DOCSLIB.ORG

Title of Dissertation Goes Here All Caps, Centered

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Title of Dissertation Goes Here All Caps, Centered ABSTRACT This research was conducted in three sets of field-scale composting experiments. Also presented are two brief economic models that compare processing costs of an in- vessel system to a windrow biosolids and to a biopile treatment operation. The first set of experiments quantified hydrocarbons, organic sulfur compounds, and ammonia produced by an in-vessel system composting sewage sludge. Cumulative hydrocarbons, organosulfur compounds, and ammonia gas emissions were compared to published emissions from two commercial windrow operations. For a similar dry mass fraction of sewage sludge, the in-vessel emissions were ten-fold lower for non-methane hydrocarbons, organosulfur compounds, and ammonia. Additionally, methane concentrations in the in-vessel exhaust gas were negligible, whereas the windrow systems generated 1.8-g to 26.6-g methane per dry-kg. In regions with stringent air emission regulations, a properly operated in-vessel system could overcome the need for exhaust gas treatment. The effect of C/N ratio on ammonia generation was evaluated, as was the variability of hydrocarbon emissions from batch to batch. The second set of experiments compared in-vessel performance to a windrow and a static pile in remediating explosives-contaminated soil. Based on these experiments, preferred conditions for remediating HMX (octahydro-1,3,5,7-tetranitro-1,3,5,7- tetrazocine) in soil were at saturated moisture content with infrequent mixing to promote ii reductive transformations. Operating under low moisture content and at a 50% soil mass fraction decreased HMX removal efficiency. The third test set consisted of constructing and operating a 400-m3 and a 1,000-m3 biopile to remediate soils contaminated with total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH). The TPH removals were 62% and 77% after 7 and 27 months, respectively. Initial TPH levels averaged 1,550 and 3,200 mg/kg, and final average values were 590 and 740 mg/kg. Grinding and blending soil prior to treatment would have distributed TPH contamination more evenly and reduced agglomeration of TPH-saturated soil in which oxygen, water, and hydrocarbon transport were limited. Enhanced ex-situ soil treatment options for smaller volumes of contaminated soil (approx. 200 to 1,500-m3) were proposed. An in-vessel system could provide periodic mixing and could sustain process conditions that approach the control possible in laboratory systems. Future research focused on validating an in-vessel approach is recommended. iii Dedicated to Lauri for staying with me through this effort. iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I thank Dr. Olli Tuovinen for his steadfast support through several research topics and for his insight. Additionally, I acknowledge my committee members, Dr. Harold Keener, Dr. Sam Traina, and Dr. S.T. Yang for their patience and flexibility. The management at Battelle provided financial, laboratory, and scheduling assistance. In particular I thank Dr. Jeff Means who for several years enabled me to devote a portion of my work toward my academic goal and who has continued to serve as a mentor. I owe gratitude to Ms. Vicki Paddock for volunteering her time to painstakingly format the dissertation draft. To Lauri I owe more than can be spelled out here for enduring a long circuitous journey toward the completion of this document. v VITA February 27, 1965 ....................................Born – Greenville, OH 1987..........................................................B.S. Chemical Engineering, California State Polytechnic University, Pomona 1994..........................................................M.S. Chemical Engineering, The Ohio State University 1987 – 1991..............................................Chemical Officer, U.S. Army, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 1991 – 1992..............................................Graduate Teaching Associate, The Ohio State University 1992 – 2001..............................................Research Engineer, Battelle Memorial Institute, Columbus, OH 2001 – 2003 .............................................Executive Officer, U.S. Army Pueblo Chemical Depot, CO 2003 – present..........................................Senior Research Scientist, Battelle Memorial Institute, Columbus, OH PUBLICATIONS Research Publications 1. V.S. Magar, F.M. von Fahnestock, A. Leeson (editors). 2001. Ex Situ Biological Treatment Technologies. Battelle Press, Columbus, OH. ISBN 1-57477-116-7. 2. F.M. von Fahnestock, G.B. Wickramanayake, R.J. Kratzke, W.R. Major. 1998. Biopile Design, Operation, and Maintenance Handbook for Treating Hydrocarbon- Contaminated Soils. Battelle Press, Columbus, OH. ISBN 1-57477-035-7. 3. F.M. von Fahnestock, T.L. Forney. 1995. Biodegradation of Explosives Using a Known Herbicide Degrader. In: Bioremediation of Recalcitrant Organics. Vol. 3. R.E. Hinchee, D.B. Anderson, R.E. Hoeppel (editors). Battelle Press, Columbus, OH. ISBN 1- 57477-008-X. pp. 259 – 266. vi 4. Roche, A., F. Gaillard, M. Romand, F.M. von Fahnestock. 1991. Metal-Based Bonding Joints: Adhesion Measurement Using a Three Point Flexure Test. Journal of Adhesion Science. Vol. 1(1). pp. 147 – 157. FIELDS OF STUDY Major Field: Environmental Science vii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ABSTRACT........................................................................................................................ ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .................................................................................................. v VITA.................................................................................................................................. vi LIST OF TABLES............................................................................................................. xi LIST OF FIGURES ......................................................................................................... xiv Chapters: 1. GENERAL INTRODUCTION............................................................................... 1 2. CHARACTERIZATION OF EXHAUST GAS FROM A FULL-SCALE IN- VESSEL COMPOSTING SYSTEM ...................................................................... 5 2.1 Summary..................................................................................................... 5 2.2 Introduction................................................................................................. 7 2.2.1 Background..................................................................................... 7 2.2.2 Gas Emissions During Composting.............................................. 16 2.2.3 Objective....................................................................................... 17 2.2.4 Scope............................................................................................. 19 2.3 Materials & Methods................................................................................ 19 2.3.1 Feed Material Preparation............................................................. 19 2.3.2 Reactor .......................................................................................... 20 2.3.3 Off-Gas Sampling......................................................................... 22 2.3.4 Method for Hydrocarbon Gas Analysis ........................................ 26 2.4 Results and Discussion............................................................................. 27 2.4.1 Hydrocarbon Exhaust Gas Concentrations ................................... 27 2.4.2 Hydrocarbon Emission Estimates................................................. 35 2.4.3 Ammonia Exhaust Gas Profiles.................................................... 48 2.4.4 Comparison of In-Vessel Emissions to Those of a Commercial Windrow Process .......................................................................... 52 viii 2.4.5 Example Correlation of Organic Compound Exhaust Gas Concentrations to Corresponding Concentrations in Building Air at a Representative In-Vessel Composting Plant.......................... 55 2.5 Conclusions............................................................................................... 57 3. IN VESSEL COMPOSTING OF EXPLOSIVE-CONTAMINATED SOIL: A PILOT-SCALE EVALUATION FOR PROCESS IMPROVEMENT OPTIONS.............................................................................................................. 61 3.1 Summary................................................................................................... 61 3.2 Introduction............................................................................................... 63 3.2.1 Objective....................................................................................... 65 3.2.2 Technology Background............................................................... 65 3.2.3 Project Overview.......................................................................... 69 3.2.4 Site Description............................................................................. 69 3.2.5 System Installation........................................................................ 71 3.2.6 Windrow ....................................................................................... 75 3.3 Materials and Methods.............................................................................. 76 3.3.1 Compost Feed Material Storage.................................................... 76 3.3.2 Feed Preparation and Test Cell Loading....................................... 76 3.3.3 Test Cell Operating Conditions .................................................... 77 3.3.4 Field Sampling.............................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • March 8, I 877J
    March 8, I 877J 1VATURE 4or logical Council to the Scottis~ Meteorol~gical Soc_iety, as are "vVe do not deny that an elementary body may in certain necessary for obtaining observations at stations reqmred for the cases give different spectra. The absorption spectrum of iodine, purposes of the Council ; for securing the pmper inspection of for instance, is quite different from its emission spectrum stations the registers from which are required for the general obtained by means of the electric spark. All bodies existing in purposes of the Council ; for t~e needful compilati?n and c_h~ck different allotropic states will give different spectra correspond­ of such registers ; and for meetmg other charges directly ansmg ing to these different allotropic states provided that the allotropic from these services ; or for special researches couducted. by the states still exist at the temperature of incandescence. Society with the approval of the Council ; but that no grants should. be made to ordinary observers, nor for any general pur­ "Oxygen, for instance, would present two different absorption poses of the society which lie beyond the scope of the operations spectra, one belonging to oxygen the other to ozone. But as to be placed under the Council. ozone is destroyed at a high temperature, only one spectrum of 23. We think that the same principle should be applied to all incandescent oxygen can exist. simil!lr local bodies interested in the study of Meteorology ; so " Sulphur in the solid state exists in different allotropic states, that, in fact, no payments should. be made to them except for and some observations lead us to believe that even as a gas it results sought for by the Council.
    [Show full text]
  • Natural Areas Inventory of Bradford County, Pennsylvania 2005
    A NATURAL AREAS INVENTORY OF BRADFORD COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 2005 Submitted to: Bradford County Office of Community Planning and Grants Bradford County Planning Commission North Towanda Annex No. 1 RR1 Box 179A Towanda, PA 18848 Prepared by: Pennsylvania Science Office The Nature Conservancy 208 Airport Drive Middletown, Pennsylvania 17057 This project was funded in part by a state grant from the DCNR Wild Resource Conservation Program. Additional support was provided by the Department of Community & Economic Development and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service through State Wildlife Grants program grant T-2, administered through the Pennsylvania Game Commission and the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission. ii Site Index by Township SOUTH CREEK # 1 # LITCHFIELD RIDGEBURY 4 WINDHAM # 3 # 7 8 # WELLS ATHENS # 6 WARREN # # 2 # 5 9 10 # # 15 13 11 # 17 SHESHEQUIN # COLUMBIA # # 16 ROME OR WELL SMITHFI ELD ULSTER # SPRINGFIELD 12 # PIKE 19 18 14 # 29 # # 20 WYSOX 30 WEST NORTH # # 21 27 STANDING BURLINGTON BURLINGTON TOWANDA # # 22 TROY STONE # 25 28 STEVENS # ARMENIA HERRICK # 24 # # TOWANDA 34 26 # 31 # GRANVI LLE 48 # # ASYLUM 33 FRANKLIN 35 # 32 55 # # 56 MONROE WYALUSING 23 57 53 TUSCARORA 61 59 58 # LEROY # 37 # # # # 43 36 71 66 # # # # # # # # # 44 67 54 49 # # 52 # # # # 60 62 CANTON OVERTON 39 69 # # # 42 TERRY # # # # 68 41 40 72 63 # ALBANY 47 # # # 45 # 50 46 WILMOT 70 65 # 64 # 51 Site Index by USGS Quadrangle # 1 # 4 GILLETT # 3 # LITCHFIELD 8 # MILLERTON 7 BENTLEY CREEK # 6 # FRIENDSVILLE # 2 SAYRE # WINDHAM 5 LITTLE MEADOWS 9
    [Show full text]
  • Acidification in the US Southeast
    fmars-07-00548 July 8, 2020 Time: 19:8 # 1 REVIEW published: 10 July 2020 doi: 10.3389/fmars.2020.00548 Acidification in the U.S. Southeast: Causes, Potential Consequences and the Role of the Southeast Ocean and Coastal Acidification Network Emily R. Hall1*, Leslie Wickes2, Louis E. Burnett3, Geoffrey I. Scott4, Debra Hernandez5, Kimberly K. Yates6, Leticia Barbero7, Janet J. Reimer8, Mohammed Baalousha4, Jennifer Mintz9, Wei-Jun Cai8, J. Kevin Craig10, M. Richard DeVoe11, William S. Fisher12, Terri K. Hathaway13, Elizabeth B. Jewett9, Zackary Johnson14, Paula Keener15, Rua S. Mordecai16, Scott Noakes17, Charlie Phillips18, Paul A. Sandifer19, Astrid Schnetzer20 and Jay Styron21 1 Mote Marine Laboratory, Sarasota, FL, United States, 2 Thrive Blue Consulting, Charleston, SC, United States, 3 Grice Marine Laboratory, College of Charleston, Charleston, SC, United States, 4 Arnold School of Public Health, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC, United States, 5 Southeastern Coastal Ocean Observing and Research Regional Edited by: Association, Charleston, SC, United States, 6 US Geological Survey, St. Petersburg, FL, United States, 7 National Oceanic Christopher Edward Cornwall, and Atmospheric Administration, Atlantic Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratory, Miami, FL, United States, 8 College Victoria University of Wellington, of Earth, Ocean and Environment, University of Delaware, Newark, DE, United States, 9 National Oceanic and Atmospheric New Zealand Administration, Ocean Acidification Program, Silver Spring, MD, United States,
    [Show full text]
  • Wild Trout Waters (Natural Reproduction) - September 2021
    Pennsylvania Wild Trout Waters (Natural Reproduction) - September 2021 Length County of Mouth Water Trib To Wild Trout Limits Lower Limit Lat Lower Limit Lon (miles) Adams Birch Run Long Pine Run Reservoir Headwaters to Mouth 39.950279 -77.444443 3.82 Adams Hayes Run East Branch Antietam Creek Headwaters to Mouth 39.815808 -77.458243 2.18 Adams Hosack Run Conococheague Creek Headwaters to Mouth 39.914780 -77.467522 2.90 Adams Knob Run Birch Run Headwaters to Mouth 39.950970 -77.444183 1.82 Adams Latimore Creek Bermudian Creek Headwaters to Mouth 40.003613 -77.061386 7.00 Adams Little Marsh Creek Marsh Creek Headwaters dnst to T-315 39.842220 -77.372780 3.80 Adams Long Pine Run Conococheague Creek Headwaters to Long Pine Run Reservoir 39.942501 -77.455559 2.13 Adams Marsh Creek Out of State Headwaters dnst to SR0030 39.853802 -77.288300 11.12 Adams McDowells Run Carbaugh Run Headwaters to Mouth 39.876610 -77.448990 1.03 Adams Opossum Creek Conewago Creek Headwaters to Mouth 39.931667 -77.185555 12.10 Adams Stillhouse Run Conococheague Creek Headwaters to Mouth 39.915470 -77.467575 1.28 Adams Toms Creek Out of State Headwaters to Miney Branch 39.736532 -77.369041 8.95 Adams UNT to Little Marsh Creek (RM 4.86) Little Marsh Creek Headwaters to Orchard Road 39.876125 -77.384117 1.31 Allegheny Allegheny River Ohio River Headwater dnst to conf Reed Run 41.751389 -78.107498 21.80 Allegheny Kilbuck Run Ohio River Headwaters to UNT at RM 1.25 40.516388 -80.131668 5.17 Allegheny Little Sewickley Creek Ohio River Headwaters to Mouth 40.554253 -80.206802
    [Show full text]
  • Information Sheet
    INFORMATION SHEET Proposed Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for the Shamokin Creek Watershed, Northumberland, Montour, and Columbia Counties, Pennsylvania What is being proposed? A TMDL plan to improve the quality of water in Shamokin Creek and its tributaries, including North Branch Shamokin Creek, Quaker Run, Coal Run, Carbon Run, Locust Creek, and Buck Run. Who is proposing the plan? To whom and why? The Susquehanna River Basin Commission (SRBC), in cooperation with the Pottsville District Mining Office, is proposing to submit the plan to the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (Pa. DEP) and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) for review and approval as required by federal regulation. In 1995, U.S. EPA was sued for not developing TMDLs when Pennsylvania failed to do so. Pa. DEP has entered into an agreement with U.S. EPA to develop TMDLs for certain specified waters over the next several years. In order to assist Pennsylvania in the development of TMDLs, the SRBC entered into contract with Pa. DEP to develop several TMDLs within the Susquehanna River Basin. This TMDL has been developed in compliance with the state/U.S. EPA agreement. What is a TMDL? A Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) sets a ceiling on the pollutant loads that can enter a water body so the water body will meet water quality standards. The Clean Water Act requires states to list all waters that do not meet their water quality standards even after pollution controls required by law are in place. For these waters, the state must calculate how much of a substance can be put in the water without violating the standard and distribute that quantity to all the sources of the pollutant on that water body.
    [Show full text]
  • Pennsylvania Northumberland Comprehensive Plan
    COALTOWNSHIP NORTHUMBERLANDCOUNTY PENNSYLVANIA COMPREHENSIVEPLAN AUGUST, 2003 Table of Contents I Introduction I1 Background A. Regional Influence B. Topography C. Local History D. Existing Land Use E. Community Facilities & Services F. Traffic Circulation 111 Statistical Analysis A. Population & Race B. Population in Adjacent Municipalities C. Persons by Age D. Gender E. Education F. Employment & Labor Force G. Housing Units IV Goals & Objectives IV LandUse IV Housing IV Economic Development IV Transportation IV Community Facilities I. Introduction This document presents Coal Township's Comprehensive Plan. It was prepared in accordance with the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code (Act 170 of 1988). By adoption of this Comprehensive Plan by Coal Township's Board of Commissioners, it becomes the official statement prepared by the Planning Commission setting forth Coal Townships policies concerning desirable physical development and redevelopment of the community. The Coal Township Comprehensive Plan is not intended to be a detailed blueprint for community building. Rather the document is a general guide for land use to encourage municipal action to utilize the appropriate use or development of all land in a manner which will promote public health, safety, desirability and efficiency. The Comprehensive Plan supports Coal Township's efforts to foster community and economic growth. The fundamental purposes that the Coal Township Comprehensive Plan is intended to achieve are as follows: 1. To improve the physical environment of the Township as a setting for human activities - to make it more functional, beautiful, interesting, and efficient. This purpose is in accord with the broad mandate of the Township's Planning Commission in agreement with the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code.
    [Show full text]
  • Mine Water Resources of the Anthracite Coal Fields of Eastern Pennsylvania
    Mine Water Resources of the Anthracite Coal Fields of Eastern Pennsylvania In partnership with the following major contributors and Technical Committee Organizations represented: The United States Geological Survey, PA Water Science Center Roger J. Hornberger, P.G., LLC (posthumously) Susquehanna River Basin Commission Dauphin County Conservation District Ian C. Palmer-Researcher PA Department of Environmental Protection-- Bureau of Abandoned Mine Reclamation, Bureau of Deep Mine Safety, & Pottsville District Mining Office MINE WATER RESOURCES OF THE ANTHRACITE REGION OF PENNSYLVANIA Foreword: Dedication to Roger J. Hornberger, P.G. (Robert E. Hughes) PART 1. Mine Water of the Anthracite Region Chapter 1. Introduction to the Anthracite Coal Region (Robert E. Hughes, Michael A. Hewitt, and Roger J. Hornberger, P.G.) Chapter 2. Geology of the Anthracite Coal Region (Robert E. Hughes, Roger J. Hornberger, P.G., Caroline M. Loop, Keith B.C. Brady, P.G., Nathan A. Houtz, P.G.) Chapter 3. Colliery Development in the Anthracite Coal Fields (Robert E. Hughes, Roger J. Hornberger, P.G., David L. Williams, Daniel J. Koury and Keith A. Laslow, P.G.) Chapter 4. A Geospatial Approach to Mapping the Anthracite Coal Fields (Michael A. Hewitt, Robert E. Hughes & Maynard L. (Mike) Dunn, Jr., P.G.) Chapter 5. The Development and Demise of Major Mining in the Northern Anthracite Coal Field (Robert E. Hughes, Roger J. Hornberger, P.G., and Michael A. Hewitt) Chapter 6. The Development of Mining and Mine Drainage Tunnels of the Eastern Middle Anthracite Coal Field (Robert E. Hughes, Michael A. Hewitt, Jerrald Hollowell. P.G., Keith A. Laslow, P.G., and Roger J.
    [Show full text]
  • Existing Passive AMD Treatment Systems Evaluation And
    Existing Passive AMD Treatment Systems Evaluation and Recommendations Carbon Run Site 42 AMD Discharge Passive Treatment System Carbon Run Watershed, Northumberland County Technical Report Prepared by Skelly and Loy, Inc. through the Trout Unlimited AMD Technical Assistance Program December 2013 TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION TITLE PAGE Background ...................................................................................................................................1 Existing Data .................................................................................................................................1 Existing System Characterization .................................................................................................3 Summary of Site Visit & Investigation .........................................................................................6 Carbon Run Upstream & Downstream of the Site 42 System Outfall .........................................9 Recommendations/Conclusions ..................................................................................................10 Appendices Appendix 1 - Tables and Graphs Appendix 2 - Laboratory Reports for Water Samples Collected June 4, 2013 Appendix 3 - Figures: Treatment System Location Map and Schematic Diagram/Layout - i - Background Shamokin Creek Restoration Alliance (SCRA) requested technical assistance through the Trout Unlimited AMD Technical Assistance Program to evaluate and provide recommendations for an existing AMD passive treatment system within the
    [Show full text]
  • GAG Guidance Document 001
    Global Advisory Group GAG - Guidance GAG Guidance Document 001 Terms and Definitions Edition 2009-01 March 2009 Global Advisory Group GAG – Guidance "Terms and Definitions" – 2009-01 Contents Introduction..................................................................................................................................................3 1. Scope .................................................................................................................................................3 2. Aluminium products.........................................................................................................................4 2.1. Aluminium ...........................................................................................................................................4 2.2. Alloys, alloying elements and impurities.............................................................................................4 2.3. Materials and products .......................................................................................................................5 2.4. Unwrought products, excepting castings............................................................................................6 2.5. Castings..............................................................................................................................................6 2.6. Sheet and plate...................................................................................................................................7 2.7. Foil ......................................................................................................................................................9
    [Show full text]
  • Research Department
    Ontario Hydro AIRBORNE CARBON-14 ACTIVITIES IN THE WEST VAULT OF THE UNIT 1 REACTOR AT PICKERING NGS Report No 85-248-K K.E. Curtis Chemist - Analytical Methods Analytical Services Section Chemical Research Department RESEARCH 91602 new 82-10 CO At f i ' M f '• i '- K V '- O V i Ontario hydro research division AIRBORNE CARBON-14 ACTIVITIES IN THE WEST VAULT OF THE UNIT 1 REACTOR AT PICKERING HGS Report No 85-248-K K.E. Curtis Chemist - Analytical Methods Analytical Services Section Chemical Research Department ABSTRACT A large sampling and analysis program has been carried out to measure the airborne carbon~14 activities in the west vault during shock heating of four fuel channels in Pickering NGS Unit 1. Particulate carbon-14 activities varied from 0.02 to 2.9 pCi/m , depending on the sampling location and the fuel channel undergoing shock heating. By contrast, the gaseous carbon-14 activities were relatively constant for all samples, ranging from 1.6 to 5.2 yCi/m. Greater than 98% of this activity was found to be inorganic, probably from ^O^. Tritium was also found in the gaseous samples at an average concentra- tion about seven times higher than the carbon-14 activity. October 28, 1985 740631-508-092 833.74-X837.29 85-248-K 91602 new 82-10 Ontario hydro research division EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AIRBORNE CARBON-14 ACTIVITIES IN THE WEST VAULT OF THE UNIT 1 REACTOR AT PICKERING NGS K.E. Curtis Chemist - Analytical Methods Analytical Services Section Chemical Research Department A large sampling program has been carried out in the west vault of Pickering NGS Unit 1 to collect airborne samples during the shock heating of four fuel channels.
    [Show full text]
  • Shamokin Creek Watershed TMDL
    Shamokin Creek Watershed TMDL Prepared for: Bureau of Watershed Conservation Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection Prepared by: Pottsville District Mining Office Bureau of District Mining Operations, Pa. DEP In Cooperation with The Susquehanna River Basin Commission March 2, 2001 TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................................ 1 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................... 2 DIRECTIONS TO THE SHAMOKIN CREEK WATERSHED.................................................... 3 SEGMENTS ADDRESSED IN THIS TMDL................................................................................ 3 WATERSHED BACKGROUND................................................................................................... 4 TMDL ENDPOINTS ...................................................................................................................... 7 COMPUTATIONAL METHODOLOGY ...................................................................................... 8 HYDROLOGY................................................................................................................................ 9 TMDLS BY SEGMENT...............................................................................................................10 Mid Valley Discharge ..............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 1 of 13 Us Eastern PA Coalition for Abandoned Mine Reclamation
    us Eastern PA Coalition for Abandoned Mine Reclamation Robert E. Hughes EPCAMR Executive Director 101 South Main Street Ashley, PA 18706 Phone: (570) 371-3523 [email protected] Website: www.epcamr.org October 11, 2016 Senate Environmental Resources & Energy Committee Senator Gene Yaw, Chairman Room 362 Capital Building, 23rd Senatorial District Senate Box 203023 Harrisburg, PA 17120-3023 RE: Waste Coal Facilities Hearing Dear Senator Yaw, Chairman of the Senate Environmental Resources & Energy Committee, and fellow members of the distinguished Committee: On behalf of the Eastern PA Coalition for Abandoned Mine Reclamation (EPCAMR), a 20 year old, regional, non-profit environmental organization located in Ashley, PA dedicated to the reclamation of abandoned mine lands, restoration of watersheds impacted by abandoned mine drainage (AMD), and economic redevelopment of abandoned mine lands impacted by past mining practices throughout the Northern Anthracite Coal Fields and the Bituminous Coal Fields of Northcentral PA, I would like to offer testimony on the importance and necessity PA’s waste coal co-generation facilities have on our past mining landscapes, watersheds, and local economies. EPCAMR is a long-time affiliate member of the ARIPPA trade association and has been an active for two decades, since our inception. ARIPPA and Anthracite Region waste coal plants and partners have been providing my organization with opportunities to partner with individual member plants in the Anthracite Region as well as in the Bituminous Region of PA
    [Show full text]