Power Plants and Mercury Pollution Across the Country

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Power Plants and Mercury Pollution Across the Country September 2005 Power Plants and Mercury Pollution Across the Country Environment Colorado Research & Policy Center Made in the U.S.A. Power Plants and Mercury Pollution Across the Country September 2005 Environment Colorado Research & Policy Center Acknowledgements Written by Supryia Ray, Clean Air Advocate with Environment Colorado Research & Policy Center. © 2005, Environment Colorado Research & Policy Center The author would like to thank Alison Cassady, Research Director at Environment Colorado Research & Policy Center Fund, and Emily Figdor, Clean Air Advocate at Environment Colorado Research & Policy Center, for their assistance with this report. To obtain a copy of this report, visit our website or contact us at: Environment Colorado Research & Policy Center 1536 Wynkoop Street, Suite 100 Denver, CO 80202 (303) 573-3871 www.environmentcolorado.org Made in the U.S.A. 2 Table of Contents Executive Summary...............................................................................................................4 Background: Toxic Mercury Emissions from Power Plants ..................................................... 6 The Bush Administration’s Mercury Regulations ................................................................... 8 Findings: Power Plant Mercury Emissions ........................................................................... 12 Power Plant Mercury Emissions by State........................................................................ 12 Power Plant Mercury Emissions by County and Zip Code ............................................... 12 Power Plant Mercury Emissions by Facility.................................................................... 15 Power Plant Mercury Emissions by Company ................................................................. 16 Solving the Problem at the Source: Reducing Power Plant Mercury Emissions ...................... 18 Conclusion........................................................................................................................... 21 Methodology........................................................................................................................ 21 Appendices Appendix A.1. 100 Counties with Highest Power Plant Mercury Air Emissions, 2003......................................22 Appendix A.2. County in Each State with Highest Power Plant Mercury Air Emissions, 2003 ........................23 Appendix B.1. 100 Zip Codes with Highest Power Plant Mercury Air Emissions, 2003 ....................................24 Appendix B.2. Zip Code in Each State with Highest Power Plant Mercury Air Emissions, 2003......................25 Appendix C.1. All Power Plants Reporting Mercury Air Emissions, 2003 ........................................................26 Appendix C.2. Power Plant in Each State with Highest Mercury Air Emissions, 2003.....................................37 Appendix D. Power Plant Mercury Air Emissions by Company, 2003 .............................................................39 End Notes............................................................................................................................ 42 Made in the U.S.A. 3 Executive Summary Power plants are the largest industrial people to avoid or limit their consumption source of U.S. air emissions of mercury, a of certain types of fish. Moreover, EPA potent neurotoxin that poses serious scientists estimate that one in six women health hazards. Mercury is particularly of childbearing age has enough mercury in harmful to the developing brain; even low- her blood to put her child at risk should level exposure can cause learning she become pregnant. disabilities, developmental delays, lowered IQ, and problems with attention and This report analyzes the most recent EPA memory. While current law requires swift, data on mercury air emissions from power steep reductions in power plant mercury plants. Key findings in the report include emissions, the Bush administration the following: recently promulgated regulations that allow power plants to avoid the Clean Air ¾ Power plants in the U.S. collectively Act requirement to reduce mercury and emitted 90,108 pounds of mercury into other toxic air pollutants quickly and by the air in 2003. Texas, Ohio, the maximum achievable amount. This Pennsylvania, Indiana, and Alabama report uses the most recent available data were the states with the most mercury reported to the U.S. Environmental air emissions from power plants in Protection Agency’s (EPA) Toxics Release 2003. Inventory to analyze power plant mercury emissions by state, county, zip code, ¾ Counties with the highest mercury air facility, and company. emissions from power plants were concentrated in states in the Gulf When power plants burn coal or wastes Coast, Midwest, and Mid-Atlantic containing mercury, their smokestacks regions. More than half of the top 50 emit mercury, some of which is washed out counties with the highest mercury air of the air onto land and into waterways, emissions were located in just seven where it may be converted into states: Alabama, Florida, Indiana, methylmercury, an organic form of Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, and West mercury that builds up in fish. Scientists Virginia. In the top county, found that a gram of mercury, about a Armstrong County, Pennsylvania, drop, deposited in a mid-sized Wisconsin power plant mercury emissions totaled lake over the course of a year was enough 1,527 pounds in 2003. to contaminate the lake’s fish. ¾ The most polluting 100 facilities Eating contaminated fish is the primary emitted 57,242 pounds of mercury into pathway for human exposure. Indeed, the air in 2003, or 64% of power plant mercury pollution is now so pervasive that mercury emissions. Most of these 44 states, the U.S. Food and Drug facilities—nearly 60%—were located Administration (FDA), and the EPA have in just nine states: Alabama, Illinois, issued fish consumption advisories warning Indiana, Kentucky, North Dakota, Made in the U.S.A. 4 Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, and West 22% of total U.S. power plant mercury Virginia. Five of the 10 most polluting emissions. facilities were located in Texas. Rather than let many of the nation’s ¾ The most polluting 15 companies power plants continue to emit or even emitted 48,353 pounds of mercury in increase their mercury emissions, the Bush 2003, or 54% of total U.S. power plant administration should protect public mercury emissions. Three companies— health by rewriting its mercury rules to American Electric Power, Southern ensure the maximum, timely reductions in Company, and Reliant Energy, which power plant mercury pollution that the collectively own 57 facilities—emitted law requires. 19,694 pounds of mercury in 2003, or Made in the U.S.A. 5 Background: Toxic Mercury Emissions from Power Plants When power plants burn coal or wastes year was enough to account for all of the containing mercury, their smokestacks mercury in the lake’s estimated fish emit mercury, a persistent population.8 Moreover, because mercury is bioaccumulative toxin that builds up in a bioaccumulative toxin that is taken in body tissue. Rain, snow, and dust faster than it is eliminated, it biomagnifies particles “wash” mercury out of the air up the food chain and builds up in body onto land and into waterways, where some tissue over time.9 Fish at the top of the of it is converted to methylmercury, an aquatic food chain can have mercury organic form of mercury that is especially levels approximately one to ten million toxic to humans and wildlife.1 times greater than the levels in surrounding waters.10 Power plants are the largest source of mercury air emissions in the U.S., releasing The primary way that people in the U.S. about 41% of the national total per year.2 are exposed to methylmercury is by eating According to the Environmental contaminated fish,11 which absorb Protection Agency (EPA), while U.S. mercury from water through their gills and sources are responsible for 3% of global from eating plants, organisms, and other mercury emissions, 60% of the mercury fish.12 In addition, mercury can pass deposited in the U.S. comes from domestic, through the human placenta to developing manmade sources;3 about 30% of fetuses and through breast milk to nursing continental U.S. mercury deposition comes infants.13 from U.S. power plants alone.4 Deposition rates differ by region and locale, and A potent neurotoxin, mercury poses mercury deposition can be much higher significant human health hazards. near individual sources.5 For instance, in Mercury can affect multiple organ the southeast, the EPA estimates that systems, including the nervous, U.S.-based sources account for 37% of cardiovascular, and immune systems, total mercury deposition in Georgia, 58% throughout an individual’s lifetime.14 in North Carolina, 62% in South Carolina, Infants and children are particularly at and 68% in Florida.6 Moreover, a 2003 risk of problems associated with mercury analysis of EPA data found that in-state exposure because their nervous systems sources of mercury can account for 50-80% continue to develop until about age 14.15 of mercury deposition at the “hot spots” Exposure to mercury affects the within each state with the highest levels of developing brain, causing vision and mercury.7 hearing difficulties, delays in the development of motor skills and language Notably, even minute amounts of mercury acquisition, lowered IQ, and problems can be significant. At Wisconsin’s Little with attention and memory; these Rock Lake, for instance,
Recommended publications
  • Annual Disclosure Report
    ANNUAL DISCLOSURE REPORT of the LONG ISLAND POWER AUTHORITY (FISCAL YEAR 2020) This Annual Disclosure Report does not constitute an offer to sell or solicitation of an offer to buy any securities. The information set forth herein has been furnished by the Authority and LIPA and includes information obtained from other sources, all of which are believed to be reliable. The information and expressions of opinion contained herein are subject to change without notice and nothing herein shall, under any circumstances, create any implication that there has been no change in the affairs of the Authority, LIPA, PSEG, PSEG Long Island, National Grid or Exelon since the date hereof. Such information and expressions of opinion are made for the purpose of providing information to prospective investors and are not to be used for any other purpose or relied on by any other party. This Annual Disclosure Report contains statements which, to the extent they are not recitations of historical fact, constitute “forward-looking statements.” In this respect, the words “estimate,” “project,” “anticipate,” “expect,” “intend,” “believe” and similar expressions are intended to identify forward-looking statements. A number of important factors affecting the Authority’s and LIPA’s business and financial results could cause actual results to differ materially from those stated in the forward-looking statements. References to website addresses presented herein are for informational purposes only and may be in the form of a hyperlink solely for the reader’s convenience. Unless specified otherwise, such websites and the information or links contained therein are not incorporated into, and are not part of, this Annual Disclosure Report.
    [Show full text]
  • 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]
  • HISTORY of LEAD POISONING in the WORLD Dr. Herbert L. Needleman Introduction the Center for Disease Control Classified the Cause
    HISTORY OF LEAD POISONING IN THE WORLD Dr. Herbert L. Needleman Introduction The Center for Disease Control classified the causes of disease and death as follows: 50 % due to unhealthy life styles 25 % due to environment 25% due to innate biology and 25% due to inadequate health care. Lead poisoning is an environmental disease, but it is also a disease of life style. Lead is one of the best-studied toxic substances, and as a result we know more about the adverse health effects of lead than virtually any other chemical. The health problems caused by lead have been well documented over a wide range of exposures on every continent. The advancements in technology have made it possible to research lead exposure down to very low levels approaching the limits of detection. We clearly know how it gets into the body and the harm it causes once it is ingested, and most importantly, how to prevent it! Using advanced technology, we can trace the evolution of lead into our environment and discover the health damage resulting from its exposure. Early History Lead is a normal constituent of the earth’s crust, with trace amounts found naturally in soil, plants, and water. If left undisturbed, lead is practically immobile. However, once mined and transformed into man-made products, which are dispersed throughout the environment, lead becomes highly toxic. Solely as a result of man’s actions, lead has become the most widely scattered toxic metal in the world. Unfortunately for people, lead has a long environmental persistence and never looses its toxic potential, if ingested.
    [Show full text]
  • ESTIMATION of FISSION-PRODUCT GAS PRESSURE in URANIUM DIOXIDE CERAMIC FUEL ELEMENTS by Wuzter A
    NASA TECHNICAL NOTE NASA TN D-4823 - - .- j (2. -1 "-0 -5 M 0-- N t+=$j oo w- P LOAN COPY: RET rm 3 d z c 4 c/) 4 z ESTIMATION OF FISSION-PRODUCT GAS PRESSURE IN URANIUM DIOXIDE CERAMIC FUEL ELEMENTS by WuZter A. PuuZson una Roy H. Springborn Lewis Reseurcb Center Clevelund, Ohio NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON, D. C. NOVEMBER 1968 i 1 TECH LIBRARY KAFB, NM I 111111 lllll IllH llll lilll1111111111111 Ill1 01317Lb NASA TN D-4823 ESTIMATION OF FISSION-PRODUCT GAS PRESSURE IN URANIUM DIOXIDE CERAMIC FUEL ELEMENTS By Walter A. Paulson and Roy H. Springborn Lewis Research Center Cleveland, Ohio NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION For sale by the Clearinghouse for Federal Scientific and Technical Information Springfield, Virginia 22151 - CFSTl price $3.00 ABSTRACl Fission-product gas pressure in macroscopic voids was calculated over the tempera- ture range of 1000 to 2500 K for clad uranium dioxide fuel elements operating in a fast neutron spectrum. The calculated fission-product yields for uranium-233 and uranium- 235 used in the pressure calculations were based on experimental data compiled from various sources. The contributions of cesium, rubidium, and other condensible fission products are included with those of the gases xenon and krypton. At low temperatures, xenon and krypton are the major contributors to the total pressure. At high tempera- tures, however, cesium and rubidium can make a considerable contribution to the total pressure. ii ESTIMATION OF FISSION-PRODUCT GAS PRESSURE IN URANIUM DIOXIDE CERAMIC FUEL ELEMENTS by Walter A. Paulson and Roy H.
    [Show full text]
  • Mercury Education
    MERCURY The Slippery, Silent Toxin to Dispose of Carefully You may be surprised to find mercury in your home, business and places you go often. When spilled or not disposed of carefully, it poses a risk to human and ecosystem health. DID YOU KNOW? Mercury is the only metal that is liquid at room Why is Mercury Such a Problem? temperature. Mercury, or quicksilver, is an element that serves many useful 80 purposes – when contained. It conducts electricity, is used in thermometers, thermostats, barometers, blood pressure cuffs and many other everyday items such as some alarm clocks Mercury 200.59 and irons. The most common use is in today’s fluorescent light bulbs that use mercury vapor. Read the reverse The trouble comes when mercury is not disposed of properly for safe ways to or worse, when it spills. Mercury is a toxic element that can dispose of mercury. enter the body through an open wound or by inhaling or ingesting it. It can cause damage to nerves, the liver and kidneys, as well as a number of other symptoms. If mercury is poured down the drain or dumped into the sewer, it seeps into lakes and waterways, a chemical process occurs, converting it to deadly methylmercury, potentially contaminating the fish and animals we eat. When products containing mercury are placed in the trash or poured down the drain, the mercury does not disappear. It ends up in the environment via landfills and wastewater treatment facilities. Now that you know some of the items that contain mercury, you can make Never touch or vacuum up buying decisions that reduce the amount of mercury in your home or office, spilled mercury in any form, and that assure safe disposal of products that contain mercury.
    [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]
  • Mercury Spill Fact Sheet
    This fact sheet is intended to be a quick reference tool for people who are involved in a mercury spill and cleanup event. MERCURY Mercury mercury MERCURY MERCURY MERCURY Elemental mercury, also called “quicksilver,” is a heavy, silvery, form of the metal mercury that is liquid at room temperature. It can slowly change from a liquid into a gas that is invisible to the naked eye. The gas or “vapors” that are released will start to fill a room if mercury is spilled indoors. MERCURY EXPOSURE Mercury is a very toxic or poisonous substance that people can be exposed to in several ways. If it is swallowed, like from a broken thermometer, it mostly passes through your body and very little is absorbed. If you touch it, a small amount may pass through your skin, but not usually enough to harm you. Mercury is most harmful when you breathe in the vapors that are released when a container is open or a spill occurs. HEALTH EFFECTS Pregnant women, infants and young children are particularly sensitive to the harmful effects of mercury. The health effects that can result from mercury exposure depend on how much mercury you are exposed to and how long you are exposed. Some of the acute effects, ones that may come soon after exposure to high concentrations of mercury are: • Headaches, chills, fever • chest tightness, coughs • hand tremors • nausea, vomiting, abdominal cramps, diarrhea Some effects that may result from chronic, or longer term exposure to mercury vapor can be: • Personality changes • Decreased vision or hearing • Peripheral nerve damage • Elevated blood pressure Children are especially sensitive to mercury and at risk of developing a condition known as acrodynia or “Pinks Disease” by breathing vapors or other exposure circumstances.
    [Show full text]
  • 2019-2028 Comprehensive Reliability Plan
    2019-2028 Comprehensive Reliability Plan A Report from the New York Independent System Operator Draft Report for April 12, 2019 ESPWG/TPAS Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................................................ 4 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................................................... 7 RELIABILITY PLANNING PROCESS FINDINGS FOR 2019-2028 ................................................................................................ 8 Finding One – Resource Adequacy .............................................................................................. 8 Finding Two – Transmission Security ........................................................................................... 8 Finding Three – Plan Risk Factors and Highlights of Potential Developments ......................... 8 PEAKER RULE SCENARIO .................................................................................................................................................... 14 Con Edison Assessment ............................................................................................................. 15 Year 2023 ...................................................................................................................................................... 16 Year 2025 .....................................................................................................................................................
    [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]
  • E,XTENSIONS of REMARKS SENATOR JENNINGS RANDOLPH Our Citizens and the Quality of Our En­ Anticipated, However, and in Recent DISCUSSES INADEQUACY of the Vironment
    September 2, 1970 EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS 30753 E,XTENSIONS OF REMARKS SENATOR JENNINGS RANDOLPH our citizens and the quality of our en­ anticipated, however, and in recent DISCUSSES INADEQUACY OF THE vironment. years, there was a reluctance in many FEDERAL RESEARCH, DEVELOP­ Securing adequate supplies of fuels, cases to develop alternative sources of oil MENT, AND DEMONSTRATION EF­ particularly coal, for the next 5 years is or coal production. The required new FORTS ON METHOD TO CONTROL one of the most pressing problems facing mines were not capitalized and opened AND ABATE POLLUTION RESULT­ many electric utilities. to the extent originally envisioned. This ING FROM FUELS AND ENERGY During the past 18 months fuel stocks is part of the fuels crisis that has PRODUCTION-THE ENVIRON­ have reportedly slipped from sufficient developed. MENT IMPACT OF FUELS AND EN­ coal for at least 90 days' operation to Abundant supplies of coal and other ERGY PRODUCTION ARE UNAC­ quantities sufficient for only about 40 fossil fuels are in the ground; our short­ CEPTABLE days' operation. The causes contributing coming is our capacity to extract these to this serious problem were reported in resources from the earth and convert the April 18 issue of Business Week mag­ them into electricity and deliver the en­ HON. JENNINGS RANDOLP~ azine. They include a willingness of the ergy to the ultimate consumer. OF WEST VIRGINIA Japanese to pay high coal prices, a short­ Accustomed to doubling electric gen­ IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES age of railway hopper cars, wildcat erating capacity every decade, we have Tuesday, September 1, 1970 strikes, and the impact of the Coal Mine lost sight of the fact that today this Health and Safety Act.
    [Show full text]
  • Alexander Livnat, Ph.D. 12/18/2014 This Is the Second out of Five
    Alexander Livnat, Ph.D. 12/18/2014 This is the second out of five volumes describing EPA’s current state of knowledge of CCR damage cases. This volume comprises 42 damage case-specific modules. Each module contains background information on the host power plant, type and design of the CCR management unit(s), their hydrogeologic setting and status of groundwater monitoring system, evidence for impact, regulatory actions pursued by the state and remedial measures taken, litigation, and rationale for the site’s current designation as a potential damage case in reference to pre-existing screenings. Ample footnotes and a list of references provide links to sources of information. IIa. CCR Damage Case Reassessment December 2014 IIa. Coal Combustion Residuals Potential Damage Cases (Reassessed, Formerly Published); (Cases PTa01 to PTa42) 1 IIa. CCR Damage Case Reassessment December 2014 TABLE OF CONTENTS PTa01. TVA Colbert Fossil Fuel Plant, Colbert County, Alabama ............................................................. 4 PTa02. TVA Widows Creek Steam Fossil Fuel Plant, Stevenson, Jackson County, Alabama ................. 10 PTa03. Arizona Public Service Co. Cholla Steam Electric Generating Station, Navajo County, Arizona 14 PTa04. Florida Power & Light Lansing Smith Plant, Bay County, Florida .............................................. 18 PTa05. Ameren (formerly: Central Illinois Light Co.) Duck Creek Station, Canton, Fulton County, Illinois ........................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Inspectors Special Assignment Sources [PDF]
    INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT Last Updated 11/17/2020 Inspectors' Specialty Assignment Sources Plant ID County Plant Name City Specialty Inspector 003-00013 Allen Rea Magnet Wire Co, Inc Fort Wayne Patrick Burton 003-00036 Allen General Motors LLC Fort Wayne Assembly Roanoke Patrick Burton 003-00269 Allen Essex Group LLC Fort Wayne Patrick Burton 005-00015 Bartholomew Cummins Engine Plant Columbus Vaughn Ison 005-00040 Bartholomew Toyota Material Handling Incorporated Columbus Vaughn Ison 005-00047 Bartholomew Cummins Engine Co - Midrange Engine Plant Columbus Vaughn Ison 005-00066 Bartholomew NTN Driveshaft, Inc Columbus Vaughn Ison 017-00005 Cass Lehigh Cement Company LLC Logansport Patrick Austin 017-00027 Cass A. Raymond Tinnerman Automotive Incorporated Logansport Rebecca Hayes 019-00008 Clark Lehigh Cement Company LLC Speed Patrick Austin 027-00046 Davieess Grain Processing Corporation Washington Tammy Haug 033-00023 DeKalb Rieke Packaging Systems Auburn Ling Tapp 033-00043 DeKalb Steel Dynamics, Inc - Flat Roll Group - Butler Division Butler Kurt Graham 033-00076 DeKalb Steel Dynamics, Inc - Iron Dynamics Division Butler Kurt Graham 035-00028 Delaware Exide Technologies Muncie Christopher Cissell 039-00115 Elkhart Manchester Tank & Equipment Elkhart Paul Karkiewicz 043-00004 Floyd Duke Energy Indiana, LLC - Gallagher Generating Station New Albany Patrick Austin 045-00011 Fountain MasterGuard Corporation Veedersburg Rebecca Hayes 049-00023 Fulton CamCar, LLC Rochester Rick Reynolds 051-00013 Gibson Duke Energy Indiana,
    [Show full text]