BEFORE the STATE of NEW YORK PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Cases 20-E-0428 and 20-G-0429 in the Matter of Central Hudson Gas And
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Cases 20-E-0428 & 20-G-0429 Exhibit__(SIR-1) 1 of 321 BEFORE THE STATE OF NEW YORK PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Cases 20-E-0428 and 20-G-0429 In the Matter of Central Hudson Gas and Electric December 2020 Prepared Exhibits [Redacted] of: Site Investigation and Remediation Panel Edward A. Molocznik Utility Analyst 1 Office of Electric, Gas and Water Nicholas B. Turan Auditor 2 Office of Accounting, Audits and Finance State of New York Department of Public Service Three Empire State Plaza Albany, New York 12223-1350 Cases 20-E-0428 & 20-G-0429 Exhibit__(SIR-1) 2 of 321 Cases 20-E-0428 and 20-G-0429 Index of Exhibits Item PDF Cover Page 1 Index of Exhibit 2 Index of IRs in Exhibit__(SIR-1) 3 Exhibit__(SIR-1) 4-321 Cases 20-E-0428 & 20-G-0429 Exhibit__(SIR-1) 3 of 321 Cases 20-E-0428 and 20-G-0429 Index of Exhibit__(SIR-1) Referenced on Title of IR DPS IR Response page(s) of Number Testimony Confidential SIR North Water pp. 13,16 DPS-433 Street Environmental SIR Costs – Confidential p. 13 Follow up DPS-619 Questions to DPS-433 SIR – Second Confidential p. 16 Follow up to DPS-637 DPS-433 SIR Value DPS-412 pp. 19-20 Engineering Confidential SIR Insurance pp. 20,22 DPS-432 Reimbursement SIR Third Party DPS-434 pp. 24,26 Cost Sharing DPS-539 p. 26 SIR Audits SIR Changes n Cost, Confidential p. 26 Consultant and DPS-542 Contractor Costs SIR Waste Treatment Confidential Storage and pp. 27-29 DPS-544 Disposal Facilities (TSDFs) Cases 20-E-0428 & 20-G-0429 Exhibit__(SIR-1) 4 of 321 Exhibit__(SIR-1) Redacted Cases 20-E-0428 & 20-G-0429 Exhibit__(SIR-1) 5 of 321 Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corporation Case Nos. 20-E-0428 & 20-G-0429 Response to Interrogatory / Document Request PUBLIC REDACTED VERSION Request No.: DPS-16, IR-433 (EM,NT) – Updated 10/23/2020 Requested by: DPS - Edward Molocznik, Nicholas Turan Date of Request: October 1, 2020 Witness: Site Investigation and Remediation Panel Subject: SIR North Water Street Site CONFIDENTIAL Question: In these interrogatories, all requests for workpapers or supporting calculations should be construed as requesting any Word, Excel or other computer spreadsheet models in original electronic format with all formulae intact. Regarding the North Water Street site: 1. Provide a quarterly timeline from 2016 to the present which summarizes the past events, issues, parties involved and milestones associated with the project. Has there been any other schedule deviations or setbacks since the filing of Central Hudson’s (the Company) August 2020 Testimony? 2. With regard to the involvement of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) and other involved regulators, provide clarification for the following: a. According to page 5 of the 2018 Site Investigation and Remediation (SIR) Annual Report, DEC issued a 401 Water Quality Certification and regional permits. Furthermore, on page 16 of the Company’s Testimony, it is indicated that all necessary regulatory permits to commence in-water work were received. Were these permits associated with the release at the site and did the applications, permits or submissions discuss the drinking water intake and the vicinity to the site? b. In the Company’s Testimony, from page 16 to 18, it indicates work was halted by regulatory authorities and additional scopes of work were required such as: hydrodynamic dispersion modeling, a dye study and water quality sampling/analysis. Please explain and quantify the additional costs incurred due to required work stoppages and additional regulatory requirements in comparison to the original proposed costs. c. Append copies of studies, reports or letters sent to DEC by Poughkeepsie’s Water Project Board and the Hudson River Drinking Water Council as discussed on page 6 of the 2019 Annual SIR Report. Cases 20-E-0428 & 20-G-0429 Exhibit__(SIR-1) 6 of 321 Please identify each such document and summarize the general findings and conclusions of each. d. In the 2019 Annual SIR Report, from pages 11 to 12 under Section 4.1, it is discussed that a near-shore sheen condition developed and extended beyond the limits of established controls and that subsequent violation(s) and penalties were assessed by DEC and an Order on Consent was executed in December of 2019. Please discuss the cost of the fine(s), the basis and append relevant documentation. 3. Pages 7 to 8 of the 2019 SIR Annual Report indicates that once in-water work began there were several issues related to the fabrication of the moon-pool and remedial activities for season two were halted. On Page 20 of the August 2020 Testimony submitted by the Company, Central Hudson immediately requested that the project’s engineering firm and construction contractor provide a root cause analysis to determine the reasons for the moon pool not being constructible. Provide more information on the following: a. On page 16 of the Company’s Testimony, it is indicated that during pre-clearing operations of the bulkhead area, work was interrupted as a pocket of impacted soil was encountered along the shoreline, resulting in a release of contaminants into the Hudson River. Provide more information on what the pre-clearing method was that was utilized, an estimated or exact volume of the substance released, if the substance was sampled, what was the substance was, did the analysis identify compounds such as semi-volatile compounds (SVOCs) or polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) that are often identified in coal tar waste, discuss the operations and if they were related to moon pool work scope(s). b. Summarize the findings of the root cause analysis report and append documentation. c. Did the consultant or contractor violate any protocols, policies or regulations required by the Company or pertinent regulatory authorities? Were any personnel removed or suspended from the project as a result? If yes, provide documentation of all such instances. d. Was the moon pool structure designed solely by Central Hudson’s design consultant and/or contractor? What level of input did the Company have, if any, in the design phase? Was the moon pool required by DEC or was it proposed by Central Hudson? e. Regarding the inability to successfully construct the moon pool. What was the total cost of the failure (provide cost breakdowns)? Were there any contractual liabilities that the consultants or contractors are accountable for? Were specifications not followed or improper materials used? Was there a breach of contract and what contract type was in place? Did the responsible party have any liability insurance that could be claimed? Cases 20-E-0428 & 20-G-0429 Exhibit__(SIR-1) 7 of 321 4. In Table 1, “Total SIR Costs incurred by Central Hudson Gas and Electric” for the 2017, 2018 and 2019 SIR Annual Reports submitted to the Commission, costs varied by more than the 10% or $100,000 established by best practices in Case 11-M-0034. In total, there was approximately $29 million dollars of underspending at North Water Street from 2017 to 2019. Were these funds rolled into the overall deferral? Were these funds utilized elsewhere within the SIR Program? If they were, how were they used and are any of these funds still remaining and available for the North Water Street Site? Response: 1. This information has been previously provided in the Annual SIR Reports submitted to DPS in Case 11-M-0034. As such, rather than simply providing references to the annual SIR reports, the Company reached out to DPS Staff on October 8, 2020 for further clarification on the nature of the request as providing the information quarterly as requested would require an extensive effort to rework information already provided. DPS Staff indicated they were looking for a chronological summary of the annual report information and agreed to a ten (10) day extension to allow the Company sufficient time to compile such information. As such an update to this portion of DPS-433 is scheduled to be filed on 10/22/2020. 2. a) In accordance with the discussion noted above, DPS Staff also agreed to a ten (10) day extension for this portion of the response. As such an update to this portion of DPS-433 is scheduled to be filed on 10/22/2020. b) In accordance with the discussion noted above, DPS Staff also agreed to a ten (10) day extension for this portion of the response. As such an update to this portion of DPS-433 is scheduled to be filed on 10/22/2020. c) In accordance with the discussion noted above, DPS Staff also agreed to a ten (10) day extension for this portion of the response. As such an update to this portion of DPS-433 is scheduled be filed on 10/22/2020. d) In accordance with the discussion noted above, DPS Staff also agreed to a ten (10) day extension for this portion of the response. As such an update to this portion of DPS-433 is scheduled to be filed on 10/22/2020. 3. a) An excavator bucket was being utilized to remove debris along the shoreline as needed for installation of the bulkhead/barrier wall. This was not related to the moon pool scope of work. With regard to the substance released, approximately 10 gallons of visibly identified coal tar was Cases 20-E-0428 & 20-G-0429 Exhibit__(SIR-1) 8 of 321 released into the river. No sampling or analysis was performed given the visual determination made at the time of the release. b) The summary included in AECOM’s February 18, 2020 Season 2 Moon Pool Performance Root Cause Analysis Summary is as follows: “The root cause analysis for the Season 2 moon pool issues highlights the difficulties in constructing a moon pool with impermeable curtains attached to a moveable frame to the depths required for mechanical dredging at the site given the challenging site conditions.