Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout1992_10_20415 SPECIAL i~ETING MINUTES OF THE LEESBURG TOWN COUNCIL OCTOBER 20, 1992 A specJ_'_~l meeting of the Leesburg Town Council was held on October 20, 1992, at 5:30 p.m., in the Council Chambers, 25 West Market Street, Leesburg, Virgio'ni,= Notice having been delivered to all members of the Council prior thereto. The meeting was called to order by Mayor Clem. This meeting was called to acquaint new members of the Town Council with the issue regarding the Patowmack Power Partner Plant. ROLL CALL Councilmembers present George F. Atwell (absent) Georgia W. Bange Ronald W. Blake Joseph R. Trocino Krieten C. Umstattd William F. Webb James E. Clem, Ma)or Staff members present Town Manager Steven C. Brown Director of Utilities Randolph W. Shoemaker Director of Engineering and Public Works Thomas P~ Mason Members of the Town Council raised many questions and concerns with regard to the proposed Patowm~_ck Power Partner Plant's (PPPP) impact on the region. Issues raised included pollutants, requirements of town water, hours of operation, source of fuel and electro magnetic fields effects on nearby developments. Mr. Peter T~lor, representing the power plant, was present to address the issues and concerns of the Mayor and Council and citizens. He stated that the impacts on the community of the proposed development are insignificant in every respect. He stated that the air board representing the Commonwealth of Virginis is considering the impact of the plant on the air. The turbines proposed have low impact in the range of 25 parts per billion. In respect to the water being used, the m,xlmum would be 550 gallons per minute from on-site sWrage t~nk,. This water would be drawn from the town's system at night when town-wide usage is low. Wastewater generated from the deminers__liTation process would be discharged into trucks and hauled off by the contractor. Mr. l~lor distributed charts demonstrating the impact of the proposed plant on the environment. Councilmember Umstattd asked the following questions: Is PPPP willing to enter into a binding agreement with the Town that, should the plaot run on fuel oil for greater than 10~ of the time (Doc. 4, p. 15 back) or 10 days/yr. (Doc 4, p. 19), Town water will be shut off or the Town may collect damages from the Plant?. Mr. Lalor ~n_~vered that "we cannot do that, because our contract with PEPCO required us to fire the less expensive available fuel, as any purchase contract from a utility would require of a seller. Utilities are in turn required by their regulatory commissions to generate electricity using the lowes't ~ available fuel, whether by their own facilities or through purchased power. to stop using natural gas if the sulfur content exceeds a certain level, but there is no sJmil,e provision in relation to the use of fuel oil if the sulfur content exceeds a certain level, yet the plant presents a greater health hazard when using higher sulfur oil than in using natural gas. So the backup fuel is worse than the primary fuel. Would PPPP he willing to enter into a binding agreement to stop using fuel oil if the sulfur content exceeded a given level? Mr, Lalor answered the plant poses no health risk whatsoever on oil or on gas. The EPA noted in its comments to the draft air permit that the DAPC "should be commended for the quality of its review and the thoroughness with which it has implemented EPA modeling guidance and policy," which review 416 demonstrated that our impact would be insigni6~nt by every standard for every pollutant. It also accepted the DAPC finding that we have installed the ~est available control technology," which gives us emi~J'on rates signifi~ntiy below thoso of other, new utility-owned peakers in the region. Indeed the impact of our plant on the air people breathe, under the worst meteorologic conditions and burning oil 2500 hours per year (far more than we anticipate being dispatched) is a small fraction of existing concentrations. Mr. Lalor provided the Council with copies of bar charts illustrating the relationship between our maximum, worst-caso-assumption impacts for each measurement period for each pollutant, monitoring equipment, and the health standards of the State and EPA. Our maximum~ worst-case impact ranted from one hundredth to less than one thousandth of the health standard. There are high pollution levels in Loudoun County, but they result from heavy (and getting heavier) vehicular traffic. Restricting our plant from burning oil would have essentially no effect on the pollution in this or any other are~ We are prohibited by our permit from exceeding the sulfur content contained therein. We are required to report the sulfur content of our fuel to the DAPC and are subjected to substantial penalties for failure to observe the limitations of the permit, including, I believe, criminal penalties for willful failure. It will therefore not be necessary or appropriate for the Town to require a separate contract. Is the permittee willing to enter into a binding agreement with the Town that, should the permittee fail to inform the Town of any violation of the permit, the Town shall shut off water to the plant or collect damages from the plant? (See Condition #9 of Draft Permit on p. 13 of Doc. 3). Is permittee willing to extend to the Town the ~me courtesy of entry and inspection being afforded federal and state representatives? (Doc. 3, p. 15, #17). Mr. Lalor answered Loudoun County is the local governmental entity having jurisdiction over the plant. We will be happy to coordinate any inspections of the plant with any entities requested by Loudoun County, including the Town of Leesburg. The same is true of not/ce of violations. 4. Who is source of fuel oil? What is shipment route? Mr. Lalor responded that Route 7 is the expected route. (Ms. Umstattd in her question incorrectly called the fuel oil "toxic," and I pointed out that it is not toxic by any definition.) It is cleaner than the heating oil used to heat homes and buildings throughout the region. Why did PPPP inform the Town and County that PPPP intended to operate the plant only 500 - 1000 hours a year and was seeking a permit to operate 2,500 hours a year when PPPP was acOmlly seeking a permit from the VDAPC to operate 7,500 hours a year? (Randy's letter v. Engineering Analysis in Doc. 2, p. 6. Also see Doc. 4, p. 18 for 500 - 1000 hours/yr.). Mr. Lalor answered that the 7500 hours indicated in the permit is unit hours. There are three units in the plant therefore each unit is intended to run a maximum of 2500 hours. When the plant is open all three units will be operating simultaneously for a period not to exceed 25 hours. Mr. Lalor continues to believe that the plant will only operate 1000 hours per year. His company is committed to low sulfur oil, otherwise will mix in kerosene. Dow Chemical is one of the parent organizations. 6. If H20 is needs cooling, who cools/t: Town or PPPP? Mr. Lalor an~vered PPPP will not discharge H20 into Town system other than minimal amount of wastewater from bathrooms. Please describe the stack monitors? What kind? Specs? Manufacturer? Doc. 3. p. 6. condition 16. Town and County should be informed of results of all tests. Also Town should be kept informed of any violations of permit and any requests for modification of ~,,~ ~. 3, p. 7) D~. 2, p. ~x meutiom~ coatinuous emission monitoring only for nitrogen oxides and opacity. No monitoring system is mentioned for any pollutants other than nitrogen oxides, volatile organic compounds, 02, CO2, No~ What about sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, lead, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, copper, mercury, nickel, formaldehyde, vanadium, manganese and sulfuric acid? (VDAPC public hearing notice and Doc. 3, p. 14). Mr. Lalor stated that we add no Vanadium or other such substances to our fuel. We monitor the amounts in the fuel supplies delivered to us to confirm that they do not exceed spedficatious. We don't -2- 417 have stack monitors for these pollutants because what goes out is what ~me in in the fuel supplies. The same is true for Sulfur. We do monitor nitrogen oxides and opacity continuously because they are affected by our combustion process. Again, we have no objection to informing the community of any violations. Why was PPPP's submL~ion to VDAPC neither 'coherent' nor "in accordance with a modeling protocol approved in advance'?. (p. 3, Doc. l). Mr. l~10r stated that PPP's application was in all respects as approved by the DAPC, and the DAPC concluded that PPP has no signifi_~nt impact on air quality even under worst-case conditions. An models used were as directed by the DAPC, and the modeling results were confirmed indepondenfly by the DAPC. Is it true that the Deed of Trust on this property allows Siemens to step in as responsible agent? (Implications for enforcement of tax collection on foreign corporation). Mr. Lalor showered the Siemens Corporation of the United States owns the property and it is an American company not a German company. 10. Permitted emission limits for sulfur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide exceed the signifi~nt emission levels established in the PSD (prevention of signifi~ot deterioration) regs. (Review of the PPPP Air Quality Impact Analysis p. 4) Why?. Mr. Laior stated the total quantity of sulfur and nitrogen oxides we would be permitted to emit each year make us a "msjor source" under PSD regulations. Other emissions, even if we were to run 2500 hours per year (equal to 7500 unit-hours per year), are not enough to make us a" msjor source" for those pollutants. Because we are a msjor source for SOx and NOx we are subjected to extensive PSD requirements unless we demonstrate to the satisfaction of the DAPC, through detailed state-approved modeling, that we will have no significant impact on the environment under the worst conditions. We did so demonstrate. 11. Given stack site elev. of 290 feet and surrounding elev. of 400 ~, is this pollution at ground level? (See Doc. 2., p. 19 for emphasis on height). Impact of fall-out on wastewater treatment plant? cost of additional chemicals? (Doc. 1, p. 4) Doc. 2, VDA_PC's Engineering Analysis, on p. 11, states that "the proposed stack is below Good Engineering Practice stack height." Could you address the effects on plume buoyancy and building wake effects? Mr. Laior answered the phrase "below Good Engineering Practice" means that we are in compliance with g.e.p., as the regulators don't want power plants to evade regulations by sending their emissions too high. The air that comes out of the stacks will be cleaner then what is taken in. When abient particulate levels are high, our emissions will have lower particulate levels than -mbient air. Other pollutants, such as NOx and SOx, will be higher. The emissions would have no effect on the treatment plant. 12. Why are we proposing to charge PPPP domestic water rates? (Letter from Randy Shoemaker to Terry Titus, dated 9/26/91; Doc. 4, p. 80-81) Mr. Laior stated that the water rates we anticipate paying are those given to us by the Town as included in their existing tariff. 13. Why are we basing our calculations on 2,500 hours total, rather than the 7,500 hours (313 days x 24 hours per day) for all three turbines, or 9,000 hours for mar,, use of all three turbines? (Shoemaker letter, Doc. 4, pp. 80-81. Compare with Draft Permit, Doc. 3, p. 3, condition 9: which states 7,500 hour/year max.) · ,,. ~uo~-~,~we~ w~ta all tht~e £urbines going at one, ~e p~t ~d ~ a ~mm of~ ho~ a y~. It ~ our b~n~ W ~ p~er W o~er u~fi~. PEPCO ~ 2~ hou~ ~r y~. The pe~t ~p~ ~t l~ ~r o~ m~ ~ ~q~. The ~ on ~e ~ ~ ~i~k N p~er is W be ~nem~ we shoed ~ ~nt o~on ~nol~. The pm~ p~t h ~e b~ ~nol~ av~ble. V~ P~er's e~o~ cu~n~y ~ Mgher ~en w~t ~ pm~ ~d m~ of P~O's ~ e~ng Mgher levels of pollute. PPP ~ not pe~ W opem~ "~ ~ turbine" 7~ ho~ per y~, ~d ~e pe~t ~ ve~ d~ on ~L ~ we opem~ ~ ~ ~bin~ ~ch ~ ~ ~ 2~ hou~ of operation per y~. ~d, ~ on ~nt ~~ &~ ~m P~O ~d ~ P~er, it is ~ ~t ~e p~t ~ mn f~er th~n ~ hou~ in m~ y~. 418 14. Why are rural dispemion parameters being used for modeling (Doc. 1, p.6) within 3 kms, when a subdivision (Kincaid Forest) will be within 1,800 feet of the plant? VDAPC seemed unaware of proposed subdivision. Mr. Lalor stated that rural dispersion parameters were used in the modeling because the surrounding area is predomin~tely rural. There are specific rules to follow in selecting the correct modeling parameters, and doing so results in the use of rural parameters in this are~ 15. Draft PSD permit would allow fuel oil consumption of 75.7 million gallons per year. (Doc. 3, p. 3) This translates to roughly 10,000 tanker trucks per year (most t~nl~ers can carry between 7,000 and 9,000 gallons). That's 27 tankers/day on Route 7. Effects of filter removal by fiat-bed truck on traffic; Doc. 4, p. 52:15-25 vehicle trips per day?. Mr. Lalor stated that Ms. UmstatUt correctly pointed out that it would require approximately 25 t~nker trucks a day to supply the plant during maximum operation on fuel oil. By comparison, I am informed that there are currently some 27,000 vehicle trips per day on Route 7 near the site. In our opinion this is not a m~terial increase. The number of water purification trucks win depend on the event the plant has the best possible controls suited to its pattern of operation. It is also important to distinguish between our expected hours of operation, which are based on historical records of other peaking facilities in the region, and our maximum permitted hours as required by contracts with utilities. We were required by PEPCO to obtain a 2500 hour permit for a peaker because that is what PEPCO obtains for its own facilities. Its actual use, and that of Virginia Power, has always been much less, last year around 250 hours. 16. Doc. 1, p. 9-10: Pollutant modelling was based on nominal emission rates of 1 lb./hr. (8,760/yr). Compare this with the VDAPC's public notice of roughly 3,372,080 pounds per year. Why the discrepancy?. The lower (1 lb/hr) rate indicated no impacts in simple terrain that would exceed USEPA signific_~nt impact thresholds for criteria pollutants. Can the same be said of 384.94 lbs/hr (385 times the modelled rate) or of the max hourly emission rates catalogued on p. 14 of Doc. 1 (1,726.01 lbs/hr)? Mr. Lalor answered VDAPC requires a worst case scenario. 17. The Draft Permit allows plume opacity of 10% all the time and opacity of 20% for 10% of the time. (p. 6 of Doc. 3. and p. 13 of Doc. 1.) 18. The EPA does not have a national policy defining air quality significant impact levels for Class I (area) increments. (Letter of 9/10/91 in Doc. 1, p. 21) Class I = Shenandoah National Parl~ Loudoun is Class H? Not all pollutants produced by this plant are regulated. Beryllium (21 lbs/yr -- Doc. 2. p. 22 and Doc. IL p. 6) is a hazardous substance thst, when produced by a combustion turbine, is not regulated by the National Emi~ions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants. What assurances do we have that t. his plant will not emit pollutants that could endanger our health? Mr. Lalor answered we are meeting all regulations. 19. What measures win be taken to contain an oil spin? Will the oil tanks be double-lined and have leakage monitoring devices on them? Specs.? Mr. Lalor answered the tanks will not be double-lined but they win sit in a clay lined, bermed containment ares. 20. Noise. (Doc. 3, p. 2) What noise abatement technology is incorporated into the three Siemens combustion turbines? Manufacturer? Specs.? Is it true that each turbine will produce as much noise as a 747? If so, what impact will this have on the development proposed ior 1,/~0 ieet away?. (Doc. 4, p. 46) Mr. Lalor answered no. These are very quiet turbines. You won't even hear them 1,800 feet away. 21. Water usage. Why are we assuming 6,521 gpd which is 2,380,165 gpy, when the 4.5 million gallon capacity plus domestic use would take 4,541,100 gpy or 12,441 gpd? (Randy's letter, Doc. 4, pp. 80-81). This plant (outside the town) will take water which could be used for 3541 homes within the town. 419 0 Z Mr. Lalor answered we only expect to use an average of 6,521 gallons a day. What is the effect of 32-37.5 pounds of mercury per year on fish in Goose Creek and those who eat them? Mr. Lalor. ao~wered the amount of mercury being allowed is minimal. 23. State of Maryland has not been informed of the Town's intent to divert water to the plank Are we in violation of our permit by not informing Maryland? Mr. Lalor answered I believed that Maryland was aware of this. 24. Peaking v. Base load. Doc. 2, p. 2. 7,500 hours a year is the equivalent of 313 days of 24 hours/day operation. Last paragraph: 'The turbine units are considered to be "peaking" units. This is the reason given for PPPP's argument that the use of add-on controls would not be technically feasible, based on a cost-benefit analysis. 8,760 is 365 days x 24 hrs/day. 7,500 = 86% of the year. What is being represented as a "peaker" plant, i.e., a plant that will operate only at times of excessive power demand, is pushing to be a genuine base-load plant. The plant will have the capacity to run 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. (3,000 hrs/turbine/year). Why, then is PPPP unwilling to add on the pollution controls that would be financially feasible for a base-load plant? Mr. Lalor ~swered we only intend to run 500 - 1,000 hours a year. 25. Why did the VDAPC's public notice indicate 269 tons of sulfur dioxide, when the Engineering Analysis indicates a potential to emit 297 tons? (Doc. 2, p. 3) We are looking at a difference of 56,000 pounds a year. Mr. l~lor stated that the DAPC reduced the amount of SOx we are allowed to emit when it refined the operating assumptions during the permit process. So yes, they reduced the allowable sulfur emi~!ons by 56,000 pounds from what we had requested. 26. Why are we putting our citizens at risk and using our water capacity to provide a Maryland utility, PEPCO, with power? Mr. Lalor answered Virginia Power derives substantial benefits from this plant from an electrical standpoint, as do Virginia rate payers. Virginia Power has an agreement with PEPCO that the plant will be dispatched at their request if PEPCO has not already done so, and in effect Virginians are getting the benefits of a 300 MW facility. Of course the Loudoun community also benefits through a big enhancement of industrial tax base. 27. Oil v. natural gas. "In reality most operation is expected with gas firing." Doc. 2, p. 14. Mr. Lalor stated - question is not clear. 28. Doc. 2, p.17. "Limits on emissions of all the non-exempt toxic pollutants have been included in the draft permit to preclude the permittee from firing with au unusually dirty fuel, if one that otherwise meets the requirements of the permit could be found Compare with p.5, which implies that the .05% sulfur fuel oil the applicant proposes to use has not yet been developed. Compare this with the fact that the Draft Permit does not require shut-down if the sulfur content of fuel oil is above permitted level. What assurances do we have that you will not run the plant on a dirtier fuel? Mr. Lalor answered the assurance comes from our obligation to operate in compliance with our permit and the associated regulations, and if we don't we will be subjected to severe sanctions. 29. EPA stzndards are not based on potential harm to elderly and young children, those with asthma, etc., (Doc. 2, p.19) McKie expressed concern in relation to schools, homes for the elderly, medical centers. What about the hospital's move to the east? Mr. Lalor answered the plant has no significant impact on any location. That includes where the hospital is now, and also wherever it might move W. 30. No stack emissions tests for sulfur dioxide. (Doc. 2, p. 20). Permittee to be self- 420 regulating. Danger. Once-a-year inspections by VDAPC. Why are there no stack emission tests for sulfur dioxide? Mr. Lalor answered the level of sulfur in the fuel determines sulfur dioxide emi.~qions and the fuel suppUer will provide certificates describing sulfur levels in the fuel. 31. Doc. 4, p. 1. "Original application" refers to which of six files in county offices? Fuel use: define "routine" "one fuel oil storage t~nk~, actually, two 1.5 mg "Two water storage tanks'?, three? one for fire. p. 2. "2,500 hours" actually 7500 hours. Applicant, PPPP was not candid about intentions. *wells": What are the effects on stream/groundwater? Mr. Lalor - the question is unclear, but apparently relates to hours of operation and groundwater studies. A few people have been confused by the 7500 hour provision contained in the permit. That number refers to the number of turbine hours, not plant hours, we are permitted to operate. The plant is comprised of three turbines, and so if it runs 2500 hours then that equates to a total of 7500 turbine hours of operation. The plant is permitted to operate 2500 hours maximum, not 7500 hours. We did extensive geological investigation and determined that we are sitting on top of a m~ssive rock. There is little or no groundwater to be cont_~miuated, as you can see if you look at the adjacent VTR quarry. There is no water leaking from any of the 8e~ms in that deep pit. 32. If plant uses existing transmiasion lines, what is effect on electro-magnetic field? If they put up new lines, does this indicate a base-load, not peaker, plant. (Doc. 4, p. 31; 37-39) Cancer, abnormA! embryo development, leukemia, immune response. Mr. Lalor an_~vered the plant will use existing transmission towers but will put up three additional lines to carry the power generated. How would PPPP sn._~ver Mission Energy's criticism that PPPP is inexperienced in running a power plant? Mr. Lalor stated that this question was not asked. Had it been, he would have responded that we were chosen by Mission Energy to manage the operation of a similar facility. In addition, one of the partners in the project is Destec Energy, which is certainly one of the most knowledgeable and experienced operators of combustion turbines in the world. 34. "ExhAust stacks are 100 feet tall" (Doc. 4, p. 18) Page 20, back, of Doc. 4: Noise, portable demineralizes, no water from local streams, what are silencer specs., who's paying for pipe? How can town employees contract our town water? 6. What is expected tax revenue to the County from thi~ plant? (Doc. 4, p. 23 back) Also, Doc. 4, p. 35: Letter of 5/1/91: PPPP will not seek tax exempt status. This doesn't bind their successors. Is PPPP willing to enter into a binding agreement with the County and Town to bind its successors? Mr. Lalor answered we don't know what tax revenue to the County will be, but it should be substantial. Councilmember Trocino asked if there are any changes in the current application that was previously approved by Council? Mr. Lal0r answe~ no. Mr. Lalor stated that there is no sludge produced by the plant's water purification system. There is no discharge from the water purification system to surface waters or to the Leesburg sewage treatment plant. There is no *waste water" from the turbines after the injection process, so there is no need for filtration at the plant or at the WWTP, nor is there any sludge produced, containing heavy metals or otherwise. 421 We are not aware of any discussion of or proposal for fuel oil pipeline in the neighborhood of the plant Two wells were drilled. One was dry, the other yielded small amounts at great depth. We do not expect to develop any wells on the property. The site is underlain by diabese bedrock within a few feet of the surface. Any "spill* would be completely contained by the impermeable dike surrounding the oil storage area and the impermeable plastic liner running underneath the entire area within the dike, including under the tanks themselves. The t~ni~_ will be constructed entirely above ground so that all surfaces other than the tank bottom will be visible at all times. There will also be a set of perforated pipe leak detectors below the tank bottom and above the impermeable liner so that any leaks will be detected and corrected before any discharge to the environment occurs. Both Destec Energy and Siemens Power Corporation are U.S. companies. Destec is an affiliate of Dow Chemical. Prior to purchss/ng the site, PPP commi~ioned a hazardous waste survey which found no hazardous wastes on the site, no indication that hazardous wastes had ever been on the site, and no prior uses of the site that would be expected to generate hazardous waste. PPP will not discharge "concentrate" from the water purification process to the Leesburg WWTP. It will use trailer-mounted water purifiers which will be regenerated offsite. The site plan, which has provisions for water treatment trailer parking and hookup, does not have any permanent water purification facilities or catalyst regeneration facilities. There is every reason to believe that gas will continue to be less expensive than oil, and we are located at a conjunction of two mnjor interstate gas tr~_nsmission pipelines. That should assure us of a reliable supply of economically priced gas for the indefinite future. Our projections of number of run hours and fuel use are of course based on assumptions, and they are sound assumptions. Natural gas is ~ to be awil~ble on a non-firm basis whenever the ambient temperature in the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area is above approximately 30 degrees. PPP has not made monthly forecasts of weather or temperature for the coming 5-10 years. Monthly forecasts would require projections of weather patterns and ambient temperatures and humidity. Councilmember Trod'no also asked about the emi_~sions affect on the Shenandoah National Forest. Mr. T~lor answered that no visible nor malodorous emissions will be affecting the park. Using the park service model there will be no affect on the fores~ Councilmember Bange added that PEPCO is the client~ Mr. L~or ~a~d that Virginia Power benefits as well. Mrs. Pat Friedman, a resident of Mosby Drive, addressed the Council complimenting them on having the open discussion. MOTION On motion of, and duly seconded, the meeting was adjourned at 7:45 p.m. VOTE Aye: Councilmembers Atwell, Bange, Blake, Trocino, Umstattd, Webb and Mayor Clem Nay: None · Clem, Mayor -7-