DOCSLIB.ORG

Virginia Hearing Examiner Filing Dominion, Sep

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Virginia Hearing Examiner Filing Dominion, Sep COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA STATE CORPORATION COMMISSION '0'r-U;i-flTr>ain-rs CGNTrtUt CCNrCtf m® 2A20SEP-2 P 5 3b. © APPLICATION OF S VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER CASE NO. PUR-2019-00215 COMPANY For approval and certification of electric Transmission facilities: Lockridge 230 kV Line Loop and Lockridge Substation REPORT OF MARY BETH ADAMS. HEARING EXAMINER September 2, 2020 This case involves the Application of Virginia Electric and Power Company (“Dominion Energy” or “Company”) for approval to construct a new: (a) approximately 0.6 mile long 230 kilovolt (“kV”) double circuit transmission line loop, supported by eight double circuit, single shaft galvanized steel poles from a tap point located on the existing 230 kV Roundtable- Shellhorn Line #2188 between the proposed Lockridge Substation and a proposed junction located northeast of the Shellhorn Substation (“Lockridge Loop”), and (b) 230-34.5 kV substation located on land owned by a customer requesting service (“Customer”) along Lockridge Road in Loudoun County, Virginia (“Lockridge Substation”) (collectively, “Project”).1 The Project would be constructed on new right-of-way (“ROW”) in Loudoun County. The record of this case supports a finding that the Project satisfies tire legal requirements for approval. HISTORY OF THE CASE On December 17, 2019, Dominion Energy filed with the State Corporation Commission (“Commission”) an application for approval and for a certificate of public convenience and necessity (“CPCN”) to construct and operate electric transmission facilities in Loudoun County, Virginia (“Application”). The Application initially included five routes (“Originally Proposed Routes”) for the Commission’s consideration. The Originally Proposed Routes consisted of Routes 1A, IB, and 1C (collectively, “Option 1 Routes”) and Routes 2A and 2B (collectively, “Option 2 Routes”).2 On February 11, 2020, the Company filed an Unopposed Motion of Virginia Electric and Power Company for Leave to Withdraw Routes from Notice and to Submit Updated Notice (“Motion”). In its Motion, the Company stated that four of the five routes initially proposed in the Application cross lands managed by the United States Postal Service (“USPS”) and that, despite initial positive indications in its communications with USPS, the Company was informed by USPS on January 3, 2020, that it opposed proposed routes requiring the placement of 1 See e.g.; Exhibit No. 2, Application at 2; Exhibit No. 9, Supplemental Direct Schedule 2, at 1; Tr. at 5. 2 As will be explained below, the Company eventually added Route 2C and 2D to the Option 2 Routes. structures on USPS property.3 The Company further stated that, without the ability to use condemnation as an assurance to securing the necessary ROW, and based on USPS’s opposition to Routes 1A, IB, 1C, and 2A, those routes are no longer viable for the Project.4 Therefore, the Company requested leave to withdraw the non-viable routes. This request left only one of the Originally Propose Routes, Route 2B, for the Commission’s consideration. Additionally, the Company requested leave to submit a revised notice and overview map, which it attached to the Motion.5 On March 4, 2020, the Department of Environmental Quality (“DEQ”) filed its report on Dominion Energy’s Application (“DEQ Report”).6 On March 5, 2020, the Commission issued an Order for Notice and Hearing (“Procedural Order”) that, among other things, directed the Company to provide notice of its Application; directed the Staff of the Commission (“Staff’) to investigate the Application and file testimony and exhibits summarizing Staffs investigation; established a procedural schedule, including a hearing at the Commission on July 28, 2020, to receive public witness testimony and the evidence of the parties and Staff; provided opportunities for interested persons to intervene and participate hi this case; and appointed a Hearing Examiner to conduct all further proceedings in this matter on behalf of the Commission and to file a report. In its Procedural Order, the Commission granted the Company’s Motion. Thus, the only route offered for Commission consideration at that time was Route 2B. On March 25, 2020, pursuant to Paragraph (9) of the Procedural Order, the Company filed its Proof of Notice and Certificate of Mailing advising that it had mailed property owner notice letters on March 19, 2020, pursuant to Paragraph (5) of the Procedural Order. On April 9, 2020, the Company filed a Motion for Entry of a Protective Ruling, and on April 13, 2020,1 entered a Protective Ruling setting forth procedures for the filing, exchanging, and handling of confidential information in this case. On April 29, 2020, the Company filed its Proof of Notice advising that, pursuant to Paragraphs (6) and (7) of the Procedural Order, it had published notice of the Application and served notice of the Application on all officials required by the Procedural Order, and on May 11, 2020, Dominion Energy filed a corrected Proof of Notice. On May 15, 2020, Dominion Energy filed a Motion for Leave to Submit Corrected and Additional Notice and Submit Supplemental Direct Testimony (“Motion to Correct and Supplement”). In its Motion to Correct and Supplement, the Company requested leave to submit: (i) supplemental direct testimony and associated revised portions of the Appendix presenting alternative transmission line routes, Route 2C and Route 2D, to address the concerns raised by an impacted property owner (“Property Owner”) and other affected stakeholders; and 3 Motion at 2. 4 Id. at 3. 5 Id. 6 The DEQ Report provided recommendations for the Project, irrespective of the alternative selected, should the Commission grant the CPCN. See Exhibit No. 12, at 6. 2 (ii) corrected and additional notice to rectify a typographical error in the original notice and for notice of two additional alternative routes.7 While the supplemental testimony offered two additional routes for the Commission’s consideration, Routes 2C and 2D, the Company continued to support Route 2B as its preferred route in its Supplemental Testimony. A Ruling granting the Motion to Correct and Supplement was entered on May 19, 2020 (“May 19, 2020 Ruling”). On June 4, 2020, the Company filed its Proof of Notice to Landowners and Certificate of Mailing to Officials, as required by the May 19, 2020 Ruling.8 No notices of participation were filed in this proceeding. Staff filed its testimony on June 30, 2020. On July 13, 2020, the Company filed a Motion for Extension requesting that the deadline for the filing of its rebuttal testimony be extended until July 28, 2020, and that the evidentiary hearing be rescheduled. The Company advised that the originally scheduled July 28, 2020 hearing date could be maintained for the purpose of taking public witness testimony. On July 15, 2020,1 issued a Ruling granting the Company’s Motion for Extension and rescheduling the evidentiary hearing for August 12, 2020 (“July 15, 2020 Ruling”). In the July 15, 2020 Ruling, I also directed that the public witness hearing be held telephonically, rather than in- person and that the evidentiary hearing be held via Skype for Business (“Skype”).9 No public witnesses pre-registered to testify at the public witness hearing, as required by the July 15, 2020 Ruling. Therefore, the public witness hearing was cancelled. On July 28, 2020, the Company filed its rebuttal testimony. The evidentiary hearing convened via Skype, as scheduled on August 12, 2020. Vishwa B. Link, Esquire, Lisa R. Crabtree, Esquire, Jennifer D. Valaika, Esquire, and David J. DePippo, Esquire, appeared on behalf of the Company. Frederick D. Ochsenhirt, Esquire, and M. Aaron Campbell, Esquire, appeared on behalf of Staff. No public comments were filed in this proceeding. 7 Motion to Correct and Supplement at 1. 8 The Proofs of Notice and Certificates of Mailings filed on March 25, 2020; April 29,2020; May 11,2020; and June 4, 2020; were collectively marked as Exhibit No. 1, in this proceeding. 9 In the July 15, 2020 Ruling, 1 converted the in-person hearings to virtual hearings in consideration of the Commission’s Order Regarding the State Corporation Commission’s Revised Operating Procedures During COVID-19 Emergency entered on March 19, 2020, and extended on May 11, 2020, wherein the Commission took judicial notice of the ongoing public health emergency relating to the spread of the coronavirus, or COVID-19, and state and federal declarations of emergency. See Commonwealth of Virginia, ex rel. State Corporation Commission, Ex Parte: Revised Operating Procedures During COVID-19 Emergency, Case No. CLK-2020-00005, Order Regarding the State Corporation Commission’s Revised Operating Procedures During COVID-19 Emergency (March 19, 2020) and (May 11,2020). SUMMARY OF THE RECORD Dominion Energy’s Direct Testimony Dominion Energy’s Application, Appendix, and DEQ Supplement were sponsored by Harrison S. Potter, Engineer III - Electric Transmission Planning for the Company; David M. Burnam, Consulting Engineer - Distribution Planning for Dominion Energy; Rebecca A. Suther, Engineer III - Electric Transmission Line Engineering for the Company;10 Mohammad M. Othman, Engineer III - Substation Engineering for Dominion Energy; Nancy R. Reid, Siting and Permitting Specialist for the Company;11 and Jon M. Berkin, PhD, Partner, Environmental Resource Management. Mr. Potter sponsored or co-sponsored, among other things, parts of the Appendix describing the Company’s electric transmission system and the justification for, and benefits of, the proposed Project.12 Mr. Burnam sponsored or co-sponsored portions of the Appendix describing the Company’s electric distribution system and the need for, and benefits of, the proposed Project.13 Ms. Suther sponsored or co-sponsored portions of the Appendix providing an overview of the design characteristics of the transmission facilities for the proposed Project and discussing electric and magnetic field levels (“EMF”).14 Mr. Othman sponsored or co-sponsored portions of the Appendix describing the substation work to be performed for the proposed Project, including an estimated total cost of the proposed Project.15 Ms.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Valley & Spruce Project Initial Study and Mitigated
    VALLEY & SPRUCE PROJECT INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Prepared for: City of Rialto December 2017 VALLEY & SPRUCE PROJECT INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Prepared For: City of Rialto 150 S. Palm Avenue Rialto, CA 92376 Prepared By: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 401 B Street, Suite 600 San Diego, California 92101 December 2017 095894012 Copyright © 2017 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Initial Study ............................................................................................................................................ 1 II. Description of Proposed Project ........................................................................................................... 2 III. Required Permits ................................................................................................................................... 8 IV. Environmental Factors Potentially Affected ......................................................................................... 9 V. Determination ........................................................................................................................................ 9 VI. Environmental Evaluation .................................................................................................................. 10 1. Aesthetics ................................................................................................................................ 10 2. Agricultural and Forestry Resources .....................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Form E – Testing Accommodations
    THE STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA CALIFORNIA BOARD OF LEGAL SPECIALIZATION/OFFICE OF ADMISSIONS 180 Howard Street • San Francisco, CA 94105-1639 • (415) 538-2300 845 S. Figueroa Street • Los Angeles, CA 90017-2515 • (213) 765-1500 FORM E TESTING ACCOMMODATIONS – PSYCHOLOGICAL DISABILITIES VERIFICATION All original documents must be filed with the Office of Admissions’ San Francisco Office. (Must be completed by the applicant; please type or print legibly) NOTICE TO APPLICANT: This section of this form is to be completed by you. The remainder of the form is to be completed by the qualified professional who is recommending testing accommodations for the Legal Specialist Examination for you on the basis of a psychological disability. Please read, complete, and sign below before submitting this form to the qualified professional for completion of the remainder of this form. Applicant’s Full Name: Bar Number: I give permission to the qualified professional completing this form to release the information requested on the form, and I request the release of any additional information regarding my disability or accommodations previously granted that may be requested by the California Board of Legal Specialization or consultant(s) of the California Board of Legal Specialization. Signature of Applicant Date NOTICE TO QUALIFIED PROFESSIONAL: The above-named person is requesting accommodations for the Legal Specialist Examination. All such requests must be supported by a comprehensive evaluation report from the qualified professional who conducted an individualized assessment of the applicant and is recommending accommodations for the examination on the basis of a psychological disability. The California Board of Legal Specialization also requires the qualified professional to complete this form.
    [Show full text]
  • Jational Register of Historic Places Inventory -- Nomination Form
    •m No. 10-300 REV. (9/77) UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR NATIONAL PARK SERVICE JATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES INVENTORY -- NOMINATION FORM SEE INSTRUCTIONS IN HOW TO COMPLETE NATIONAL REGISTER FORMS ____________TYPE ALL ENTRIES -- COMPLETE APPLICABLE SECTIONS >_____ NAME HISTORIC BROADWAY THEATER AND COMMERCIAL DISTRICT________________________ AND/OR COMMON LOCATION STREET & NUMBER <f' 300-8^9 ^tttff Broadway —NOT FOR PUBLICATION CITY. TOWN CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT Los Angeles VICINITY OF 25 STATE CODE COUNTY CODE California 06 Los Angeles 037 | CLASSIFICATION CATEGORY OWNERSHIP STATUS PRESENT USE X.DISTRICT —PUBLIC ^.OCCUPIED _ AGRICULTURE —MUSEUM _BUILDING(S) —PRIVATE —UNOCCUPIED .^COMMERCIAL —PARK —STRUCTURE .XBOTH —WORK IN PROGRESS —EDUCATIONAL —PRIVATE RESIDENCE —SITE PUBLIC ACQUISITION ACCESSIBLE ^ENTERTAINMENT _ REUGIOUS —OBJECT _IN PROCESS 2L.YES: RESTRICTED —GOVERNMENT —SCIENTIFIC —BEING CONSIDERED — YES: UNRESTRICTED —INDUSTRIAL —TRANSPORTATION —NO —MILITARY —OTHER: NAME Multiple Ownership (see list) STREET & NUMBER CITY. TOWN STATE VICINITY OF | LOCATION OF LEGAL DESCRIPTION COURTHOUSE. REGISTRY OF DEEDSETC. Los Angeie s County Hall of Records STREET & NUMBER 320 West Temple Street CITY. TOWN STATE Los Angeles California ! REPRESENTATION IN EXISTING SURVEYS TiTLE California Historic Resources Inventory DATE July 1977 —FEDERAL ^JSTATE —COUNTY —LOCAL DEPOSITORY FOR SURVEY RECORDS office of Historic Preservation CITY, TOWN STATE . ,. Los Angeles California DESCRIPTION CONDITION CHECK ONE CHECK ONE —EXCELLENT —DETERIORATED —UNALTERED ^ORIGINAL SITE X.GOOD 0 —RUINS X_ALTERED _MOVED DATE- —FAIR _UNEXPOSED DESCRIBE THE PRESENT AND ORIGINAL (IF KNOWN) PHYSICAL APPEARANCE The Broadway Theater and Commercial District is a six-block complex of predominately commercial and entertainment structures done in a variety of architectural styles. The district extends along both sides of Broadway from Third to Ninth Streets and exhibits a number of structures in varying condition and degree of alteration.
    [Show full text]
  • Volume I Restoration of Historic Streetcar Service
    VOLUME I ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT RESTORATION OF HISTORIC STREETCAR SERVICE IN DOWNTOWN LOS ANGELES J U LY 2 0 1 8 City of Los Angeles Department of Public Works, Bureau of Engineering Table of Contents Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................................. ES-1 ES.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................... ES-1 ES.2 Purpose and Need ............................................................................................................................................... ES-1 ES.3 Background ............................................................................................................................................................ ES-2 ES.4 7th Street Alignment Alternative ................................................................................................................... ES-3 ES.5 Safety ........................................................................................................................................................................ ES-7 ES.6 Construction .......................................................................................................................................................... ES-7 ES.7 Operations and Ridership ...............................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Operational and Safety Considerations for Light Rail DC Traction Electrification System Design
    LIGHT RAIL ELECTRIFICATION Operational and Safety Considerations for Light Rail DC Traction Electrification System Design KINH D. PHAM Elcon Associates, Inc., Engineers & Consultants RALPH S. THOMAS WALTER E. STINGER, JR. LTK Engineering Services n overview is presented of an integrated approach to operational and safety issues when A designing a DC traction electrification system (TES) for modern light rail and streetcar systems. First, the human body electrical circuit model is developed, and tolerable step and touch potentials derived from IEEE Standard 80 are defined. Touch voltages that are commonly present around the rails, at station platforms, at traction power substations are identified and analyzed. Operational and safety topics discussed include • Applicable codes and standards for electrical safety; • Traction power substation (TPS) grounding; • Detection of ground faults; • DC protective relaying schemes including rail-to-earth voltage sensing and nuisance tripping, and transfer tripping of adjacent substations; • TES system surge protection; • Electromagnetic and induced voltage problems that could cause disturbances in the signaling system; • DC stray currents that can cause corrosion and damage to the negative return system, underground utilities, telecommunication cables, and other metallic structures; and • Emergency shutdown trip stations (ETS). To ensure safety of the project personnel and the public, extensive testing and proper and safe equipment operation, are required. The testing includes factory testing of the DC protection system, first article inspection of critical TES components, inspection and field testing during commissioning. In addition, safety certification must be accomplished before the TES system is energized and put into operation. INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW The TES for a typical modern light rail or street car system includes an overhead contact system (OCS), traction power substations and feeder cables, together with associated substation protective devices, and may include supervisory control and data acquisition.
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Pacific Electric (FPE) Stab-Lok Breakers and Panelboards
    Federal Pacific Electric (FPE) Stab-Lok Breakers and Panelboards HSB, part of Munich Re, is a What is the best course of action when discovered? technology-driven company built on a foundation of specialty insurance, engineering and technology, all Federal Pacific Electric Company (FPE) manufactured many electrical products working together to drive innovation while in business including a panelboard and breaker line called Stab-Lok. The in a modern world. Stab-Lok products are no longer manufactured, but millions had been installed in residential and commercial buildings between 1950 and 1985. The purpose of the breaker is to protect the building from fire in the event of an electrical circuit abnormality. The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) investigated many reports in 1982 of Stab-Lok breakers failing to trip as required by Underwriters Laboratories (UL) testing standards. The CPSC did not have the funding to further investigate this problem or arrive at a definitive conclusion. Tests by the CPSC and independent consulting engineers concluded that certain Stab-Lok breakers do not trip according to UL requirements and in some cases, can jam in the “on” position. In addition, overheating problems have been found within the panelboard internal bus connections. Unfortunately, this information surfaced after many Stab-Lokinstallations were completed and had been in service for years. In 2002, a New Jersey class-action lawsuit decided that the manufacturer of the Stab-Lok breakers committed fraud over many years in issuing UL labels to products they knew did not meet the UL testing requirements. HSB Page 2/2 Federal Pacific Electric (FPE) Stab-Lok Breakers and Panelboards The National Electrical Code requires that all installed products must be listed and labeled by an independent testing agency to be acceptable for the intended use.
    [Show full text]
  • MCO Arrival Wayfnding Map
    MCO Arrival Wayfnding Map N SIDE Gates 1-29 Level 1 Gates 100-129 Ground Transportation & Baggage Claim (8A) Level 2 Baggage Claim Gates 10-19 Gates Ticketing Locations 20-29 Gates 100-111 A-1 A-2 Level 3 A-3 A-4 2 1 Gates Gates 1-9 112-129 Hyatt Regency - Lvl.4 - Lvl.4 Regency Hyatt Security Checkpoint To Gates 70 - 129 70 Gates To Food Court To Gates 1-59 1-59 Gates To Security Checkpoint Gates 70-79 Gates 50-59 To Parking “C” Gates 3 90-99 4 B-1 B-2 Level 3 B-3 B-4 Gates Gates 30-39 Ticketing Locations Gates 80-89 40-49 Gates 70-99 Level 2 Gates 30-59 Baggage Claim Level 1 Ground Transportation & Baggage Claim (28B) SIDE C Check-in and baggage claim locations subject to change. Please check signage on arrival. *Map not to scale Find it ALL in One Place Welcome to Orlando Download the Orlando MCO App Available for International Airport (MCO) OrlandoAirports.net /flymco @MCO @flymco Flight Arrival Guide 03/18 To reach the Main Terminal, The journey to the To retrieve checked baggage, take follow directions on the overhead Main Terminal (A-Side or B-Side) the stairs, escalator or elevator down signage to the shuttle station 2 takes just over one minute. As the 4 6 to the Arrivals/Baggage Claim on which is located in the center train transports you, observe the Level 2. Check the monitors to of the Airside Terminal. signage and listen to the instructions determine the correct carousel directing you to either Baggage Claim A for your flight.
    [Show full text]
  • Interstate Commerce Commission Washington
    INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION WASHINGTON REPORT NO. 3374 PACIFIC ELECTRIC RAILWAY COMPANY IN BE ACCIDENT AT LOS ANGELES, CALIF., ON OCTOBER 10, 1950 - 2 - Report No. 3374 SUMMARY Date: October 10, 1950 Railroad: Pacific Electric Lo cation: Los Angeles, Calif. Kind of accident: Rear-end collision Trains involved; Freight Passenger Train numbers: Extra 1611 North 2113 Engine numbers: Electric locomo­ tive 1611 Consists: 2 muitiple-uelt 10 cars, caboose passenger cars Estimated speeds: 10 m. p h, Standing ft Operation: Timetable and operating rules Tracks: Four; tangent; ] percent descending grade northward Weather: Dense fog Time: 6:11 a. m. Casualties: 50 injured Cause: Failure properly to control speed of the following train in accordance with flagman's instructions - 3 - INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION REPORT NO, 3374 IN THE MATTER OF MAKING ACCIDENT INVESTIGATION REPORTS UNDER THE ACCIDENT REPORTS ACT OF MAY 6, 1910. PACIFIC ELECTRIC RAILWAY COMPANY January 5, 1951 Accident at Los Angeles, Calif., on October 10, 1950, caused by failure properly to control the speed of the following train in accordance with flagman's instructions. 1 REPORT OF THE COMMISSION PATTERSON, Commissioner: On October 10, 1950, there was a rear-end collision between a freight train and a passenger train on the Pacific Electric Railway at Los Angeles, Calif., which resulted in the injury of 48 passengers and 2 employees. This accident was investigated in conjunction with a representative of the Railroad Commission of the State of California. 1 Under authority of section 17 (2) of the Interstate Com­ merce Act the above-entitled proceeding was referred by the Commission to Commissioner Patterson for consideration and disposition.
    [Show full text]
  • GOOGLE LLC V. ORACLE AMERICA, INC
    (Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2020 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Syllabus GOOGLE LLC v. ORACLE AMERICA, INC. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT No. 18–956. Argued October 7, 2020—Decided April 5, 2021 Oracle America, Inc., owns a copyright in Java SE, a computer platform that uses the popular Java computer programming language. In 2005, Google acquired Android and sought to build a new software platform for mobile devices. To allow the millions of programmers familiar with the Java programming language to work with its new Android plat- form, Google copied roughly 11,500 lines of code from the Java SE pro- gram. The copied lines are part of a tool called an Application Pro- gramming Interface (API). An API allows programmers to call upon prewritten computing tasks for use in their own programs. Over the course of protracted litigation, the lower courts have considered (1) whether Java SE’s owner could copyright the copied lines from the API, and (2) if so, whether Google’s copying constituted a permissible “fair use” of that material freeing Google from copyright liability. In the proceedings below, the Federal Circuit held that the copied lines are copyrightable.
    [Show full text]
  • EPA SPCC Tier I Template Instructions for Farms
    SPCC 40 CFR Part 112 Tier I Template Instructions (for farms) Insert Instructor Names Insert HQ Office/Region Insert Date Today’s Agenda I. SPCC/Qualified Facility Applicability II. Tier I Qualified Facility SPCC Plan Template III. Questions and Answers Part I: SPCC/ Qualified Facility Applicability Is the facility or part of the facility (e.g., complex) considered non- NO transportation-related? YES Is the facility engaged in drilling, producing, gathering, storing, NO processing, refining, transferring, distributing, using, or consuming oil? YES The facility is Could the facility reasonably be expected to discharge oil in quantities NO not subject that may be harmful into navigable waters or adjoining shorelines? to SPCC Rule YES Is the total aggregate capacity of completely buried storage greater than Is the total aggregate capacity of 42,000 U.S. gallons of oil? aboveground storage greater than 1,320 U.S. gallons of oil? (Do not include the capacities of: - completely buried tanks and connected (Do not include the capacities of: underground piping, ancillary equipment, - less than 55-gallon containers, and containment systems subject to all of - permanently closed containers, the technical requirements of 40 CFR part - motive power containers, OR 280 or 281, NO - hot-mix asphalt and hot-mix - nuclear power generation facility asphalt containers, underground emergency diesel generator - single-family residence heating tanks deferred under 40 CFR part 280 and oil containers, licensed by and subject to any design and - pesticide application
    [Show full text]
  • Attachment C: Provider Narrative Template
    ATTACHMENT C PROVIDER NARRATIVE TEMPLATE CHILD ADVOCACY CENTER SERVICES Agency Name: PROVIDER NARRATIVE (35 points) Maximum of 5 pages, not including attachments, Times New Roman, at least 10 font, 1 inch margins. Description of requested attachments can be found in Attachment B KidTraks Provider User Guide - Appendix B. Respondents should only submit one Provider Narrative regardless of how many CAC locations the Respondent is proposing. The Provider Narrative must address the following topics: GENERAL INFORMATION • Describe your agency’s history and development to date, including the history and development of your agency’s CAC services. This includes important organizational history of the agency, previous agency name if changed, and staffing trends throughout life of the agency. • Describe the current organizational chart of agency leadership, including current Board of Directors, positions held, and qualifications of staff. If your agency does not follow this organizational structure, please provide details specific to your agency structure and procedures. o Requested attachment: Organizational Chart • List any accreditation, community partnerships, or affiliation. o Requested attachment: Supporting documentation of accreditation, partnership, or affiliation AGENCY BUSINESS MODEL/LOGISTICS • What is the legal status of your organization, including when it became a registered business with the State of Indiana? o Requested attachment: Legal Status • Is your agency in good standing with all State and Federal agencies? o Requested attachment: Secretary of State Entity Report • How do you plan or how do you currently structure staff employment within your organization for CAC services? For example: do you offer benefits, are you using subcontractors, how will you ensure that your staff will be paid for work they complete for your agency? • Describe your use of subcontractors for CAC services (if any).
    [Show full text]
  • 2012 Chevrolet Volt Owner Manual M
    Chevrolet Volt Owner Manual - 2012 Black plate (1,1) 2012 Chevrolet Volt Owner Manual M In Brief . 1-1 Safety Belts . 3-11 Infotainment System . 7-1 Instrument Panel . 1-2 Airbag System . 3-19 Introduction . 7-1 Initial Drive Information . 1-4 Child Restraints . 3-32 Radio . 7-7 Vehicle Features . 1-17 Audio Players . 7-12 Battery and Efficiency. 1-20 Storage . 4-1 Phone . 7-20 Performance and Storage Compartments . 4-1 Trademarks and License Maintenance . 1-25 Additional Storage Features . 4-2 Agreements . 7-31 Keys, Doors, and Instruments and Controls . 5-1 Climate Controls . 8-1 Windows . 2-1 Instrument Panel Overview. 5-4 Climate Control Systems . 8-1 Keys and Locks . 2-1 Controls . 5-6 Air Vents . 8-8 Doors . 2-13 Warning Lights, Gauges, and Vehicle Security. 2-14 Indicators . 5-9 Driving and Operating . 9-1 Exterior Mirrors . 2-16 Information Displays . 5-29 Driving Information . 9-2 Interior Mirrors . 2-17 Vehicle Messages . 5-45 Starting and Operating . 9-16 Windows . 2-17 Vehicle Personalization . 5-53 Electric Vehicle Operating Universal Remote System . 5-62 Modes . 9-21 Seats and Restraints . 3-1 Engine Exhaust . 9-26 Head Restraints . 3-2 Lighting . 6-1 Electric Drive Unit . 9-28 Front Seats . 3-4 Exterior Lighting . 6-1 Brakes . 9-29 Rear Seats . 3-8 Interior Lighting . 6-4 Ride Control Systems . 9-33 Lighting Features . 6-5 Chevrolet Volt Owner Manual - 2012 Black plate (2,1) 2012 Chevrolet Volt Owner Manual M Cruise Control . 9-36 Service and Maintenance . 11-1 Customer Information .
    [Show full text]