Index to the web page below:
Jul 19 data request to CEC; includes verbal statement to July 17 Data Request Workshop
Aug 15 letter to CEC; includes testimony given to CPAC August 14
Aug 29 testimony to Sacramento County Board of Supervisors
Aug 30 to Board of Sups: FPL not trustworthy or desireable, changes their story
Sept 4 Follow-up data request to CEC,  based on FPL Response Letter
Sept 20 OPEN LETTER TO SUPERVISOR DICKINSON
Oct 2 Dickinson's response to my open letter, my reply
Oct 3 to Dickinson, re his public attack on Debbie Byrne
Oct 10 Dickinson's admission his attack was not based on public testimony
Oct 11 I ask Dickinson to make a document public; I cite his boorish behavior at CPAC meeting
Nov 3 Follow-up letter to CEC, references Sept. 4 letter
Nov 5 To Dickinson, who withholds info from the PUBLIC, undermines CPAC with CEC
Nov 20 testimony to Sacramento County Board of Supervisors
Nov 21 letter to Supervisor Nottoli, follow up on dimunition in value of nearby property
Nov 29 letter to FPL, asking for answers to data requests
Dec 10 letter to FPL, asking for more answers, especially on sludge quantity
Dec 13 letter to The News; on FPL Credibility

2002 Correspondence and Testimony -- Jay O'Brien
 

Other Jay O'Brien correspondence:
Dec 3 To interested parties, "Davis has trouble with perception"
FPL correspondence to and from Jay O'Brien

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.

Mr. Lance Shaw, Project Manager

Please docket the statement that follows. My statement was one of many. Over 100
people were in attendance at the meeting.

Thank you,
Jay O'Brien

My testimony as given to the Rio Linda / Elverta Community Planning Advisory Council (CPAC)
during their deliberation on the power plant land use issue [August 14, 2001]:

I am Jay O'Brien. My property is just under a mile from the proposed power plant.

First, a statement for the record, and then my comments on the land use issue.

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.

On the issue; I contend the SEPCO land use agreement directly includes the environmental limits of the SEPCO license. I'll explain.

I was an intervenor for the SEPCO project; I fought it because of what it would do to the air I breathe, because of the chemicals and particulates it would deposit on my property, and because of the effect it would have on my livestock. I objected to what it would do to the ambient noise; with SEPCO running I would no longer be able to "hear the quiet."

The County wanted the power plant, and provided no support for the fight. I lost that battle, as the SEPCO license was granted.

Part of the SEPCO license was a very specific and restrictive agreement executed by the County of Sacramento. The County, through that agreement, in effect stipulated that the environmental degredations documented to be expected from SEPCO should be accepted by us in Rio Linda and Elverta, as our contribution to the general good of the rest of the County.

By reference to and inclusion in the CEC license, the SEPCO licensed environmental impacts and pollution levels are included in that County land use agreement.

The FPL land use permission is based upon the fact that the SEPCO plant was licensed for that location.

FPL touts their plant as a "cleaner plant". Cleaner than what?

I have repeatedly asked FPL for a direct comparison of the environmental effects on my property between the SEPCO plant as licensed, and the FPL plant as planned.

FPL has repeatedly promised me such a comparison. FPL agrees that my questions are reasonable, yet they don't answer them.

Do you suppose they don't want us to be able to compare SEPCO with the FPL plant?

As measurement procedures, standards, and documentation have changed in the time since SEPCO was licensed, I want an analysis by a credentialed environmental scientist who can realistically compare the environmental impacts and pollution levels licensed to SEPCO with the same from the FPL plant.

By the way, I have submitted my questions to CEC staff as data requests, so they are on the record.

It seems to me that until and unless the FPL plant can be restricted to not exceed the environmental impacts expected from SEPCO, the SEPCO land use agreement cannot be used to approve the FPL land use.

I suggest that any FPL land use agreement must restrict environmental impacts to no more than those that were licensed for SEPCO.
Thank you.

Testimony to Board of Supervisors: August 29, 2001, 6 PM

I am Jay O'Brien. My property is just under a mile from the proposed power plant.

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.

I was a SEPCO intervenor; I fought it because of what it would do to the air I breathe, what it would deposit on my property, and it's effect on our rural quality of life.

The County wanted the power plant. I lost. The SEPCO license was granted.

The CEC SEPCO license included a specific and restrictive zoning agreement from this Board.

By reference to and inclusion in that license, the approved SEPCO environmental impacts are included in the Board’s SEPCO agreement.

The FPL land use permission is based upon the SEPCO license, yet the FPL plant is not anywhere near the same as SEPCO.

Starting last October, I repeatedly asked FPL for a direct comparison of environmental effects between SEPCO as licensed, and FPL as planned. They finally responded last week. I've given you a copy of their response.

Look at the first table in the response. For example, Carbon Monoxide from FPL is planned to be 2.7 times that of what was licensed for SEPCO. 1293 pounds of CO per day as opposed to 472. Sulfur Dioxide is over 5 times SEPCO.

FPL says the local air quality impacts are actually lower, because FPL's 150-foot high stack will disperse these greater emissons over a larger area of land than SEPCO's 60-foot stack. Is more than double the pollution OK if it goes somewhere else? Did you know that the Board’s SEPCO zoning agreement may now allow FPL to pollute Woodlake? Downtown Sacramento? Natomas?

The Board’s agreement approved a 60-foot SEPCO stack, not 150 feet. That's just not the same.

The Board’s agreement was for the SEPCO plant that would discharge cooling water into the East Main Drain, helping the fishery and recharging the aquifer. FPL instead will evaporate 2.5 million gallons of water per day into my air and haul away 2 tons of sludge per day from the water. That's just not the same.

The zoning agreement the Board signed was for SEPCO and only for SEPCO. What FPL proposes is just not the same, and it is WRONG for this Board to say that it is, without imposing restrictions on FPL to not exceed ANY of the previously licensed SEPCO impacts.

Thank you.

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Thank you!  Re FPL
Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 12:02:22 PM
From: Jay O'Brien <jayobrien@att.net>
To: Roger Dickinson <rogerd@sac.ca.gov>,
       Illa Collin <illac@saccounty.net>,
       Muriel Johnson <murielj@saccounty.net>,
       Roger Niello <nielloroger@saccounty.net>,
       Don Nottoli <donn@saccounty.net>

Chairman Niello and the Board,

I appreciate you all listening to our community's input on the power plant issue at last night's LONG meeting.

The document I gave you last night with my testimony is an undated response I received from FPL to questions I posed to the CEC. FPL responded directly to me and did not send a copy to the CEC! This is just another example of FPL's standard operating procedure, divide and conquer. They tell different people different things, and they continually change their story. I will docket FPL's response to me with the CEC.

Please read the FPL document. It contains many other specifics that FPL, through this document, has stated for the first time.

The first four questions are ones I asked various FPL representatives on multiple occasions, starting in October 2000, when they met with me as a Director on the Water District. Each time FPL agreed my questions were reasonable and answerable, and they agreed to answer. However, they didn't finally respond until I docketed my questions with the CEC. The remaining questions were a result of statements made July 17 by FPL's attorney Jocelyn Thompson, who, speaking at a public meeting, made statements that sounded incorrect or improper to me. FPL's answers to those questions are misleading and or incorrect. I will be responding to those answers, through the CEC.

In my opinion, based on my interface with them, and especially after reading the web sites detailing FPL's lack of community concern at their other power plants, FPL is NOT trustworthy, and is NOT a desirable neighbor, at ANY site in the County of Sacramento.

Again, thanks for your attention and concern last night.

Jay O'Brien

-------- 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

[Note from Jay O'Brien: The original email and letter to Mr. Shaw contained my July 19 data request and it's attachments. Those are above this letter in this web page.]

The following message was also printed in the Rio Linda News on September 27, 2001:

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Open letter to Supervisor Dickinson, re: FPL
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2001 6:10:21 PM
From: Jay O'Brien <jayobrien@att.net>
To: Roger Dickinson <rogerd@sac.ca.gov>
CC: Illa Collin <illac@saccounty.net>,
       Muriel Johnson <murielj@saccounty.net>,
       Roger Niello <nielloroger@saccounty.net>,
       Don Nottoli <donn@saccounty.net>,
       Don Flesch <rlnews@aol.com>,
       "Bob Dávila" <bdavila@sacbee.com>,
       Dirk Werkman <dwerkman@sacbee.com>

To: Sacramento County Supervisor Roger Dickinson
From: Jay O'Brien

Subject: Rio Linda Elverta Power Plant

Dear Roger,

I attended your Board meeting on March 9, 1994. You were newly seated, having just won a special election (against Heather Fargo) to replace Grantland Johnson. Like several others from Rio Linda and Elverta, I strongly urged you and your Board to not approve the resolution that you offered at that meeting. Your Board unanimously approved your resolution which facilitated CEC's licensing of the proposed SEPCO cogeneration plant in Rio Linda and Elverta.

During that meeting, County Planner Trisha Stevens, referring to the conditions your resolution approved, said, "...the condition limits the use to this facility to a power plant and ethanol facility. If for whatever  reasons, this project is not built, there is not another use that would be authorized on this property." [click here for more quotes]

Following testimony and during discussion, encouraging your colleagues to approve your resolution, you said, "...this project will not occur, or the rezone I suppose I should say, will not be effective for any use other than this project. And so, the fear that this rezone might occur and some other use be made of this property will not occur if we approve the resolution that I have offered."  [click here for more quotes]

Let me remind you that the proposed FPL plant is not at all like the SEPCO ethanol/cogeneration facility. The FPL plant does not process agricultural material, so it does not require proximity to agricultural activity. The FPL plant will emit 2.7 times as much carbon monoxide as SEPCO, and over five times the Sulfur Dioxide as SEPCO. The FPL plant will have two 150' smokestacks, compared to SEPCO's one at sixty feet. The SEPCO plant would have discharged its water into the East Main Drain, helping the fishery and recharging the aquifer; FPL will discharge no water, instead evaporating 2.5 million gallons of water into MY air each day and each day they plan to truck away two tons of sludge from the evaporated water.

The zoning agreement your Board approved in 1994 was for SEPCO and only for SEPCO. What FPL proposes is not anything like SEPCO. FPL couldn't exist if you imposed SEPCO's expected environmental impacts on the proposed FPL plant as limits on it's operation.

Roger, YOU have the ability to stop this project. Here's how.

If this was a smaller power plant, the County would have jurisdiction. Your Board could give the necessary variances or decline to do so if the project was inconsistent with the proposed location. You must consider the FPL plant as if it were such a plant, and follow through on your committment, denying it as the "some other use" you mentioned in your committment to us. If you, as the Supervisor representing our community, tell your colleagues on the Board that you don't want the power plant, they will support you. Once your Board says it doesn't want the plant, CEC will not approve it.

Roger, now is the time to prove to your Rio Linda and Elverta constituents that you meant what you said. Using YOUR words, we do "fear", especially now, that YOU are about to approve "some other use" for this property, one that will hurt us in many ways.

Roger, YOU have the ability to stop this project. YOU are probably the only individual in County government who can, on your own, stop this project.

Please do so. Now.

Jay O'Brien

References:
1994 Special Election vs. Fargo: http://obri.net/stop/supelect.html
3/9/94 and 8/29/01 quotes: http://obri.net/stop/bosquotes.html
FPL's comparison, SEPCO vs. FPL: http://obri.net/stop/010821.html
My 8/29/01 testimony to you: http://obri.net/stop/jay.html#010829a

The following two messages were also printed in the Rio Linda News on October 4, 2001:

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: Open letter to Supervisor Dickinson, re: FPL
Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 12:43:37 PM
From: "Dickinson, Roger" <rogerd@saccounty.net>
To: 'Jay O'Brien',
      "Dickinson, Roger"
CC: "Collin, Illa",
        "Johnson, Muriel",
        "Niello, Roger",
        "Nottoli, Don",
        Don Flesch,
        Bob  Dávila,
        Dirk Werkman,
        "Ziebron, Karen"

Dear Jay:

I am in receipt of your email in which you urge me to oppose the FPL power plant proposal on the basis that it is not the same as the SEPCO project approved by the California Energy Commission (CEC) in 1994.  As you note in your email, you opposed the SEPCO project as well, so, fundamentally, there has been no change in your position regardless of the project proposed.

To put the remarks Trisha Stevens and I made in 1994 in context, opponents raised the concern that the SEPCO proponents would get approval for a cogeneration facility, since that was a more appealing proposal, then drop the cogeneration element and proceed with a stand alone power plant.  To answer that specific concern, at that specific time, regarding the SEPCO proposal specifically, the Board worked with the CEC to ensure that any project built pursuant to that specific CEC approval would be a congeneration facility.  The County adhered to that position throughout proceedings regarding the SEPCO licensing process.  That license expired some years ago, as you know.

If the FPL proposal was a congeneration facility, I would hold the same view now as I did in 1994 concerning the requirement that the entire project be constructed, if approved.  But, the FPL proposal is obviously nothing more than a stand alone power plant on its face.  It appears that a power plant is a conditionally permitted use on land zoned either industrial--the current zoning, or industrial reserve--the previous zoning category of the property for decades.  Therefore, it appears it makes no difference in finding zoning consistency which zoning designation applies.  If the Board is advised to the contrary by County Counsel or the planning staff, then I will certainly reconsider this issue.

To reach such a conclusion does not dictate a conclusion that the FPL proposal should be approved.  Such a conclusion only recognizes that it is the CEC's jurisdiction to make the decision whether or not to approve the application.  I have been and will continue to be an advocate of the position that any project approved must at least satisfy the legitimate requirements of the Community Plan and the General Plan and include sufficient features and community benefits to offset any adverse impacts on the Rio Linda-Elverta area.  If those elements cannot be satisfied, then I will oppose the proposal.

At this time, a number of legitimate issues have been raised by opponents regarding the proposal.  Until there has been an adequate opportunity to fully explore those issues, it would be premature to take a final position. The best way I can "prove" that I represent my Rio Linda and Elverta constituents is to take the issues they raise seriously and press for responses to those issues as well as consider the views of those in the community who support the project and the larger public interest.

ROGER DICKINSON
Supervisor, District One
Sacramento County

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Open letter to Supervisor Dickinson, re: FPL
Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2001 7:17:40 PM
From: Jay O'Brien <jayobrien@att.net>
To: "Dickinson, Roger" <rogerd@saccounty.net>
CC: Collin, Illa <illac@saccounty.net>,
       Johnson, Muriel <murielj@saccounty.net>,
       Niello, Roger <nielloroger@saccounty.net>,
       Nottoli, Don <donn@saccounty.net>,
       Don Flesch <rlnews@aol.com>,
       Bob Dávila <bdavila@sacbee.com>,
       Dirk Werkman <dwerkman@sacbee.com>,
       Ziebron, Karen <karenz@saccounty.net>

Roger,

Thank you for your October 2 response to my September 20 email.

Yes, the SEPCO license expired several years ago. However, FPL is basing their application on that license and the action you took at that time. That makes it relevant now.

I ask again that you follow through on your commitment you made to us in 1994 and stop the presently proposed power plant.

The CEC is looking for your guidance; please tell them to put the power plant somewhere else.

Jay O'Brien

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Attack on RLE CPAC Chair
Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2001 10:28:56 PM
From: Jay O'Brien <jayobrien@att.net>
To: Roger Dickinson <rogerd@sac.ca.gov>
CC: Roger Niello <nielloroger@saccounty.net>,
        Illa Collin <illac@saccounty.net>,
        Muriel Johnson <murielj@saccounty.net>,
        Don Nottoli <donn@saccounty.net>,
        Don Flesch <rlnews@aol.com>,
        "Bob Dávila" <bdavila@sacbee.com>,
        Dirk Werkman <dwerkman@sacbee.com>,
        Debbie Byrne <luckyacres@earthlink.net>,
        Leighann Moffitt <moffittl@saccounty.net>

Supervisor Dickinson,

This evening, October 3, 2001, at 5:08 PM, you made a statement just before the adjournment of the meeting of the Board of Supervisors. It was clear that you were addressing comments made earlier by CPAC Chair Debbie Byrne.

You said, "Mr. Chairman, I had a number of things that I wanted to say that I'm not going to in light of the hour, but there is one thing I'm going to say. And that is that I think the attack on the planning staff generally and on Leighann Moffitt specifically, is inappropriate, unjustified and unwarranted. This planning staff, and Leighann in particular, have tried exceedingly hard, to work as closely as possible with those in the community to get information out, to attend meetings that go to all hours, and to do that whenever the CPAC wants to meet. It seems to me that the criticism that's being leveled is a function of what the staff has tried to go beyond what the normal procedure is. Because that hasn't met every inclination of some, they're criticized for it. I think it's wrong. Period."

Roger, your facts are incorrect and you owe Debbie Byrne an apology for your attack on her. Review the tape of tonight's meeting, as I have just done. I invite you to identify and quote the "attack" to which you were responding with your statement of criticism.

Debbie works very hard to represent this community, and her efforts are recognized and appreciated by the community. When you attack Debbie, you attack all of my community. "I think it's wrong. Period."

Jay O'Brien

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: Attack on RLE CPAC Chair
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2001 3:54:58 PM
From: "Dickinson, Roger" <rogerd@saccounty.net>
To: 'Jay O'Brien' <jayobrien@att.net>,
      "Dickinson, Roger"<rogerd@saccounty.net>
CC: "Niello, Roger" <nielloroger@saccounty.net>,
        "Collin, Illa"<illac@saccounty.net>,
        "Johnson, Muriel" <murielj@saccounty.net>,
        "Nottoli, Don" <donn@saccounty.net>,
        Don Flesch <rlnews@aol.com>,
        Bob  Dávila <bdavila@sacbee.com>,
        Dirk Werkman<dwerkman@sacbee.com>,
        Debbie Byrne <luckyacres@earthlink.net>,
        "Moffitt, Leighann" <MOFFITTL@saccounty.net>

Mr. O'Brien:

I am in receipt of your email in which you contend that the statement I made at the conclusion of the last Board hearing regarding the FPL proposal was unsupported because "your facts are incorrect..." and Ms. Byrne was only expressing frustration that the CPAC had not been "appropriately included in the planning process."  I'm confident I'm fully aware of the relevant facts and stand by my statement.

You may be at a disadvantage since you may not have seen Ms. Byrne's "Notice of Intent to File Grand Jury Complaint" which was referenced in her comments to the Board.  In the document, she accuses the County staff in general and Leighann Moffitt in particular of denying information to the CPAC and her, of bias in their review and handling of the matter, and of "an actual, overt attempt to exclude the CPAC from the process."  If such allegations do not constitute an attack on the Planning staff and Ms. Moffitt, then you and I simply have a very different definition of that term.

I am personally aware of the extraordinary efforts that the Planning staff and Ms. Moffitt have made to respond to Ms. Byrne's requests and demands. They have gone well beyond the staff support that is normally accorded to CPAC's.  Therefore, I find the allegations to be unjustified, unwarranted, and inappropriate.

I take no issue with those who wish to express their strongly held feelings on the merits of any proposal.  But I also do not find it acceptable to unfairly attack those who are in no position to respond.

ROGER DICKINSON
Supervisor, District One
Sacramento County

[Click here to read Byrne's "Notice of Intent to File Grand Jury Complaint"]

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Attack on RLE CPAC Chair
Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2001 10:16:37 AM
From: Jay O'Brien <jayobrien@att.net>
To: Roger Dickinson <rogerd@sac.ca.gov>
CC: Roger Niello <nielloroger@saccounty.net>,
        Illa Collin <illac@saccounty.net>,
        Muriel Johnson <murielj@saccounty.net>,
        Don Nottoli <donn@saccounty.net>,
        Don Flesch <rlnews@aol.com>,
        Bob Dávila" <bdavila@sacbee.com>,
        Dirk Werkman <dwerkman@sacbee.com>,
        Debbie Byrne <luckyacres@earthlink.net>,
        Leighann Moffitt <moffittl@saccounty.net>

Supervisor Dickinson,

Thank you for confirming that your admonition directed to CPAC Chair Debbie Byrne during the October 3, 2001 Board meeting was not based on any testimony publicly given by her at that meeting. Thank you for confirming my contention that Ms. Byrne did not, in fact, make any such attack during her public testimony.

Your state in your message quoted (above) that you based your statement upon the document provided to you by Ms. Byrne at the Board meeting. You are correct that I have not seen the document to which you refer. My understanding is that the six page handout mentioned by Ms. Byrne during her testimony at 2:49 PM was provided to you during the meeting. The FPL item in question started at 2:30 PM. The staff and the applicant concluded their testimony just before Ms. Byrne's testimony; the rest of the public testimony and your Board's deliberation followed Ms. Byrne. There was no recess. Your attack on Ms. Byrne was at 5:08 PM. When did you have an opportunity to read and digest the six page document upon which you based your 5:08 PM statement?

It is inappropriate for you to publicly berate anyone for issuing statements known only by you without identifying the source of your reason for criticism. You withheld pertinent facts from the public. For that you owe Ms. Byrne AND THE PUBLIC an apology.

So that the quotation you cite may be read in context, please make the entire document to which you refer public, and please provide the other citations from that document upon which you base your criticism of Ms. Byrne.

Supervisor Dickinson, you attended a portion of the CPAC meeting Tuesday night in Rio Linda. You arrived after the meeting began, during consideration of an item.  Certainly you observed the planning staff support present. Like most recent CPAC meetings, there was NO planning representative present. Such a representative would have been very useful during CPAC's item 5. How is Tuesday night's level of support "well beyond the staff support that is normally accorded to CPAC's"?

By the way, you missed item 5. You left the meeting during item 4, after completing a conversation with someone who was seated to my right in the audience. I was disturbed by your impolite lack of concern for your constituents and by your lack of respect for the CPAC proceedings. In my opinion you should have taken your off-topic conversation outside, so as to not disrupt those of us who were attempting to follow the item under discussion. We attended to participate in the CPAC meeting, not to be rudely prevented from performing our civic duty by someone who is expected to know better.

At the close of your message (above), you state "I also do not find it acceptable to unfairly attack those who are in no position to respond." I call to your attention the fact that you did not afford Ms. Byrne the opportunity to respond to YOUR attack at the end of the Board meeting.

Jay O'Brien

To: California Energy Commission
    Lance Shaw, Project Manager

Lance,

I am repeating my September 4, 2001 correspondence to you (above) to provide context for this letter.

I sent 10 data requests to you on July 19; FPL responded directly to me (without sending you a copy) on August 21, 33 days later.

I sent followup and additional data requests to you on September 4; sixty days have now passed since that date.

Do you have any indication from FPL of when I may expect them to respond?

Jay O'Brien

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: CPAC and FPL Issues
Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2001 8:13:19 AM
From: Jay O'Brien <jayobrien@att.net>
To: Roger Dickinson <rogerd@sac.ca.gov>
CC: Roger Niello <nielloroger@saccounty.net>
        Illa Collin <illac@saccounty.net>
        Muriel Johnson <murielj@saccounty.net>
        Don Nottoli <donn@saccounty.net>
        Don Flesch <rlnews@aol.com>
        Bob Dávila" <bdavila@sacbee.com>
        Dirk Werkman <dwerkman@sacbee.com>
        Debbie Byrne <luckyacres@earthlink.net>
        Leighann Moffitt <moffittl@saccounty.net>
        Lance Shaw <lshaw@energy.state.ca.us>

Supervisor Dickinson,

>CPAC ATTACK
I call to your attention the email I sent to you over three weeks ago to which you have not responded. In that email, I called for you to make the document PUBLIC upon which you based your October 3rd attack on our community's CPAC Chair Debbie Byrne, and you have not done so.

See http://obri.net/stop/jay.html#011003a for our previous correspondence on this issue.

>WITHHOLDING INFORMATION
Ms. Byrne's document, "Notice of Intent to File Grand Jury Complaint", identifies the ongoing problem encountered by our community in prying PUBLIC information from the Planning Department. If you remember, during the Rio Linda Elverta Community Plan debacle (The Community Plan was financed by the Elverta Specific Plan developers, not the taxpayers!), I couldn't get ANY financial information out of Planning until I filed a Public Records Act demand. Planning even ignored that, until County Counsel interceded on my behalf. Only then did Planning begrudgingly make the information available to me. The problem isn't Ms. Moffitt, it is much bigger and it needs to be fixed. Perhaps Ms. Byrne's Grand Jury effort will help to mend the process and force Planning to FOLLOW THEIR OWN RULES; nothing else has worked.

See http://obri.net/stop/gj.html for Ms. Byrne's document.

See http://obri.net/stop/dickcec.html for County correspondence with CEC.

Government code §54950, the Brown Act, says "The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know." This applies to you, to Planning, and to our CPAC.

Your letters to the CEC imply that CPAC does not enjoy any public agency status, yet you recently and forcefully reminded CPAC that their activities are subject to the Brown Act, requiring CPAC to do everything in a manner that is open to the PUBLIC. I suggest you review Government code §54951; you can't have CPAC both ways.

See ftp://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/code/gov/54001-55000/54950-54962 for the Ralph M. Brown act (specifically see §54951).

>WHO  SUPPORTS?
In your October 2 email to me, you stated "...a number of legitimate issues have been raised by opponents regarding the proposal... The best way I can 'prove' that I represent my Rio Linda and Elverta constituents is to take the issues they raise seriously and press for responses to those issues as well as consider the views of those in the community who support the project and the larger public interest."

See http://obri.net/stop/jay.html#011002a for your Oct. 2 email.

>REPRESENTATION
Roger, if you really were representing us, you would be doing everything in your power to Stop The Oppressive Powerplant. You would be working with us, not making a personal attack on our messenger. If it really is necessary to support the "larger public interest", then there are four other votes that can override you. Represent us, not FPL.

See http://obri.net/stop/corresp1.html#010830a for a discussion of our community's position.

cc: Lance Shaw (please docket this correspondence)

Testimony to Board of Supervisors:
November 20, 2001
(As handed to the Supervisors. As only two minutes were allowed, some sentences were not voiced)

4:46 PM Wearing “NO FPL” T Shirt (STOP):

Testimony prepared for Sacramento County Board of Supervisors
November 20, 2001 (3 Minutes)

Jay O’Brien, Rio Linda.

Any conditional zoning approval is predicated on the 1994 SEPCO agreement. Please remember what you promised my community. You told us in 1994 not to fear that something other than SEPCO would be built. Our fears expressed then are substantiated now. What FPL proposes is much worse than SEPCO, as detailed in their response letter to me that I gave you at your August meeting.

FPL says they ONLY build the cleanest plants possible. Why, then, do they keep revising the plans, throwing more money at them, in response to our complaints about pollution? FPL is in it only for the money, not like SMUD; SMUD is a good neighbor.

Should you accede to Planning’s commitment I understand made privately to FPL, and allow this oppressive power plant to be built, please include these conditions:

1. Pollution and noise levels may not exceed the maximums expected from SEPCO.
2. Everyone whose property value will decrease will be paid an amount equal to the expected decrease before construction start. If the property owners do not agree to the amount tendered, a process for adjudication must be followed, with FPL paying all legal costs of all parties.
3. The plant may not operate until the trees Leighann showed you first on August 29th actually grow high enough to hide the 150 foot high stacks from sight, exactly as shown in this FPL picture (overhead). FPL’s misrepresentation of visual screening catches the essence of their lack of credibility; trees, there, will not reach that height during the life of the plant, if ever.

I am disappointed that an apology has not been forthcoming to our CPAC Chair Debbie Byrne for the inappropriate, unjustified and unwarranted personal attack she received here in October. Our Supervisor has chosen to personalize this debate, even attempting to undermine our CPAC with letters to the CEC he didn’t even make public. I appeal to you to rise above personalities and analyze the issues and the facts.

In closing, if this plant goes in without property value compensation, you are in effect forcing neighbors to write a check for the plant. If my property is now worth $250,000, at the 40% drop predicted by FPL’s Jocelyn Thompson at the workshop in July, my personal contribution would be $100,000. I object. This is robbery. Represent me, not Florida Power and Light.

Thank you.

Reverse: FPL picture “Revised Plan with Mature Plantings”
See http://obri.net/stop/rlepp.html

[This exchange continued after the testimony above]
Supervisor Nottoli: Jay just in your last paragraph that you read from, you attribute a estimate of reduction in property values to forty percent and that was made by a Florida Power and Light representative?

O’Brien: Yes, at a meeting in Rio Linda

Supervisor Nottoli: And that was in response to a question just give me the context, take a brief  moment.

O’Brien: It was how much will my property values decrease, and that was the answer.

Supervisor Nottoli: Forty percent?

O’Brien: And then it went on to say in the long term the property values will come back up, perhaps to what they were at the beginning. The impression that sticks with me is about twenty years, is what they were talking about.

Supervisor Nottoli: Has there been any subsequent explanation behind that, there’s been some meetings since then, have there been any additional responses to follow up on that or any clarification provided since that July meeting?

O’Brien: No. However, we’re doing some research with property devaluation experts. There have been studies done at airports when airports have expanded for the same kind of reason. We’re trying to get some of that information to back up what looks like a reasonable estimate, forty percent.

Supervisor Nottoli: Ok, thanks Jay.   [see followup below]

To: Sacramento County District 5 Supervisor Don Nottoli
CC: All Supervisors, interested parties

Don,

Thank you very much for your interest in the "check" for $100,000 or more that I would (virtually) write to FPL to subsidize their profit-making power plant. The "check" represents the decrease in value of my property as a result of the power plant.

Here's a reference to the study to which I was referring when I responded to your question last evening at your Board meeting. As you will see, it concerns the reuse of El Toro Marine Base as an International airport. In that case, the impact on property value ranged from -15% to -43%.

http://www.eltoroairport.org/issues/rbell.html

Apparently the Orange County Board of Supervisors commissioned the study, done by Randall Bell, MAI. This is the kind of supportthat I would expect from our Planning staff, rather than their "how can we approve this project?" position they have expressed to the CEC. If Planning suggested such a study to you, I'm sure you would go along with it.

More on Randall Bell, MAI: http://www.realestatedamages.com/Bios/GRB.htm

Unfortunately, such a study is well beyond the means of our STOP committee; and I would be hard pressed to accept anything from FPL that counters the offhand statement made by FPL's attorney Jocelyn Thompson to the workshop in Rio Linda on July 17, 2001. She was responding to a question about what a property owner should expect. The consensus of those who listened closely to her statement agree that she said property values would decrease 40% immediately and then after a period of time (20 years was understood) might come back to their previous values. I don't believe she addressed the loss of expected appreciation in value without the power plant.

Don, I appreciate your interest in the issues and facts. It is apparent to me that your position hasn't been "bought"!

Regards,

Jay O'Brien

Tim,

Does FPL intend to respond to my questions posed below? Several are already outdated by changes to the plant. Is a response in progress? It's been nearly three months.

Jay O'Brien

[click here to see the Rio Linda/Elverta Power Plant: Data Requests followup, originally sent 9/4/01, above in this web page, which were attached to this email to Rossknecht]

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	Tons/month	Tons/year
October 31, 2000	Duane McCloud	1	365
August 21, 2001	Duane McCloud	2	730
November 15, 2001	Tim Rossknecht	6.3	2300

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.

FPL wants to come into our community and build a power plant. They have made many questionable statements, for instance suggesting that the workers, who would get to the site only from Elverta Road at the Levee, would "wine and dine in Rio Linda"!

Here's a more substantial example of their lack of credibility.

In October of last year FPL met with me as a Director of the Water Board. One statement their Project Manager made was that all of the water they used would be evaporated, and none discharged into the sewers or into the East Main Drain. He said that the residue, or "sludge", would be trucked away on a regular basis, and would amount to only one ton per day.

At a public meeting in August, ten months later, the same Project Manager stated that the sludge amount would be TWO tons per day. I questioned his statement, and he explained that FPL had learned more about the process since October 2000.

Now the clincher. On November 15th, after only three more months, FPL's Project Director told our CPAC in writing that there would be 6.3 tons per day of sludge! Not one, not two, but over six tons per day! [click here to view FPL statement]

Will it be twenty tons per day the next time FPL makes an estimate? FPL is just not credible. If you really think FPL will do what FPL has promised they will do FOR YOU, take their credibility into consideration.

For details, visit http://obri.net/stop/rlepp.html .

Jay O'Brien