before the missouri air conservation … · before the missouri air conservation commission and...

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


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.



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.



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



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

• Exhibit 149: 2005-09 Steelhead Permitting Presentation

See also Exhibits 180-186 and 200, listed below and attached hereto.

• Exhibit 180: 2006-01-11 Appalachian Power Company Application for a Certificate of

Public Convenience and Necessity for a 600 MW IGCC Generating Station in Mason

County, West Virginia, Case No. 06-003-E-CN

• Exhibit 181: 2002-10-28 Clean Coal Technology Options – A Comparison of IGCC vs.

Pulverized Coal Boilers, ChevronTexaco

• Exhibit 182: 2005 Coal Gasification: When Does It Make Sense?, Eastman Gasification

Services Company

• Exhibit 183: 2005-10-11, E-Gas Applications for Sub-Bituminous Coal, ConocoPhillips

• Exhibit 184: 2003-12, Coal Gasification is Environmentally Beneficial, Eastman

Gasification Services Company

8

• Exhibit 185: 2005-04-05, Coal Gasificiation’s Environmental and Operational

Capabilities Today, Eastman Gasification Services Company

• Exhibit 186: 2006-05-12, IGCC Working Group Initial Study Materials, Pacificorp

• Exhibit 200, 2005-09, Environmental Impact Comparisons, IGCC vs. PC Plants

11. Please all facts known to Petitioner that support the allegations found in paragraph

87 of its appeal.

ANSWER:

Paragraph 87 of Petitioner’s appeal states, “In addition, IGCC can facilitate the capture and

disposal of carbon dioxide, which when emitted to the atmosphere contributes significantly to

global warming.”

See Exhibits referenced in Answer 10 above.



ANSWER:

Paragraph 88 of Petitioner’s appeal states, “Several companies have constructed and/or proposed

to construct IGCC units.”



referenced therein, including Exhibits 14, 72, 104, 106, 109, 110, and 111, listed below and

attached hereto. See also Exhibits referenced in Answer 10 above.

9

• Exhibit 14: 2005-09-13 KCPL White Paper: Integrated Coal Gasification Combined

Cycle (IGCC) Technology Status

• Exhibit 72: 2002-12, Major Environmental Aspects of Gasification-Based Power

Generation Technologies

• Exhibit 104: 2004-11-11, “Steelhead Energy Awarded $2.5 Million Clean Coal Grant for

Illinois Coal Gasification Project, Files Air Permit Application with Illinois EPA,” PR

Newswire

• Exhibit 106: 2005-03-18, Application to Public Utilities Commission of Ohio, Case No.

05-376-EL-UNC

• Exhibit 109: Proposed Gasification Plant Moves Forward in Orlando, August 2005

• Exhibit 110: Cinergy Air Issues Report to Stakeholders, 2004-12-01, and “Industry Split

on Type of Clean Coal Technology Eligible for Government Support” Inside EPA, 2004-

08-12

• Exhibit 111: 2005-09, AEP selects GE and Bechtel to design clean-coal power plant



ANSWER:

Paragraph 89 of Petitioner’s appeal states, “At least two states have required companies

proposing pulverized coal electric power plants to include IGCC in their BACT analyses.”

10



referenced therein, including Exhibits 9 and 11, listed below and attached hereto.

• Exhibit 9: Letter from Raj Solomon, Permits Section, Air Quality Bureau, to Ms. Diana

Tickner, Peabody Energy, re: Permit Application No. 2663 – Mustang Generating

Station – Revised BACT Analysis, September 16, 2005

• Exhibit 11: Sierra Club v. Environmental and Public Protection Cabinet, No. DAQ-

26003-037 and DAQ-26048-037, Hearing Officer’s Report and Recommended

Secretary’s Order, August 9, 2005

14. Please state all facts known to Petitioners that support the allegations found in


ANSWER:

Paragraph 90 of Petitioner’s appeal states, “A nine-state consortium, the Northeast States for

Coordinated Air Use Management, has repeatedly stated that IGCC should be considered in a

BACT analysis for any new coal-fired power plant.”



referenced therein, including Exhibits 99, 100, and 101, listed below and attached hereto.

• Exhibit 99: Amicus Brief of Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management in the

Matter of the Air Quality Permit for the Thoroughbred Generating Station, December 22,

2004

11

• Exhibit 100: Amicus Brief of Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management in

the Matter of the Air Quality Permit for the Elm Road Generating Station, November 30,

2004

• Exhibit 101: Letter from Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management to Texas

Commission on Environmental Quality re Application of Sandy Creek Energy

Associates, December 5, 2005

15. Please state all facts known to Petitioners that support the allegations found in

paragraph 91 of its appeal, including identifying the “representative of EPA Region 7"

referenced in that paragraph.

ANSWER:

Paragraph 91 of Petitioner’s appeal states, “With reference to the Iatan Generating Station permit

application, a representative of EPA Region 7 stated that KCPL should include IGCC in its

BACT analysis.”


DNR regarding the draft permit, including Exhibit 12, 2004-10-07 Email of Jon Knodel to Susan

Brown, attached hereto.

16. Please identify the “other recent permits” referenced in paragraph 115 of

Petitioner’s appeal.

ANSWER:

12

Paragraph 115 of Petitioner’s appeal states, “DNR unreasonably failed to consider lower

PM/PM10 emissions limits required in other recent permits, as described by Sierra Club and EPA

in their comments on the draft permit.”



referenced therein, including Exhibits 27, 30, 32, 130, 132, 134, 135, 187, and 188, listed below

and attached hereto. Facts responsive to this question are included in the December 5, 2005

Comment Letter submitted by EPA to DNR regarding the proposed permit, including pages 1-2

of EPA’s Comment Letter, attached hereto as Exhibit 66.

• Exhibit 27: Construction Permit No. 04PB1015, Public Service Company of Colorado

Comanche Generating Station Unit 3 boiler, 2005-07-05

• Exhibit 30: 2004-10-18, Air Pollution Construction Permit No. 03-RV-248, Wisconsin

Public Service Commission – Weston 4 Plant

• Exhibit 32: Intermountain Power Services Corporation Approval Order: PSD Major

Modification to Add New Unit 3 at Intermountain Power Generating Station, 2004-10-

15

• Exhibit 130: 2002-12-06 Title V PSD Permit No. V-02-001 (Revision 1) for

Thoroughbred Generating Station, Kentucky

• Exhibit 132: Proposed Title V Permit No. V-02-043 Revision 2 for Louisville Gas and

Electric’s Trimble County Generating Station, Kentucky, 2005-11-17

13

• Exhibit 134: Air Pollution Construction Permit for the Elm Road Generating Station,

2004-01-14

• Exhibit 135: Letter from Thoroughbred Generating Station to John Lyons,

Environmental and Public Protection Cabinet, 2004-07-01

• Exhibit 187: 1999 PSD Construction Permit 888 Review Document, Kansas City Power

and Light Hawthorn Generating Station

• Exhibit 188: Permit to Construct No. R14-0024 for Longview Power, West Virginia,

2004-03-02, as modified by Consent Order in July 2004

See also Exhibits 29, 189, and 191-194 listed below and attached hereto:

• Exhibit 29: 2005-05-05 Operating Permit to Construct No. AP4911-1349, Newmont

Nevada Energy Investment, Nevada

• Exhibit 189: 2006-05-01 Title V PSD Permit No. V-02-001 (Revision 4) for

Thoroughbred Generating Station, Kentucky

• Exhibit 191: 2002-09-25 Air Quality Permit No. CT-3030, Black Hill Corporation’s

WYGEN 2, Campbell County, Wyoming

• Exhibit 192: 2004-01-01 Title V Final Permit No. 0310045-011-AV, JEA Northside

Generating Station/St. Johns River Power Park, Florida

• Exhibit 193: 2006-02 Draft Air Quality Permit No. V-06-007, Hugh L. Spurlock

Generating Station, Kentucky

• Exhibit 194: 2000-03-31 Title V/State Operating Permit No. 48-00021, Northampton

Generating Co, Northampton, Pennsylvania

14

17. Please identify the “recent permits” referenced in paragraph 117 of Petitioner’s

appeal.

ANSWER:

Paragraph 117 of Petitioner’s appeal states, “Some recent permit decisions that specify lower

PM/PM10 emissions limits than in the Iatan Permit determine compliance with a continuous

emissions monitoring system for particulate matter, as required by the Permit.” See Exhibits 188

and 199, listed below and attached hereto.

• Exhibit 188: Permit to Construct No. R14-0024 for Longview Power, West Virginia,

2004-03-02, as modified by Consent Order in July 2004

• Exhibit 199: Title V Permit No. V-02-043 Revision 2 for Louisville Gas and Electric’s

Trimble County Generating Station, Kentucky, 2006-01-04



ANSWER:

Paragraph 120 of Petitioner’s appeal states, “The Chiyoda bubbling jet reactor is a type of wet

FGD system that removes a high percentage of PM/PM10.”


DNR regarding the draft permit, including Exhibit 86, Commercial Experience of the CT-121

FGD Plant for 700 MW Shinko-Kobe Electric Power Plant, attached hereto. See also Exhibit

195, 2002-08 Demonstration of Innovative Applications of Technology for the CT-121 FGD

15

Process, attached hereto. Insofar as facts supporting these allegations are technical in nature,

petitioner relies on expert witness Dr. J. Phyllis Fox.



ANSWER:

Paragraph 122 of Petitioner’s appeal states, “The Permit fails to specify emission limitations for

PM/PM10 that reflect the effective use of the identified technology(ies).”

Insofar as facts supporting these allegations are technical in nature, petitioner relies on expert

witness Dr. J. Phyllis Fox.


paragraph 133 of its appeal, including identifying the states referenced in that paragraph.

ANSWER:

Paragraph 133 of Petitioner’s appeal states, “Other states impose BACT-based emission limits

on opacity in their PSD permits.”



referenced therein, including Exhibits 21 and 22, listed below and attached hereto.

• Exhibit 21: Indiana Department of Environmental Management, New Source Review

(NSR), Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD), Part 70 Operating Permit, to

16

Auburn Nugget LLC, NSR/PSD/Part 70 Permit 033-19475-00092, Addendum to

Technical Support Document

• Exhibit 22: In the Matter of the Proposal to Issue an Air Emission Permit to Mesabi

Nugget, LLC, for Construction of an Iron Nugget Production Facility, Hoyt Lakes,

Minnesota, Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order, at 12; see also Responses to

Comments on Draft Air Emission and Water Quality Permits

See also Exhibits 24, 27, 197, and 198, listed below and attached hereto:

• Exhibit 24: 2003-06-17 PSD Construction Permit No. 03-A-425-P for MidAmerican

Energy Council Bluffs Facility



• Exhibit 197: 2002 Air Quality Permit No. 1001554, Tuscon Electric Power Company

Springerville Generating Station, Arizona

• Exhibit 198: 1988-05-26 Preconstruction Review and Preliminary Determination on the

Proposed Construction of a Circulating Fluidized Bed Combustion Boiler for Fort

Howard Paper Company to Be Located At 1919 South Broadway, Green Bay, Brown

County, Wisconsin



ANSWER:

17

Paragraph 151 of Petitioner’s appeal states, “The Iatan Generating Station project will exceed the

PSD significance threshold of 7 tons/year for sulfuric acid mist and thus trigger the need for

BACT, unless KCPL agrees to modify the project as proposed. Therefore, BACT must be

required in the final Permit.”

See Exhibit 5, An Updated Method for Estimating Total Sulfuric Acid Emissions from

Stationary Power Plants, Southern Company, 2003-03, and Exhibit 4, 2005-08-09 Email from

Terry Eaton, KCPL, to Steve Jacques, DNR. Insofar as facts supporting these allegations are

technical in nature, petitioner relies on expert witness Dr. J. Phyllis Fox.



ANSWER:

Paragraph 152 of Petitioner’s appeal states, “The Permit limit for sulfuric acid mist emissions is

appreciably higher than a BACT-based emission limit.”


DNR regarding the draft permit, including page 26 of the Comment Letter and all exhibits

referenced therein, including Exhibits 7, 24, 27, 29, and 30, listed below and attached hereto.

Insofar as facts supporting these allegations are technical in nature, petitioner relies on expert

witness Dr. J. Phyllis Fox.

• Exhibit 7: 2004-10-12 Utah DEQ, Approval Order: Sevier Company’s 270 MW Coal-

Fired Plant, Sevier County, Project Code N2529-001

18

• Exhibit 24: PSD Construction Permit No. 03-A-425-P for MidAmerican Energy Council

Bluffs Facility, 2003-06-17



• Exhibit 29: 2005-05-05 Operating Permit to Construct No. AP4911-1349, Newmont

Nevada Energy Investment, Nevada

• Exhibit 30: 2004-10-18, Air Pollution Construction Permit No. 03-RV-248, Wisconsin

Public Service Commission – Weston 4 Plant

See also Exhibits 6, 8, 190, and 196, EPA RACT/BACT/LAER Clearinghouse (“RBLC”) pages

for the following facilities:

• Exhibit 6: Parish Unit 8 RBLC page

• Exhibit 196: Santee Cooper Cross RBLC page

• Exhibit 190: Manitowoc RBLC page

• Exhibit 8: AES Puerto Rico RBLC page

before the missouri air conservation … · before the missouri air conservation commission and...

Documents