Outside the Law Restoring Accountability to the Tennessee Valley Authority

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Outside the Law Restoring Accountability to the Tennessee Valley Authority Outside the Law RestoRing AccountAbility to the tennessee VAlley AuthoRity Outside the Law RestoRing AccountAbility to the tennessee VAlley AuthoRity enViRonmentAl integRity PRoject December 2009 This report was made possible through a grant from Our Children’s Earth Foundation, www.ocefoundation.org © December 2009, Environmental Integrity Project The environmenTal inTegriTy ProjecT is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization established in March of 2002 by former EPA enforcement attorneys to advocate for more effective enforcement of environmental laws. The Environmental Integrity Project has three objectives: To analyze how the failure to enforce or imple- ment environmental laws increases pollution and affects the public’s health; to hold federal and state agencies, as well as individual corporations, accountable for failing to enforce or comply with environmental laws; and to help local communities in key states obtain the protection of environmental laws. For more information about Environmental Integrity Project or for additional copies of this report, please visit: www.environmentalintegrity.org. cover PhoTos: Cumberland Fossil Plant, Aerial photo of Kingston Fossil Plant ash spill, and Ash and Water Discharge Pipe, available at TVA.gov and in the public domain under 17 U.S.C. § 105. Photo of home buried in coal ash from the Kingston Fossil Plant ash spill was taken by J. Miles Cary of the Knoxville News Sentinel and used with permission. Layout: www.cuttingedgedc.com contents Executive Summary v Summary v Recommendations vii Introduction 1 TVA’s Identity Crisis: Federal Corporation or Private Utility? 3 TVA’s Unique, Quasi-Federal Status 3 TV’s Shifting Legal Identity 4 TVA’s Claims of Sovereign Immunity & The Unitary Executive Theory 5 TVA’s Unique Financial Status 6 TVA’s Special Protections from Competition 7 TVA’s Environmental Footprint 9 TVA’s Coal Waste Spills 10 TVA’s Water Pollution 11 TVA’s Air Pollution 12 TVA’s Track Record of Noncompliance, Neglect, and Recalcitrance 15 TVA’s Clean Air Act Noncompliance 15 Clean Water Act Noncompliance 16 TVA Ignored Environmental Risks at Kingston 17 TVA’s Culture of Noncompliance 18 Recommendations and Conclusion 19 Restore Accountability at TVA 19 Reform and Reduce TVA’s Environmental Footprint 20 Conclusion 21 Notes 22 Appendix A. Select Coal Waste Discharges from TVA Fossil Plants 29 Figures Figure 1. Credit Rating of TVA and Eight Investor-Owned Utilities 7 Figure 2. TVA Fossil Plants 9 Figure 3. TVA Fossil Plants: CCW Surface Impoundments—Total Acres 10 Figure 4. TVA Fossil Plants—Surface Water Discharges 11 Figure 5. TVA Fossil Plants: CO2 Emissions 12 v o utside the Law Kingston Fossil Plant—Aerial View of Coal Ash Spill executiVe summary Nearly one year ago, the Tennessee to progressive management on behalf Valley Authority (TVA) made front page of the public interest, but TVA’s envi- news when an 84-acre coal combustion ronmental record and conduct in recent waste (CCW or coal waste) impound- years mock the vision that inspired its ment at Kingston Fossil Plant spilled founding. more than 1 billion gallons of toxic coal For example, a scathing report from waste—an amount nearly 100 times TVA’s own inspector general (IG), based greater than the Exxon Valdez oil on a review by an independent engineer- spill—into the Emory River and sur- ing firm, found that TVA’s own negli- rounding community. The spill covered gence led to the Kingston disaster. Worse land and water with coal sludge up to still, the IG reported that after the acci- 12 feet deep, and destroyed homes, play- dent, TVA’s investigation was deliberately grounds, businesses, roads, waterways, designed to limit its scope, minimize the and railroad tracks. company’s own liability, and avoid any- However, the evidence in this report thing that might call into question the reveals that the Kingston spill is only safety of the nearly 3,000 acres of coal the latest and most dramatic example of waste ponds still in use at other TVA coal environmental mismanagement at one plants.1 In separate reports, the IG found of the nation’s largest utilities. President that TVA bypassed air emission controls Roosevelt established TVA nearly eighty at the Cumberland, Widows Creek and years ago as a public utility dedicated Bull Run coal plants, resulting in well vi over a thousand tons of illegal emissions. In addition, the Justice Department According to the IG reports, TVA delayed (DOJ) has been reluctant to enforce fixing the problem or reporting the emis- environmental laws at TVA plants sions to regulatory authorities.2 despite longstanding compliance TVA’s environmental footprint is problems at TVA coal plants, like the enormous. Each year, TVA produces Clean Air Act violations identified by utside the Law staggering amount of air and water pol- EPA at over a dozen TVA coal-fired o 7 lution—over 104 million tons of CO2; over units in 2000. For example, the Justice 20 million pounds of hazardous air pol- Department’s “unitary executive” lutants; and 7 million tons of coal waste. theory, advanced during the Reagan In addition, TVA’s coal plants discharge Administration, discourages enforce- thousands of pounds of toxic metals ment actions between federal agen- like arsenic and selenium in U.S. waters cies because it requires two agencies every year. In fact, six of TVA’s 11 coal- to take opposing positions under fired plants rank among the nation’s top the same President.8 The “unitary 20 plants for total discharges of toxic executive” theory has roots in earlier metals to U.S. waterways.3 Although Executive Orders (No. 12,146 and EPA has determined that treatment 12,088) that advise federal agencies technologies are available and the Clean to resolve disputes outside the court- Water Act requires the elimination or room. The unitary executive doctrine at least the minimization of these toxic was adopted in part to avoid conflict effluents, most of TVA’s permits do not between the Justice Department’s duty include enforceable limits for discharg- to prosecute and its duty to defend es of toxic metals to surface waters. TVA federal agencies accused of violating is also home to some of the oldest and the law. However, this policy should least efficient coal plants in the U.S., not apply to TVA because TVA does not and spends less on their maintenance rely on DOJ for its defense and retains than its competitors.4 Unlike some utili- independent litigating authority.9 In ties, there is little evidence that TVA is addition, the 11th Circuit Court of making the transition toward cleaner, Appeals found TVA to be an unusual low carbon source of electricity—its federal agency, outside the bounds of recalcitrance may be aided by federal centralized control in Washington, and law that prohibits competition within invited EPA to file a lawsuit against TVA’s service area. TVA in federal court regardless of “uni- Equally troubling, TVA repeatedly tary executive” concerns.10 The EPA invokes its status as a “federal” agency to has never done so despite TVA’s ongo- avoid responsibility for its own environ- ing violations of environmental law.11 mental misconduct.5 TVA raises issues TVA is a federal utility, and presents of federal “sovereign immunity” to avoid Congress, the White House and U.S. penalties in environmental enforce- EPA with a tremendous opportunity ment cases filed by citizens in federal for reform. This report describes TVA’s court, yet TVA does not receive federal giant environmental footprint, and its funds or tax dollars drawn from the U.S. poor record of compliance with envi- Treasury.6 Limitations on the ability to ronmental laws. This report documents recover penalties from federal agencies TVA’s attempts to avoid its duty to com- are supposed to protect the taxpayer— ply with environmental laws due to its but TVA is completely self-financing, and status as a federal corporation. Finally, has not received federal appropriations this report provides detailed recom- in decades; any fines paid by TVA need mendations to reform TVA and limit its not come from the U.S. Treasury. environmental impact. Recommendations environmental wrongdoing. Similarly, vii (Full Recommendations on pg. 19) federal legislation allows TVA to o exclude competitors from its service utside the Law To bring TVA into compliance with all area and restrict access to its energy environmental laws and prevent another transmission system. Removing these disaster like the Kingston coal ash spill, special protections would make TVA the Obama Administration and Congress more competitive, result in a more should: energy-efficient grid, and create incentives for TVA to stay ahead of changing environmental and energy Restore Accountability at TVA: regulations. Clarify that EPA and the Justice Department Can Take TVA to Increase Environmental Court. A directive from the White Oversight. Congress can play a criti- House, clarifying that the “unitary ex- cal role in reforming TVA through its ecutive” theory does not prevent EPA oversight authority. The House and and DOJ from taking enforcement ac- Senate Committees charged with TVA tion against TVA will help bring TVA oversight have held multiple hearings into compliance with federal environ- regarding the Kingston spill, but long- mental laws and resolve environmen- term oversight of TVA’s environmen- tal violations that have lingered for tal management is needed to prevent years. The “unitary executive” theory, another disaster and transform TVA supported by Executive Orders (No. into a national example of envi- 12,146 and No. 12,088) should not pose ronmental sustainability and clean a roadblock to EPA and DOJ enforce- energy production. ment of environmental laws at TVA facilities. TVA does not rely on DOJ Reform and Reduce TVA’s for its defense and retains indepen- Environmental Footprint: dent litigating authority under the law.12 Unlike most federal agencies, Create a Culture of TVA is removed from centralized con- Environmental Compliance.
Recommended publications
  • POTENTIAL PARADISE FOSSIL PLANT RETIREMENT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Muhlenberg County, Kentucky
    Document Type: EA-Administrative Record Index Field: Final EA Project Name: Potential Paradise Plant Retirement Project Number: 2018-34 POTENTIAL PARADISE FOSSIL PLANT RETIREMENT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Muhlenberg County, Kentucky Prepared by: TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY Knoxville, Tennessee FEBRUARY 2019 To request further information, contact: Ashley Pilakowski NEPA Compliance Tennessee Valley Authority 400 W. Summit Hill Drive Knoxville, TN 37902 Phone: 865-632-2256 E-mail: [email protected] This page intentionally left blank Contents Table of Contents CHAPTER 1 – PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION ......................................................................... 1 1.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 1 1.2 Purpose and Need ................................................................................................................... 2 1.3 Related Environmental Reviews .............................................................................................. 4 1.4 Scope of the Environmental Assessment ................................................................................ 5 1.5 Public and Agency Involvement ............................................................................................... 5 1.6 Necessary Permits or Licenses and Consultation Requirements ............................................ 6 CHAPTER 2 - ALTERNATIVES ..........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Final Environmental Statement Related to the Operation of Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2,” Dated April 1995 (1995 SFES-OL-1)
    NUREG-0498 Supplement 2, Vol. 1 Final Environmental Statement Related to the Operation of Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Unit 2 Supplement 2 Final Report Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation AVAILABILITY OF REFERENCE MATERIALS IN NRC PUBLICATIONS NRC Reference Material Non-NRC Reference Material As of November 1999, you may electronically access Documents available from public and special technical NUREG-series publications and other NRC records at libraries include all open literature items, such as books, NRC’s Public Electronic Reading Room at journal articles, transactions, Federal Register notices, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm.html. Publicly released Federal and State legislation, and congressional reports. records include, to name a few, NUREG-series Such documents as theses, dissertations, foreign reports publications; Federal Register notices; applicant, and translations, and non-NRC conference proceedings licensee, and vendor documents and correspondence; may be purchased from their sponsoring organization. NRC correspondence and internal memoranda; bulletins and information notices; inspection and investigative Copies of industry codes and standards used in a reports; licensee event reports; and Commission papers substantive manner in the NRC regulatory process are and their attachments. maintained at— The NRC Technical Library NRC publications in the NUREG series, NRC Two White Flint North regulations, and Title 10, “Energy,” in the Code of 11545 Rockville Pike Federal Regulations may also be purchased from one Rockville, MD 20852–2738 of these two sources. 1. The Superintendent of Documents These standards are available in the library for reference U.S. Government Printing Office use by the public. Codes and standards are usually Mail Stop SSOP copyrighted and may be purchased from the originating Washington, DC 20402–0001 organization or, if they are American National Standards, Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov from— Telephone: 202-512-1800 American National Standards Institute nd Fax: 202-512-2250 11 West 42 Street 2.
    [Show full text]
  • Site Characteristics
    Clinch River Nuclear Site Early Site Permit Application Part 2, Site Safety Analysis Report SECTION 2.2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Title Page 2.2 Nearby Industrial, Transportation, and Military Facilities .............................. 2.2-1 2.2.1 Locations and Routes ................................................................... 2.2-1 2.2.2 Descriptions .................................................................................. 2.2-3 2.2.2.1 Descriptions of Facilities ............................................ 2.2-3 2.2.2.2 Description of Products and Materials ....................... 2.2-3 2.2.2.3 Description of Pipelines ............................................. 2.2-6 2.2.2.4 Description of Waterways .......................................... 2.2-6 2.2.2.5 Description of Highways ............................................ 2.2-7 2.2.2.6 Description of Railroads ............................................. 2.2-8 2.2.2.7 Description of Airports, Aircraft, and Airway Hazards ..................................................................... 2.2-8 2.2.2.8 Projections of Industrial Growth .............................. 2.2-11 2.2.3 Evaluation of Potential Accidents ............................................... 2.2-12 2.2.3.1 Determination of Potential Accidents ....................... 2.2-12 2.2.3.2 Effects of Design-Basis Events ................................ 2.2-29 2.2.4 References ................................................................................. 2.2-29 2.2-i Revision 0 Clinch River Nuclear Site
    [Show full text]
  • Coal Power Station
    Copyright © Tarek Kakhia. All rights reserved. http://tarek.kakhia.org Coal Power Station ( Fly Ash , Bottom Ash & Flue Gas Desulfurization ) BY Tarek Ismail Kakhia 1 Copyright © Tarek Kakhia. All rights reserved. http://tarek.kakhia.org Contents No Item Page 1 Fossil - fuel power station 3 2 Chimney 11 3 Fly Ash -1 21 4 Fly Ash -2 44 5 Electrostatic precipitator 44 4 Bottom Ash 52 7 Flue - Gas Desulfurization ( FGD ) 53 8 Flue-gas emissions from fossil-fuel combustion 44 1 Flue - gas stack 47 10 Calcium Sulfite 72 11 Calcium bi sulfite 73 12 Calcium sulfate 74 2 Copyright © Tarek Kakhia. All rights reserved. http://tarek.kakhia.org Fossil - fuel power station Contents 1 Basic concepts o 1.1 Heat into mechanical energy 2 Fuel transport and delivery 3 Fuel processing 4 Steam - electric 5 Gas turbine plants 6 Reciprocating engines 7 Environmental impacts o 7.1 Carbon dioxide o 7.2 Particulate matter o 7.3 Radioactive trace elements o 7.4 Water and air contamination by coal ash . 7.4.1 Range of mercury contamination in fish 8 Greening of fossil fuel power plants o 8.1 Low NOx Burners o 8.2 Clean coal 9 Combined heat and power 10 Alternatives to fossil fuel power plants o 10.1 Relative cost by generation source - Introduction : A fossil - fuel power station is a power station that burns fossil fuels such as coal, natural gas or petroleum (oil) to produce electricity. Central station fossil - fuel power plants are designed on a large scale for continuous operation. In many countries, such plants provide most of the electrical energy used.
    [Show full text]
  • Cumberland Fossil Plant to Comply with the CCR Rule Requirements
    Cumberland Fossil Fossil Plant Plant CUMBERLAND CITY,CITY, TENNESSEETENNESSEE QUICKQUICK FACTSFACTS OH IN IL WV KY MO VA TN NC AR SC MS AL GA EPA CCR RULERule Groundwater GROUNDWATER Monitoring MONITORING for 2019 Commissioning Date: 1973 This fact sheet summarizes groundwater monitoring conducted by Commissioning Date: 1973 This fact sheet summarizes groundwater monitoring conducted by TVA for the Output: 2,470 Megawatts TVACumberland as required Fossil Plant,by the as U.S. required Environmental by the U.S. Environmental Protection ProtectionAgency (EPA) Agency (16Output: billion 2,470 kilowatt-hours) Megawatts (16 billion Coal(EPA) CoalCombustion Combustion Residuals Residuals (CCR)(CCR) RuleRule. for The the 2019EPA calendar published year. the The EPA kilowatt-hours) published the CCR Rule on April 17, 2015. It requires companies operating coal- Number of homes powered: CCR Rule on April 17, 2015. It requires companies operating coal- 1.1 MillionNumber of homes powered: fired power plants to study whether constituents in CCR have been released to fired power plants to study whether constituents in CCR have been 1.1 Million groundwater from active, inactive and new CCR impoundments, as well as active Wet to Dry / Dewatered releasedand new CCR to groundwater. landfills. This fact sheet addresses the EPA CCR ConversionWet to Dry /Program: Dewatered Activities Rule groundwater monitoring only. underwayConversion Program: Complete The CCR Rule establishes multiple phases of protective groundwater monitoring for fly ash and gypsum. Bottom ash Inincluding addition baseline to ongoing sampling, groundwater Detection Monitoring monitoring and Assessment required under Monitoring. TVAdewatering Wide CCR tank-based Conversion solution Program Total Spend: Corrective action may be necessary at the completion of this process.
    [Show full text]
  • Reporting Requirements Under the Inspector General Act
    1 TVA Power Generation and Purchased Power Six Months Ended March 31, 2017 (in millions of kilowatt hours) Purchased power Natural gas (non-renewable) and/or oil-fired • Coal-fired - 18,264 Purchased power 1 Hydroelectric (renewable) • Nuclear - 30,185 • Hydroelectric - 4,780 Coal-fired • Natural gas and/or oil-fired - 11,220 • Purchased power (non-renewable) - 5,8672 Nuclear • Purchased power (renewable) - 3,6243 1 The nuclear amount for the six months ended March 31, 2017, includes approximately 799 million kWh of pre-commercial generation at Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Unit 2 and Paradise Combined Cycle Plant. 2 Purchased power (non-renewable) includes generation from Caledonia Combined Cycle Plant, which is currently a leased facility operated by TVA. 3 Purchased power (renewable) includes power purchased from the following renewable sources: hydroelectric, solar, wind, and cogenerations. 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Message from the Inspector General. .....................................................4 Noteworthy Undertaking...............................................................7 Executive Overview ...................................................................9 Organization ....................................................................... 13 Audits ............................................................................ 17 Evaluations ........................................................................23 Investigations ...................................................................... 27 Legislation and Regulations
    [Show full text]
  • (2019) EPA's Final
    Attachment to Part B Comments of Earthjustice et al., EPA-HQ-OLEM-2019-0173 Assessment Monitoring Outcomes (2019) EPA’s Final Coal Ash Rule, 40 C.F.R. § 257.94(e)(3), requires the owners or operators of existing Coal Combustion Residuals (CCR) units to prepare a notification stating that an assessment monitoring program has been established if it is determined that a statistically significant increase over background levels for one or more of the constituents listed in appendix III of the CCR Rule has occurred, without an alleged alternate source demonstration. This table identifies the CCR surface impoundments known to be in assessment monitoring and required to identify any constituent(s) in appendix IV detected at statistically significant levels (SSL) above groundwater protection standards and post notice of the assessment monitoring outcome per 40 C.F.R. § 257.95. The table includes the surface impoundments that were required to post notice of appendix IV exceedance(s), as applicable, or elected to do so as of the time of this assessment monitoring outcomes review (summer 2019). To the best of our knowledge, neither EPA nor any other entity has attempted to assemble this information and make it public. Note that this document is not confirming that the industry notifications or assessments were compliant with the CCR Rule or that additional units may not belong on this list. Assessment Monitoring Outcome # of Surface Impoundments Appendix IV Exceedance(s) 214 Appendix IV Exceedance(s), alleged Alternate Source Demonstration 16 No Appendix IV Exceedance Reported 64 Total 294 Name of Plant Appendix IV Operator CCR Unit or Site Exceedance(s) Healy Power Plant GVEA AK Unit 1 Ash Pond Yes Healy Power Plant GVEA AK Unit 1 Emergency Overflow Pond Yes Healy Power Plant GVEA AK Unit 1 Recirculating Pond Yes Charles R.
    [Show full text]
  • Company Profile R O B E R T S
    RobeR ts & s chaefeR c ompany Company p rofile H o W THe WorlD proC e SSe S i TS reS o U r C e S ROBERTS & SCHAEFER COMPANY PRESENTATION OF GENERAL QUALIFICATIONS TO PERFORM PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING AND www.r-s.com CONSTRUCTION SERVICES Chicago Pittsburgh Indonesia Poland 222 South Riverside Plaza 4412 Route 66 Sequis Center; 7th Floor ul. Bojkowska 37 Chicago, IL 60606-3986 Apollo, Pennsylvania 15613 JL Jenderal Duirman KAV 71 Gliwice, Poland 44-100 TEL: 312-236-7292 TEL: 801-984-0900 Jakarta, Indonesia 12190 TEL: +48-32-461-2722 FAX: 312-726-2872 FAX: 801-984-0909 TEL: +62 (0) 21-252-4177 FAX: +48-32-461-2720 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] FAX: +62 (0) 21-252-4138 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] Salt Lake City Australia 10150 South Centennial Parkway Level 11, 199 Grey Street, India Sandy, Utah 84070 South Bank 20, White House, C.G.Road TEL: 801-984-0900 Qld 4101 Australia Ahmedabad, India 380006 FAX: 801-984-0909 TEL: +617 3234 9555 TEL: 079-40328000 Email: [email protected] FAX: +617 3234 9595 FAX: 079-40328001 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] HOW THE WORLD PROCESSES ITS RESOURCES ROBERTS & SCHAEFER COMPANY www.r-s.com CONTENTS Who We Are A Team of Expertise Coal Fuel Handling Pet Coke and Alternative Fuel Handling Limestone and Gypsum (FGD) Handling Coal Preparation and Handling Metals and Minerals Processing and Handling Aggregate, Cement and Sand Handling Port and Marine Projects Specialty Projects Another Look Project Management & Execution Summary HOW THE WORLD PROCESSES ITS RESOURCES PREFACE Roberts & Schaefer Company (R&S) provides a wide range of services from complete turnkey design/build responsibility on domestic and international multi-million dollar facilities to engineering-only and feasibility studies.
    [Show full text]
  • EMISSIONS of MERCURY by PLANT (Based Upon Plant Reported Fuel Use and Mercury Tests)
    EMISSIONS OF MERCURY BY PLANT (Based upon plant reported fuel use and mercury tests) PLANT STATE PLANT TONS STATE TONS Monticello TX 1.04870 5.023 Martin Lake TX 0.68280 5.023 Limestone TX 0.48300 5.023 Big Brown TX 0.43450 5.023 Pirkey TX 0.40620 5.023 Sam Seymour TX 0.38640 5.023 J.T. Deely TX 0.25090 5.023 W A Parish TX 0.25080 5.023 Welsh TX 0.21940 5.023 Sandow TX 0.14470 5.023 Harrington Station TX 0.14190 5.023 Gibbons Creek TX 0.13210 5.023 J.K. Spruce TX 0.12040 5.023 Oklaunion TX 0.08839 5.023 Tolk Station TX 0.08001 5.023 Coleto Creek TX 0.07194 5.023 San Miguel TX 0.06693 5.023 TNP-One TX 0.01329 5.023 Hom er City PA 0.92600 4.979 Keystone PA 0.92570 4.979 Montour PA 0.60930 4.979 Bruce Mansfield PA 0.50400 4.979 Shawville PA 0.46400 4.979 Conemaugh PA 0.24730 4.979 Brunner Island PA 0.21820 4.979 Hatfield's Ferry PA 0.20700 4.979 1 EMISSIONS OF MERCURY BY PLANT (Based upon plant reported fuel use and mercury tests) PLANT STATE PLANT TONS STATE TONS Armstrong PA 0.15340 4.979 Cheswick PA 0.11860 4.979 Sunbury PA 0.11810 4.979 New Castle PA 0.10430 4.979 Portland PA 0.06577 4.979 Johnsonburg Mill PA 0.04678 4.979 Titus PA 0.03822 4.979 Cambria CoGen PA 0.03499 4.979 Colver Power Project PA 0.03459 4.979 Elrama PA 0.02900 4.979 Seward PA 0.02633 4.979 Martins Creek PA 0.02603 4.979 Hunlock Power Station PA 0.02580 4.979 Eddystone PA 0.02231 4.979 Mitchell (PA) PA 0.01515 4.979 AES BV Partners Beaver Valley PA 0.01497 4.979 Cromby Generating Station PA 0.00086 4.979 Northampton Generating Company L.P.
    [Show full text]
  • Return Receipt Requested the Hon. Regina Mccarthy, Administrator US
    January 14, 2016 Via Certified Mail - Return Receipt Requested The Hon. Regina McCarthy, Administrator U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Ariel Rios Building 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Mail Code: 1101A Washington, DC 20460 Via Certified Mail - Return Receipt Requested Heather McTeer Toney, Regional Administrator U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4 61 Forsyth Street, SW Atlanta, GA 30303-3104 Via Certified Mail - Return Receipt Requested Mr. Robert J. Martineau, Jr., Commissioner Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation William R. Snodgrass Tennessee Tower 312 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, 2nd Floor Nashville, TN 37243 Via Certified Mail - Return Receipt Requested Mr. Bill Johnson, President and Chief Executive Officer Tennessee Valley Authority 400 West Summit Hill Drive Knoxville, TN 37902-1499 RE: 60-Day Notice of Intent to Sue, 33 U.S.C. § 1365, for Violations of the Clean Water Act by Tennessee Valley Authority–TVA Cumberland Fossil Plant (CUF), NPDES No. TN0005789 To Whom It May Concern: This letter is to notify the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”), the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (“TDEC”), and the Tennessee Valley Authority (“TVA”) of ongoing violations of the Clean Water Act (“CWA”) at the Cumberland Fossil Plant (“the Cumberland Plant”) in Cumberland City, Tennessee, owned and operated by 1371158_2 TVA-Cumberland Fossil Plant January 14, 2016 Page 2 of 35 TVA. The Sierra Club (“the Conservation Group”) and its members have identified serious and ongoing unpermitted violations of the CWA at the Cumberland Plant. TVA has caused and continues to cause unauthorized point source discharges to Tennessee waters and navigable waters of the U.S., and to cause unpermitted pollutant discharges to flow from the coal ash disposal areas at the Cumberland Plant directly into the Cumberland River, as well as into groundwater that is hydrologically connected to the Cumberland River.
    [Show full text]
  • Tennessee Estimated Mercury Emissions from Coal-Burning Power Plants
    Tennessee estimated mercury emissions from coal-burning power plants. Estimated* Estimated** Total Mercury Mercury Released Air Pollution Plant Parent Company City 1998 (pounds) 1998 (pounds) Kingston Fossil Plant Tennessee Valley Authority Harriman, TN 840 525 Johnsonville Fossil Plant Tennessee Valley Authority New Johnsonville, 801 506 Cumberland Fossil Plant‡ Tennessee Valley Authority Cumberland City, TN 1,352 491 Gallatin Fossil Plant Tennessee Valley Authority Gallatin, TN 634 396 Bull Run Fossil Plant‡ Tennessee Valley Authority Clinton, TN 496 310 John Sevier Fossil Plant‡ Tennessee Valley Authority Rogersville, TN 300 187 Allen Fossil Plant‡ Tennessee Valley Authority Memphis, TN 204 129 State Total 4,630 2,548 * Estimated coal in mercury is calculated using plant specific coal contamination and coal consumption data. Release includes disposal in ponds and landfills as well as reuse applications such as fertilizer. ** Total stack emissions are calculated by applying total mercury released to plant specific emission modification factors. See Appendix A. ‡ Indicates plants that are under investigation by either U.S. EPA/Department of Justice or the State of New York Attorney General's Office for violations of the Clean Air Act. NRDC and a coalition of midwest groups have also served notice on many of these plants. N/A - Plants listed with N/A released mercury into the environment, however, insufficient data precludes estimation of mercury emissions from these plants. Source: Environmental Working Group. Compiled from U.S. Department of Energy and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency databases. Plant ownership is attributed to the parent company of the plant operator as of January 1, 1999. The Environmental Working Group is a non-profit environmental research organization based in Washington, D.C.
    [Show full text]
  • Facts and Figures on a Fossil Fuel 2015
    1 COAL ATLAS Facts and figures on a fossil fuel 2015 HOW WE ARE COOKING THE CLIMATE 2 IMPRINT The COAL ATLAS 2015 is jointly published by the Heinrich Böll Foundation, Berlin, Germany, and Friends of the Earth International, London, UK Chief executive editor: Dr. Stefanie Groll, Heinrich Böll Foundation Executive editor: Lili Fuhr, Heinrich Böll Foundation Executive editor: Tina Löffelsend, Bund für Umwelt und Naturschutz Deutschland Managing editor: Dietmar Bartz Art director: Ellen Stockmar English editor: Paul Mundy Research editors: Ludger Booms, Heinrich Dubel Proofreader: Maria Lanman Contributors: Cindy Baxter, Benjamin von Brackel, Heidi Feldt, Markus Franken, Lili Fuhr, Stefanie Groll, Axel Harneit-Sievers, Heike Holdinghausen, Arne Jungjohann, Eva Mahnke, Tim McDonnell, Vladimir Slivyak Editorial responsibility (V. i. S. d. P.): Annette Maennel, Heinrich Böll Foundation This publication is written in International English. First English edition, November 2015 Production manager: Elke Paul, Heinrich Böll Foundation Printed by Phoenix Print GmbH, Würzburg, Germany Climate-neutral printing on 100 percent recycled paper for the block and 60 percent for the wrapper. This material is licensed under Creative Commons “Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported“ (CC BY-SA 3.0). For the licence agreement, see http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/legalcode, and a summary (not a substitute) at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/deed.en. FOR ORDERS AND DOWNLOAD Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung, Schumannstraße 8, 10117 Berlin, Germany, www.boell.de/coalatlas Friends of the Earth International, Nieuwe Looiersstraat 31, 1017 VA Amsterdam, The Netherlands, www.foei.org Bund für Umwelt und Naturschutz Deutschland, Versand, Am Köllnischen Park 1, 10179 Berlin, www.bund.net/coalatlas INNENTITEL 3 COAL ATLAS Facts and figures on a fossil fuel 2015 4 INHALT TABLE OF CONTENTS 2 IMPRINT 18 HEALTH FINE DUST, FAT PRICE 6 INTRODUCTION Smoke and fumes from coal-fired power plants make us ill.
    [Show full text]