BEFORE THE MISSOURI AIR CONSERVATION COMMISSION and MISSOURI ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING COMMISSION In Re: PSD Construction Permit Issued to Great Plains Energy Project No. 2005-05-062 Permit No. 012006-019 Kansas City Power & Light Company - Iatan Generating Station SIERRA CLUB ) Petitioner, ) v. ) ) MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL ) RESOURCES ) ACC Appeal No. 06-0251 ACC ) Respondent, ) ) GREAT PLAINS ENERGY ) ) Respondent, ) ) KANSAS CITY POWER & LIGHT ) COMPANY ) ) Respondent. ) ANSWERS AND OBJECTIONS OF PETITIONER SIERRA CLUB IN RESPONSE TO RESPONDENT MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES’ FIRST INTERROGATORIES 1. Please identify by name, address, employment and job title each person who contributes information to any of the answers to these Interrogatories. ANSWER : Petitioner objects to this interrogatory insofar as it calls for information protected by the work product and/or attorney-client privileges. Most of the interrogatories inquire about facts
21
Embed
BEFORE THE MISSOURI AIR CONSERVATION … · BEFORE THE MISSOURI AIR CONSERVATION COMMISSION and MISSOURI ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING COMMISSION ... Please identify each non-retained expert
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
BEFORE THE MISSOURI AIR CONSERVATION COMMISSION and MISSOURI ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING COMMISSION
In Re: PSD Construction Permit Issued to Great Plains Energy Project No. 2005-05-062 Permit No. 012006-019 Kansas City Power & Light Company - Iatan Generating Station SIERRA CLUB ) Petitioner, ) v. ) ) MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL ) RESOURCES ) ACC Appeal No. 06-0251 ACC ) Respondent, ) ) GREAT PLAINS ENERGY ) ) Respondent, ) ) KANSAS CITY POWER & LIGHT ) COMPANY ) ) Respondent. )
ANSWERS AND OBJECTIONS OF PETITIONER SIERRA CLUB IN RESPONSE TO RESPONDENT MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES’ FIRST
INTERROGATORIES
1. Please identify by name, address, employment and job title each person who
contributes information to any of the answers to these Interrogatories.
ANSWER:
Petitioner objects to this interrogatory insofar as it calls for information protected by the work
product and/or attorney-client privileges. Most of the interrogatories inquire about facts
2
supporting allegations in the Complaint. Most of the answers to those questions refer to sections
of the Comment Letter, dated December 9, 2005 (as corrected December 12, 2005) (“Comment
Letter”), submitted by petitioner, by and through counsel, to respondent Missouri Department of
Natural Resources (DNR) regarding the draft Permit that is the subject of this appeal. In
addition, most of the information set forth in the Comment Letter is supported by exhibits
submitted to DNR with the Comment Letter, many of which are also identified and being
submitted with these answers, as well as additional exhibits submitted with these answers. The
expert identified in answer number 2, below, also provided some information for these answers.
2. Please identify each person whom you expect to call as an expert witness at trial
by providing such expert’s name, address, occupation, place of employment and qualifications to
give an opinion, and state the general nature of the subject matter on which the expert is expected
to testify and the expert’s hourly deposition fee.
ANSWER:
Dr. J. Phyllis Fox, Environmental Engineer. Address, place of employment, and qualifications to
give an opinion may be obtained from her resume, attached hereto as Exhibit 176. Dr. Fox will
testify regarding the netting analysis and the limits for particulate matter and sulfuric acid mist
emissions in the Permit. Her hourly deposition fee is $500 per hour.
3. Please identify each non-retained expert witness, including a party, who you
expect to call at trial who may provide expert witness opinion testimony by providing the
expert’s name, address and field of expertise.
3
ANSWER:
None at this time.
4. Please identify by name, address, and telephone number, each person who claims
knowledge of the facts or whom Petitioners believe to be a witness to any of the matters referred
to in Petitioner’s Appeal.
ANSWER:
Petitioner objects to this question insofar as it requests the disclosure of non-expert witnesses,
and such information is protected by the attorney work product privilege because it reflects
counsel’s trial strategy. Persons who have knowledge of the facts referred to in the Appeal
include persons at DNR and KCPL known better to DNR than to Petitioners, as well as such
expert witnesses disclosed and/or to be disclosed by Petitioners.
5. Please state all facts known to Petitioner that support the allegations in paragraph
3 of its appeal.
ANSWER: Paragraph 3 of Petitioner’s appeal states, “The Permit authorizes KCPL to undertake at Iatan
Unit 1 modifications that will increase Unit 1’s emission of some air pollutants. The Permit also
authorizes KCPL to construct a new, larger coal-fired power plant, Iatan Unit 2, at the same site.
Iatan Unit 2 will emit the same air pollutants as Unit 1. The Permit refers to both the
modification of Iatan Unit 1 and the construction of Iatan Unit 2 as the Iatan Generating Station
project.”
4
The Permit speaks for itself.
6. Please state when and how Petitioner filed the above-styled appeal.
ANSWER:
Petitioner filed the appeal by sending it to the Missouri Administrative Hearing Commission
through certified mail on March 2, 2006. See receipt attached hereto as Exhibit 177.
7. Please state all facts known to Petitioner that support the allegations found in
paragraph 22 of its appeal.
ANSWER:
Paragraph 22 of Petitioner’s appeal states, “In or about December 2004, KCPL approached DNR
and EPA with a proposal involving, among other items, an agreement by DNR and EPA not to
issue to KCPL information requests under Clean Air Act § 114, 42 U.S.C. § 7414, or to
commence enforcement actions against KCPL for any unpermitted modifications at the Iatan
Unit 1 facility.”
See Exhibits 168, 169, 170, and 173, listed below and attached hereto.
• Exhibit 168: 2005-01-04 Handwritten notes from EPA meeting with KCPL
• Exhibit 169: 2005-01-20 Email from Dana Skelley to Jon Knodel, Lisa Hanlon, and
Becky Dolph, and attached Telephone Conversation Record of Skelley’s 2005-01-20
phone conversation with Michael Hockley
• Exhibit 170: 2005-01-21 Letter from Dana Skelley to Michael Hockley
5
• Exhibit 173: Undated EPA handwritten notes
8. Please state all facts known to Petitioner that support the allegations found in
paragraph 51 of its appeal, including identifying the documents referenced in paragraph 51 of the
appeal.
ANSWER:
Paragraph 51 of Petitioner’s appeal states, “The evidence of an unpermitted modification was
reinforced by EPA documents indicating that KCPL had recently sought protection from EPA
and DNR against possible enforcement action for illegal facility modification at Iatan Unit 1.”
See Exhibits referenced in Answer 7 above.
9. Please state all facts known to Petitioner that support the allegations found in
paragraph 54 of its appeal.
ANSWER:
Paragraph 54 of Petitioner’s appeal states, “DNR’s conclusion that a possible illegal, prior
modification at Iatan Unit 1 would not undermine the netting analysis in the Permit is legally
erroneous and factually unfounded.”
Facts responsive to this question are included in the Comment Letter submitted by Petitioner to
DNR regarding the draft permit, including pages 18-24 of the Comment Letter and all exhibits
referenced therein, including Exhibits 63, 64, 136, 147, 148, 151, and 178, listed below and
attached hereto. Insofar as facts supporting these allegations are technical in nature, petitioner
relies on expert witness Dr. J. Phyllis Fox.
6
• Exhibit 63: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) Form No. 1, Kansas City
Power and Light, 2004 (referenced in footnote 56 of the Comment Letter, no Exhibit
number given)
• Exhibit 64: June 1976 Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Iatan Steam Electric
Generating Station, p. 1-15
• Exhibit 136: Bibb and Associates Coal Experience Handout
• Exhibit 147: Revised NOx Netting Analysis
• Exhibit 148: Revised SO2 Netting Analysis
• Exhibit 151: Parish Texas Units 5-7 NOx emissions, 2003-2005
• Exhibit 178: January 7, 1977 PSD Permit for Iatan Unit 1 (referenced as Exhibit 63 in the
Comment Letter)
See also Exhibit 179, EPA Clean Air Markets Database Unit Emissions Report, 2006-05-30,
attached hereto.
10. Please state all facts known to Petitioner that support the allegations found in
paragraph 86 of its appeal.
ANSWER:
Paragraph 86 of Petitioner’s appeal states, “IGCC could substantially reduce emissions of carbon
monoxide, particulate matter, mercury, sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen oxides from the Iatan
Generating Station project.”
7
Facts responsive to this question are included in the Comment Letter submitted by Petitioner to
DNR regarding the draft permit, including pages 27-34 of the Comment Letter and all exhibits
referenced therein, including Exhibits 140, 141, 146, and 149, listed below and attached hereto.
• Exhibit 140: 2005-07 PSD, Title V, and Acid Rain Permit Application for Cash Creek
Generating Station, Kentucky
• Exhibit 141: 2005-04 PSD Permit Application for Christian County Generation’s
Taylorville Energy Center, Illinois
• Exhibit 146: Emissions Reductions Capability of IGCC