DOCSLIB.ORG

CATF Et Al Carbon Standards Review Comments

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
CATF Et Al Carbon Standards Review Comments March 18, 2018 Submitted via regulations.gov U.S. Environmental Protection Agency EPA Docket Center Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0495 Mail Code 28221T 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Washington, DC 20460 Re: Review of Standards of Performance for Greenhouse Gas Emissions from New, Modified, and Reconstructed Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units, Proposed Rule, 83 Fed. Reg. 65,424 (Dec. 20, 2018) Clean Air Task Force (CATF), Natural Resource Defense Council (NRDC), Conservation Law Foundation (CLF), Clean Wisconsin and Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy (MCEA) submit the enclosed comments on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) above-captioned Proposal to revoke the current 1,400 lbs. CO2/MWh standard for new coal-fired power plants and replace it with standards of 1,900 – 2,200 lbs. CO2/MWh. The Proposal is based on the Agency’s determination that “the most efficient demonstrated steam cycle,” not partial carbon capture and sequestration, is the best system of emission reduction for new coal-fired power plants. We vigorously oppose this Proposal, which has no basis in the record and fails to fulfill the Clean Air Act’s statutory mandate, as explained in detail in the enclosed comments. Founded in 1996, CATF seeks to help safeguard against the worst impacts of climate change by working to catalyze the rapid global development and deployment of low carbon energy and other climate-protecting technologies, through research and analysis and public advocacy leadership. NRDC is a national nonprofit environmental organization representing more than three million members and online activists. NRDC uses law, science, and the support of its members to ensure a safe and healthy environment for all living things. One of NRDC’s top priorities is to reduce emissions of the air pollutants that are causing climate change. CLF protects New England’s environment for the benefit of all people. We use the law, science and the market to create solutions that preserve our natural resources, build healthy communities, and sustain a vibrant economy. Since 1970, Clean Wisconsin has been the voice for the environment, working for clean air, clean water and clean energy and to protect the places we all love. To achieve this, we work on a wide range of issues and in a number of venues to protect our natural resources and the health of all Wisconsinites, now and for generations to come. MCEA’s mission is to use law, science and research to protect Minnesota's environment, natural resources and the health of its people. Our organizations also join the comments submitted to this docket today by “Joint Environmental and Public Health Commenters” pertaining to EPA’s basis for regulating carbon pollution from electric generating units under section 111 of the Clean Air Act; and concerning climate science and climate change. CATF, et al. submit separate comments today on the treatment of biomass in this rulemaking. Respectfully submitted, Jay Duffy, Attorney Lissa Lynch, Staff Attorney Clean Air Task Force Climate & Clean Energy Program (802) 233-7967 Natural Resources Defense Council [email protected] (202) 717-8296 [email protected] John Thompson, Director, Ben Longstreth, Senior Attorney, Fossil Transition Project Climate & Clean Energy Program Bruce Hill, Chief Geoscientist Rachel Fakhry, Policy Analyst, Deepika Nagabhushan, CCS Policy Climate & Clean Energy Program Associate Briana Mordick, Senior Scientist Conrad Schneider, Advocacy Director Land & Wildlife and Climate Programs Katie Nekola Greg Cunningham General Counsel Vice President and Program Director Clean Wisconsin Clean Energy and Climate Change 634 W. Main St., Suite 300 Conservation Law Foundation Madison, WI 54703 53 Exchange Street, Suite 200 (608) 251-7020 ext. 14 Portland, ME 04101 (207) 210-6439 [email protected] Kevin P. Lee Climate and Energy Program Director Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy 1919 University Ave. W., Suite 515 St. Paul, MN 55104 (651) 287-4865 [email protected] I. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................... 3 II. If finalized as proposed, this rulemaking would not comport with the Clean Air Act or the requirements for reasonable decision-making. .............................................................................. 4 A. EPA must ground its action in the Clean Air Act, which demands that emission standards are based on the best system of emission reduction. ...................................................... 4 B. Agencies must engage in reasoned decision-making. ...................................................................... 6 C. Finalizing this Proposal would be contrary to the statute and would not be reasoned decision-making. ................................................................................................................................... 7 III. CCS is the best system of emission reduction. ..................................................................................... 8 A. Carbon capture is adequately demonstrated. .................................................................................. 11 1. CCS projects ..................................................................................................................................... 12 2. Vendor guarantees .......................................................................................................................... 26 3. Literature review .............................................................................................................................. 29 B. Sequestration is adequately demonstrated and available. ............................................................. 30 1. EPA’s standard for availability is illegal and unworkable. ......................................................... 31 2. Geologic sequestration is technically feasible and available throughout most of the United States. .................................................................................................................................. 34 a. The Proposal underestimates geologic sequestration opportunities. ................................... 35 b. Pipeline networks can transport captured CO2. ...................................................................... 51 c. New power plants can be sited closer to storage sites and provide electricity to customers through transmission lines. ..................................................................................... 60 3. There are several policy determinations or logistical considerations that would limit the location of a new coal-fired power plant. ............................................................................ 61 C. The cost of partial-CCS was reasonable in 2015 under conservative assumptions and continues to decline. .......................................................................................................................... 63 1. The current standard imposes limited, if any, costs. .................................................................. 65 2. EPA’s reliance on outdated levelized cost of electricity figures for CCS is unreasonable. .................................................................................................................................. 65 3. EPA determined that CCS costs were reasonable even under very conservative assumptions. ................................................................................................................................... 66 a. CCS costs are declining. ............................................................................................................. 66 b. EPA failed to consider EOR revenue and the recent expansion to CCS tax credits. ....... 71 c. NRDC’s modeling confirms that the Proposal mischaracterizes CCS by failing to consider factors affecting the technology’s costs. .................................................................. 75 d. CCS is still in line with the LCOE for the other baseload low-emission technology. ...... 78 4. CCS costs are comparable to costs imposed by previous rulemakings. .................................. 81 5. EPA’s proposed upward adjustments to outdated cost figures are unjustified. .................... 83 a. Cost of transportation and sequestration ................................................................................. 83 1 b. EPA’s capacity factor adjustment is unreasonable. ................................................................ 86 6. Taking into account revenue and incentives and correcting EPA’s flawed cost inflation, the cost of full-CCS is reasonable even without expected future cost declines. ........................................................................................................................................... 87 7. BACT determinations are irrelevant to this rulemaking. ........................................................... 89 D. The current standards reduce emissions. ........................................................................................ 90 E. The current standard is achievable. ................................................................................................. 92 F. CCS will not result in increased water consumption. ................................................................... 94 IV. Co-firing is available and can be used to meet current standard. ...................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Analyzing the Energy Industry in United States
    +44 20 8123 2220 [email protected] Analyzing the Energy Industry in United States https://marketpublishers.com/r/AC4983D1366EN.html Date: June 2012 Pages: 700 Price: US$ 450.00 (Single User License) ID: AC4983D1366EN Abstracts The global energy industry has explored many options to meet the growing energy needs of industrialized economies wherein production demands are to be met with supply of power from varied energy resources worldwide. There has been a clearer realization of the finite nature of oil resources and the ever higher pushing demand for energy. The world has yet to stabilize on the complex geopolitical undercurrents which influence the oil and gas production as well as supply strategies globally. Aruvian's R'search’s report – Analyzing the Energy Industry in United States - analyzes the scope of American energy production from varied traditional sources as well as the developing renewable energy sources. In view of understanding energy transactions, the report also studies the revenue returns for investors in various energy channels which manifest themselves in American energy demand and supply dynamics. In depth view has been provided in this report of US oil, electricity, natural gas, nuclear power, coal, wind, and hydroelectric sectors. The various geopolitical interests and intentions governing the exploitation, production, trade and supply of these resources for energy production has also been analyzed by this report in a non-partisan manner. The report starts with a descriptive base analysis of the characteristics of the global energy industry in terms of economic quantity of demand. The drivers of demand and the traditional resources which are used to fulfill this demand are explained along with the emerging mandate of nuclear energy.
    [Show full text]
  • The Economic Impact of Coal and Coal-Fired Power Generation in West Virginia
    THE ECONOMIC IMPACT OF COAL AND COAL-FIRED POWER GENERATION IN WEST VIRGINIA WINTER 2021 The Economic Impact of Coal and Coal-Fired Power Generation in West Virginia is published by: Bureau of Business & Economic Research West Virginia University College of Business and Economics PO Box 6527, Morgantown, WV 26506-6527 (304) 293-7831; [email protected] bber.wvu.edu WRITTEN BY Christiadi PhD Research Associate Eric Bowen PhD Research Assistant Professor John Deskins PhD Director Priscila Borges Marques Dos Santos Research Scholar Funding for this research was provided by the West Virginia Coal Association. The opinions herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the West Virginia Coal Association or the West Virginia University Board of Governors. © Copyright 2021 WVU Research Corporation ii Bureau of Business & Economic Research Table of Contents List of Figures and Tables ............................................................................................................................. iv Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................... v 1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 1 2 Coal and the West Virginia Economy: Recent Trends ......................................................................... 2 3 West Virginia Coal Exports ...............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • CCS with Alstom's Chilled Ammonia Process at AEP's Mountaineer Plant
    10.3155/2008CP175.167 CCS with Alstom’s Chilled Ammonia Process at AEP’s Mountaineer Plant Paper No. 167 Brian Sherrick Project Manager American Electric Power 1 Riverside Plaza Columbus, OH 43215 USA Tel: +1 614 716 1923 Fax: +1 614 716 2027 E-Mail: [email protected] Mike Hammond Project Engineer American Electric Power 1 Riverside Plaza Columbus, OH 43215 USA Tel: +1 614 716 5931 Fax: +1 614 716 1779 E-Mail: [email protected] Gary Spitznogle CO2 Storage Technical Lead American Electric Power 1 Riverside Plaza Columbus, OH 43215 USA Tel: +1 614 716 3671 Fax: +1 614 716 1779 E-Mail: [email protected] David Muraskin Alstom Power, Inc. Technology Manager Environmental Control Systems 1409 Centerpoint Blvd Knoxville, TN 37932 USA Tel: +1 865 694 5269 Fax: +1 865 694 5203 E-Mail: [email protected] 1 Sean Black Alstom Power, Inc. Business Manager CAP Technology Environmental Control Systems 1409 Centerpoint Blvd Knoxville, TN 37932 USA Tel: +1 865 694 4453 Fax: +1 865 694 5203 E-Mail: [email protected] Matt Cage Alstom Power, Inc. Project Engineer Environmental Control Systems 1409 Centerpoint Blvd Knoxville, TN 37932 USA Tel: +1 865 694 5269 Fax: +1 865 694 5203 E-Mail: [email protected] Abstract: Alstom and American Electric Power are jointly participating in the installation of a carbon dioxide (CO2) capture Product Validation Facility at AEP’s Mountaineer Power Plant. The CO2 capture technology to be installed at Mountaineer is Alstom’s Chilled Ammonia Process; AEP is also working with Battelle to develop a saline formation geologic storage system.
    [Show full text]
  • Nuclear and Coal in the Postwar US Dissertation Presented in Partial
    Power From the Valley: Nuclear and Coal in the Postwar U.S. Dissertation Presented in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of the Ohio State University By Megan Lenore Chew, M.A. Graduate Program in History The Ohio State University 2014 Dissertation Committee: Steven Conn, Advisor Randolph Roth David Steigerwald Copyright by Megan Lenore Chew 2014 Abstract In the years after World War II, small towns, villages, and cities in the Ohio River Valley region of Ohio and Indiana experienced a high level of industrialization not seen since the region’s commercial peak in the mid-19th century. The development of industries related to nuclear and coal technologies—including nuclear energy, uranium enrichment, and coal-fired energy—changed the social and physical environments of the Ohio Valley at the time. This industrial growth was part of a movement to decentralize industry from major cities after World War II, involved the efforts of private corporations to sell “free enterprise” in the 1950s, was in some cases related to U.S. national defense in the Cold War, and brought some of the largest industrial complexes in the U.S. to sparsely populated places in the Ohio Valley. In these small cities and villages— including Madison, Indiana, Cheshire, Ohio, Piketon, Ohio, and Waverly, Ohio—the changes brought by nuclear and coal meant modern, enormous industry was taking the place of farms and cornfields. These places had been left behind by the growth seen in major metropolitan areas, and they saw the potential for economic growth in these power plants and related industries.
    [Show full text]
  • Meeting Record
    Coal Combustion Residuals Impoundment Assessment Reports ISpecial Wastes I Wastes ... Page 1 of 26 You nrc Waste »Coal Combustion Residuals »Coal Cornbustion Pcsidcnls Irnpm.mdrnent 1\s";essrncnt Reports • Special Waste Home • Cement Kiln Dust • Crude Oil and Gas • Fossil Fuel Combustion • Mineral Processing • Mining Coal Combustion Residuals Impoundment Assessment Reports As part of the US Environmental Protection Agency's ongoing national effort to assess the management of coal • Coal Combustion Residuals • Information Request Responses combustion residuals (CCR), EPA is releasing the final from Electric Utilities contractor reports assessing the structural integrity of • Impoundment Assessment Reports impoundments and similar management units containing • Surface Impoundments with High Hazard Potential Ratings coal combustion residuals, commonly referred to as "coal • Frequent Questions ash," at coal fired power plants. Most of the • Proposed Rule impoundments have been given hazard potential ratings (e.g. less than low, low, significant, high) by the state, EPA contractor, or company which are not related to the • Alliant Energy Corporation's Facility in Burlington, Iowa stability of the impoundments but to the potential for • AEP's Philip Sporn Power Plant in harm should the impoundment fail. For example, a New Haven, WV "significant" hazard potential rating means impoundment failure can cause economic loss, environmental damage, or damage to infrastructure. EPA has assessed all of the known units with a dam hazard potential rating of "high" or "significant" as reported in the responses provided by electric utilities to EPA's information requests and additional units identified during the field assessments. EPA will release additional reports as they become available. The reports being released now have been completed by contractors who are experts in the area of dam integrity, reflect the best professional judgment of the engineering firm, and are signed and stamped by a professional engineer.
    [Show full text]
  • Tcu Winter 2019
    A D V A N C I N G U N I O N C O N S T R U C T I O N A N D M A I N T E N A N C E A Publication of The Association of Union Constructors | www.tauc.org | Winter 2019 0>1 THE VALUE OF ZERO CELEBRATING THE 18TH ANNUAL ZISA® WINNERS PAGE 9 LINDAUER: IT'S ALL ABOUT THE DATA PAGE 6 BRESLIN: A DIFFERENT KIND OF SAFETY PAGE 8 SNYDER: THE SECRET TO BETTER CREATIVITY PAGE 24 55277_Magazine_X2.indd 1 1/25/19 4:354:44 PM A D V A N C I N G U N I O N C O N S T R U C T I O N A N D M A I N T E N A N C E A Publication of The Association of Union Constructors | www.tauc.org | Winter 2019 0>1 INDUSTRIAL GENERAL THE CONTRACTING, ENGINEERING VALUE & MAINTENANCE OF ZERO That’s a fancier way of saying that we’re a group of highly-skilled and experienced union contractors that help organizations plan, build, and maintain some of the most CELEBRATING THIS YEAR’S complex infrastructures around the globe. ZISA® WINNERS PAGE 9 Need something? Give us a call. LINDAUER: IT'S ALL ABOUT THE DATA PAGE 6 BRESLIN: A DIFFERENT KIND OF SAFETY PAGE 8 SNYDER: THE SECRET TO BETTER CREATIVITY PAGE 24 2755A PARK AVE, WASHINGTON, PA 15301 - PHONE: 724-884-0184 - FAX: 724-884-0185 55277_Magazine.indd55277_Magazine_X2.indd 2 2 1/23/191/25/19 12:14 4:44 PM A D V A N C I N G U N I O N C O N S T R U C T I O N A N D M A I N T E N A N C E A Publication of The Association of Union Constructors | www.tauc.org | Winter 2019 The Construction User is published quarterly by: The Association of Union Constructors 1501 Lee Highway, Suite 202 From the Desk of the President Arlington, VA 22209 703.524.3336 4 The Pledge 703.524.3364 - fax By Jake Locklear www.tauc.org EXECUTIVE EDITOR 0>1 David Acord Features 703.628.5545 [email protected] 6 It’s All About the Data ADVERTISING REPRESENTATIVE By Steve Lindauer (Contact for rates and details) Bill Spilman 8 A Different Kind of Safety Innovative Media Solutions INDUSTRIAL GENERAL By Mark Breslin 320 W.
    [Show full text]
  • PPCO Twist System
    SEPTEMBER 2015 VOL. 120 NO. 9 FEATURE ARTICLES FIRE DETECTION/32 CH&S 2015 PREVIEW/34 20 Remembering Those Lost Son of a miner killed in Ohio operation follows ‘calling,’ raises thousands to commemorate state’s fallen workers 24 India Coal Logistics Perspective 31 Mining for Data Using Advanced Graphing Software to Mitigate Safety Risks 32 Where There’s Smoke… REFUGE ALTERNATIVES/40 COAL PREPARATION/48 A longtime fire technology, air sampling smoke detection, is now possible for mobile mining equipment 34 Coal Handling and Storage 2015 A new venue in St. Louis promises a diverse collection of hot topics and networking opportunities 40 Underground Mine Refuge Alternatives A look at food, water and sanitation requirements 44 On Solid Ground 34th meeting of International Conference on Ground Control in Mining spotlights research and best of the sector’s experts 48 Tracing the Best Outcomes for Dense Media Cyclones DMC monitoring and optimization based on immediate, precise partition curves from radio density tracers THIS ISSUE 54 Training and Evaluation of Coal Miners’ Self-escape Competencies This month, Coal Age offers several articles related to optimization pro- 56 Increase Fuel Choices While Maintaining a Slagging and grams for coal mining, processing and utilization. On the cover, a Fouling-free Boiler Wirtgen surface miner cuts and loads coal at New Hope’s New Acland mine in Australia. COAL IN THE NEWS 4 Court Approves Patriot Asset Sale DEPARTMENTS 4 OSM Grants Extension on SPR, Coal Operators Say 2 Editorial 4 It’s Not Enough Coal
    [Show full text]
  • Technical Support Document
    Technical Support Document: Chapter 43 Intended Round 3 Area Designations for the 2010 1-Hour SO2 Primary National Ambient Air Quality Standard for West Virginia 1. Summary Pursuant to section 107(d) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (the EPA, we, or us) must designate areas as either “nonattainment,” “attainment,” or “unclassifiable” for the 2010 1-hour sulfur dioxide (SO2) primary national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) (2010 SO2 NAAQS). The CAA defines a nonattainment area as an area that does not meet the NAAQS or that contributes to a nearby area that does not meet the NAAQS. An attainment area is defined by the CAA as any area that meets the NAAQS and does not contribute to a nearby area that does not meet the NAAQS. Unclassifiable areas are defined by the CAA as those that cannot be classified on the basis of available information as meeting or not meeting the NAAQS. In this action, the EPA has defined a nonattainment area as an area that the EPA has determined violates the 2010 SO2 NAAQS or contributes to a violation in a nearby area, based on the most recent 3 years of air quality monitoring data, appropriate dispersion modeling analysis, and any other relevant information. An unclassifiable/attainment area is defined by the EPA as an area that either: (1) based on available information including (but not limited to) appropriate modeling analyses and/or monitoring data, the EPA has determined (i) meets the 2010 SO2 NAAQS, and (ii) does not contribute to ambient air quality in a nearby area that does not meet the NAAQS; or (2) was not required to be characterized under 40 CFR 51.1203(c) or (d) and the EPA does not have available information including (but not limited to) appropriate modeling analyses and/or monitoring data that suggests that the area may (i) not be meeting the NAAQS, or (ii) contribute to ambient air quality in a nearby area that does not meet the NAAQS1.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 43 West Virginia January 12, January 2017 Only Mountaineer DEP 2017 Submittal Power Plant Explicitly Modeled
    Technical Support Document: Chapter 43 Final Round 3 Area Designations for the 2010 1-Hour SO2 Primary National Ambient Air Quality Standard for West Virginia 1. Summary Pursuant to section 107(d) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (the EPA, we, or us) must designate areas as either “Nonattainment,” “Attainment,” or “Unclassifiable” for the 2010 1-hour sulfur dioxide (SO2) primary national ambient air quality 1 standard (NAAQS) (2010 SO2 NAAQS). Our Notice of Availability (NOA) and our Technical Support Document2 for our intended designations for the round of designations we are required to complete by December 31, 2017, provided background on the relevant CAA definitions and the history of the designations for this NAAQS. Chapter 1 of this TSD for the final designations explains the definitions we are applying in the final designations. The TSD for the intended Round 3 area designations also described West Virginia’s recommended designations, assessed the available relevant monitoring, modeling, and any other information, and provided our intended designations. This TSD for the final Round 3 area designations for West Virginia addresses any change in West Virginia’s recommended designations since we communicated our intended designations for areas in West Virginia. It also provides our assessment of additional relevant information that was submitted too close to the signature of the NOA to have been considered in our intended designations, or that has been submitted by West Virginia or other parties since the publication of the NOA. This TSD does not repeat information contained in the TSD for our intended designations except as needed to explain our assessment of the newer information and to make clear the final action we are taking and its basis, but that information is incorporated as part of our final designations.
    [Show full text]
  • Coal Combustion Residuals Impoundment Assessment Reports
    Special Waste Home Cement Kiln Dust Crude Oil and Gas Fossil Fuel Combustion Mineral Processing Mining Coal Combustion Residuals Impoundment Assessment Reports As part of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's national effort to assess the management of Related Links coal combustion residuals (CCR), EPA released the final contractor reports assessing the structural Information Request Responses integrity of impoundments and similar management units containing coal combustion residuals, from Electric Utilities commonly referred to as “coal ash,” at coal fired power plants. Most of the impoundments have been given hazard potential ratings (e.g. less than low, low, significant, high) by the state, EPA contractor, Frequent Questions or company which are not related to the stability of the impoundments but to the potential for harm Final Rule should the impoundment fail. For example, a “significant” hazard potential rating means impoundment failure can cause economic loss, environmental damage, or damage to infrastructure. Additional Information Regarding Alliant Energy EPA assessed all of the known units with a dam hazard potential rating of “high” or “significant” as Corporation's Facility in Burlington, Iowa reported in the reponses provided by electric utilities to EPA’s information requests and additional units identified during the field assessments. EPA will release additional reports as they become available. The reports being released now have been completed by contractors who are experts in the area of dam integrity, reflect the best professional judgment of the engineering firm, and are signed and stamped by a professional engineer. The reports are based on a visual assessment of the site, interviews with site personnel, and the review of geotechnical reports and studies related to the design, construction and operation of those impoundments, if available.
    [Show full text]
  • Tcu Winter 2021
    A Publication of The Association of THE WINTER 2021 Union Constructors www.tauc.org CONSTRUCTIONUSER ADVANCING UNION CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE Celebrating a Half-Century of Excellence Special Section Begins on Page 8 69620_TAOUC_Q4_Winter21.indd 1 2/3/21 10:23 AM The Boilermakers advantage FORGED FROM INTEGRITY. WE ARE MULTI-SKILLED RIGGERS, FITTERS, WELDERS AND MORE. WE ARE COMMITTED TO WORKING SAFELY. WE ARE 100% SUBSTANCE ABUSE TESTED. WE ARE COMMITTED TO YOUR SUCCESS. WE LIVE THE BOILERMAKER CODE. WE ARE BOILERMAKERS. Let’s get to work together. Visit us online at BestInTrade.org 69620_TAOUC_Q4_Winter21.indd 2 2/3/21 10:23 AM The Boilermakers advantage A Publication of The Association of FORGED FROM THE WINTER 2021 Union Constructors www.tauc.org CONSTRUCTIONUSER INTEGRITY. ADVANCING UNION CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE The Construction User is published WE ARE MULTI-SKILLED RIGGERS, FITTERS, WELDERS AND MORE. quarterly by: WE ARE COMMITTED TO WORKING SAFELY. WE ARE 100% SUBSTANCE ABUSE TESTED. IN EVERY ISSUE IN EVERY CORNER THE ASSOCIATION OF UNION 4 FROM THE DESK OF THE 26 THE BRESLIN CORNER CONSTRUCTORS PRESIDENT 1501 Lee Highway, Suite 202 The Ultimate Test: Leadership WE ARE COMMITTED TO YOUR SUCCESS. Arlington, Va 22209 Transitions Lessons From a Very Bad Year 703.524.3336 Steve Johnson Mark Breslin 703.524.3364 (Fax) www.tauc.org WE LIVE THE BOILERMAKER CODE. 28 THE LEO CORNER EXECUTIVE EDITOR FEATURED ARTICLES Facing the Challenge: LEOs Are David Acord Ready to Help in 2021 703.628.5545 6 Onward WE ARE BOILERMAKERS. [email protected] Steve Lindauer Dave Daquelente ADVERTISING REPRESENTATIVE (Contact for rates and details) Bill Spilman Innovative Media Solutions 320 W.
    [Show full text]
  • CCS Project with Alstom's Chilled Ammonia Process at AEP's
    CCS Project with Alstom’s Chilled Ammonia Process at AEP’s Mountaineer Plant Paper No. 72 Rob Bollinger David Muraskin Project Manager Alstom Power, Inc. American Electric Power CAP Technology Manager 1 Riverside Plaza Environmental Control Systems Columbus, OH 43215 1409 Centerpoint Blvd USA Knoxville, TN 37932 Tel: +1 614 716 3766 USA E-Mail: [email protected] Tel: +1 865 694 5269 E-Mail: [email protected] Mike Hammond Fred Kozak Project Engineer Alstom Power, Inc. American Electric Power CAP Technology Development 1 Riverside Plaza Environmental Control Systems Columbus, OH 43215 1409 Centerpoint Blvd USA Knoxville, TN 37932 Tel: +1 614 716 5931 USA E-Mail: [email protected] Tel: +1 865 560-1373 E-Mail: [email protected] Gary Spitznogle Matt Cage CO2 Storage Technical Lead Alstom Power, Inc. American Electric Power Project Engineer 1 Riverside Plaza Environmental Control Systems Columbus, OH 43215 1409 Centerpoint Blvd USA Knoxville, TN 37932 Tel: +1 614 716 3671 USA E-Mail: [email protected] Tel: +1 865 694 5888 E-Mail: [email protected] Brian Sherrick Michael Varner Project Manager Alstom Power, Inc. American Electric Power Project Manager 1 Riverside Plaza Environmental Control Systems Columbus, OH 43215 1409 Centerpoint Blvd USA Knoxville, TN 37932 Tel: +1 614 716 1923 USA E-Mail: [email protected] Tel: +1 865 694 5897 E-Mail: [email protected] ©ALSTOM Power Systems 2010. All rights reserved. Information contained in this document is provided without liability for information purposes only and is subject to change without notice.
    [Show full text]