Please zoom in or out and select the base layer according to your preference to make the map ready for printing, then press the Print button above.

Kingston Fossil Plant, Harriman, Tennessee, USA


Description:

On December 22, 2008, one billion gallons of toxic coal ash slurry burst from the Kingston Fossil Plant in Kingston, Tennessee, creating the largest coal ash spill in US history [1]. The spill was caused by a failure at the plant’s dewatering area, rupturing a dike that released coal ash and water into the surrounding area [1]. Sludge from the spill spread across the nearby town of Harriman, Tennessee, covering over 300 acres, burying homes, and contaminating multiple water resources, including the Emory River channel [1]. As the sludge spread through Harriman, it flooded local train tracks, causing a train accident [2]. In some areas, the sludge became as deep as six feet [11]. Many homes were flooded or completely pushed off their foundation, forcing affected residents to evacuate [4]. Residents of the (primarily low-income) community lost homes and sustained injuries, all direct results of the coal ash spill [8].

The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), which owns and manages the Kingston Fossil Plant, hired Jacobs Engineering as a project manager to handle the coal ash spill and cleanup process [10]. Jacobs Engineering provides a “full spectrum of professional services” to the government and private sector, earning $15 billion annually [29]. The day after the spill occurred, December 23rd, Jacobs Engineering sent sub-contracted workers to the scene to begin cleaning sludge from the site [2][11]. Shortly after work began, many workers noticed the appearance of burning sores on their skin [7]. Several workers asked that Jacobs Engineering provide them with protective gear, but were refused items as basic as dust masks by the sub-contractor [7]. Workers were told that conditions at the impacted sites were safe for breathing and eating [23]. In the following years (2009 and 2010), workers began to develop various illnesses, which they believed to be linked to the coal ash [2]. 

On January 7th, 2009, homeowner Larry Mays filed the first of approximately 800 lawsuits in federal district court by plaintiffs who lived, owned property, and/or owned a business in the vicinity of the plant and suffered personal injuries and/or property damages as a result of the spill [16]. Plaintiffs claimed that the dike failure and resulting spill were caused by TVA’s negligent conduct with respect to the “design, construction, implementation, operation, maintenance and inspection of coal ash storage and disposal facilities” [16]. In 2010, the federal district court found that TVA could be held liable under federal law, subject to the “discretionary judgment doctrine” [16]. This doctrine meant that TVA could only be liable for decisions or conduct that were not grounded in public policy or in the exercise of policy judgment [16]. The court dismissed claims for punitive damages and rejected plaintiffs’ request for a jury trial [16].

 In 2011, the district court, at TVA’s urging, decided that plaintiffs must identify a specific decision or conduct; show it to be a non-discretionary act for which TVA may be liable; and explain how the decision or conduct caused the dike failure in order to have their individual claims considered [17]. The court ruled that TVA could not be held liable for a broad range of decisions and conduct regarding the construction and operation of the plant under the “discretionary judgment doctrine” [17]. It also held that TVA could be found liable only if plaintiffs could demonstrate that TVA’s conduct with regard the training and performance of mandatory (non-discretionary) policies and procedures, including construction and maintenance, was negligent [17]. The court also denied plaintiffs’ requests to certify a class so that cases could be consolidated and proceed as class action lawsuits, meaning several related cases had to proceed at the same time within the same court and individuals had to litigate cases separately [17]. 

In 2012, the district court granted summary judgment to TVA, meaning as a matter of law TVA could not be held liable for the plaintiffs’ personal injuries, emotional distress, and inverse condemnation; those claims were dismissed [18]. However, the court allowed plaintiffs’ property-based claims to move forward to trial [18]. The judge then divided all of the TVA property litigation cases into two phases [18]. Phase one was focused on determining TVA’s liability and was binding on all 800 plaintiffs [18]. If there was a determination of liability by TVA in phase one, all of the cases would then proceed individually to consider evidence on property-specific causation and damages (phase two) [18]. 

Over the course of phase one litigation, the judge ultimately dismissed all claims other than the negligence, trespassing, and private nuisance claims [18]. Following a bench trial, the court found that TVA’s conduct was the cause of the dike failure and that if TVA had followed its own mandatory (non-discretionary) policies, procedures and practices, a catastrophic failure could have been avoided [18]. Accordingly, the district court judge determined that TVA’s conduct was negligent and lacked due care, and was not an immune (discretionary) policy decision [18]. The court found that all elements of TVA liability had been proven by the plaintiffs with respect to these claims, and he directed that the approximately 800 cases go to mediation [18][26]. Mediation proceedings are not public, however, in 2018 the district court judge approved a lump sum settlement of $27.8 million that apparently came out of the mediation effort [19][20]. The few plaintiffs that did not participate in the mediation settlement and pursued phase two of their individual cases saw their claims dismissed via summary judgment [20][27]. 

Separate from the property-related lawsuits, in 2013 approximately 240 workers and 100 of their spouses sued Jacobs Engineering, alleging physical injuries caused by contaminants in coal ash and inadequate protection by Jacobs Engineering of the workers [21]. The cases are being overseen by the same district court judge who heard the property-related cases. The judge  took a similar approach to cleanup workers’ lawsuits, splitting them into phase one to determine liability and phase two to determine causation and damages [21].

In 2009, workers began to report dangerous conditions at the cleanup site to the Occupational Health and Safety Administration (“OSHA”), the federal agency charged with overseeing workplace safety [22]. Rather than investigate, OSHA passed along the complaints to TVA [22]. TVA’s project safety manager prepared and submitted a report to OSHA two months later detailing a full scale investigation and reporting that proper safety precautions were being taken and protective gear worn by cleanup workers[22]. TVA subsequently acknowledged that much of what was described in the report was false [22]. OSHA denied having received any complaints and, in 2014, shredded its files on the Kingston coal ash spill cleanup, even though a “no shred order” had been in place from the Environmental Protection Agency since 2009 [22]. 

In mid-2017, an investigation looking into the treatment of cleanup workers was launched by USA Today Network Tennessee (USATNT) [2]. A few months later, USATNT released another series which explored the treatment of Kingston Fossil Plant cleanup workers [2]. The series highlighted the health hazards that workers were exposed to, which had fatally harmed over two dozen, in addition to the general mistreatment they endured during the cleanup process [2]. All accusations made in the series were rejected by both TVA and Jacobs Engineering [2]. 

In 2018, a federal jury found that Jacobs Engineering was liable for breaching its cleanup contract with the TVA and for failing to protect cleanup workers, meaning that Jacobs Engineering could be held liable for the cleanup workers’ illnesses [21]. In December, 2018, it was reported that TVA was still contracting with Jacobs Engineering for work totaling up to $200 million [2]. Jacobs Engineering appealed the district court’s finding of liability to a federal circuit court, further delaying the resolution of workers’ claims. It also asserted various arguments in favor of immunity from the workers’ claims, all of which were unsuccessful, and which it also appealed [32]. All such appeals and motions have been resolved against Jacobs and in favor of the plaintiff cleanup workers. [22] In an attempt to reach a resolution that provided medical treatment and testing funds to workers affected by the Kingston coal ash spill, the presiding district court judge ordered Jacobs in January 2019 to mediate with cleanup workers [2]. No progress has been reported from that mediation. 

By September, 2021, the phase two trials had not begun and Jacobs Engineering asserted that Tennessee Silica Claim Priorities Act applied to the workers’ claims, barring many of them from being heard [30].  The district court judge asked the Tennessee Supreme Court to resolve these issues further delaying resolution of workers’ claims [21]. The Tennessee Supreme Court heard arguments on the issues in June, 2022 and has yet to rule [31]. The determination of causation and damages with respect to the approximately 240 workers can only proceed once the Tennessee Supreme Court has ruled – even though 54 of the original 240 workers had already succumbed to their illnesses and were dead at the time that the 2022 circuit court decision was handed down [22]. Jacobs continues to deny responsibility and, in its November 2022 annual report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, stated that it does not expect the results of the litigation to have a material adverse effect on its “business, financial condition, operations or cash flows [25].” 

Basic Data

Name of conflict:Kingston Fossil Plant, Harriman, Tennessee, USA
Country:United States of America
State or province:Tennessee
Location of conflict:Harriman
Accuracy of locationHIGH (Local level)

Source of Conflict

Type of conflict. 1st level:Industrial and Utilities conflicts
Type of conflict. 2nd level:Pollution related to transport (spills, dust, emissions)
Specific commodities:Coal Ash
Lead
Coal

Project Details and Actors

Project details

The Kingston Fossil Plant is a coal-burning power plant, which creates coal ash as a byproduct [3][6]. The plant is located in Harriman, Tennessee, within the Watts Bar Reservoir on the Tennessee River [3]. Currently, the plant generates nearly 10 billion kilowatt-hours annually, creating enough electricity for an estimated 700,000 homes [3]. This requires 14,000 tons of coal to be burned at the plant each day, enough coal for 140 railroad cars [3]. At the time of its construction in 1950, the Kingston Fossil Plant was the largest coal-power plant in the entire world [1]. The plant maintained this status for more than a decade after its construction was completed in 1955 [3]. The Kingston Fossil Plant is currently owned, managed, and operated by Tennessee Valley Authority, the largest power provider for the American public [3][5].

Level of Investment for the conflictive project$1,000,000,000
Type of populationUrban
Affected Population:There were 6,807 Harriman Tennessee residents in 2008 in addition to 900 cleanup workers whose residency is unknown.
Start of the conflict:22/12/2008
Company names or state enterprises:Kingston Fossil Plant from United States of America
Jacob's Engineering from United States of America
Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) from United States of America
Relevant government actors:Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA)
Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA)

Conflict & Mobilization

IntensityMEDIUM (street protests, visible mobilization)
Reaction stageMobilization for reparations once impacts have been felt
Groups mobilizing:Industrial workers
Informal workers
Neighbours/citizens/communities
Women
Forms of mobilization:Creation of alternative reports/knowledge
Lawsuits, court cases, judicial activism
Media based activism/alternative media
Official complaint letters and petitions
Public campaigns

Impacts

Environmental ImpactsVisible: Soil contamination, Deforestation and loss of vegetation cover, Surface water pollution / Decreasing water (physico-chemical, biological) quality, Large-scale disturbance of hydro and geological systems, Other Environmental impacts, Loss of landscape/aesthetic degradation, Groundwater pollution or depletion, Reduced ecological / hydrological connectivity
Other Environmental impactsInterest in the Kingston Fossil Plant spill has been primarily focused on the human health and property damage impacts of the coal ash. However, the environmental impacts of spilling 300 acres of toxic ash should not be overlooked. Toxins contaminated the area’s natural resources, including water bodies (Emory and Clinch Rivers) that lead into the Tennessee River [11]. For four years, the Emory River was dredged in an attempt to remove contaminants [15]. Near the end of the project, cleanup workers were ordered to stop dredging because of the shockingly high level of contaminants found in the river [15]. TVA then opted to have the Emory River “recover naturally” from the remaining contaminants, with environmental monitoring for the following 30 years [15] [32].

Scientists found that downstream river water had lead levels 400 times greater than the EPA recommends, and even greater levels of lead within the river’s surface water [12][13]. Beryllium was found at levels 160 times greater than the EPA’s safe limit [13]. High levels of arsenic were found, indicating low-oxygen conditions in the water [12]. River water tests also revealed higher levels of lead and thallium after the spill [13]. These contaminants may continue to spread into other critical environmental resources, causing even greater harm upon humans and wildlife [12].
Health ImpactsVisible: Exposure to unknown or uncertain complex risks (radiation, etc…), Mental problems including stress, depression and suicide, Deaths, Other environmental related diseases, Other Health impacts
Other Health impactsCoal ash contains natural metals that can become toxic to humans upon exposure (i.e., arsenic, lead, and radioactive metals) [7]. These metals are especially dangerous when they contaminate groundwater or break down into particles that come into contact with skin and/or are ingested [7]. Ultra-fine coal ash particles are associated with air pollutants, such as smog and exhaust, and are part of the ambient air pollutants that cause approximately 4.2 millions deaths worldwide each year [7][9]. The coal ash from the Kingston Fossil Plant contains over 20 known toxins [7]. Because cleanup workers were misinformed about the toxicity of the coal ash, workers often inhaled, ate near (consumed), and came into direct skin contact with coal ash [7] Additionally, cleanup workers brought ash dust into their homes due to the lack of decontamination facilities [10]

Water bodies contaminated by the coal ash spill were frequently used as drinking water sources [13]. Contaminants found in the rivers, specifically lead and thallium, have historically caused birth defects and reproductive issues [13]. A few months after the spill, a TVA spokesperson shared that even though the aforementioned contaminants exceeded the limits of safe drinking water in the river, they would be filtered out, allowing for the water to be safely consumed again [13]. Despite reassurance, many residents still felt uncomfortable drinking the water due to the severity of the coal ash spill [13]. In 2018, USATNT published evidence of groundwater test well pollution at the Kingston Plant’s coal ash landfill [2].

Cleanup workers continuously reported health issues following the spill [7]. This included, but was not limited to, skin, cardiovascular, circulatory system, and pulmonary issues [7]. Ansol Clark, one of the first cleanup workers to arrive at the site, developed chronic heart issues and blood cancer after working at the spill site [7]. It is believed that Clark’s issues may have been caused by coal ash radiation [7]. Frankie Norris reported skin sores (which was common amongst cleanup workers) and colon failure [7]. Tommy Johnson, also amongst the first workers to arrive at the site, reported that he suffers from chronic lung function issues [7]. Because cleanup workers inadvertently brought coal ash dust into their homes, this affected the health of the cleanup worker’s family members, many of whom also developed cancers and breathing issues following the spill [10]. These are but a few of the side effects that hundreds of cleanup workers and family members have experienced. By July of 2022, over 50 cleanup workers had died of health-related issues since the spill [14] Currently, more than 200 cleanup workers and their family members are sick or suffer from chronic health issues as a result of the coal ash [24].
Socio-economical ImpactsVisible: Displacement, Loss of landscape/sense of place, Other socio-economic impacts
Other socio-economic impactsEight years after the coal ash spill in 2018, the Roane County population had declined by over 1,500 residents [14]. The population began increasing in 2009, but as of 2021, the county’s population has yet to exceed the 54,374 residents that resided in Roane County in 2008 [14]. It is likely that in the years following the coal ash spill, residents who could afford to leave the county did while fewer people moved into the county. In 2019, Roane County and the cities of Kingston and Harriman sued both Jacobs Engineering and the TVA for damages suffered by the community as a whole [22]. These claims were dismissed in 2020 by the same federal district court judge presiding over the property owners’ and cleanup workers’ suits as barred by the statute of limitations and for being insufficiently pleaded [22].

Outcome

Project StatusIn operation
Conflict outcome / response:Compensation
Deaths, Assassinations, Murders
Institutional changes
Court decision (victory for environmental justice)
Court decision (failure for environmental justice)
Court decision (undecided)
New legislation
Under negotiation
Proposal and development of alternatives:There are no alternate proposals being brought forward outside of litigation. Those affected by the coal ash spill feel that their health and wellbeing was compromised by Jacobs Engineering and TVA’S procedures and misstatements. While compensation may be awarded to plaintiffs in court, there is currently no alternative solution that can reverse the effects of the coal ash spill on the lives, property, and well-being of those affected.
Do you consider this an environmental justice success? Was environmental justice served?:No
Briefly explain:While there were some positive things that came out of the clean-up and litigation, overall, environmental justice was not served. Many of the property-related plaintiffs’ saw their claims denied by the district court and the compensation awarded to them was both inadequate and excluded consideration of their chronic health issues. After more than a decade, cleanup workers and their families have yet to have their substantive claims adjudicated and it is possible that the Tennessee Supreme Court will find that state law bars many, if not all, of the workers’ claims. Further, Tennessee has a tort claims statute which caps the financial recovery for personal injury, pain and suffering; these caps are likely below the medical costs already incurred by the workers and will not begin to cover the lifetime medical costs incurred by them and their families to monitor and treat their conditions. More fundamentally, over 50 cleanup workers have died since being exposed to the toxic coal ash [14]. No amount of financial compensation or policy changes will be sufficient justice for them and their families. More broadly, the TVA spent an estimated $1.2 billion to clean up the spill and turn the area into a public park, but significant contamination of water resources remains [28]. The EPA finalized rulemaking in 2015 that imposed national requirements for new coal ash landfills and surface impoundments, including mandatory groundwater monitoring with publicly available results, and improved requirements to ensure the structural integrity of the containment ponds, but existing facilities are not covered by the rule [28].

Sources & Materials

Juridical relevant texts related to the conflict (laws, legislations, EIAs, etc)

[16] United States District Court, E.D. Tennessee, March 26, 2010, “Larry MAYS, Plaintiff, v. TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY.”
https://casetext.com/case/mays-v-tennessee-valley-authority-2

[17] United States District Court, E.D. Tennessee, at Knoxville, August 2, 2011, “In re TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY ASH SPILL LITIGATION.”
https://www.plainsite.org/dockets/24no096uh/tennessee-eastern-district-court/in-re-tennessee-valley-authority-ash-spill-litig/

[18] United States District Court, E.D. Tennessee, Knoxville Division, August 23, 2012, “IN RE: TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY ASH SPILL LITIGATION.”
https://www.leagle.com/decision/infdco20120926c57

[20] United States District Court, E.D. Tennessee, at Knoxville Division, April 30, 2015, “MITCHELL v. TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY.”
https://www.leagle.com/decision/infdco20150505660

[27] Justia, United States District Court, E.D. Tennessee, at Knoxville Division, April 30, 2015, “Ryan v. Tennessee Valley Authority.”
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/tennessee/tnedce/3:2014cv00356/72149/9/

[30] Jacobs, United States District Court, E.D. Tennessee, September 29, 2021, “GREG ATKISSON et al. v. JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP, KEVIN THOMPSON et al. v. JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP, JOE CUNNINGHAM v. JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP, BILL ROSE v. JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP, CRAIG WILKINSON v. JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP, ANGIE SHELTON v. JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP, JOHNNY CHURCH v. JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP, DONALD R. VANGUILDER, JR. v. JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP, JUDY IVENS v. JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP, ROBERT MUSE v. JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP, HARRY HEMINGWAY v. JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP, VERNON D. ALLEN v. JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP, and JAMES ADERSON v. JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP.”
https://www.jacobs.com/sites/default/files/2022-09/%5B795%5D%202021.9.29_Order%20Certifying%20Silica%20Questions%20to%20Tenn.%20Supreme%20Court.pdf

References to published books, academic articles, movies or published documentaries

Laura Ruhl, Avner Vengosh, Gary S. Dwyer, Heileen Hsu-Kim, Amrika Deonarine, Mike Bergin, and Julia Kravchenko. "Survey of the Potential Environmental and Health Impacts in the Immediate Aftermath of the Coal Ash Spill in Kingston, Tennessee". Environmental Science & Technology 2009 43 (16), 6326-6333.
10.1021/es900714p

Laura Ruhl, Avner Vengosh, Gary S. Dwyer, Heileen Hsu-Kim, and Amrika Deonarine. "Environmental Impacts of the Coal Ash Spill in Kingston, Tennessee: An 18-Month Survey". Environmental Science & Technology 2010 44 (24), 9272-9278.
10.1021/es1026739

[1] 10 News, Jim Matheny and Grant Robinson, December 22, 2018, “Historic Disaster: 10 years after the ash spill." (link only works from USA)
https://www.wbir.com/article/news/historic-disaster-10-years-after-the-ash-spill/51-3125fb4d-93bc-4dd8-9ce1-63a449fa6ff9

[2] Knox News, Jamie Satterfield, “Kingston coal ash case: From spill to sicknesses to lawsuits.”
https://eu.knoxnews.com/story/news/2019/02/05/kingston-coal-ash-spill-timeline-lawsuit/2767409002/

[3] Tennessee Valley Authority, 2022, “Kingston Power Plant.”
https://www.tva.com/energy/our-power-system/coal/kingston-fossil-plant

[4] Reuters, Jessica Dye, August 5, 2014, “U.S. court approves $27.8 million deal for toxic Tennessee spill.”
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-spill-tva-settlement-idUSKBN0G51ZA20140805

[5] History, June 10, 2019, “TVA.”
https://www.history.com/topics/great-depression/history-of-the-tva

[6] Power, Sonya Patel, March 1, 2016, “A Brief History of U.S. Coal Ash Since the Kingston Spill.”
https://www.powermag.com/a-brief-history-of-u-s-coal-ash-since-the-kingston-spill/

[7] National Geographic, Joel K. Bourne, Jr., February 19, 2019, “Coal’s other dark side: Toxic ash that can poison water and people.”
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/article/coal-other-dark-side-toxic-ash

[8] NRDC, Rob Perks, July 29, 2009, “TVA Could Have Prevented Tennessee Coal Ash Disaster, Report Finds.”
https://www.nrdc.org/experts/rob-perks/tva-could-have-prevented-tennessee-coal-ash-disaster-report-finds

[9] Our World in Data, Max Roser, November 25, 2021, “Data Review: How many people die from air pollution?”
https://ourworldindata.org/data-review-air-pollution-deaths

[10] Corporate Crime Reporter, Unknown, July 8, 2022, “Jamie Satterfield on the Deaths of the TVA Kingston Clean Up Workers.”
https://www.corporatecrimereporter.com/news/200/jamie-satterfield-on-the-deaths-of-the-tva-kingston-clean-up-workers/

[11] Southern Environmental Law Center, March 4, 2019, “Kingston coal ash disaster still reverberates 10 years later.”
https://www.southernenvironment.org/news/kingston-coal-ash-disaster-still-reverberates-10-years-later/

[12] Environmental Science & Technology, Ruhl et al., August 5, 2010, “Environmental Impacts of the Coal Ash Spill in Kingston, Tennessee: An 18-Month Survey.”
https://sites.nicholas.duke.edu/avnervengosh/files/2011/08/EST_TVA_impact1.pdf

[13] Scientific American, May 19 2009, “The Lasting Damage of the Tennessee Coal Ash Spill.”
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/tennessee-coal-ash-spill/#

[14] United States Census Bureau, 2021, “Roane County / Population.”
https://datacommons.org/place/geoId/47145?utm_medium=explore&mprop=count&popt=Person&hl=en

[15] Grist, Austyn Gaffney, December 15, 2020, “A Legacy of Contamination.”
https://dailyyonder.com/67067-2/2020/12/15/

[19] Reuters, Jessica Dye, August 5, 2014, “U.S. court approves $27.8 million deal for toxic Tennessee spill.”
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-spill-tva-settlement-idUSKBN0G51ZA20140805

[21] 10 News, Jim Matheny and Grant Robinson, December 21, 2018, “Historic Disaster: 10 years after the ash spill.”
https://www.wbir.com/article/news/historic-disaster-10-years-after-the-ash-spill/51-3125fb4d-93bc-4dd8-9ce1-63a449fa6ff9

[22] Tennessee Lookout, Jamie Satterfield, April 12, 2022, “OSHA officials admit to shredding documents in Tennessee Valley Authority coal ash case.”
https://tennesseelookout.com/2022/04/12/osha-officials-admit-to-shredding-documents-in-tennessee-valley-authority-coal-ash-case/

[23] Knox News, Jamie Satterfield, August 20, 2018, “TVA contractor accused of lying under oath and to workers in Kingston coal ash spill.”
https://www.knoxnews.com/story/news/crime/2018/08/20/2008-coal-ash-spill-kingston-perjury-claim-jacobs-engineering/977361002/

[24] NRDC, Austyn Gaffney, December 17, 2018, “Hundreds of Workers Who Cleaned Up the Country’s Worst Coal Ash Spill Are Now Sick and Dying.”
https://www.nrdc.org/stories/hundreds-workers-who-cleaned-countrys-worst-coal-ash-spill-are-now-sick-and-dying

[25] United States Security and Exchange Commission, September 30, 2022, “Jacobs Solutions Inc.”
https://d18rn0p25nwr6d.cloudfront.net/CIK-0000052988/fa2d75d0-2a5d-4621-badd-5d0e525b3fdc.pdf

[26] Law 360, Sean McLernon, November 20, 2012, “TVA Coal Ash Disaster Damages Row Sent To Mediation.”
https://www.law360.com/articles/395468/tva-coal-ash-disaster-damages-row-sent-to-mediation

[28] Environmental Protection Agency, October 6, 2022, “Frequent Questions about the 2015 Coal Ash Disposal Rule.”
https://www.epa.gov/coalash/frequent-questions-about-2015-coal-ash-disposal-rule

[29] Jacobs, 2023, “Welcome to Jacobs.”
https://www.jacobs.com/

[31] AP News, Jonathan Mattise, June 1, 2022, “Coal ash workers’ case heard by Tennessee Supreme Court.”
https://apnews.com/article/science-politics-health-climate-and-environment-539a1ffbec2815920b6814e62314334d

[32] Jacobs, 2023, “Kingston Site Cleanup: Get the Facts.”
https://www.jacobs.com/kingston

Meta information

Contributor:Mya Carter, Skidmore College; Lowery Parker, Skidmore College
Last update20/10/2022
Conflict ID:6159

Images

 

Kingston Fossil Plant and the Coal Ash Spill

Bird's-eye view of the Kingston Fossil Plant's coal ash spill as it spread throughout Harriman, TN. Source: Inside Climate News

Worker Cleaning Coal Sludge

Cleanup worker at the spill site without protective gear. Source: Knox News

Worker Cleaning Coal Sludge

Cleanup worker at the spill site without protective gear. Source: Knox News

Cleanup Worker in an Excavator

Cleanup Worker at the spill site in an excavator without protective gear. Source: Tennessee Valley Authority