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-