DOCSLIB.ORG

Information Request Responses from Electric Utilities | Special Wastes | Wastes | US EPA

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Information Request Responses from Electric Utilities | Special Wastes | Wastes | US EPA 5/9/2020 Information Request Responses from Electric Utilities | Special Wastes | Wastes | US EPA https://archive.epa.gov/epawaste/nonhaz/industrial/special/fossil/web/html/index-3.html Last updated on 4/19/2016 Wastes - Non-Hazardous Waste - Industrial Waste You are here: EPA Home Wastes Industrial Waste Special Wastes Fossil Fuel Combustion Waste Coal Combustion Residuals Information Request Responses from Electric Utilities Special Waste Home Cement Kiln Dust Crude Oil and Gas Fossil Fuel Combustion Mineral Processing Mining Information Request Responses from Electric Utilities Related Links Responses From Electric Utilities to EPA Information Request Letter Coal Combustion Residuals Final Rule Impoundment Assessment Reports EPA has received responses to Information Requests (IR) sent out in Surface Impoundments with High March, April and December of 2009. * Posted below are all of the Hazard Potential Ratings Frequent Questions on responses covering 240 facilities and 676 surface impoundments and Impoundment Assessments similar management units, with the exception of information claimed as confidential business information. EPA will review all confidential business information claims and will post all information that is determined not to meet confidential business information criteria. Additional facility responses will be posted on this page as EPA completes a quality review. The 240 facilities that responded to EPA’s information request have 676 surface impoundments and similar management units; 214 units (32 percent) have been given a hazard potential rating using the National Inventory of Dams criteria. Of the 214 units that have been rated, 45 units (21 percent) are rated as High Hazard Potential; 84 units (39 percent) are rated as Significant Hazard Potential; 74 units (35 percent) are rated as Low Hazard Potential; and 11 units (5 percent) are rated as Less than Low Hazard Potential. Of the total 676 units, 462 units (68 percent) have not received a hazard potential rating. The hazard potential ratings do not assess the stability of these units; the ratings assess the potential for loss of life or environmental and economic damage. Units rated as High Potential Hazard are those where failure will probably cause loss of life. Of the 676 surface impoundments and similar units covered in these responses, 483 (71 percent) were designed by a professional engineer. The units show considerable variation in height, with 86 units (13 percent) being reported as greater than or equal to 50 feet in height; 156 units (23 percent) being reported as greater than or equal to 25 feet, but less than 50 feet in height; 286 units (42 percent) being reported as greater than or equal to 5 feet, but less than 25 feet in height; 17 units (3 percent) being reported as greater than 0 feet, but less than 5 feet in height; and 131 units (19 percent) being reported as having no height (at or below grade). A majority of the information contained in the company responses has been inserted into a database. All the fields and entries in this database have been extracted and presented below in PDF and Microsoft Excel spreadsheets which enable users to easily search for aggregate or facility-specific information. * EPA will likely be sending out more information requests in the future as new impoundments are identified. As new information is received, the numbers below will be updated accordingly. EPA previously reported a total of 228 facilities with 629 surface impoundments; these numbers have changed as a result of new information. The companies in the table below have at some point claimed their responses contained confidential business information (CBI). While EPA reviews these claims, the information that is claimed as CBI is redacted (removed) from the coal ash survey results and survey responses from these companies. Reference to this information is also removed from the coal ash reports. If these claims are accepted by the EPA, the information will remain redacted. If EPA denies these claims, the information will be posted. https://archive.epa.gov/epawaste/nonhaz/industrial/special/fossil/web/html/index-3.html 1/6 5/9/2020 Information Request Responses from Electric Utilities | Special Wastes | Wastes | US EPA CBI Claims Company that Claims CBI Survey Question(s) EPA’ Determination Claimed on CBI Claim Confidential Alabama Power Company - Barry Power Station 5, 6, 7, 8 Denied - Gadsden Power Station 5, 6, 7, 8 Denied - Gorgas Power Station 5, 6, 7, 8 Denied - Greene County Power Station 5, 6, 7, 8 Denied - James H. Miller Jr Power Station 5, 6, 7, 8 Denied - Earnest C. Gaston Electric Generating 5, 6, 7, 8 Denied Plant Duke Energy Corporation 8 Denied First Energy Generation Corporation - 8 Denied Little Blue Run Dam Georgia Power Company - Bowen Power Station 5, 6, 7, 8 Denied - Kraft Power Station 5, 6, 7, 8 Denied - McIntosh Power Station 5, 6, 7, 8 Denied - Harlee Branch Power Station 5, 6, 7, 8 Denied - Scherer Power Station 5, 6, 7, 8 Denied - Plant Hammond 5, 6, 7, 8 Denied - Plant McDonough 5, 6, 7, 8 Denied - Plant Mitchell 5, 6, 7, 8 Denied - Plant Yates 5, 6, 7, 8 Denied - Wansley Power Station 5, 6, 7, 8 Denied Gulf Power Company 5, 8 Denied Mississippi Power Company 5, 6, 7, 8 Denied If you have any questions regarding EPA's information collection effort or field assessments of coal combustion residual impoundments, or if you identify any errors/discrepancies please contact Jana Englander ([email protected], 703.308.8711) or Craig Dufficy ([email protected], 703.308.9037). Database of Survey Responses Database Results (Excel) 04-12-12 (367K) PDF Version (6 pg, 163K) Survey Questions (PDF) (1 pg, 247K) You will need Adobe Reader to view some of the files on this page. See EPA's PDF page to learn more. Survey Responses A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | K | L | M | N | O | P | Q | R | S | T | U | V | W | X | Y | Z A Alabama Power Company - Various Sites (PDF) (13 pp, 1.0MB) Alabama Power Company - Gaston Power Plant (PDF) (8 pp, 351K) Allegheny Energy - Mitchell Power Station Courtney, PA (PDF) (2 pg, 533K) Allegheny Energy Supply Co., LLC - Pleasants Power Station McElroy's Run Embankment and Impoundment (PDF) (14 pp, 485K) Allegheny Energy Supply Co., LLC - R. Paul Smith Power Station Lagoon Dam #3 (PDF) (13 pp, 493K) Allegheny Energy Supply Co., LLC - R. Paul Smith Power Station Lagoon Dam #4 (PDF) (14 pp, 482K) Allete, Inc. - All Facilities (PDF) (16 pp, 844K) Alliant Energy - Columbia Power Station (PDF) (12 pp, 572K) Alliant Energy - Burlington Power Station (PDF) (14 pp, 755K) Alliant Energy - Dubuque Power Station (PDF) (8 pp, 402K) Alliant Energy - Edgewater Power Station (PDF) (15 pp, 828K) Alliant Energy - Fox Lake Power Station (PDF) (8 pp, 404K) Alliant Energy - ML Kapp Power Station (PDF) (12 pp, 678K) Alliant Energy - Nelson Dewey Power Station (PDF) (9 pp, 487K) Alliant Energy - Ottumwa Power Station (PDF) (9 pp, 492K) https://archive.epa.gov/epawaste/nonhaz/industrial/special/fossil/web/html/index-3.html 2/6 5/9/2020 Information Request Responses from Electric Utilities | Special Wastes | Wastes | US EPA Alliant Energy - Ottumwa Midland Landfill (PDF) (9 pp, 486K) Alliant Energy - Prairie Creek Power Station (PDF) (21 pp, 1.2MB) Alliant Energy - Rock River Power Station (PDF) (12 pp, 656K) Alliant Energy - Sixth Street Power Station (PDF) (12 pp, 654K) Alliant Energy - Sutherland Power Station (PDF) (11 pp, 593K) Alliant Energy - Lansing Power Station (PDF) (9 pp, 440K) Ameren Energy Generating Co. - All Facilities (PDF) (15 pp, 603K) Ameren UE - All Facilities (PDF) (14 pp, 535K) Ameren UE - Additional Facilities (PDF) (8 pp, 358K) American Electric Power (AEP) (PDF) (3 pp, 127K) - the companies indented below are subsidiaries of AEP Appalachian Power Co. - Clinch River (PDF) (2 pp, 13K) Appalachian Power Co. - Glen Lyn Power Station (PDF) (1 pg, 11K) Appalachian Power Co. - John E. Amos Power Station (PDF) (3 pp, 341K) Appalachian Power Co. - Kanawha River Power Station (PDF) (2 pp, 11K) Appalachian Power Co. - Mountaineer Power Station (PDF) (1 pg, 11K) Appalachian Power Co. - Philip Sporn Power Station (PDF) (2 pp, 13K) Cardinal Operating Co. - Cardinal Power Station (PDF) (2 pp, 13K) Columbus Southern Power Co. - Conesville Power Station (PDF) (1 pg, 11K) Columbus Southern Power Co. - Picway Power Station (PDF) (1 pg, 10K) Indiana Michigan Power Co. - Rockport Power Station (PDF) (1 pg, 10K) Indiana Michigan Power Co. - Tanners Creek Power Station (PDF) (1 pg, 13K) Kentucky Power Co. - Big Sandy Power Station (PDF) (2 pp, 13K) Ohio Power Co. - General James M Gavin Power Station (PDF) (2 pp, 11K) Ohio Power Co. - Kammer Power Plant (PDF) (1 pg, 10K) Ohio Power Co. - Mitchell Power Plant (PDF) (2 pp, 13K) Ohio Power Co. - Muskingum River Power Station(PDF) (1 pg, 12K) Oklahoma Public Service Co. - Northeastern 3 and 4 Plant (PDF) (1 pg, 11K) Oklahoma Public Service Co. - Oklaunion Power Station (PDF) (1 pg, 10K) Southwestern Electric Power Co. - Flint Creek Power Station (PDF) (1 pg, 11K) Southwestern Electric Power Co. (SWEPC) - Pirkey Power Station (PDF) (2 pp, 14K) Southwestern Electric Power Co. (SWEPC) - Welsh Plant (PDF) (1 pg, 11K) American Municipal Power, Inc. - Richard H. Gorsuch Power Station (PDF) (4 pg, 209K) Arizona Public Service Co. - Cholla Power Station (PDF) (10 pp, 3.1MBK) Arizona Public Service Co. - Four Corners Power Station (PDF) (14 pp, 595K) Arizona Electric Power Cooperative, Inc. - Apache Station Combustion Waste Disposal Facility (PDF) (10 pp, 533K) Associated
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Alexander Livnat, Ph.D. 12/18/2014 This Is the Second out of Five
    Alexander Livnat, Ph.D. 12/18/2014 This is the second out of five volumes describing EPA’s current state of knowledge of CCR damage cases. This volume comprises 42 damage case-specific modules. Each module contains background information on the host power plant, type and design of the CCR management unit(s), their hydrogeologic setting and status of groundwater monitoring system, evidence for impact, regulatory actions pursued by the state and remedial measures taken, litigation, and rationale for the site’s current designation as a potential damage case in reference to pre-existing screenings. Ample footnotes and a list of references provide links to sources of information. IIa. CCR Damage Case Reassessment December 2014 IIa. Coal Combustion Residuals Potential Damage Cases (Reassessed, Formerly Published); (Cases PTa01 to PTa42) 1 IIa. CCR Damage Case Reassessment December 2014 TABLE OF CONTENTS PTa01. TVA Colbert Fossil Fuel Plant, Colbert County, Alabama ............................................................. 4 PTa02. TVA Widows Creek Steam Fossil Fuel Plant, Stevenson, Jackson County, Alabama ................. 10 PTa03. Arizona Public Service Co. Cholla Steam Electric Generating Station, Navajo County, Arizona 14 PTa04. Florida Power & Light Lansing Smith Plant, Bay County, Florida .............................................. 18 PTa05. Ameren (formerly: Central Illinois Light Co.) Duck Creek Station, Canton, Fulton County, Illinois ........................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Inspectors Special Assignment Sources [PDF]
    INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT Last Updated 11/17/2020 Inspectors' Specialty Assignment Sources Plant ID County Plant Name City Specialty Inspector 003-00013 Allen Rea Magnet Wire Co, Inc Fort Wayne Patrick Burton 003-00036 Allen General Motors LLC Fort Wayne Assembly Roanoke Patrick Burton 003-00269 Allen Essex Group LLC Fort Wayne Patrick Burton 005-00015 Bartholomew Cummins Engine Plant Columbus Vaughn Ison 005-00040 Bartholomew Toyota Material Handling Incorporated Columbus Vaughn Ison 005-00047 Bartholomew Cummins Engine Co - Midrange Engine Plant Columbus Vaughn Ison 005-00066 Bartholomew NTN Driveshaft, Inc Columbus Vaughn Ison 017-00005 Cass Lehigh Cement Company LLC Logansport Patrick Austin 017-00027 Cass A. Raymond Tinnerman Automotive Incorporated Logansport Rebecca Hayes 019-00008 Clark Lehigh Cement Company LLC Speed Patrick Austin 027-00046 Davieess Grain Processing Corporation Washington Tammy Haug 033-00023 DeKalb Rieke Packaging Systems Auburn Ling Tapp 033-00043 DeKalb Steel Dynamics, Inc - Flat Roll Group - Butler Division Butler Kurt Graham 033-00076 DeKalb Steel Dynamics, Inc - Iron Dynamics Division Butler Kurt Graham 035-00028 Delaware Exide Technologies Muncie Christopher Cissell 039-00115 Elkhart Manchester Tank & Equipment Elkhart Paul Karkiewicz 043-00004 Floyd Duke Energy Indiana, LLC - Gallagher Generating Station New Albany Patrick Austin 045-00011 Fountain MasterGuard Corporation Veedersburg Rebecca Hayes 049-00023 Fulton CamCar, LLC Rochester Rick Reynolds 051-00013 Gibson Duke Energy Indiana,
    [Show full text]
  • Power Plants and Mercury Pollution Across the Country
    September 2005 Power Plants and Mercury Pollution Across the Country NCPIRG Education Fund Made in the U.S.A. Power Plants and Mercury Pollution Across the Country September 2005 NCPIRG Education Fund Acknowledgements Written by Supryia Ray, Clean Air Advocate with NCPIRG Education Fund. © 2005, NCPIRG Education Fund The author would like to thank Alison Cassady, Research Director at NCPIRG Education Fund, and Emily Figdor, Clean Air Advocate at NCPIRG Education Fund, for their assistance with this report. To obtain a copy of this report, visit our website or contact us at: NCPIRG Education Fund 112 S. Blount St, Ste 102 Raleigh, NC 27601 (919) 833-2070 www.ncpirg.org Made in the U.S.A. 2 Table of Contents Executive Summary...............................................................................................................4 Background: Toxic Mercury Emissions from Power Plants ..................................................... 6 The Bush Administration’s Mercury Regulations ................................................................... 8 Findings: Power Plant Mercury Emissions ........................................................................... 12 Power Plant Mercury Emissions by State........................................................................ 12 Power Plant Mercury Emissions by County and Zip Code ............................................... 12 Power Plant Mercury Emissions by Facility.................................................................... 15 Power Plant Mercury Emissions by Company
    [Show full text]
  • DRR Source List June 23, 2016
    DRR Source List June 23, 2016 State Facility Name County/Parish Alabama Tennessee Valley Authority- Colbert Fossil Plant Colbert Alabama Alabama Power - Gadsden Electric Generating Plant Etowah Alabama Alabama Power - Greene County Electric Generating Plant Greene Alabama Tennessee Valley Authority - Widows Creek Fossil Plant Jackson Alabama Alabama Power - William Crawford Gorgas Electric Generating Plant Walker Alabama International Paper Company - Prattville Mill Autauga Alabama Escambia Operating Company Big Escambia Creek Plant Escambia Alabama Azko Nobel Functional Chemicals - LeMoyne Site Mobile Alabama Alabama Power Company- James M. Barry Electric Generating Plant Mobile Alabama Ascend Performance Materials -Decatur Plant Morgan Alabama Sanders Lead Company Pike Alabama Continental Carbon Company- Phenix City Plant Russell Alabama Alabama Power Company - Ernest C. Gaston Electric Generating Plant Shelby Alabama Lhoist North America of Alabama - Montevallo Plant Shelby Alabama PowerSouth Energy Cooperative - Charles R. Lowman Power Plant Washington Arizona Tucson Electric Power Company - Springerville Generating Station Apache Arizona Arizona Electric Power Cooperative - Apache Generating Station Cochise Arizona Arizona Public Service Electric Company - Cholla Navajo Arkansas Flint Creek Power Plant (SWEPCO) Benton Arkansas Entergy Arkansas - Independence Independence Arkansas Futurefuel Chemical Company Independence Arkansas Entergy Arkansas - White Bluff Jefferson Arkansas Plum Point Energy Station Mississippi California Shell Martinez Refinery (Part of cluster) Contra Costa California Solvay USA Incorporated (Part of cluster) Contra Costa California Tesoro Refining and Marketing Company (Part of cluster) Contra Costa Colorado Public Service Company of Colorado (PSCO) - Cherokee Power Plant Adams Colorado Colorado Springs Utilities (CSU) - Martin Drake Power Plant El Paso Colorado CSU - Ray D Nixon El Paso Colorado Colorado Energy Nations Company (CENC) - Golden Jefferson Colorado Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association, Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • 65 Years of Cooperative Partnership
    65 YEARS OF COOPERATIVE PARTNERSHIP An Illustrated History of Hoosier Energy Rural Electric Cooperative 65 YEARS OF COOPERATIVE PARTNERSHIP An Illustrated History of Hoosier Energy Rural Electric Cooperative Hoosier Energy Rural Electric Cooperative, Inc. P.O. Box 908 Bloomington, IN 47402-0908 www.hepn.com Copyright © 2014 by Hoosier Energy All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or writing, without permission from the publisher. PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA TABLE OF CONTENTS FOREWORD ......................................................................................vii HOOSIER ENERGY POWER NETWORK ...........................................viii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ......................................................................ix HOOSIER ENERGY TODAY ..................................................................1 “I’LL DO ANYTHING IN THIS WORLD TO GET ELECTRICITY” ...........5 THE EARLY YEARS: COOPERATION AMONG COOPERATIVES ........17 THE BATTLE FOR RATTS STATION ..................................................30 COOPERATION AMONG UTILITIES ..................................................44 POWER THROUGH TEAMWORK ......................................................59 PEOPLE DELIVER THE POWER ......................................................71 MAKING LIFE BETTER .....................................................................81 THE POWER OF PARTNERSHIP ......................................................94
    [Show full text]
  • Environmental Assessment for the Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source Category
    United States Office of Water EPA-821-R-15-006 Environmental Protection Washington, DC 20460 September 2015 Agency Environmental Assessment for the Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source Category Environmental Assessment for the Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source Category EPA-821-R-15-006 September 2015 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water (4303T) Engineering and Analysis Division 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20460 Acknowledgements and Disclaimer This report was prepared by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Neither the United States Government nor any of its employees, contractors, subcontractors, or their employees make any warrant, expressed or implied, or assume any legal liability or responsibility for any third party’s use of or the results of such use of any information, apparatus, product, or process discussed in this report, or represents that its use by such party would not infringe on privately owned rights. Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACRONYMS ................................................................................................................................. VIII GLOSSARY ..................................................................................................................................... XI SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION..........................................................................................................1-1 SECTION
    [Show full text]
  • 2020 Report to the 21St Century Energy Policy Development Task Force
    2020 Report to the 21st Century Energy Policy Development Task Force Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission August 14, 2020 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Following the passage of House Enrolled Act 1278 (2019), the Commission contracted with three organizations to assist in its study for the 21st Century Energy Policy Development Task Force. These three entities included: the State Utility Forecasting Group (SUFG), Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL), and Indiana University Public Policy Institute. The Commission is grateful for the work of the researchers at each organization for their work over the last several months on this initiative. Specifically, the Commission would like to thank the following: Indiana University Tom Guevara, Director, Public Policy Institute Tim Slaper, Co-director, Indiana Business Research Center Sanya Carley, Professor, O’Neill School of Public and Environmental Affairs Matt Kinghorn, Senior Demographic Analyst, Indiana Business Research Center Drew Klacik, Senior Policy Analyst, Public Policy Institute Jamie Palmer, Senior Policy Analyst, Public Policy Institute Kevin Martyn, Visiting Lecturer, O’Neill School of Public and Environmental Affairs Madeline Mohrman, Research Assistant, O’Neill School of Public and Environmental Affairs Claire Williamson, Research Assistant, O’Neill School of Public and Environmental Affairs State Utility Forecasting Group (SUFG) Dr. Doug Gotham Tim Phillips Marco Velastegui Fang Wu Liwei Lu David Nderitu Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL)1 Juan Pablo Carvallo Joscha Mueller Christoph Gehbauer Peter H. Larsen Myles T. Collins Stephanie Bieler In addition to the experts at the aforementioned organizations, the Commission also recognizes and appreciates the time taken by the external stakeholders in providing feedback, comments, and guidance on the issues at hand.
    [Show full text]
  • Economic, Fiscal, and Social Impacts of the Transition of Electricity Generation Resources in Indiana AUGUST 2020 | 20-C11 101 W
    Economic, Fiscal, and Social Impacts of the Transition of Electricity Generation Resources in Indiana AUGUST 2020 | 20-C11 101 W. Ohio Street, Suite 400 Indianapolis, IN 46204 policyinstitute.iu.edu Economic, Fiscal, and Social Impacts of the Transition of Electricity Generation Resources in Indiana AUTHORS Tom Guevara, Director, Public Policy Institute Tim Slaper, Co-director, Indiana Business Research Center Sanya Carley, Professor, O’Neill School of Public and Environmental Affairs Matt Kinghorn, Senior Demographic Analyst, Indiana Business Research Center Drew Klacik, Senior Policy Analyst, Public Policy Institute Jamie Palmer, Senior Policy Analyst, Public Policy Institute Kevin Martyn, Visiting Lecturer, O’Neill School of Public and Environmental Affairs Madeline Mohrman, Research Assistant, O’Neill School of Public and Environmental Affairs Claire Williamson, Research Assistant, O’Neill School of Public and Environmental Affairs The IU Public Policy Institute (PPI) produces unbiased, high-quality research, analyses and policy guidance to effect positive change and improve the quality of life in communities across Indiana and the nation. As a multidisciplinary institute within the IU O’Neill School of Public and Environmental Affairs, PPI supports the Center for Health and Justice Research, the Center for Research on Inclusion & Social Policy, the Manufacturing Policy Initiative, and the Indiana Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations. Established in 1925, the Indiana Business Research Center (IBRC) is an integral unit in the Kelley School of Business at Indiana University. The IBRC provides and interprets the economic information needed by the state’s business, government and nonprofit organizations, as well as users of such information throughout the nation. In addition, the Center conducts original research to generate needed information when existing data are not available or sufficient.
    [Show full text]
  • Power Plants and Mercury Pollution Across the Country
    September 2005 Power Plants and Mercury Pollution Across the Country Environment Colorado Research & Policy Center Made in the U.S.A. Power Plants and Mercury Pollution Across the Country September 2005 Environment Colorado Research & Policy Center Acknowledgements Written by Supryia Ray, Clean Air Advocate with Environment Colorado Research & Policy Center. © 2005, Environment Colorado Research & Policy Center The author would like to thank Alison Cassady, Research Director at Environment Colorado Research & Policy Center Fund, and Emily Figdor, Clean Air Advocate at Environment Colorado Research & Policy Center, for their assistance with this report. To obtain a copy of this report, visit our website or contact us at: Environment Colorado Research & Policy Center 1536 Wynkoop Street, Suite 100 Denver, CO 80202 (303) 573-3871 www.environmentcolorado.org Made in the U.S.A. 2 Table of Contents Executive Summary...............................................................................................................4 Background: Toxic Mercury Emissions from Power Plants ..................................................... 6 The Bush Administration’s Mercury Regulations ................................................................... 8 Findings: Power Plant Mercury Emissions ........................................................................... 12 Power Plant Mercury Emissions by State........................................................................ 12 Power Plant Mercury Emissions by County and Zip Code ..............................................
    [Show full text]
  • Feasibility Study for Siting a Synfuel Park/Polygeneration Plant in Indiana
    Synfuel Park / Polygeneration Plant Feasibility Study for Indiana Prepared for the Center for Coal Technology Research (CCTR) State of Indiana Paul V. Preckel, Principal Investigator Zuwei Yu, Co-Principal Investigator State Utility Forecasting Group Energy Center at Discovery Park Purdue University John A. Rupp Fritz H. Hieb Indiana Geological Survey Indiana University With Contributions By: Devendra Canchi, Sika Gbègbèlègbè Dofonsou, Agnieszka Drobniak, Sisi Guo, and Akiner Tuzuner September 30, 2007 Revised January 31, 2008 Synfuel Park / Polygeneration Plant: Feasibility Study for Indiana Table of Contents Acknowledgments xi Executive Summary 1 I. Introduction 2 II. Coal Resources 7 III. CO2: Sequestration and Other Uses 8 IV. Infrastructure: Transportation/Logistics, Electricity Transmission, and Gas/Petroleum Pipelines 9 IV.1 Transportation/logistics 10 IV.2 Electricity transmission lines 12 IV.3 Gas/petroleum pipelines 13 V. Water Resources 13 VI. Land Resources 14 VI.1 Main plant 14 VI.2 Coal storage and handling 17 VI.3 Landfill 17 VI.4 Cooling pond 17 VI.5 Final product storage 17 VII. Environmental Concerns with Synfuel Parks/Polygeneration Plants 18 VII.1 Waste water 18 VII.2 Air emissions 20 VII.3 Solid wastes 25 VII.4 Sludge and oil 26 VIII. Labor Requirements 26 IX. Economic Impact 26 X. The Francisco Mine 27 X.1 Coal availability 27 X.2. CO2 sequestration potential 27 X.3 Transportation infrastructure/logistics 29 X.4 Water requirements and resources 30 X.5 Land/ real estate requirements 37 X.6 Transmission lines and power availability 37 X.7 Gas and oil pipelines 38 X.8 Labor force availability 38 X.9 Summary 38 i Synfuel Park / Polygeneration Plant: Feasibility Study for Indiana XI.
    [Show full text]
  • Mercury Rising Cover
    A Clear the Air Report Mercury Rising New Data on Toxic Releases from Electric Power Plants, Including Mercury and Dioxin Prepared by National Environmental Trust 1200 18th Street, NW Washington, DC 20036 Credits Written by: Thomas E. Natan, Jr. Ph. D, Research Director and Mark Wenzler, Environmental Counsel, National Environmental Trust Acknowledgements Mercury Rising was prepared by the National Environmental Trust for Clear the Air. Martha Keating, Clean Air Task Force, and John Stanton, National Environmental Trust, and Angela Ledford and Jonathan Banks, Clear the Air provided editorial comments. This report was made possible with funding from The Pew Charitable Trusts. The opinions expressed in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Pew Charitable Trusts. Copies of this report and tables are available at: http://www.cleartheair.org Executive Summary Newly released U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) information on toxic air emissions shows that electric utilities were the biggest air polluters in the U.S. in 2000. The 2000 Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) data constitute our nation’s premier database of information on how much toxic air, water, and land pollution is released each year by various industries. Coal- and oil-fired electric power plants first reported to TRI for 1998. The latest data also contain new information on persistent, bioaccumulative toxic chemicals, or PBTs. This report is the first in-depth analysis of the quantity and nature of coal- and oil- burning power plant toxic pollution brought to light in the 2000 TRI data. It demonstrates that electric utility emissions can and do in fact present serious public health concerns.
    [Show full text]
  • DRR) Pathway Notification Summary Per 40 CFR 51.1203(B
    Data Requirements Rule (DRR) pathway notification summary per 40 CFR 51.1203(b) See footnote for discussion of labels in last two columns March 2017 State Facility County/Parish DRR Pathway1 State Submittal12 Alabama International Paper Company - Prattville Mill Autauga Model Model Alabama Tennessee Valley Authority- Colbert Fossil Plant Colbert Limit Limit Alabama Escambia Operating Company Big Escambia Creek Plant Escambia Model Model Alabama Alabama Power - Gadsden Electric Generating Plant Etowah Limit Limit Alabama Alabama Power - Greene County Electric Generating Plant Greene Limit Limit Alabama Tennessee Valley Authority - Widows Creek Fossil Plant Jackson Limit Limit Alabama Alabama Power Company- James M. Barry Electric Generating Plant Mobile Model Model Alabama Azko Nobel Functional Chemicals - LeMoyne Site Mobile Model2 Model Alabama Ascend Performance Materials -Decatur Plant Morgan Model Model Alabama Sanders Lead Company Pike Model Model Alabama Continental Carbon Company- Phenix City Plant Russell Model Model Alabama Alabama Power Company - Ernest C. Gaston Electric Generating Plant Shelby Model Model Alabama Lhoist North America of Alabama - Montevallo Plant Shelby Monitor Monitor Alabama Alabama Power - William Crawford Gorgas Electric Generating Plant Walker Model2 Model Alabama PowerSouth Energy Cooperative - Charles R. Lowman Power Plant Washington Model Model Arizona Tucson Electric Power Company - Springerville Generating Station Apache Model Model Arizona Arizona Electric Power Cooperative - Apache Generating Station
    [Show full text]