The Third Largest Coal Ash Spill - 1447 Words

The third largest coal ash spill in United States history has left some citizens in North Carolina fearing their water is not safe to drink. This fear is a result of anywhere between 50,000 and 82,000 tons of coal ash and up to twenty-seven million gallons of contaminated water being dumped into the Dan River in Eden, North Carolina on February 2, 2014. The spill was caused by a busted storm drain pipe that ran under an unlined coal ash pond at Duke Energy’s Dan River Combined Cycle Station (â€Å"Duke Energy’s Grievous†). Coal ash is a byproduct of burning coal for energy and contains substances such as arsenic, lead, and mercury. These toxic chemicals are not only harmful to the environment but to the human population as well (Christian).†¦show more content†¦Listed below are the proposed draft risk classifications for each facility in North Carolina as of December 2015. Draft Proposed Impoundment Classifications. DEQ. 31 Dec. 2015. Web. 8 Apr. 2016. The coal ash that is buried underground still has the potential to seep into the neighboring water supply. Also, the high-risk ponds will not be evacuated until 2019 and the low-intermediate risk ponds as late as 2029. Subsequently, there will still be run-off from these ponds polluting fresh water for the time being (â€Å"House, Senate Approve†). This settlement is not a win for residents surrounding these impoundments. Preventing seepage from coal ash ponds and completely removing the coal ashes away from fresh water is the only way North Carolinians will feel safe about their drinking water, no matter the proposed risk classification. For instance, the N.C. Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) handed out a Clean Water Act permit to the Duke Energy Riverbend coal ash site on Mountain Island Lake on the Catawba River which supplies water for Charlotte, Mecklenburg County, Mount Holly, and Gastonia. This pollution discharge permit is supposed to protect Mountain Island Lake from harmful coal ash pollution coming out of the Duke Energy s Riverbend facility. In 2015, Duke Energy pleaded guilty to criminal coal ash pollution and was issued to remove the coal ash pond at Riverbend. The coal ash lagoons are scheduled to be

The Third Largest Coal Ash Spill - 1447 Words

The third largest coal ash spill in United States history has left some citizens in North Carolina fearing their water is not safe to drink. This fear is a result of anywhere between 50,000 and 82,000 tons of coal ash and up to twenty-seven million gallons of contaminated water being dumped into the Dan River in Eden, North Carolina on February 2, 2014. The spill was caused by a busted storm drain pipe that ran under an unlined coal ash pond at Duke Energy’s Dan River Combined Cycle Station (â€Å"Duke Energy’s Grievous†). Coal ash is a byproduct of burning coal for energy and contains substances such as arsenic, lead, and mercury. These toxic chemicals are not only harmful to the environment but to the human population as well (Christian).†¦show more content†¦Listed below are the proposed draft risk classifications for each facility in North Carolina as of December 2015. Draft Proposed Impoundment Classifications. DEQ. 31 Dec. 2015. Web. 8 Apr. 2016. The coal ash that is buried underground still has the potential to seep into the neighboring water supply. Also, the high-risk ponds will not be evacuated until 2019 and the low-intermediate risk ponds as late as 2029. Subsequently, there will still be run-off from these ponds polluting fresh water for the time being (â€Å"House, Senate Approve†). This settlement is not a win for residents surrounding these impoundments. Preventing seepage from coal ash ponds and completely removing the coal ashes away from fresh water is the only way North Carolinians will feel safe about their drinking water, no matter the proposed risk classification. For instance, the N.C. Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) handed out a Clean Water Act permit to the Duke Energy Riverbend coal ash site on Mountain Island Lake on the Catawba River which supplies water for Charlotte, Mecklenburg County, Mount Holly, and Gastonia. This pollution discharge permit is supposed to protect Mountain Island Lake from harmful coal ash pollution coming out of the Duke Energy s Riverbend facility. In 2015, Duke Energy pleaded guilty to criminal coal ash pollution and was issued to remove the coal ash pond at Riverbend. The coal ash lagoons are scheduled to be

Intro to Legal Analysis and Writing Free Essays

Sherri Stover February 28, 2013 Intro to Legal Analysis and Writing After reading the case study I found that the state statute that used was the Texas Penal Code section 42. 09(a)(3). This statute prohibits the desecration of a venerable object. We will write a custom essay sample on Intro to Legal Analysis and Writing or any similar topic only for you Order Now For example the American Flag or any object that has significant meaning. The Judicial Branch of Government created the state statute, and that parties that were involved in this court case was Gregory Lee Johnson and the State of Texas. Besides the US Supreme Court the other three courts that were involved were as follows: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, Texas Court of Appeals Fifth District, Dallas County Criminal Court. The citation for the US Supreme Courts decision of the Texas statute is Texas v. Johnson, 491 U. S. 397 (1989). The effect that the US Supreme Court decision had on the Texas statute is that the court stated that Johnson’s actions were protected by the First Amendment and that the state could not charge Johnson. The court also stated that statute did not meet the State’s goals of protecting breaches of peace due to another Texas statute. I will know explain the difference between Case Law and Statutory Law. Case Law is when a law is based specifically on judicial opinions, within a particular jurisdiction that is dealing with a specific issue. Another name for Case Law is Decisional Law. Statutory Law are laws or statutes that are enacted by the legislature. These statutes have authority of resolving issues in many cases rather then Case Law. How to cite Intro to Legal Analysis and Writing, Essay examples

Capital Budgeting and Investment Decisions

Question: Discuss about the Capital Budgeting and Investment Decisions. Answer: Introduction: The issues on capital budgeting includes expansion of cricket apparel and replacement of lighting system of the warehouse because the existing lighting system was overloaded. First issue in the present situation involves investment opportunity in cricket apparel since the market trends provides stability in the present economy (Dellavigna and Pollet 2013). Another option in the first issue involves leasing of building along with the acquisition of plant and equipments. Considering the situation, analysis on capital budgeting would be considered using the method of Net Present Value, which is determined as the difference between present value of cash inflows and outflows (Gtze, Northcott and Schuster 2015). If the outcome is positive, it indicates the project is worth considering since it generates earnings using the concept of time value of money. The project on cricket apparel expansion incorporates investment of $85,000 along with the investment in plant and equipment costing $350,000 for the period of five years. Amount $ Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Investment amount 85,000 plant and equipment 350,000 Depreciation @15% 48,150 ($350,000- $29,000) * 15% Sales 280,000 316,400 357,532 343,231 329,501 Cost of the project 150,000 153,000 156,060 159,181 162,365 Discounting rate 14% 0.877 0.769 0.674 0.592 0.519 Present values: Sales 245,560 243,312 240,977 203,193 171,011 Fixed Cost of the project 131,550 117,657 105,184 94,235 84,267 Variable cost 11% of revenue 27,012 26,764 26,507 22,351 18,811 Investment amount 74,545 Plant and equipment 306,950 Net present value (Total inflow - total outflow) -294,497 98,890 109,285 86,606 67,933 Total net present value 68,217 (Source: Created by Author) Considering the determination of net present value from the proposed project, it has been measured that the outcome is positive $68,217 hence acceptance of project is recommended. Further, the applicable tax rate is 30% that provides net expected profit amounted to $68,217* 70% = $47,752. Moreover, it has been estimated that projected sales would decline by 4% during fourth and fifth years while increase in sales in the initial years was 13%. Estimated working capital for operating the project involves 12% on the sales revenue of the subsequent year and estimated profit after tax amounted to $15,000 would be cannibalized from the existing business. Therefore, net profit after considering the cannibalizing amounted to $47,752- $15,000 = $32,752 which is positive hence, the project is recommended to be accepted. Considering the second issue on replacement of warehouse lighting system, three different systems have been considered. All the three different systems have different useful life therefore, annualized net present value will be considered to determine the most feasible system that can be implemented for replacing the lighting system (Zhang, Huang and Zhang 2015). Cost Useful life Net cash outflow $ Annuity factor @14% Present value of cash outflow Total outflow Annualized cash outflow First system $7,000 5 years 800 per year 3.431 2744.8 $9,745 $1,948.96 Second system $10,500 10 years 700 per year 8.511 5957.7 $16,458 $1,645.77 Third system $17,500 20 years 80 per year 10.822 865.76 $18,366 $918.29 (Source: Created by Author) Annualized net present value is considered when the project has different duration accordingly, in the present issue three different systems have unequal duration (Doss et al. 2015). As per the calculation, it has been observed that the total net cash outflow is least in the third system amounted to $918.29 whereas replacement cost in other two systems is high. In addition, annual cash outflow in the third system is also least compared to other two systems amounted to $800 and $700 respectively even though the initial investment cost is highest in the third system. Further, the useful life expectancy in first two systems is less than that of third system, accordingly, it can be said that the operating activity of third system will be more beneficial and is recommended to be replaced. Reference List Dellavigna, S. and Pollet, J.M., 2013. Capital budgeting versus market timing: An evaluation using demographics.The Journal of Finance,68(1), pp.237-270. Doss, D.A., Jones, D.W., Sumrall, W., Henley, R., McElreath, D., Lackey, H. and Gokaraju, B., 2015. A net present worth analysis of considered academic programs at a private, regional higher education institution.Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies in Education,4(1), p.55. Gtze, U., Northcott, D. and Schuster, P., 2015. Capital Budgeting and Investment Decisions. InInvestment Appraisal(pp. 3-26). Springer Berlin Heidelberg. Zhang, Q., Huang, X. and Zhang, C., 2015. A mean-risk index model for uncertain capital budgeting.Journal of the Operational Research Society,66(5), pp.761-770.