Repairing the Damage

The report compares utility-proposed closure plans with 'clean closure' alternatives at two US power stations. It finds that while clean closure—which involves the full excavation of coal ash from unlined ponds—requires higher initial capital investment, it provides superior groundwater protection and creates significantly more direct construction jobs. At the J. M. Stuart station, clean closure would cost $279.3 million and create 277 FTEs, compared to $224.4 million and 223 FTEs for the utility plan. At the Sebree station, clean closure would cost $125.7 million and create 138 FTEs, compared to $65.2 million and 63 FTEs for the utility plan.

• The J. M. Stuart Electric Generating Station has widespread groundwater contamination including arsenic, cobalt, barium, lithium, molybdenum, selenium, and radium, likely caused by CCR in current and buried impoundments.
• For the J. M. Stuart station, the 'Clean Closure' alternative is estimated to have a total capital cost of $279,282,000 and create 277 total estimated FTEs for closure and corrective action.
• The utility-proposed plan for J. M. Stuart is estimated to cost $224,368,000 in capital expenditures and create 223 total estimated FTEs.
• At the Sebree Generating Station, the Green Landfill is unlined and has produced contaminated seeps that flow into the Green River, with concentrations of arsenic, cadmium, chloride, cobalt, lithium, molybdenum, radium, and selenium exceeding groundwater protection standards.
• The 'Clean Closure' plan for the Sebree facility is estimated to have a total capital cost of $125,721,000 and create 138 total estimated closure and corrective action FTEs.
• The BREC closure plan for the Sebree facility is estimated to cost $65,166,000 in capital expenditures and create 63 total estimated closure and corrective action FTEs.
• Clean closure alternatives generally create more jobs during construction due to the larger volume of CCR excavated and the construction of additional infrastructure like 500-year flood levees and lined stormwater ponds.
• Cap-in-place closure, preferred by the power industry for its lower cost, does not prevent leaching if the ash is in contact with the aquifer and leaves sites vulnerable to catastrophic failure during floods.

APA

Magruder, I., & Haun, P. (2021). Repairing the Damage. Union of Concerned Scientists. https://www.ucs.org/sites/default/files/2021-10/repairing-the-damage-engineering-appendix.pdf

Chicago

Magruder, Ian, and Peter Haun. Repairing the Damage. Union of Concerned Scientists, 2021. https://www.ucs.org/sites/default/files/2021-10/repairing-the-damage-engineering-appendix.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |last1=Magruder |first1=Ian |last2=Haun |first2=Peter |title=Repairing the Damage |publisher=Union of Concerned Scientists |date=October 2021 |url=https://www.ucs.org/sites/default/files/2021-10/repairing-the-damage-engineering-appendix.pdf |access-date=23 October 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{magruder2021repairing, author = {Magruder, Ian and Haun, Peter}, title = {{Repairing the Damage}}, institution = {Union of Concerned Scientists}, year = {2021}, month = oct, url = {https://www.ucs.org/sites/default/files/2021-10/repairing-the-damage-engineering-appendix.pdf}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }