DOCSLIB.ORG

Seismic Response Report. All of the Walkdown Team Members Successfully Completed the EPRI Developed Training on NTTF Recommendation 2.3 - Seismic Walkdown Guidance

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Seismic Response Report. All of the Walkdown Team Members Successfully Completed the EPRI Developed Training on NTTF Recommendation 2.3 - Seismic Walkdown Guidance ENCLOSURE 2 SEQUOYAH NUCLEAR PLANT, UNIT 2 FUKUSHIMA NEAR-TERM TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATION 2.3: SEISMIC RESPONSE REPORT SEQUOYAH NUCLEAR PLANT - UNIT 1 FUKUSHIMA NEAR-TERM TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATION 2.3: SEISMIC RESPONSE REPORT 12-November-2012 WorleyParsons 633 Chestnut St. Suite 400 Chattanooga TN, 37450 Tel: 423-757-8020 Fax: 423-757-5869 www.worleyparsons.com WorleyParsons Services Pty Ltd ABN 61 001 279 812 © Copyright 2012 WorleyParsons Services Pty Ltd NTTF Recommendation 2.3: Seismic Response Report Sequoyah Unit 1 REV DESCRIPTION ORIG REVIEW WORLEY- DATE CLIENT DATE PARSONS APPROVAL APPROVAL O SQN Unit 1 Seismic 12-Nov-12 ii12 12. Walkdown Report TSimmersSP.ork E/J.Edgar Page 2 of 438 Ei I NTTF Recommendation 2.3: Seismic Response Report Sequoyah Unit 1 Table of Contents 1. Executive Sum m ary ............................................................................................................ 4 2. Seism ic Licensing Basis ..................................................................................................... 5 2.1. General Plant Description ............................................................................................ 5 2.2. G round Response Spectra ............................................................................................. 5 2.3. Structures ............................................................................................................................ 7 2.4. Equipm ent .......................................................................................................................... 7 3. Personnel Q ualifications ...................................................................................................... 9 3.1. Equipm ent Selection Personnel ..................................................................................... 9 3.2. Seism ic W alkdown Engineers ....................................................................................... 9 3.3. Licensing Basis Reviewers ............................................................................................. 9 3.4. IPEEE Reviewers ............................................... 10 3.5. Peer Review Team ...................................................................................................... 10 4. Selection of Structures, System s and Com ponents ............................................................ 11 4.1. SW EL Selection .......................................................................................................... 11 4.2. SW EL Analysis ............................................................................................................... 12 5. Seism ic W alkdowns and Area W alk-Bys ............................................................................ 13 5.1. Seism ic W alkdow n Procedure ...................................................................................... 13 5.2. SW C & AW C Sum m ary ............................................................................................... 14 6. Licensing Basis Evaluations .............................................................................................. 16 6.1. Licensing Basis Calculations ........................................................................................ 16 6.2. Potentially Adverse Seism ic Conditions ....................................................................... 16 7. IPEEE Vulnerabilities Resolution Report ............................................................................ 19 7.1. IPEEE Description ....................................................................................................... 19 7.2. IPEEE Findings and Vulnerabilities ............................................................................ 19 7.3. NRC IPEEE Review ................................................................................................... 20 7.4. Response to IPEEE Review ........................................................................................ 20 8. Peer Review ............................................................................................................................ 22 9. References ............................................................................................................................... 23 10. Appendices ........................................................................................................................... 24 Appendix A: Resum es ........................................................................................................ 25 Appendix B: Base List 1 ..................................................................................................... 61 Appendix C: Base List 2 ...................................................................................................... 84 Appendix D: SW ELs and Area List ...................................................................................... 90 Appendix E: SW Cs .................................................................................................................. 96 Appendix F: AW Cs ............................................................................................................... 337 Appendix G : Peer Review Report ......................................................................................... 430 Page 3 of 438 Ei• NTTF Recommendation 2.3: Seismic Response Report Sequoyah Unit 1 1. Executive Summary As a result of the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant accident, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission required all US nuclear power plants to perform seismic walkdowns to identify and address degraded, non-conforming or unanalyzed conditions and to verify the current plant configuration with the current seismic licensing basis. The NRC Near-Term Task Force (NTTF) issued a report (Reference 1) that made a series of recommendations. Subsequently, the NRC issued a 50.54(f) Letter (Reference 2) that requests information to assure that these recommendations are addressed by all U.S. nuclear power plants. This report provides guidance for conducting a seismic walkdown as required in the 50.54(f) Letter, Enclosure 3, Recommendation 2.3: Seismic. In support of conducting the NTTF-2.3 Seismic Walkdowns, the Electrical Power Research Institute (EPRI) issued a report entitled Seismic Walkdown Guidance (Reference 3) to provide instruction for uniform seismic walkdowns of all U.S. nuclear power plants. This document also includes guidance for reporting the findings of the required walkdowns. At Unit 1 of the Sequoyah Nuclear Power Plant, a total of 120 general Seismic Category I equipment items were selected from the original IPEEE Safe Shutdown Equipment List (SSEL) to fulfill the requirements of the NTTF-2.3 Seismic Walkdowns. The selected items were located in various environments and included many different types of equipment from multiple safety systems. A total of 46 areas were included for area walk-bys. The equipment walkdowns and area walk-bys were performed by two teams, each consisting of two seismic engineers and operations personnel, between July 13, 2012 and August 10, 2012. Of the 120 equipment items in the Seismic Walkdown Equipment List (SWEL), 110 were completed during the walkdown phase. Twelve potentially adverse seismic conditions were found and addressed through the TVA Corrective Action Program. There are ten remaining items of equipment that were inaccessible at 100% power due to physical limitations or excessive safety hazards. These equipment walkdowns will be performed during the next Sequoyah Unit 1 refueling outage, scheduled for October through November 2013. Page 4 of 438 i•1 NTTF Recommendation 2.3: Seismic Response Report Sequoyah Unit 1 2. Seismic Licensing Basis The seismic licensing basis for the Sequoyah Nuclear Power Plant is derived from Reference 4 - Sequoyah Nuclear Plant Living Final Safety Analysis Report Amendment 24. 2.1. General Plant Description The Sequoyah Nuclear Power Plant site is located near the geographical center of Hamilton County, Tennessee, on a peninsula on the western shore of Chickamauga Lake at Tennessee River mile (TRM) 484.5. The Sequoyah site is approximately 7.5 miles northeast of the nearest city limit of Chattanooga, Tennessee, 14 miles west- northwest of Cleveland, Tennessee, and approximately 31 miles south-southwest of TVA's Watts Bar Nuclear Power Plant. The plant has been designed, built, and is operated by TVA and contains two identical units. Each of the two units employs a Pressurized Water Reactor Nuclear Steam Supply System with four coolant loops, furnished by Westinghouse Electric Corporation. Unit 1 began commercial operation in July 1, 1981. 2.2. Ground Response Spectra The seismic design basis for Sequoyah Nuclear Power Plant is the 0.18g horizontal peak ground acceleration represented by the modified Housner-shape spectrum for Safe Shutdown Earthquake (SSE). Operating Basis Earthquake (OBE) is one-half of SSE ground acceleration. Vertical ground acceleration is two-thirds of the horizontal ground acceleration. Figure 1 illustrates the relationship between the 5% damped minimum design response spectra and the actual site seismic design response spectra for the SSE used in the design of rock-supported structures. Page 5 of 438 NTTF Recommendation 2.3: Seismic Response Report Sequoyah Unit 1 -I ~ ýc VIA 58 ý\!ýx X\ -A 48 4 20 ACTUAL DES GN SPECT-FiýA N NIZ I0 N'. Uj 4 INIMUM DESI ;zS 4 ECTRA' U) Xý4 I - der 0 91 -j I NK z VIX 1. Se-1,77K, I A-41\ X XI VN .4 IX,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • GAO-17-343, Accessible Version, TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY
    United States Government Accountability Office Report to Congressional Requesters March 2017 TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY Actions Needed to Better Communicate Debt Reduction Plans and Address Billions in Unfunded Pension Liabilities Accessible Version GAO-17-343 March 2017 TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY Actions Needed to Better Communicate Debt Reduction Plans and Address Billions in Unfunded Pension Liabilities Highlights of GAO-17-343, a report to congressional requesters Why GAO Did This Study What GAO Found To meet its goal to reduce debt by about $4 billion—from about $26 billion in TVA, the nation's largest public power fiscal year 2016 to about $22 billion by fiscal year 2023—the Tennessee Valley provider, is a federal electric utility with revenues of about $10.6 billion in fiscal Authority (TVA) plans to increase rates, limit the growth of operating expenses, year 2016. TVA’s mission is to provide and reduce capital expenditures. For example, TVA increased rates each fiscal affordable electricity, manage river year from 2014 through 2017 and was able to reduce operating and maintenance systems, and promote economic costs by about 18 percent from fiscal year 2013 to 2016. TVA’s plans depend on development. TVA provides electricity assumptions that future capital projects will be completed on time and within to more than 9 million customers in the budget, but TVA’s estimated capital costs may be optimistic and could increase. southeastern United States. TVA must TVA’s debt reduction plans and performance information are not reported in a finance its assets with debt and manner consistent with the GPRA Modernization Act of 2010.
    [Show full text]
  • A Letter from Our President
    2020 Annual Edition 2020 Board of Directors A Letter from Our President Sally Barr, President In 2009, I was asked to run leaking pits at the Gallatin Fossil Plant Jessie Beckett, Vice President TSRA’s Canoe and Kayak School. I marked a huge win in the protection of Vincent Finamore, Secretary was completely unaware of the huge our waterways. task ahead of me. I vividly remember The TSRA family lost long time Deborah Gilbertson, Treasurer my first visit to a board meeting to member, kayak instructor and good Melissa Boaz share how the school was shaping up. friend Craig Burr in 2019. Those of us Daniel Boone I found myself surrounded by amazing who knew Craig will never forget this man people who were carrying on the long of few words and will always remember David Cole history of addressing environmental his ability to instruct and guide someone Vinson Dill issues, leading conservation efforts and down the river with the simplest of Jon Doliana, Sr. volunteering many hours to instruct in directions. You knew you were in good Katherine Fulk paddling skills and rescue techniques. hands when you paddled with Craig. Little did I know I was embarking on such I am excited about working with Stacee Irwin a rewarding personal venture. the 2020 Board of Directors, TSRA Steve Morris I find myself, again, in a situation in members, volunteers and sponsors Ginger Royster which I have agreed to take on a huge to keep TSRA moving forward and task. But this time, I am aware of the work maintaining our mission to preserve, Donnie Safer ahead of me.
    [Show full text]
  • Analyzing the Energy Industry in United States
    +44 20 8123 2220 [email protected] Analyzing the Energy Industry in United States https://marketpublishers.com/r/AC4983D1366EN.html Date: June 2012 Pages: 700 Price: US$ 450.00 (Single User License) ID: AC4983D1366EN Abstracts The global energy industry has explored many options to meet the growing energy needs of industrialized economies wherein production demands are to be met with supply of power from varied energy resources worldwide. There has been a clearer realization of the finite nature of oil resources and the ever higher pushing demand for energy. The world has yet to stabilize on the complex geopolitical undercurrents which influence the oil and gas production as well as supply strategies globally. Aruvian's R'search’s report – Analyzing the Energy Industry in United States - analyzes the scope of American energy production from varied traditional sources as well as the developing renewable energy sources. In view of understanding energy transactions, the report also studies the revenue returns for investors in various energy channels which manifest themselves in American energy demand and supply dynamics. In depth view has been provided in this report of US oil, electricity, natural gas, nuclear power, coal, wind, and hydroelectric sectors. The various geopolitical interests and intentions governing the exploitation, production, trade and supply of these resources for energy production has also been analyzed by this report in a non-partisan manner. The report starts with a descriptive base analysis of the characteristics of the global energy industry in terms of economic quantity of demand. The drivers of demand and the traditional resources which are used to fulfill this demand are explained along with the emerging mandate of nuclear energy.
    [Show full text]
  • Tcu Winter 2020
    THE A Publication of The Association of CONSTRUCTIONWINTER 2020 USERUnion Constructors www.tauc.org ADVANCING UNION CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE A Celebration of Safety at the National Cathedral SEE PAGE 18 664527_Winter2020Magazine.indd4527_Winter2020Magazine.indd 1 11/25/20/25/20 99:04:04 AAMM The Boilermakers advantage FORGED FROM INTEGRITY. WE ARE MULTI-SKILLED RIGGERS, FITTERS, WELDERS AND MORE. WE ARE COMMITTED TO WORKING SAFELY. WE ARE 100% SUBSTANCE ABUSE TESTED. WE ARE COMMITTED TO YOUR SUCCESS. WE LIVE THE BOILERMAKER CODE. WE ARE BOILERMAKERS. Let’s get to work together. Visit us online at BestInTrade.org 664527_Winter2020Magazine.indd4527_Winter2020Magazine.indd 2 11/25/20/25/20 110:250:25 AAMM THE A Publication of The Association of CONSTRUCTIONWINTER 2020 USERUnion Constructors www.tauc.org ADVANCING UNION CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE The Construction User is published quarterly by: IN EVERY ISSUE IN EVERY CORNER THE ASSOCIATION OF UNION 4 FROM THE DESK OF THE PRESIDENT 8 THE INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS CORNER CONSTRUCTORS The Safety Seven: Perspectives 1501 Lee Highway, Suite 202 Breaking Unsafe Routines Arlington, Va 22209 From the C-Suite Jim Daley 703.524.3336 Steve Johnson 703.524.3364 (Fax) 10 THE BRESLIN CORNER www.tauc.org Safety: A Leadership Belief EXECUTIVE EDITOR FEATURED ARTICLE at Every Level David Acord Mark Breslin 703.628.5545 6 The First Pillar [email protected] Steve Lindauer 11 THE TECH CORNER ADVERTISING REPRESENTATIVE A Seat at the Table: TAUC, (Contact for rates and details) Technology & the Future of ZISA® COVERAGE Bill Spilman Our Industry Innovative Media Solutions Todd Mustard 320 W. Chestnut St. 18 A Night to Remember P.o.
    [Show full text]
  • A Prescriptive Analysis of the Indiana Coal Transportation Infrastructure
    Final Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2007/15 A Prescriptive Analysis of the Indiana Coal Transportation Infrastructure A Cost-Sharing Project with the Center for Coal Technology Research Purdue University West Lafayette, Indiana by Thomas F. Brady, Ph.D. Associate Professor Industrial Engineering Technology Purdue University North Central Campus and Chad M. Pfitzer Purdue Extension-Daviess County Agriculture & Natural Resources Economic & Community Development Joint Transportation Research Program Project No. C-36-54III File No. 3-3-61 SPR-3015 Prepared in Cooperation with the Indiana Department of Transportation and the U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors, who are responsible for the facts and the accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official views or policies of the Indiana Department of Transportation or the Federal Highway Administration at the time of publication. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation. Purdue University May 2007 i TECHNICAL REPORT STANDARD TITLE PAGE 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No. FHWA/IN/JTRP-2007/15 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date May 2007 A Prescriptive Analysis of the Indiana Coal Transportation Infrastructure 6. Performing Organization Code 7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No. Thomas M. Brady and Chad M. Pfitzer FHWA/IN/JTRP-2007/15 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. Joint Transportation Research Program 550 Stadium Mall Drive Purdue University West Lafayette, Indiana 47907-2051 11. Contract or Grant No. SPR-3015 12.
    [Show full text]
  • Gallatin Fossil Plant Bottom Ash Process Dewatering Facility Permanent Flow Management System Final Supplemental Environmental Assessment
    Document Type: Supplemental EA- Administrative Record Index Field: Environmental Assessment Project Name: Bottom Ash Process Dewatering Facility SEA – Permanent Flow Management System Project Number: 2018-25 GALLATIN FOSSIL PLANT BOTTOM ASH PROCESS DEWATERING FACILITY PERMANENT FLOW MANAGEMENT SYSTEM FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Sumner County, Tennessee Prepared by: TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY Chattanooga, Tennessee December 2019 To request further information, contact: Ashley R. Farless, PE, AICP NEPA Compliance Tennessee Valley Authority 1101 Market Street Chattanooga, TN 37402 E-mail: [email protected] This page intentionally left blank Table of Contents Table of Contents CHAPTER 1 - PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION ......................................................... 1-1 1.1 Introduction and Background ......................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 Purpose and Need ......................................................................................................... 1-4 1.3 Decision to be Made ...................................................................................................... 1-4 1.4 Related Environmental Reviews and Consultation Requirements ................................. 1-4 1.5 Scope of this Analysis .................................................................................................... 1-4 1.6 Public and Agency Involvement ..................................................................................... 1-5 1.7 Necessary
    [Show full text]
  • TVA Labor Relation Supplements
    Revised 01-31-2013 PROJECT AGREEMENT LABOR RELATIONS SUPPLEMENTS (LRSs not listed have been deleted) Number Subject Page LRS-2 Arbitrator Limitation Relative to Jurisdictional Issues ................................................................ 1 LRS-3 Call-By-Name ............................................................................................................................. 2 LRS-4 Staffing - Contractor vs. TVA ..................................................................................................... 3 LRS-5 Wage Determination .................................................................................................................. 4 LRS-16 Apprenticeship Programs ........................................................................................................... 5 LRS-17 Defined Incidental Work, Maintenance, & Office Work .............................................................. 8 LRS-21 Certified Apprenticeship Programs Approved to Receive Contributions From Contractors .... 11 LRS-24 Project Agreement Rates of Pay .............................................................................................. 13 LRS-25 Foremen Rates of Pay (Supervising Other Crafts) .................................................................. 14 LRS-26 Definition of First, Second, and Third Shifts (replaced 8/3/99 with Interpretation No. 21) ....... 15 LRS-27 Payroll Deductions for Political Action Committees ................................................................. 16 LRS-32 Injury - Pay
    [Show full text]
  • Affidavit of CW Billups in Support of NRC Motion for Summary
    , . .: . UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of CAROLINA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY AND ) Docket Nos. 50-400-0L NORTH CAROLINA EASTERN MUNICIPAL ) 50-401-0L POWER AGENCY ) ) (Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, ) Units 1 and 2) ) AFFIDAVIT OF CHARLES W. BILLUPS IN SUPPORT OF NRC STAFF M0TinN FOR SUMMARY DISPOSITION OF EDDLEMAN CONTENTION 8F(1) I, Charles W. Billups, being first duly sworn do depose and state: 1. I, Charles W. Billups, am an employee of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. My present position is as an Aquatic Scientist in the Environmental and Hydrologic Engineering Branch, within the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. A copy of my professional qualifications is attached. 2. I give this affidavit in support of Summary Disposition of Eddleman Contention 8F(1) in this proceeding, and I certify that I have | personal knowledge of the matters set forth herein and that the state- ments are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. 3. Eddleman Contention 8F(1) in this proceeding states: < " Health effects of the coal particulates 1,154 MT per year, are not analyzed nor given sufficient | | weight." I 8312300270 831202 PDR ADOCK 05000400 0 PDR i , . .- -- W . - . - , . ~ . - . - . -. ,. - . _ . , ,. -2- 4. The purpose of this affidavit is to demonstrate (1) that the Table S-3 level of coal particulates released in the uranium fuel cycle is negligible with regard to the operation of the Harris Nuclear Plant, (2) that f.ie impacts including health effects of emitted particulates from coal combustion at the electrical generating stations or grids involved in the uranium fuel cycle have been thoroughly considered in the NEPA reviews for-the individual gaseous diffusion plants, the major source (96%) of emitted coal particulates in the uranium fuel cycle, and (3) that there is reasonable assurance that the 10 C.F.R.
    [Show full text]
  • I&M Exhibit: ___INDIANA MICHIGAN POWER COMPANY
    I&M Exhibit: _____ INDIANA MICHIGAN POWER COMPANY PRE-FILED VERIFIED DIRECT TESTIMONY OF TOBY L. THOMAS INDEX I. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 1 II. PURPOSE OF TESTIMONY ...................................................................................... 2 III. I&M OVERVIEW......................................................................................................... 4 IV. ONGOING CHALLENGES AND SERVICE TO CUSTOMERS ................................. 7 V. OVERVIEW OF I&M’S REQUEST ........................................................................... 12 VI. ADVANCED METERING INFRASTRUCTURE ....................................................... 19 VII. EFFORTS TO MITIGATE INCREASING COSTS ................................................... 28 VIII. IMPACT ON CUSTOMERS ..................................................................................... 34 IX. NEW SERVICE OPTIONS ....................................................................................... 38 X. CONCLUSION ......................................................................................................... 39 TOBY L. THOMAS - 1 PRE-FILED VERIFIED DIRECT TESTIMONY OF TOBY L. THOMAS ON BEHALF OF INDIANA MICHIGAN POWER COMPANY 1 I. INTRODUCTION 2 Q. Please state your name and business address. 3 A. My name is Toby L. Thomas, and my business address is Indiana Michigan 4 Power Center, P.O. Box 60, Fort Wayne, Indiana 46801. 5 Q. By whom are you employed and
    [Show full text]
  • Nuclear and Coal in the Postwar US Dissertation Presented in Partial
    Power From the Valley: Nuclear and Coal in the Postwar U.S. Dissertation Presented in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of the Ohio State University By Megan Lenore Chew, M.A. Graduate Program in History The Ohio State University 2014 Dissertation Committee: Steven Conn, Advisor Randolph Roth David Steigerwald Copyright by Megan Lenore Chew 2014 Abstract In the years after World War II, small towns, villages, and cities in the Ohio River Valley region of Ohio and Indiana experienced a high level of industrialization not seen since the region’s commercial peak in the mid-19th century. The development of industries related to nuclear and coal technologies—including nuclear energy, uranium enrichment, and coal-fired energy—changed the social and physical environments of the Ohio Valley at the time. This industrial growth was part of a movement to decentralize industry from major cities after World War II, involved the efforts of private corporations to sell “free enterprise” in the 1950s, was in some cases related to U.S. national defense in the Cold War, and brought some of the largest industrial complexes in the U.S. to sparsely populated places in the Ohio Valley. In these small cities and villages— including Madison, Indiana, Cheshire, Ohio, Piketon, Ohio, and Waverly, Ohio—the changes brought by nuclear and coal meant modern, enormous industry was taking the place of farms and cornfields. These places had been left behind by the growth seen in major metropolitan areas, and they saw the potential for economic growth in these power plants and related industries.
    [Show full text]
  • Alexander Livnat, Ph.D. 12/18/2014 This Is the Third out of Five Volumes
    Alexander Livnat, Ph.D. 12/18/2014 This is the third out of five volumes describing EPA’s current state of knowledge of CCR damage cases. This volume comprises 32 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. IIb Potential CCR Damage Cases PART I (Cases 1-32) December 2014 IIb. Coal Combustion Residuals Potential Damage Cases PART I (Cases PTb01 to PTb32) (Submitted and Assessed between 2010 – January 2011) 1 IIb Potential CCR Damage Cases PART I (Cases 1-32) December 2014 TABLE OF CONTENTS PTb01. Flint Creek Power Plant, American Electric Power - Southwestern Electric Power Company (SWEPCO), Gentry, Benton County, Arkansas ........................................................................................... 4 PTb02. Independence Steam Station, Entergy - Arkansas Power and Light (AP&L), Newark, Independence County, Arkansas ................................................................................................................... 9 PTb03. Montville Generating Station, NRG Energy/Montville Power LLC, Montville, New London County, Connecticut ..................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • TVA's Toxic Legacy
    TVA’s Toxic Legacy: Groundwater Contaminated by Tennessee Valley Authority Coal Ash November 2013 About the Environmental Integrity Project The Environmental Integrity Project (EIP) is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to the enforcement of the nation’s anti-pollution laws and to the prevention of political interference with those laws. EIP provides objective analysis of how the failure to enforce or implement environmental laws increases pollution and harms public health, and helps local communities obtain the protection of environmental laws. Data Limitations EIP based its analysis of groundwater quality on publicly available data retrieved from the Tennessee Valley Authority through Freedom of Information Act Requests. The amount of information available, and the date of the most recent information available, varies by site. The range of dates for which we had information on file is described in each site-specific section of the report. EIP is committed to ensuring that the data we present are as accurate as possible. We will correct any errors that are verifiable. Questions and comments can be directed to Abel Russ at [email protected] Environmental Integrity Project – DC Office 1000 Vermont Avenue NW, Suite 1100 Washington, DC 20005 Phone (202) 296-8800 • Fax (202) 296-8822 2 Executive Summary The billion-gallon spill at the Tennessee Valley Authority’s (TVA’s) Kingston plant in 2008 reminded us that unregulated and poorly maintained coal ash ponds are an invitation to disaster. Although less visible, contamination below the surface of TVA’s power plants may be the more serious, long-lasting legacy from decades of mismanagement. Based on a review of documents obtained through Freedom of Information Act requests, this report shows that TVA’s ponds and landfills have contaminated groundwater under and around all eleven of the utility’s fleet of coal-fired power plants.
    [Show full text]