SES Solar Two – Responses to CEC and BLM Data Requests 128-141 (TPD0906043)

Data Request 128:                   Please describe the amount of soil binder that would be used

(liters/square meter, or similar units), the thickness of the bound soil that would be equivalent to asphalt paving, and if possible provide a sample of the bound soil at the proposed thickness using surface soils from the project site.

Response: The soil binder, Soiltac™, created by Soilworks™, LLC will be used on the roads at the Solar Two site to minimize dust emissions. According to the Soilworks representative, Soiltac™ will be applied in several different ways. For areas that will be frequently traveled or for soils   that   require significant strengthening Soiltac™ will be mixed into the existing soils. This mix-in process consists of tilling the soils to a depth of six inches, adding the proper amount of Soiltac™ to the disturbed soils to ensure appropriate strengthening and binding, re-tilling the soil to ensure complete mixing, grading the area, and finally rolling/compacting the area. After compaction, a top coat is added to the soil mixture. For most of the soils at the Solar Two site, the recommended application rate of Soiltac™ is 0.45 gallons per square yard. The recommended top coat rate is 0.10 gallons per square yard. These application rates were determined by Soilworks staff to meet the required soil strength of 400-500 pounds per square inch. The dilution rate of the Soiltac™ will be field determined as the difference between in-situ and optimum moisture. The dilution rate of the top coat will typically be a 1:4 ratio of undiluted Soiltac™ to water.

For areas that will be infrequently traveled or for   soils   that   do   not require significant strengthening (typically clay-type soils) Soiltac™ will be applied topically onto the existing soils. Penetration for a topical road application is dependent on soil type, but will typically be anywhere from ¼ to 1 inch. The recommended top coat rate is 0.15 gallons per square yard. This application rate was determined by Soilworks staff to meet the required soil strength of 400-500 pounds per square inch. If the soils at the roadway locations require significant strengthening, Soiltac™ will be mixed into the existing soils as described above and at the rates listed above. The dilution rate of the top coat will typically be a 1:6 ratio of undiluted Soiltac™ to water.

A sample of the bound soil using surface soils from the project site was submitted to Will Walters for the CEC and Jaime Hernandez of the ICAPCD on May 20, 2009. The soil pills are 4.5 inch tall cylinders of soil from the Solar Two site mixed with   Soiltac™.   They   were   made   with   the project specific recommended mix-in application rate of 0.45 gallons per square yard. It should be noted that the on site mix-in application is recommended to a 6 inch depth, another 1.5 inches deeper than the samples.

Data Request 129:                   Staff needs to determine appropriate maintenance procedures

for the bound soil roads to ensure they maintain an asphalt paved quality surface. Please identify the ongoing measures necessary to maintain these bound soil roads and identify road maintenance procedures that the applicant would be willing to stipulate to in a condition of certification.

Response: After the initial application of the soil binder Soiltac™ to the roads, the first recommended maintenance should occur between 12 and 24 months after installation. At some point between 12 and 24 months a topical maintenance coat of Soiltac™ will need to be applied to the original treated areas for both the mix-in and topical applications. The mix-in application will be good indefinitely with maintenance done on the surface (topical seal coat) to ensure that the polymers that are destroyed by traffic and photo degradation will be renewed.

The initial maintenance coat will be applied with the same dilution rate as the initial topical application coat (1 gallon of Soiltac™ to 6 gallons of water or 0.15 gallons per square yard) but at a significantly reduced rate, approximately 30% of the original rate. Each subsequent maintenance coat will require approximately 30% of the previous maintenance application.

The maintenance procedures would start by ensuring the Soiltac™ material is applied in a manner that meets all vendor requirements (proper surface compaction, correct application and dilution rates, etc.). After initial application and curing a thorough visual inspection of all treated surfaces will be performed to ensure the material is ready for use. Every 2 weeks during the first 12 months after application all areas will be visually evaluated for possible problems. After the first 12 months, the visual evaluations will occur every week. These once a week inspections will continue until application of the first maintenance coat is required (no later than 24 months after initial application). After verification that all vendor specifications are met prior to application of the maintenance coat a thorough visual inspection will be performed after application and curing. Then visual inspections will be done every 2 weeks for the next 12 months. Inspections will then occur once per week for 12 months after the application of the first maintenance coat. These once a week inspections will continue until application of the second maintenance coat is required. This cycle will continue as needed.

TECHNICALAREA: AIR QUALITY

Data Request 130:                   Please identify why the gasoline fuel tank annual usage

identified in Data Response 93 is less than 1/5^th of the estimated on-site annual gasoline usage in Data Response 103 and Attachment AQ-2, and correct the annual gasoline usage given in Data Response 93, and associated calculations, as necessary to match the fuel use estimates shown in Data Response 103 and Attachment AQ-2.

Response:    The gasoline usage identified in Data Response 93 was estimated based on the fuel efficiency provided by project engineers for of the wash vehicles, the LRU maintenance trucks, security and van pool vehicles. The gasoline usage outlined in Data Response 103 was estimated based on fuel efficiencies from the EMFAC2007 model and the security vehicle vendor data.   Per conversations with CEC staff, it was noted that fuel efficiency should be reduced at low operating speeds, thus the conservative fuel usage rate provided in the EMFAC2007 model was used to estimate the gasoline usage. Onsite gasoline usage is presented in Table DR-130. It should be noted that the staff and visitor vehicles will not get gasoline from the onsite gasoline tank, thus are excluded from the estimation of annual gasoline throughput. Table DR-93 Revised presents the revised VOC emissions from the onsite gasoline tank for an annual throughput of 85,000 gallons. The annual VOC emission rate from the gasoline tank increased from 0.65 tons per year as presented previously to 0.92 tons per year.

Table DR-93

Revised Estimated VOC Emissions from the Gasoline Tank and Vehicle Refueling

Note:

1 Emission factors from CARB Emission Inventory Estimation Guidelines Section 4.10 GASOLINE DISPENSING FACILITIES (Revised May 1999).

2 Emission estimate based on 85,000 gallon per year tank throughput.

3 Emission estimate from EPA Tank4.0.9d model results.

Table DR-130

Estimated On-site Gasoline Usage and Gasoline Tank Throughput

Table DR-130

Estimated On-site Gasoline Usage and Gasoline Tank Throughput (Continued)

Notes:

Gasoline throughput for the on-site gasoline tank is approximately 81,666 gallons.

This estimate assumes that the staff and visitor cars won’t get gasoline from the on-site gasoline tank and the van pooling vehicles will get all gasoline from the onsite tank. Note that 2% of staff and visitor cars burn diesel, the remainder burn gasoline.

Some numbers have been rounded; therefore, discrepancies in tables may occur.

* The fuel efficiency for the Staff & security trucks was obtained from the Toyota Highlander Hybrid website for city performance of 27 mile/gallon. In reality, these vehicles will get much better fuel efficiency since at low speeds these vehicles operate primarily on electricity, thus burning no fuel.

TECHNICALAREA: AIR QUALITY

Data Request 131:                    Please provide   calculations   for   the   project   construction

greenhouse gas emissions in CO2-equivalent tons for the entire construction period, and include estimates of total fuel use by type of fuel during the entire construction period.

Response:       The project construction greenhouse gas emissions in CO2-equivalent metric tons for the entire construction period, and the estimate of total fuel use by type of fuel are presented in Tables DR-131a and 131b, respectively.

Table DR-131a

Greenhouse Gas Emissions Estimated for the Entire 44-Month Construction Period (Metric Tonnes)

Table DR-131a

Greenhouse Gas Emissions Estimated for the Entire 44-Month Construction Period (Metric Tonnes)

(Continued)

Notes:

Some numbers have been rounded; therefore, discrepancies in tables may occur.

Table DR-131b

Fuel Usage Based on CO2e Emissions for the Entire 44-Month Construction Period

Notes:

1. Assumed 2% of worker passenger vehicles CO2 emissions are from burning diesel; the rest of them from burning gasoline.

2. Greenhouse gas emission factor from CCAR General Reporting Protocol April 2008 Table C.4.

TECHNICALAREA:ALTERNATIVES

Data Request 132:                    In order to facilitate preparation of the PSA/DEIS document and

allow further analysis of this alternative, please provide the Biology and Cultural survey results for the 300 MW Alternative (Phase 1) separate from those of the complete Proposed Project.

Response:       Biological Resources:

Figure 132-1, attached behind this response as BIO-1 shows documented biological resources within and adjacent to the 300MW alternative. The table below summarizes the vegetation acreages for the 300MW site.

VEGETATION TYPE                                Acres

Disturbed Habitat                                                               10.5

Sonoran Creosote Bush Scrub                                        2566.5

Total                                                                                2577.0

Sensitive species occurrences within the 300MW site include flat-tailed horned lizard (Phrynosoma mcallii; one sighting location), Le Conte’s Thrasher (Toxostoma lecontei; one location), and loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus; two locations). Bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis nelsoni; BHS), an endangered species, were detected in March 2009.   The BHS sighting location occurs north of the 300MW alternative site (see attachment BIO-1). Additional flat-tailed horned lizard sighting locations and potential burrowing owl burrows occur in areas adjacent to the north and east boundaries of this alternative.

Five flood flow channels that are potential waters of the state are also associated with this site (see attachment BIO-1).

Cultural Resources:

Please refer to the discussion in Section 5, Report of Findings, in the Class III Confidential Cultural Resources Technical Report – Revised Draft, dated September 2008. Section 5 includes Cultural survey results for the 300 MW Alternative (Phase1) in Subsection 5.3.1.1 that was separate from the discussion of the 450 MW Alternative (Phase 2), found in Subsection 5.3.1.2, and separate from the complete Proposed Project. A discussion of ancillary facilities needed for the Proposed Project was also provided. Ancillary facilities include a 750 MW substation, laydown areas, laydown staging areas, a main service complex, a waterline, appropriate buffers outside the boundaries of these areas, as well as other related facilities.

The discussion in Subsection 5.3.1.1 of the Confidential Cultural Resources Technical Report includes the following information:

5.3.1.1 300-MW Phase 1

Cultural resource investigations conducted in this component of the Project area revealed 52 sites, and 12 isolated finds. Unless otherwise noted, the lithic scatters did not include temporally diagnostic artifacts or features. Ceramics could not be attributed to specific, identifiable, temporal or cultural affiliation due to erosion of diagnostic surfaces beyond assignment to the Late Prehistoric. The following describes the data collected within the 300-MW Phase I APE (Figure 5- 3, 300-MW Solar Field [Phase I]).

Each individual site was then presented in paragraph fashion, with a discussion of the site attributes of each site location and the relevant features that were found during the Class III cultural resource survey of the Proposed Project site.

TECHNICALAREA:ALTERNATIVES

Data Request 133:                    Similarly, please provide the air emissions for the 300 MW

Alternative (Phase 1) separate from those the Proposed Project and consistent with the information provided in recent Air Quality Data Requests.

Response:    Peak monthly and annual construction emissions would not change much as the same buildings would be built, areas would need to be cleared, and roads would need to be built. The main difference in the construction emissions would be the shorter construction time frame, thus less total construction emissions. Hence, the main change in emissions would come from operations. Tables DR- 133a, DR-133b and DR-133c present the daily and annual criteria pollutant operations emissions and annual greenhouse gas operations emissions estimated for the alternative 300MW project, respectively.

As this alternative project would be 40 percent of the proposed project (300 MW vs. 750 MW), the roster of on-site operations equipment would be reduced to approximately 40 percent of the proposed project. However, some of the vehicles, such as the security or visitor vehicles would not expect to be reduced to 40% as these vehicles would be required regardless of the size of the facility.

It is expected that a similar number of off-site delivery vehicles would be required regardless of the size of the facility. There would be a reduction in staff vehicles, but probably not to 40%, thus a conservative assumption is made that there would only be a 50% reduction in operations staff due to the smaller project. Thus, 50 staff vehicles travel to the site (off-site travel) and are on-site each day instead of 100.

Only two other vehicle classes are changed due to the smaller sized facility. The number of Washing Vehicles and LRU Maintenance Trucks are both reduced to 40% of the proposed project. These vehicles are tasked with cleaning and maintaining the SunCatchers on-site and significantly fewer would be needed with a smaller facility. A reduction in the number of lifts would also occur.

Since the 300 MW site would be significantly smaller in size than the 750 MW site (approximately 2,577 acres vs. approximately 6,222 acres), the security vehicles would travel fewer miles on-site. The on-site miles driven daily were reduced 50%, even though the 300 MW site would be much smaller than the 750 MW site (approximately 40% of the full site). All other vehicles are assumed to travel the same on-site distances on a daily basis.

Table DR-133a

Estimated Daily Maximum Operational Emissions of Criteria Pollutants from the 300 MW Alternative (lbs/day)

Notes:

Some numbers have been rounded; therefore, discrepancies in tables may occur.

Table DR-133b

Estimated Annual Operational Emissions of Criteria Pollutants from the 300 MW Alternative (tons/year)

Notes:

Some numbers have been rounded; therefore, discrepancies in tables may occur.

Table DR-133c

Estimated Annual Operational Emissions of Greenhouse Gases from the 300 MW Alternative (metric tonnes/year)

Notes:

Some numbers have been rounded; therefore, discrepancies in tables may occur.

TECHNICALAREA:ALTERNATIVES

Data Request 134:                    Please provide the following information for each of the following

three sites: the South of Hwy SR 98 Alternative site, the Mesquite Lake Alternative, and the Border Lands Alternative:

• Biological Resources: One of the site selection criteria for the proposed SES Solar Two site was to avoid highly pristine or biologically sensitive areas. In order to assess this criterion for the alternative sites, please provide the results of the CNDDB search for the South of Hwy SR 98 site, the Mesquite Lake Alternative, and the Border Lands Alternative.
• Cultural Resources: Due to the extensive cultural resources present at the proposed SES Solar Two site, alternative sites are being sought that may impact fewer cultural sites while still achieving the required site criteria. Please provide an Information Center search (Class I) for recorded sites identified within the potential South of Hwy SR 98 site, the Mesquite Lake Alternative, and the Border Lands Alternative.

Response:        Biological Resources

Figures showing the results of the CNDDB query are attached.   Also attached are the GAP Analysis vegetation maps for each alternative site.

Border Lands Alternative

The primary land cover of this alternative is active agricultural lands. Burrowing owl is known to occur in the vicinity. Extensive flat-tailed horned lizard habitat occurs about 1 mile west of the site. Rare plants known from the immediate vicinity include annual rock-nettle (Eucnide rupestris; CNPS List 2), hairy stickleaf (Mentzelia hirsutissima; CNPS List 2), Thurber’s pilostyles (Pilostyles thurberi; CNPS List 4), and California satintail (Imperata brevifolia; CNPS List 2). A major drainage is apparent in the eastern portion of this alternative. Please see Figures 134-1 and 134-2, provided behind this response as attachments BIO-2 and BIO-3, respectively.

Mesquite Lake Alternative

The primary land cover of this alternative site is active and inactive agricultural lands, with some apparent desert scrub and arid riparian habitats. No sensitive species sightings occur within the immediate vicinity. Burrowing owl is likely to be present. A major drainage passes through the site. Please see Figures 134- 3 and 134-4, provided behind this response as attachments BIO-4 and BIO-5, respectively.

South of Hwy SR-98 Alternative (Figures 134-5, 134-6)

The primary land cover of this alternative is desert scrub, dunes and arid wetlands dominated by arrow weed (Pluchea sericea) and salt cedar (Tamarix sp.). Seepage from the All American Canal influences the local vegetation cover. The current vegetation cover will likely change over time since this canal was recently concrete-lined to conserve water. Portions of this site have been

disturbed due to the canal lining project. Please see Figures 134-5 and 134-6, provided behind this response as attachments BIO-6 and BIO-7, respectively.

Yuma clapper rail (Rallus longirostris yumanensis), an endangered species, and Yuma hispid cotton rat (Sigmodon hispidus eremicus; CSC) are documented within and adjacent to this site. Flat-tailed horned lizard habitat occurs within a portion of the site and north of SR 98. Rare plants known from the immediate vicinity include sand food (Pholisma sonorae; CNPS List 1B) and giant Spanish- needle (Palafoxia arida var. gigantea; CNPS 1B).

Cultural Resources:

A self-directed Class I record search and literature review was conducted at the South Coastal Information Center (SCIC) at San Diego State University (SDSU) for the three Solar 2 alternative site locations. The SCIC is the repository for recorded site information for both San Diego and Imperial Counties. The Imperial Valley College Museum (IVCM) Southeast Information Center (SEIC) formerly housed all Imperial County records, but that facility was closed in October 2008, and the information was transferred to the SCIC.

The majority of Imperial County information at SCIC has not yet been computerized, so a self-directed record search and literature review of the paper copies of the Imperial County records was conducted by URS archaeologist Kaja Laustsen on May 20 and 21, 2009, under the direction of SCIC staff. The results of the record search are provided below. Confidential record search results and maps/literature review are provided in a separate filing to this report, made under a confidential cover.

Alternative #1 is the South of Hwy SR 98 Alternative, located to the southeast of the City of El Centro, with its southern boundary coterminous with the U.S./ Mexico border.

Alternative #2 is the Mesquite Lake Alternative, a rectangular-shaped parcel located northwest of the City of El Centro.

Alternative #3 is the Border Lands Alternative, located southwest of the City of El Centro and consisting of several discontinuous parcels of land. Figures 1 through 5 show the specific parcels and boundaries.

Due to the acreage involved of the alternative sites and the potential for a large amount of data to be collected, the record check and literature review focused on data located within the boundaries of each alternative site. Record searches were not conducted for any distance extending outside project boundaries. This allowed for a more complete accounting of previously recorded resources within the boundaries of each alternative.

Information on previously recorded sites in the Project Area for the South of Hwy. SR 98 Alternative, Alternative #1, is provided in Table DR 134-1 below:

Table DR 134-1

Previously Recorded Sites in the Project Area

CEC Alternative Site #1, South of Hwy. SR 98 Alternative

Table DR 134-1

Previously Recorded Sites in the Project Area

CEC Alternative Site #1, South of Hwy. SR 98 Alternative (Continued)

Table DR 134-1

Previously Recorded Sites in the Project Area

CEC Alternative Site #1, South of Hwy. SR 98 Alternative (Continued)

Source: Solar Two Project Team, 2009.

As can be seen in Table DR 134-1, a total of 51 previously recorded cultural resource sites have been identified within the South of Hwy. SR 98 Alternative. These include five (5) historic sites, twenty-four (24) ceramic sites, two (2) temporary camps, one (1) trail, ten (10) lithic scatters, one (1) milling station, one

(1)   combination of ceramics and lithics, two (2) trails and ceramics, one (1) unknown origin, and four (4) sites located on the map but with site forms missing. Lithic scatters did not include temporally diagnostic artifacts or features. Ceramics could not be attributed to specific, identifiable, temporal or cultural affiliation beyond association with the Late Prehistoric.

Information on previously recorded sites in the Project Area for the Mesquite Lake Alternative, Alternative #2, is provided in Table DR 134-2 below:

Table DR 134-2

Previously Recorded Sites in the Project Area CEC Alternative Site #2, Mesquite Lake Alternative

Source: Solar Two Project Team, 2009.

As can be seen in Table DR 134-2, a total of 13 previously recorded cultural resource sites have been identified within the Mesquite Lake Alternative. These include two (2) lithic scatters, three (3) temporary campsites, one (1) ceramic scatter, three (3) historic sites, two (2) cave sites, one (1) combination trail, lithic scatter, and sleeping circles, and one (1) site located on the map but with the site form missing. Lithic scatters did not include temporally diagnostic artifacts or features. Ceramics could not be attributed to specific, identifiable, temporal or cultural affiliation beyond association with the Late Prehistoric.

Information on previously recorded sites in the Project Area for the Border Lands Alternative, Alternative #3, is provided in Table DR 134-3 below:

Table DR 134-3

Previously Recorded Sites in the Project Area CEC Alternative Site #3, Border Lands Alternative

Source: Solar Two Project Team, 2009.

As can be seen in Table DR 134-3, a total of 14 previously recorded cultural resource sites have been identified within the Border Lands Alternative. These include six (6) lithic scatters, three (3) historic sites, two (2) temporary camps, one (1) prehistoric sleeping circle site, and two (2) sites located on the map but with the site forms missing. Lithic scatters did not include temporally diagnostic artifacts or features. Ceramics could not be attributed to specific, identifiable, temporal or cultural affiliation beyond association with the Late Prehistoric.

In addition, research was conducted on previously conducted survey work and/or archaeological excavations that had been conducted within or adjacent to the boundaries of all three CEC suggested alternatives. The records searches identified 30 records/reports related to cultural resources investigations previously conducted. These reports are listed in Table DR 134-4, Previous Surveys within the Project Area. A very limited amount of the alternative sites had been surveyed.

Table DR 134-4

Previous Surveys within the Project Area

Table DR 134-4

Previous Surveys within the Project Area (Continued)

Table DR 134-4

Previous Surveys within the Project Area (Continued)

Table DR 134-4

Previous Surveys within the Project Area (Continued)

Source: Solar Two Project Team, 2009.

Data Request 135:                    Please verify with the county whether or not the proposed

project is in compliance with the LUO and provide the county’s response with regard to their ability to issue a CUP (but for the Energy Commission’s authority).

Response:    According to Title 2 Chapter 3, Section 90203.10, when an applicant proposes a use that is not specifically authorized or listed as a use or conditional use in the specific zone, he/she may apply for a determination of similar use to the Planning Commission. A request for a “similar use” determination is possible in the case of a proposed use that is similar to an existing approved use within that zone.

Per conversation with James Minnick of the Planning and Building Division of Imperial County, based on this ordinance, the County would be able to issue a CUP to the Solar Two Project (but for the Energy Commission’s authority) in compliance with the LUO.

Data Request 136:                    Please verify whether construction of this pipeline would occur in

the area proposed in AFC Figure 5.9-2.

Response:       The construction of the pipeline as shown in Figure 5.9-2 has been updated to use reclaimed water from the Seeley Wastewater Treatment Plant. The Applicant is scheduled to docket a supplemental filing (Q2 2009) to include a description of the new water source which will include a description and figures of the new waterline location.

TECHNICAL AREA: LAND USE

Data Request 137:                    If construction of the pipeline would occur within an Imperial

County agricultural zone, please provide a LORS compliance analysis and the California Department of Conservation (DOC) Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP) land use designation for the area of impact.

Response: Attachment LU-1 shows the updated water line overlain on Department of Conservation (DOC) Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP) soil data. There are no Williamson Act Parcels located along the water line alignment. Some parcels along the waterline are zoned for agricultural use by the County of Imperial. However, only temporary impacts to agriculture are anticipated since the waterline will be placed underground and current land uses will be restored after construction. Agricultural land uses at the site of the water line installation will not change. Any permits required would be ministerial in nature and do not involve the conversion of agricultural land. The construction of the pipeline will comply with all LORS.

Data Request 138:                    Please provide descriptions of the grouping of “receivers”

located northwest of the western project boundary, including ambient noise values and distances from the project boundary and noise-producing project features.

Response: As background, the five noise receivers located approximately 3,300 feet northwest of the project’s western boundary (identified on Figure 5.12-1 of the AFC) were considered and modeled as part of the noise evaluation completed for the AFC. A description of these receivers is included on page 5.12-4 (Section 5.12.1.1), paragraph 3:

“Trailer residences are located as close as approximately 3,200 feet northwest of the northwest corner of the Project property line along Painted Gorge Road. These trailers, estimated to number as many as 30, are arranged in clusters of various sizes and are located behind a tall ridge that totally occludes sight lines between these residences and the Project. The trailers are individual noise- sensitive receivers; however, given that the clusters share the commonality of distance to the Project, each cluster is modeled as one receiver in the prediction model.”

The closest of these receivers to the Project (described in the AFC as “1510 Painted Gorge Road”) is located approximately 3,200 feet perpendicular to the Project’s northwest boundary. The nearest SunCatcher is therefore likely to be about 3,300 feet away from this receiver. The Main Services Complex and proposed Substation, as shown on Figure 5.12-1 of the AFC, are both at least 17,500 feet to the East of this receiver.

On the basis of comparable conditions, such as similar exposure to ambient noise sources such as military and commercial aircraft overflights, and distant road traffic on I-8 and Evan Hewes Highway, the ambient noise values for 1510 Painted Gorge Road are considered comparable to what was measured at the residential receiver “ML1” (426 Evan Hewes Highway) as noted in Table 5.12-8 of the AFC.

Data Request 139:                   Please provide an estimate of project construction noise and operating noise at these receptors.

Response: Predicted project construction noise and operating noise at the closest of these receptors to the Project is shown in Tables 5.12-5 and 5.12-8 in the Project AFC and are included again here for your convenience.

Table 5.12-5

Estimated Construction Noise from Nearest 18-Megawatt Block to West Receiver (1510 Painted Gorge Road)

Table 5.12-5

Estimated Construction Noise from Nearest 18-Megawatt Block to West Receiver (1510 Painted Gorge Road)

(Continued)

Source: SES Solar Two, LLC, 2008. Note:

dBA = A-weighted decibel

Table 5.12-8

Calculated Operation Levels at Existing Residences

Source: URS Corporation, 2008. Notes:

1 Existing noise measurement data based on measurement at an acoustically representative location (426 Evan Hewes Road) near

the closest noise-sensitive receiver (1510 Painted Gorge Road). Daytime and nighttime levels extracted from the corresponding intervals of the long-term measurement at the representative location.

TECHNICALAREA: TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION

Data Request 140:                    Please provide a quantitative description of the change in the

number construction vehicles to the site. Please breakdown by delivery trucks, employee trucks, buses that would transport employees onto the site, and heavy vehicles and trucks.

Response: The construction traffic data provided in the AFC was preliminary, since that time, significant refinement of the estimated construction vehicle numbers has occurred. Table DR-140 summarizes the number of construction vehicles coming to the Solar Two site. As shown in Table DR-140, the number of all vehicle types as changed.

During peak workload time periods, there will be six buses that will each make up to two trips delivering workers from the laydown area to the site.

The peak number of construction personnel is 731 expected in month 7. The worst-case assumption used in the emission calculations and presented below was that all these 731 individuals traveled to the site in private vehicles. Each vehicle was assumed to carry 1.5 individuals per vehicle, giving a maximum 487 commuting vehicles traveling daily to the site.

Delivery truck and heavy truck numbers are reduced from the initial estimate partly because it is assumed that much of the material needed on a daily basis will be stored at the Main Services Complex (MSC) and can be delivered to the worksite via on-site vehicles. Also there will be no soil import or export needed during construction. The pedestals, mirrors, metal supports, engines, drives and control systems will all be delivered on-site by transport trucks coming from outside Imperial County. The general materials and concrete trucks will most likely come from El Centro or elsewhere in Imperial County.

Table DR-140

Offsite Construction Vehicle Schedule

TECHNICALAREA: TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION

Data Request 141:                    Please provide confirmation on whether any deliveries will be

made via rail and how many trucks will be taken off the roadway due to the change in mode of transportation.

Response: At this time Union Pacific Railroad is not able to deliver material to the site at the quantity and delivery rate required for an economical development of the site due to the railroad’s delivery restrictions on container handling. Currently, containers are the only way SES parts can be shipped in a timely and economically manner from the Midwest to Los Angeles, CA.

W:27657106�0608-c-Data Responses – Set 2 Part 1_FINAL.doc                                                                                                                                                                                             TRAF-3

APPLICANT

INTERESTEDAGENCIES

ENERGY COMMISSION

*Robert B. Liden, Executive Vice President SES Solar Two, LLC 4800 North Scottsdale

Road, Ste. 5500

Scottsdale, AZ 85251

rliden@stirlingenergy.com

*Kevin Harper, Project Manager SES Solar Two, LLC

4800 North Scottsdale Road,

Ste. 5500

Scottsdale, AZ 85251

kharper@stirlingenergy.com

CONSULTANT

Angela Leiba, Sr. Project Manager URS Corporation 1615 Murray Canyon Rd., Ste. 1000

San Diego, CA 92108 Angela_Leiba@urscorp.com

APPLICANT’S COUNSEL

Allan J. Thompson Attorney at Law

21 C Orinda Way #314

Orinda, CA 94563 allanori@comcast.net

California ISO

e-recipient@caiso.com

Daniel Steward, Project Lead BLM – El Centro Office

1661 S. 4th Street

El Centro, CA 92243 daniel_steward@ca.blm.gov

Jim Stobaugh, Project Manager &

National Project Manager Bureau of Land Management BLM Nevada State Office

P.O. Box 12000 Reno, NV 89520-0006

jim_stobaugh@blm.gov

INTERVENORS

CURE

c/o Tanya A. Gulesserian Loulena Miles

Marc D. Joseph

Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo

601 Gateway Blvd., Ste. 1000 South San Francisco,

CA 94080

tgulesserian@adamsbroadwell.com

lmiles@adamsbroadwell.com

JEFFREY D. BYRON

Commissioner and Presiding Member jbyron@energy.state.ca.us

JULIA LEVIN

Commissioner and Associate Member jlevin@energy.state.ca.us

Raoul Renaud Hearing Officer

rrenaud@energy.state.ca.us

Caryn Holmes Staff Counsel

cholmes@energy.state.ca.us

Christopher Meyer Project Manager

cmeyer@energy.state.ca.us

Public Adviser

publicadviser@energy.state.ca.us