They agreed that my questions were reasonable and answerable.
Duane McCloud, FPL's Project Manager, made a commitment to answer my questions. By way of partial answers, he said that the sound level was expected to be 45db at nearby residential receptor points, and he said that there would be a ton per day of solid sludge, mostly silica, that would have to be taken away from the site.
FPL was proud of what they called "community outreach". They told us that previous to the meeting with us, they had met privately with County Supervisor Roger Dickinson, Assemblyman Dave Cox, Senator Debra Ortiz, Charlea and Gene Moore, and Vic Shepherd. I told them that what they were doing would be identified as a "divide and conquer" effort, just like our experience with SAFCA on flood control issues, and not a genuine attempt to communicate with the community. I strongly suggested that FPL hold community meetings where community members could ask questions and voice concerns in a public forum and be heard by all in attendance. They listened politely but made no commitment to do so.
My second meeting with FPL was on February 6, 2001.
FPL's Water attorney Tim O'Laughlin met with me as a Water Board Director, and explained the FPL application. After the Water District related discussion, I reminded him of the commitment made to me by Mr. McCloud on October 31, and told him that I had not received any answer. Tim agreed to remind FPL for me.
My third meeting with FPL was on March 13, 2001.
FPL's public relations person Renee Taylor was in attendance at a Community Planning Advisory Council meeting where the power plant was discussed. After the meeting, I reminded Renee of the committment made to me by Mr. McCloud on October 31, and told her that I had not received any answer. Renee agreed to remind FPL for me.
My fourth meeting with FPL was on May 9, 2001.
I attended the "open house" which FPL held at the Elverta Elementary School. There were more FPL representatives than community members. The open house was held for four hours, and there was no opportunity for the community to hear the community. I told FPL's Carol Clawson that the open house was a perfect example of "divide and conquer" as I had mentioned to her on October 31. I criticized FPL for not providing a forum where community members could hear the concerns of other community members. She brushed me off, saying that the CEC would provide that forum at the proper time.
Duane McCloud, FPL's Project Manager, was present. I reminded him of his October 31 commitment to me. I also reminded Clawson and Taylor. I showed McCloud the location of my property on an aerial photo on display at the open house. McCloud again promised to get back to me with the comparisons I requested. Mr. Dwight Mudry, FPL's environmental Consulting Scientist, participated in our conversation, as he felt he would be called upon to provide the answers to me. McCloud did answer my question about natural gas use, however. His words were "The power plant will provide power for one-half million people and will use the amount of natural gas that one-half million people would use." I believe his answer to be incorrect by a factor of nearly ten to one.
Needless to say, I am still waiting for FPL's answers. Do you suppose they don't want me to know that this plant, because it is bigger, is going to be more detrimental than SEPCO? I want direct, credible, scientific comparisons between the proposed plant and what was previously licensed for SEPCO.
As I said at the beginning, Florida Power and Light is not credible and is not dealing with us in good faith. Their dealings with my community are based upon the "divide and conquer" strategy.
The power plant is going to ruin the air I breathe. It doesn't make any difference how many air credits they obtain. Air credits are purely political and will not make my air any cleaner.
This is the wrong place for this power plant. FPL knows it is the wrong place, but they are working hard at buying off the community, piece by piece.
And, in conclusion, I don't want the Community of Rio Linda visual landmark to change from our water tower to the 24 hour a day mushroom cloud plume that will be seen for 40 miles.
I look to the CEC to help us prevent this detrimental intrusion into Rio Linda.
Thank you.
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Rio Linda/Elverta Power Plant: Data Requests followup
Date: Tue, 04 Sep 2001 5:46:13 PM
From: Jay O'Brien <jayobrien@att.net>
To: Lance Shaw <lshaw@energy.state.ca.us>
CC: Stop The Oppressive Powerplant <stop@vrx.net>
To: California Energy Commission
Lance Shaw, Project Manager
On July 19, 2001, I sent 10 data requests to you by email. That message is repeated below for context. FPL responded directly to me, delivering their response to me by courier on August 21, 2001, at 5:55 PM. The FPL response is not dated, thus making it difficult to cite; below I will refer to it as "the response". I understand that FPL did not provide a copy to the CEC; I will include a copy of the response with a mailed copy of this letter, and I have posted a copy of the FPL response at http://obri.net/stop/FPLresponse.html on the web.
FPL, without my permission, distributed the undated response to attendees at the public CPAC meeting held that same evening in Rio Linda at 7 PM. I learned of FPL's public distribution when I arrived at that meeting just before 8 PM. I am distressed that FPL would publish my residence address, which I do not generally publicize. A "good neighbor" would never disclose such information without permission.
The "Figure 1" referenced in FPL's response to my request number 5 was not included with the original delivered to me by courier; It was handed to me by FPL representative Renée Taylor during the CPAC meeting.
I thank FPL for their answers to my questions 1 to 4. These are the four questions I first posed to them on October 31, 2000, and after repeating them on multiple occasions, FPL finally answered.
I will respond below to the FPL answers to my questions 5 through 10 that were posed as a result of FPL representative Jocelyn Thompson's statements at the July 17, 2001 public meeting. My responses ask for further information and clarification. I am also adding two questions; one is a result of a statement made by FPL at the August 21, 2001 CPAC meeting and one is a result of the presentation made to the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors at their August 29, 2001 meeting on the proposed FPL power plant.
My disclosure contained in my July 19 letter continues and is, by inclusion, part of this letter.
My followup data requests:
Data request number 5 (July 19, 2001) followup:
I conclude from the FPL response that there were no specific well locations
identified by FPL, differing from Jocelyn Thompson's public statement on
behalf of FPL on July 17, 2001. The FPL response, delivered to me on August
21, 2001, does not seem to reflect the August 17, 2001 correspondence and
groundwater investigation report posted as http://www.geocities.com/riolindawater/fpl/letters.html
on the Rio Linda/Elverta Community Water District's web site. The referenced
correspondence was sent by the Water District's legal counsel to the CEC
with copies to FPL representatives. When does FPL intend to publicly identify
the exact well sites?
Data request number 6 (July 19, 2001) followup:
The URL provided in the FPL response, https://www.denix.osd.mil/denis/Public/Library/Remedy/MCBC/mclebc01.html,
is an invalid link to a military web site. Without the correct link I cannot
review "Site Characteristics" or "Performance", as suggested by FPL.
Data request number 7 (July 19, 2001) followup:
I understand from the response that FPL is presenting the RLECWD adopted
negative declaration and the underlying EIRs as evidence that there will
be compliance with the policies identified in all of these EIRs. That implies
that FPL is going to commit to programs assumed in those EIRs such as groundwater
management by SNAGMA. What is FPL's commitment to funding a SNAGMA in lieu
conjunctive use program to offset the groundwater demand? Is FPL committed
to supporting and funding SNAGMA and SNAGMA programs on an ongoing basis
during the life of the plant? Over and above SNAGMA, exactly what is FPL's
commitment to mitigating nearby wells that suffer from a localized depression
of the water table?
Data request number 8 (July 19, 2001) followup:
Jocelyn Thompson's public statement on behalf of FPL on July 17, 2001
was to identify me specifically and individually as having knowledge, as
a RLECWD Board member, of an EIR approved by that Board. The FPL response,
however, confirms that the document was a negative declaration, NOT an
EIR. In my opinion it was unprofessional for Ms. Thompson to attempt to
embarrass me in public in front of my constituents, especially after I
had prefaced my earlier verbal comments with a disclaimer (see below).
I was expecting an admission of the FPL error, not an attempt to identify
a negative declaration as an EIR. This answer as provided is evasive and
avoids the issue.
Data request number 9 (July 19, 2001) followup:
In addition to a commitment to support SNAGMA, the demand of the power
plant is either wholly or partially outside the Water Forum agreement demand
shown for RLECWD. To what extent is FPL committed to funding a program
to offset that demand?
Data request number 10 (July 19, 2001) followup:
FPL's representative Jocelyn Thompson's public statement on behalf
of FPL on July 17, 2001 was that SNAGMA had prepared an EIR. SNAGMA has
yet to prepare an EIR. FPL's misleading response is that SNAGMA was an
authority involved in the preparation of the Water Forum EIR. The Water
Forum agreement provided for the creation of SNAGMA. How on earth can FPL
state SNAGMA was involved in the preparation of the EIR?
My new data requests:
Data request number 11:
During a public meeting on August 21, 2001 in Rio Linda, FPL Project
Manager Duane McCloud stated that FPL would haul away two tons of sludge
per day from the power plant. This sludge, or "cake" is the residue, or
discharge, from the water used by the proposed "zero discharge" plant.
When McCloud first described the process to me on October 31, 2000, he
said that one ton would be hauled away per day. During the July 21 public
meeting, I asked him what had changed. His verbal response indicated that
FPL had learned more about the process since his first statement to me.
Exactly what was learned by FPL that resulted in the doubling of the residue
to be trucked away? Why was this not known in October 2000?
Data request number 12:
At the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors meeting on August 29,
2001, an artist's rendition was displayed that showed fully grown trees
masking the 150' high stacks from view. I count 20 trees that appear to
be between the picture's view point and the power plant. If the trees surround
the plant on four sides, then 80 trees are indicated. I understand that
the trees are to be "Coastal Redwoods". My understanding is that such trees,
after 4 to 10 years, grow at a rate of 2 to 6.5 feet per year, depending
on soil, weather and water. Such trees expect a foggy, damp climate, not
the hot and dry climate of Rio Linda. If the trees grow at the unlikely
maximum expected rate of 6.5 feet per year, it would take 23 years for
the top of the trees to reach a height of 150 feet. Please specify the
number of years will it take the trees to be planted by FPL to reach the
height as displayed to the Board of Supervisors. Given the Rio Linda hardpan
and soil conditions, is it reasonable to expect these (or any) trees to
ever reach such a height at this location? Please provide the locations
of trees within a mile of the site that have reached 150' in height, and
the age of the cited trees. If 50 gallons of water per day is used to irrigate
each tree, that is 4000 gallons of water per day or more than 4 acre feet
of water per year. How much water is planned to be used in total for landscaping,
and is the landscaping water included in the water demand expressed in
the application?
I look forward to receiving FPL's responses to my requests for information.
Thank you,
Jay O'Brien
FPL
c/o Tim Rossknecht, RLEPP Project Director
Tim,
There seems to be a problem with determining how much sludge would be produced by the Rio Linda Elverta power plant. As I mentioned in my Data request number 11, filed with the CEC on September 4, 2001, and followed up with another email to you on November 29, 2001, FPL doesn't seem to know how much sludge will be produced. That data request is as follows:
Data request number 11:
-----------------------
During a public meeting on August 21, 2001 in Rio Linda, FPL Project
Manager Duane McCloud stated that FPL would haul away two tons of sludge
per day from the power plant. This sludge, or "cake" is the residue, or
discharge, from the water used by the proposed "zero discharge" plant.
When McCloud first described the process to me on October 31, 2000, he
said that one ton would be hauled away per day. During the August 21 public
meeting, I asked him what had changed. His verbal response indicated that
FPL had learned more about the process since his first statement to me.
Exactly what was learned by FPL that resulted in the doubling of the residue
to be trucked away? Why was this not known in October 2000?
-----------------------
Note that the October 31, 2000 statement was made during a meeting with Mr. McCloud and other FPL representatives at the office of the Rio Linda Elverta Community Water District, as I serve as an elected Director on the Board of Directors of that governmental body. The August 21 statement was made by Mr. McCloud at the Rio Linda Elverta Community Center, at a public meeting.
NEW DEVELOPMENT
===============
What I've described above is bad enough, but it is now much worse. In the FPL response to CPAC which you sent to CPAC on November 15, 2001, FPL now states that 2300 tons of sludge per year will be produced, or 6.3 tons per day! FPL's response to CPAC is as follows:
CPAC's data request 3, and FPL's response dated November 15, 2001:
------------------------------------------------------------------
3.) Regarding transportation off-site of "sludge" and other hazardous
materials -what will the frequency and tonnage be? What will the hours
of transport be?
Response: Approximately 2300 tons per year of solid waste from regenerate evaporation and dewatered clarifier solids will be generated from the zero liquid discharge system. This estimate is based on preliminary design information and certain water quality assumptions. This material is non-hazardous and can be safely disposed of at a Class III landfill. There are 3 Class III landfills within 50 miles of the project site that could accept this material. The sludge produced will be composed primarily of salts, silicates, and gypsum. Depending on market conditions these products may be sold for their recycle value for applications such as construction material, fillers, or recovery of valuable chemicals. The sludge will be trucked away from the site at a rate of about one truck every two to three days. This frequency will allow for transportation during normal working hours. [2300 tons per year is 6.30 tons per day]
My addtional data request questions are as follows:
Based on McCloud's response to me on August 21, has FPL now learned even more about the process, as the estimated sludge amount has gone from one ton to two tons and now to 6.3 tons per day?
If so, what was learned?
What has caused FPL's estimates of the amount of sludge to change?
Which estimate is correct? Why are the other estimates incorrect?
What is the expected daily volume of the sludge?
How did FPL determine the correct information? How may I verify FPL's calculations?
FPL identifies only three landfills within 50 miles that could accept the sludge. Please specifically identify the three landfills and provide confirmation that the landfills are willing to accept the sludge over the entire lifetime of the power plant.
Are the estimates of sludge production going to change again?
Here's FPL's statements to date, what is next?
| Date | FPL statement made by |
|
|
| October 31, 2000 | Duane McCloud |
|
|
| August 21, 2001 | Duane McCloud |
|
|
| November 15, 2001 | Tim Rossknecht |
|
|
Please replace my original data request number 11 with this updated request, which I will refer to as my data request 11a.
FPL's response to this and my other data requests will be appreciated.
Thank you,
Jay O'Brien
Rio Linda
cc: CEC, Lance Shaw: Please docket this addition to my outstanding data
requests.
Jay:
Attached are more responses which I hope will answer your questions. A hard copy will follow.
Tim
(See attached file: OBRIEN JAN 2 02 - X.doc)
OBRIEN JAN 2 02 - X.doc
Name: OBRIEN JAN 2 02 - X.doc
Type: WINWORD File (application/msword)
Encoding: base64
Description: Microsoft Word 4
January 2, 2002 [Note: This date changes in the original DOC file sent by FPL, always showing the current date]
Sincerely,
Mr. Jay O’Brien
Email Address: jayobrien@att.net
Re: Your September 4, 2001 email to
Mr. Lance Shaw of the California Energy Commission (CEC)
Dear Mr. O’Brien:
We are in receipt of your email referenced above. First, I would like to apologize for the distribution of our previous response letter to you to attendees at the CPAC meeting in August without your explicit permission. With regards to this response, we will include only your email address which you have made public through the CEC process.
The following are our responses to your follow-up and new data requests. While we did not reprint all of your questions word for word below, we hope that we captured the intent of the data request and provided responses that would be helpful to you.
Data Request No. 5 – follow-up: “When does FPL intend to publicly identify the exact well sites.”
Response: As you may be aware, FPLE is refining an alternative water supply proposal that consists of supplying the RLEPP with water from existing wells located northwest of the project site. Additional information will be provided in the Supplemental AFC submittal to be provided to the CEC once all critical analyses are completed.
Data Request No. 6 follow-up: “The URL provided in the FPL response, https://www.denix.osd.mil/denis/Public/Library/Remedy/MCBC/mclebc01.html, is an invalid link to a military web site. Without the correct link I cannot review “Site Characteristics” or “Performance”, as suggested by FPL.”
Response: There was a typographical error in the URL. The "denis" in the middle of the URL should be "denix". The correct address is: https://www.denix.osd.mil/denix/Public/Library/Remedy/MCBC/mclebc01.html.
Data Request No. 7 follow-up: What is FPL’s commitment to funding a SNAGMA in lieu conjunctive use program to offset the groundwater demand? Is FPL committed to supporting and funding SNAGMA and SNAGMA programs on an ongoing basis during the life of the plant?
Response: Yes, FPLE is in discussions with Northridge water district regarding a proposal for FPLE to participate in a conjunctive use program to offset any differences between the RLEPP water usage and the water usage from the existing wells.
Over and above SNAGMA, exactly what is
FPL’s commitment to mitigating nearby wells that suffer from a localized
depression of the water table?
Response: Over the next several months,
CEC staff and their experts will closely scrutinize any water supply source
we propose. The CEC can only approve the water supply if their analysis
shows that such supply would not have any significant impacts to the local
ground water basin and existing local wells. In addition, we expect
that the CEC will impose conditions on any permit they may decide to issue
to insure that potential impacts do not occur during the life of the RLEPP.
Those conditions could include the need to provide mitigation if local
wells are later found to be negatively impacted by the construction and
operations of the RLEPP. It is more appropriate to discuss any potential
mitigation within the context of the CEC process after the potential for
impacts are assessed. We will abide by the conditions imposed by
the CEC on the RLEPP water supply. Also, the wells that would supply
the RLEPP under our revised water supply proposal are located farther from
the existing local wells east of the project such that potential impacts
are even less likely.
Data Request No. 8 follow-up:
Response: We apologize for any
stress our response caused, as certainly none was intended.
Data Request No. 9 follow-up: “ In addition to a commitment to support SNAGMA, the demand of the power plant is either wholly or partially outside the Water Forum agreement demand shown for RLECWD. To what extent is FPL committed to funding a program to offset that demand? “
Response: Please see our response to Data Request No. 7 above.
Data Request No. 10 follow-up: SNAGMA has yet to prepare an EIR. “How on earth can FPL state SNAGMA was involved in the preparation of the EIR?
Response: You are correct. SNAGMA has yet to prepare an EIR. As we indicated in our previous response, the Draft EIR on the Water Forum Proposal does not directly involve this project, although, the document does evaluate water resources in the Sacramento region in which the project is located.
Data Request No. 11: Exactly what was learned by FPL that resulted in the doubling of the residue to be trucked away? Why was this not known in October 2000?
Response: Several areas of understanding have either changed or been clarified since October of 2000 and in fact since August of 2001. First the initial calculations were based on the typical TDS number stated in RLECWD analyses and an assumption of offsite generation for cation removal. October of 2000 was also before the EcoSafe process was piloted on the Rio Linda water samples taken at that time and before detailed water balances for the AFC had been developed. After pilot work, a better understanding of process chemical consumption was achieved and incorporated into the calculations, including the use of effective TDS (sum of the ions). Since August 2001 additional changes have been made that has further increased our estimate of solids generation, now at 2100-2300 wet tons per year. These include a change in our water supply to the DeWit well water (a higher TDS source) and a review with suppliers that indicate that offsite cation regeneration is not feasible. The complete analysis set for the DeWit Farms water supply has only been received in the past two weeks.
At a summary level, the current calculations are as follows:
This amount, approximately 6 tons per day, represents a 20-ton load of solids to be hauled away about twice a week on average. Off site regeneration would have increased truck traffic by adding two trucks per day and was not feasible from a logistics and cost perspective.
Data Request no. 12: This request
raised several questions related to landscaping. Please refer to
our responses below.
Response :
Response to questions regarding Coast Redwood.
Coast redwood (Sequoia Sempervirens ‘Soquel’) and several other trees included in the Conceptual Landscape Plan were selected because they are on the list of trees recommended by Sacramento County Department of Public Works.
The trees and other vegetation in the Conceptual Landscape Plan were reviewed with Scott Blair (Landscape Section, Sacramento County Department of Public Works; personal communication with Scott Muller, Landscape Architect with Foster Wheeler Environmental). This particular variety of Coastal Redwood, ‘Soquel”, is more drought tolerant than other redwoods. It grows with a shallow, fibrous root system and, with the proper soil amendments and water, should grow well in the site’s fine sandy loam soil. It grows very fast, 3-5ft/year and can grow to a height of 80 to 90 feet in 20 years. It grows best in climate Zone 14-24, Rio Linda is in Zone 14.
Response to questions about tree height.
The trees represented in the visual simulations are not 150 feet tall. In some of the views they appear as tall as the stacks because they are much closer to the viewer than the stacks. The tallest trees are expected to be about 80 to 90 feet tall after 20 years.
Response to questions about landscape water requirements.
The Conceptual Landscape Plan utilizes
drought tolerant species. Water for irrigation will only be required
for about two years, with the highest use during the first 3 to 4 months
while plants are establishing. During the highest use months, landscaping
will require about 7,000 gallons per week if watered for a full year at
that rate. The highest landscape water requirements will occur during
the startup phase of the project and water requirements can be accommodated
within the water use estimated in the AFC.
If additional information is requested,
please contact me at 561-591-7138.
/s/
Tim Rossknecht
Project Director
cc: CEC Dockets Office
RLEPP Proof of Service List