DOCSLIB.ORG

Coal Combustion Residuals Impoundment Assessment Reports

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Coal Combustion Residuals Impoundment Assessment Reports Special Waste Home Cement Kiln Dust Crude Oil and Gas Fossil Fuel Combustion Mineral Processing Mining Coal Combustion Residuals Impoundment Assessment Reports As part of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's national effort to assess the management of Related Links coal combustion residuals (CCR), EPA released the final contractor reports assessing the structural Information Request Responses integrity of impoundments and similar management units containing coal combustion residuals, from Electric Utilities commonly referred to as “coal ash,” at coal fired power plants. Most of the impoundments have been given hazard potential ratings (e.g. less than low, low, significant, high) by the state, EPA contractor, Frequent Questions or company which are not related to the stability of the impoundments but to the potential for harm Final Rule should the impoundment fail. For example, a “significant” hazard potential rating means impoundment failure can cause economic loss, environmental damage, or damage to infrastructure. Additional Information Regarding Alliant Energy EPA assessed all of the known units with a dam hazard potential rating of “high” or “significant” as Corporation's Facility in Burlington, Iowa reported in the reponses provided by electric utilities to EPA’s information requests and additional units identified during the field assessments. EPA will release additional reports as they become available. The reports being released now have been completed by contractors who are experts in the area of dam integrity, reflect the best professional judgment of the engineering firm, and are signed and stamped by a professional engineer. The reports are based on a visual assessment of the site, interviews with site personnel, and the review of geotechnical reports and studies related to the design, construction and operation of those impoundments, if available. The engineering firms also reviewed past state/federal inspections of the impoundments. EPA contractors were not authorized to conduct any physical drilling, coring or sampling while on site; however, they did review studies which may have included such information. These reports include complex engineering evaluations and use terms which may be unfamiliar to the general public. Also, the contractors were asked to rate the impoundments as “satisfactory,” “fair,” “poor,” or “unsatisfactory,” terms commonly used in the field of dam safety. Expert experience has shown that only impoundments rated as “unsatisfactory” pose immediate safety threats. None of the impoundments assessed so far have received an “unsatisfactory” rating. Impoundment ratings noted in the reports should be taken in the proper context, since a unit may be found to be structurally sound while it may receive a fair or poor rating based on other factors such as lack of information. Further, the assessments represent a "snapshot in time" of the condition of the CCR unit. Following submittal of Action Plans by the utility, the utility may have provided EPA with additional materials which indicate that the condition rating of the unit may have improved since the time of the assessment, such as meeting minimum Factors of Safety in both seismic and steady state scenarios, increasing the hydrologic and hydraulic capacity of the CCR unit, or improved operations and maintenance procedures at the CCR unit, for example. Draft copies of these reports were reviewed by the facilities and the states for factual accuracy and their comments on the draft reports were also posted. EPA continues to review the reports and the technical recommendations, and is working with the facilities to ensure that the recommendations are implemented. EPA provided a copy of the final report to each facility and requested that the facility implement the recommendations in the reports and provide plans for taking action. These plans are posted below when they become available. Should facilities fail to take sufficient measures, EPA will take additional action, if the circumstances warrant, and will be devoting special attention to those facilities receiving a “poor” rating. For facilities that have had their units assessed and submitted their action plans, EPA has informed facility owners and operators that in addition to implementing their action plans, an ongoing, routine program to assess these units and to take necessary corrective measures is needed to ensure the units' continued structural integrity. The ongoing responsibility for this lies first with each facility's owner and operator. States also have a critical role in monitoring and overseeing these units, so the EPA is providing the states with all the information it has on the facilities in their respective states. EPA informed facility owners and operators through final letters that are posted below. Ratings summary for the assessments: Round Round Round Round Round Round Round Round Round Round Round Round TOTAL 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Satisfactory 22 31 15 23 15 3 34 9 29 20 13 27 241 Fair 15 9 12 17 14 27 10 16 18 9 11 8 166 6 0 10 30 9 14 12 21 4 38 0 8 152 1/29 Coal Combustion Residuals Impoundment Assessment Reports | Special Wastes | Wastes | US EPA Poor 6 0 10 30 9 14 12 21 4 38 0 8 152 Unsatisfactory 000000000000 0 Total # of Units Given Condition 43 40 37 70 38 44 56 46 51 67 24 43 559 Ratings Assessment Reports You will need Adobe Reader to view some of the files on this page. See EPA’s PDF page to learn more. Some companies have at some point claimed some information they have provided to the EPA related to their coal ash impoundments is confidential business information (CBI). EPA has, to date, reviewed each claim of CBI and has made the determination in all cases to deny the claim. All the documents have now been made publicly available and have been posted to this website. CBI claims summary here. Summary Table for Impoundment Reports (.xls) ­ July 31, 2014 (Download the free Microsoft Excel Viewer) A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z Reports Key A Cover Letter: Letter from EPA to facility requesting that the facility develop an Alabama Power Company Action Plan to address recommendations from the Final Report. Final Letter (PDF) (3 pp, 337 KB) Draft Report: Initial report from EPA’s contractor. Alabama Power Company – Barry Plant Comments: Compiles comments from EPA, state, and company on the Draft Report. Cover Letter (PDF) (3 pp, 111 KB) Final Report: Incorporates comments, Comments (PDF) (1 pg, 130 KB) as appropriate, from the EPA, state, and Draft Report (PDF) (51 pp, 34.39 KB) company as well as any information/data Final Report (PDF) (56 pp, 9.58 KB) the company provided to EPA between Company Response/Action Plan (PDF) (2 pp, 247 KB) when the report was initially drafted and finalized. Company Response/Action Plan: the Alabama Power Company – Gadsden Plant responses from the facility to EPA’s Cover Letter. Cover Letter (PDF) (4 pp, 102 KB) Final Letter: Letter from EPA to the Comments (PDF) (3 pg, 130 KB) company explaining their responsibility for Draft Report (PDF) (159 pg, 7.59 MB) ongoing routine assessment of their CCR impoundments. Final Report (PDF) (159 pg, 8.43 MBB) Company Response/Action Plan (PDF) (2 pp, 77 KB) Alabama Power Company – EC Gaston Plant Cover Letter (PDF) (3 pp, 103 KB) Comments (PDF) (3 pp, 130 KB) Draft Report (PDF) (274 pp, 42.10 KB) Final Report (PDF) (271 pp, 42.12 MB) Company Response/Action Plan (PDF) (2 pp, 309 KB) Alabama Power Company – Gorgas Plant Cover Letter (PDF) (3 pp, 874 KB) Comments (PDF) (10 pp, 75 KB) Draft Report (PDF) (67 pp, 12.29 MB) Final Report (PDF) (69 pp, 19.80 MB) Company Response/Action Plan (PDF) (2 pp, 46 KB) Alabama Power Company – Greene Plant Cover Letter (PDF) (3 pp, 69 KB) Comments (PDF) (3 pp, 370 KB) Draft Report (PDF) (467 pp, 45.93 MB) Final Report (PDF) (465 pp, 45.48 KB) Company Response/Action Plan (PDF) (2 pp, 290 KB) Alabama Power Company – James H. Miller Plant Cover Letter (PDF) (5 pp, 98 KB) Comments (PDF) (3 pp, 125 KB) Draft Report (PDF) (160 pp, 8.77 MB) Final Report (PDF) (160 pp, 12.32 KB) 2/29 Final Report (PDF) (160 pp, 12.32 KB) Company Response/Action Plan (PDF) (2 pp, 666 KB) Allegheny Energy Final Letter (PDF) (3 pp, 330 KB) Allegheny Energy – Pleasants Power Station Cover Letter (PDF) (4 pp, 25 KB) Comments (PDF) (16 pp, 3 MB) Draft Report (PDF) (83 pp, 6 MB) Final Report (PDF) (83 pp, 6 MB) Company Response/Action Plan (PDF) ( 6 pp, 2408 KB) Allegheny Energy – R Paul Smith Station Cover Letter (PDF) (4 pp, 23 KB) Comments (PDF) (25 pp, 2 MB) Draft Report (PDF) (91 pp, 13 MB) Final Report (PDF) (91 pp, 7 MB) Company Response/Action Plan (PDF) (5 pp, 2 MB) Allete Final Letter (PDF) (3 pp, 328 KB) Allete – Boswell Energy Center Cover Letter (PDF) (3 pp, 69 KB) Comments (PDF) (1 pg, 71 KB) Draft Report (PDF) (134 pp, 28.4 MB) Final Report (PDF) (134 pp, 52.7 MB) Company Response/Action Plan (PDF) (42 pp, 10.3M) Allete – Laskin Energy Center Cover Letter (PDF) (3 pp, 36 KB) Comments (PDF) (6 pp, 1.2 MB) Draft Report (PDF) (101 pp, 18.9 MB) Final Report (PDF) (110 pp, 18.7 MB) Company Response/Action Plan (PDF) (64 pp, 10.34 MB) Alliant Energy Final Letter (PDF) (3 pp, 328 KB) Second Final Letter (PDF) (3 pp, 651 KB) Alliant Energy Burlington Generating Station Alliant Energy – Columbia Power Station Cover Letter (PDF) (4 pp, 37 KB) Comments (PDF) (7 pp, 385 KB) Draft Report (PDF) (149 pp, 26.4 MB) Final Report (PDF) (164 pp, 26.9 MB) Action Plan (PDF) (43 pp, 6.66 MB) Alliant Energy – Edgewater Generating Station Cover Letter (PDF) (4 pp,
Load more

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]
  • 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]
  • Annual Reporting
    20 ANNUAL 12REPORT Financial hIghLIghts kEy AccOmplishments • maintained annual dividend of $2.20 per share • Achieved a 42 percent increase in the number of retail • Reduced our projected environmental spend to customers served by our competitive subsidiary, $975 million, down from an original estimate of FirstEnergy Solutions (FES) $2 billion to $3 billion • Grew competitive sales by 10 percent, to nearly • Strengthened our balance sheet by contributing 100 million megawatt-hours $600 million to the pension plan • Improved distribution reliability financials at A glancE (dollars in millions, except per share amounts) 2012 2011 2010 Total REvenues $15,303 $16,147 $13,339 NET INcOmE $771 $869 $718 BASIc EARNINgS per common share $1.85 $2.22 $2.44 DILuted earningS per common share $1.84 $2.21 $2.42 DIvidends paid per common share $2.20 $2.20 $2.20 BOOk value per common share $31.29 $31.75 $29.47 net cash from operatiNg ActivitieS $2,320 $3,063 $3,076 FES CuStomErS SErvEd (in millions) 2012 2.6 2011 1.8 2010 1.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 CompEtitivE rEtAiL sales (in millions of megawatt-hours) 2012 99.7 2011 90.1 2010 80.2 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 CompETITIVE gEnErAtion output (in millions of megawatt-hours) 2012 96.5 2011 96.5 2010 74.9 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 on the cover: Our Pleasants Power Station located along the Ohio River in Willow Island, W.Va. mESSAgE TO OUR ShAREhOLDERS The actions we took in 2012 will help position your company to compete and succeed.
    [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]
  • Commonwealth of Kentucky Environmental and Public Protection Cabinet File No
    COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY ENVIRONMENTAL AND PUBLIC PROTECTION CABINET FILE NO. DAQ-26003-037 and DAQ-26048-037 SIERRA CLUB, VALLEY WATCH, INC., LESLIE BARRAS, HILARY LAMBERT, and ROGER BRUCKER, PETITIONERS, VS. ENVIRONMENTAL AND PUBLIC PROTECTION CABINET, and THOROUGHBRED GENERATING COMPANY, LLC RESPONDENTS. ************* HEARING OFFICER’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDED SECRETARY’S ORDER ************* TABLE OF CONTENTS ..........................................................................................................i-iv I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...............................................................................................1 II. STATEMENT OF THE CASE.........................................................................................6 III. BURDEN OF PROOF .....................................................................................................15 IV. SUMMARY OF THE EVIDENCE ................................................................................15 V. GENERAL FINDINGS OF FACT.................................................................................24 VI. FINDINGS RELATING TO MAMMOTH CAVE NATIONAL PARK....................41 VII. FINDINGS RELATING TO IDEM...............................................................................45 VIII. FINDINGS OF FACT RELATED TO EACH COUNT, ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES, AND CONCLUSIONS ON COUNTS 1, 2, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, 17 AND 18 .....................................................................48 COUNT 1 – Air Toxics, Risk ..........................................................................................48
    [Show full text]
  • September 28, 2020 VIA ELECTRONIC FILING Ms
    Troutman Pepper Hamilton Sanders LLP 301 S. College Street, Suite 3400 Charlotte, NC 28202 troutman.com Kiran H. Mehta [email protected] September 28, 2020 VIA ELECTRONIC FILING Ms. Kimberley A. Campbell, Chief Clerk North Carolina Utilities Commission 4325 Mail Service Center Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-4300 RE: Duke Energy Progress, LLC’s Motion for Leave to Designate Late-Filed Potential Cross Exhibits Docket No. E-2, Sub 1219 Dear Ms. Campbell: On behalf of Duke Energy Progress, LLC (the “Company”), please find enclosed for electronic filing a motion for leave to designate late-filed potential cross-examination exhibits. Please do not hesitate to contact me should have you have any questions. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. Sincerely, /s/ Kiran H. Mehta Kiran H. Mehta Enclosures cc: Parties of Record BEFORE THE NORTH CAROLINA UTILITIES COMMISSION STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA UTILITIES COMMISSION RALEIGH DOCKET NO. E-2, SUB 1219 DOCKET NO. E-2, SUB 1219 ) ) DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC’S In the Matter of ) MOTION FOR LEAVE TO ) DESIGNATE LATE-FILED Application by Duke Energy Progress, ) POTENTIAL CROSS EXHIBITS LLC for Adjustment of Rates and ) Charges Applicable to Electric Utility ) Service in North Carolina ) ) NOW COMES Duke Energy Progress, LLC (“DE Progress” or the “Company”), by and through its legal counsel and pursuant to Rules R1-7 and R1-24 of the Rules and Regulations of the North Carolina Utilities Commission (“Commission”), and hereby requests leave to designate as DEP Exhibit 75 Sierra Club witness Rachel Wilson’s direct testimony and exhibit RW-4 (Quarles Report) from Georgia Power Company’s 2019 Rate Case docket.
    [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]
  • The Economic Impact of Coal and Coal-Fired Power Generation in West Virginia
    THE ECONOMIC IMPACT OF COAL AND COAL-FIRED POWER GENERATION IN WEST VIRGINIA WINTER 2021 The Economic Impact of Coal and Coal-Fired Power Generation in West Virginia is published by: Bureau of Business & Economic Research West Virginia University College of Business and Economics PO Box 6527, Morgantown, WV 26506-6527 (304) 293-7831; [email protected] bber.wvu.edu WRITTEN BY Christiadi PhD Research Associate Eric Bowen PhD Research Assistant Professor John Deskins PhD Director Priscila Borges Marques Dos Santos Research Scholar Funding for this research was provided by the West Virginia Coal Association. The opinions herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the West Virginia Coal Association or the West Virginia University Board of Governors. © Copyright 2021 WVU Research Corporation ii Bureau of Business & Economic Research Table of Contents List of Figures and Tables ............................................................................................................................. iv Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................... v 1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 1 2 Coal and the West Virginia Economy: Recent Trends ......................................................................... 2 3 West Virginia Coal Exports ...............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • CCS with Alstom's Chilled Ammonia Process at AEP's Mountaineer Plant
    10.3155/2008CP175.167 CCS with Alstom’s Chilled Ammonia Process at AEP’s Mountaineer Plant Paper No. 167 Brian Sherrick Project Manager American Electric Power 1 Riverside Plaza Columbus, OH 43215 USA Tel: +1 614 716 1923 Fax: +1 614 716 2027 E-Mail: [email protected] Mike Hammond Project Engineer American Electric Power 1 Riverside Plaza Columbus, OH 43215 USA Tel: +1 614 716 5931 Fax: +1 614 716 1779 E-Mail: [email protected] Gary Spitznogle CO2 Storage Technical Lead American Electric Power 1 Riverside Plaza Columbus, OH 43215 USA Tel: +1 614 716 3671 Fax: +1 614 716 1779 E-Mail: [email protected] David Muraskin Alstom Power, Inc. Technology Manager Environmental Control Systems 1409 Centerpoint Blvd Knoxville, TN 37932 USA Tel: +1 865 694 5269 Fax: +1 865 694 5203 E-Mail: [email protected] 1 Sean Black Alstom Power, Inc. Business Manager CAP Technology Environmental Control Systems 1409 Centerpoint Blvd Knoxville, TN 37932 USA Tel: +1 865 694 4453 Fax: +1 865 694 5203 E-Mail: [email protected] Matt Cage Alstom Power, Inc. Project Engineer Environmental Control Systems 1409 Centerpoint Blvd Knoxville, TN 37932 USA Tel: +1 865 694 5269 Fax: +1 865 694 5203 E-Mail: [email protected] Abstract: Alstom and American Electric Power are jointly participating in the installation of a carbon dioxide (CO2) capture Product Validation Facility at AEP’s Mountaineer Power Plant. The CO2 capture technology to be installed at Mountaineer is Alstom’s Chilled Ammonia Process; AEP is also working with Battelle to develop a saline formation geologic storage system.
    [Show full text]
  • The Water-Energy Nexus in Georgia: a Detailed Examination of Consumptive Water Use in the Power Sector
    The Water-Energy Nexus in Georgia: A Detailed Examination of Consumptive Water Use in the Power Sector April 2018 This page intentionally left blank. Prepared by: Paul Faeth Lars Hanson Kevin Kelly and Ana Rosner Acknowledgments This research was funded by the Southface Energy Institute and the Southern Environmental Law Center. We would like to thank our colleagues, Lisa Bianchi-Fossati at Southface, and Jill Kysor and Kurt Ebersbach at SELC, for their input and encouragement as well as Ashley Arayas and Andrew Tabas for their help with editing and document layout. We would also like to thank the Georgia Environmental Protection Division, Georgia Power Company, and the Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District for their assistance with data and methodology. Paul Faeth is a Principal at Cadmus.1 Lars Hanson is a Research Analyst at CNA. Kevin Kelly is an independent Policy Advisor for Southface Energy Institute. Ana Rosner is an Associate at Cadmus. http://www.southface.org/ https://www.southernenvironment.org/ http://www.cadmusgroup.com/ https://www.cna.org/ Cover photos courtesy of (from top left counterclockwise): iStock.com/Bill Oxford, The Cadmus Group LLC, iStock.com/MichaelUtech, The Cadmus Group LLC, Pexels.com/Scott Webb, iStock.com/chinaface. 1 Corresponding author - [email protected] This page intentionally left blank. Table of Contents I. Summary .................................................................................................................................... 1 II. Water Use and Electric
    [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]
  • Water Vulnerabilities for Existing Coal-Fired Power Plants
    Water Vulnerabilities for Existing Coal-fired Power Plants August 2010 DOE/NETL-2010/1429 Disclaimer This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference therein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed therein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof. Water Vulnerabilities for Existing Coal-Fired Power Plants Water Vulnerabilities for Existing Coal-Fired Power Plants DOE/NETL-2010/1429 August 2010 NETL Contact: Barbara Carney Existing Plants Program National Energy Technology Laboratory www.netl.doe.gov August 2010 iii Water Vulnerabilities for Existing Coal-Fired Power Plants This page intentionally left blank August 2010 iv Water Vulnerabilities for Existing Coal-Fired Power Plants TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgments........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]